endorsing and SS.......a big question!

[Brian]

A W-3 is generated by the place you work for when you give them a SSN. They presume you wish to be a part of the SSA ponzi. They then treat your pay as "wages" for the purpose of withholding SSA credits toward your supposed "trust fund". They then CC the IRS with the W-3 info now called a W-2. The W-2 is not proof positive of "income". Its merely saying you MAY have received "income" and if it IS "income" and you don't report it the service will ass rape you.

Now when you try the HENDRICKSON method the service says bullshit. Cause they look at the info returns and then your bank account records and say "you earned income" and if the nature of your income is in the form of corporate currency by blanket endorsing your paychecks...checkmate your screwed.

This is not hard. If you endorse corporate currency/credit generated by exclusive privilege granted by CONgress to the FRS you fall into the private law of Title12 and 26 and must obey. Benefiting from that "privilege" (what benefit eludes me) is most certainly a taxable activity.

The Demand for redeemed lawful money however changes the nature of that income beyond their jurisdiction.

[jesse james]

A W-3 is generated by the place you work for when you give them a SSN. They presume you wish to be a part of the SSA ponzi. They then treat your pay as "wages" for the purpose of withholding SSA credits toward your supposed "trust fund". They then CC the IRS with the W-3 info now called a W-2. The W-2 is not proof positive of "income". Its merely saying you MAY have received "income" and if it IS "income" and you don't report it the service will ass rape you.

Now when you try the HENDRICKSON method the service says bullshit. Cause they look at the info returns and then your bank account records and say "you earned income" and if the nature of your income is in the form of corporate currency by blanket endorsing your paychecks...checkmate your screwed.

I agree with most of what you are sayng Brian except for two issues-

1. The SSA inputs the info from the W3 transmittal into the system. The only purpose for the W2 is for the filer to prepare his/her return. The W2 is a receipt of "income" just as 26USC 6051 says it is which must be mailed to the employee by a certain date. 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages" are both one in the same and are the measuring medium of "income".
"Service" and 3121(a) "wages" are synomimous when it comes to defining "income". The SS handbook will tell you that.

2. What Hendrickson is doing by replacing the W2 with a form 4852 is challenging the W3 transmittal info. The problem with this 4852 approach is it doesnt magically change the W3 info the SSA already has inputed which the IRS uses to determine a return or a deficiency. The form 4852, for one, is not meant for the CtC (zero return) purpose. The IRS is nothing more than a simple built in collection agency of the Treasury. The IRS, nor any agency, has any legal standing to determine if you want to participate in SS or not (Bill of Rights are effected by participating). They are just a collection agency trying to do its job, thats all. They dont even have a legal standing to tell you what you are doing wrong. I'm not siding with the IRS here, just being impartial to fully understand facts. And the facts are the IRS relies on the W3 transmittal from the SSA.
All I'm saying about Pete is he decided to participate in SS thereby generating forms indicating he, in fact, had bonifide statutory reportable "income"...........the W3 "smoking gun".
The proof is in Petes own trial. The prosecution in Petes case presented, the employer, who tesitified, and the W4, which convicted Hendrickson.
What would you think the outcome of Pete's trial would have been if the employer testified in the other direction? Do you think the prosecution would have any legal teeth without Petes W4?
What everybody doesn't realize about Pete's trial is the significants of what the presecution used to convict Pete.........the W4! But Pete distracted himself away from the real issue of the W4 and entered the trial focusing on the frivolous 800lb gorilla "government employee" issue. Stupid but it is what it is!

This is not hard. If you endorse corporate currency/credit generated by exclusive privilege granted by CONgress to the FRS you fall into the private law of Title12 and 26 and must obey. Benefiting from that "privilege" (what benefit eludes me) is most certainly a taxable activity.

The Demand for redeemed lawful money however changes the nature of that income beyond their jurisdiction.

I disagree......fiat currency is used for both "private and public" debt, says so on every piece of paper.
The question here is they were endorsing checks into fiat way before 1939 and a majority of Americans had no obligation to file 1040's. History says the facts are that in 1940 tens of millions of Americans filed tax returns for the first time in their lives, the IRS website will tell you this.
When was the Reserve Act enacted and put into place Brian?
The Reserve Act was enacted on Dec. 13, 1913. Thats 26 years before the Social Security Act of 1939. Theres no coincidence to fiat currency like there is to chapter 21 of Subtitle C- Employment taxes of Title 26. One year after the 1939 internal revenue revision tens of millions of Americans were filing 1040's for the first time in 1940. This is because the 1939 code was the first revision to include chapter 21 (Social Security) in Subtitle C- Employment Taxes where you find governent employees. Does this make you a government employee? No it doesnt, but thats not what Pete wants you to believe.
It takes one year of earning "wages" to tally up for filing purposes. So do you beleive theres no coincidence to chapter 21 in the 1939 revenue code to the tens of millions of first tiem filers of 1040's in 1940? It doesnt take a retard to have a little reasoning and do the math here!
As for the jurisdiction. You fall within Congress's jurisdiction when you sign any government document stating you wish to be treated as a "US citizen".
"US citizens" are distinquished from the People by "privileges" from Rights.
If you, Brian, want to know which Buill of Rights are considered "fundamental" between the People and "US citizens" let me know I can post a link to the official Senate document stating which ones.
"US citizens" dont have much protections eminating from the Bill of Rights......what they do have are "Civil Rights" or government granted "privileges" that eminate from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and you dont have to be colored to apply for them.

[stoneFree]

Disagree all you want Jesse, you won't get anywhere here. You appear quite content paying taxes you don't owe. Or perhaps better stated, taxes you could easily avoid by avoiding THEIR currency, redeeming lawful money.

I'll always have respect for HENDRICKSON as his Cracking the Code first showed me the tax code didn't actually say what all the so-called "experts" said it did, it was all smoke & mirrors. And then, by God's grace, I became aware of David Merrill and lawful money. Jesse, you can't use Pete as an example in this "endorsing" thread - he used private credit of the Federal Reserve via blanket endorsement. He didn't redeem lawful money. Were you born stupid or just acting?

I see the outspoken Irishman is Back with his take on Wall St.

[jesse james]

Disagree all you want Jesse, you won't get anywhere here. You appear quite content paying taxes you don't owe. Or perhaps better stated, taxes you could easily avoid by avoiding THEIR currency, redeeming lawful money.

I'll always have respect for HENDRICKSON as his Cracking the Code first showed me the tax code didn't actually say what all the so-called "experts" said it did, it was all smoke & mirrors. And then, by God's grace, I became of David Merrill and lawful money.

I see the outspoken Irishman is Back with his take on Wall St.

Who told you I pay taxes?
And if you like we can dispute cracking the code. I see Merrill doesnt agree with Pete either, but some of you do. I find that really odd!
I can show you why CtC is wrong........its quite simple why.
It doesnt take a degree to see where hendrickson went wrong. You just have to understand that Social Security 3121(a) "wages" and 3121(b) "employment" are both in the 3401(a) "wage" definition. Its really that simple and if you participate in SS you earn 3401(a) "wages".
Whats sad here is that people are offended for some reason when I prove hendrickson is wrong. I would have thought people would like to know so they dont end up like hendrickson and schiff.....in the clinker!
But hey.......I'm just painfully honest thats all.
I dont kid myself....as you can see.

[stoneFree]

Jesse, Your speech indicates you do pay taxes; show us some proof you don't. And your attempts to sow division, fear & derail the thread is duly noted. HENDRICKSON says the Fed Income Tax is an excise on THEIR stuff (I suspect most here would agree). Unfortunately for him, he didn't discover the 2 capacities of our currency - private credit v. public money. Federal Reserve credit v. lawful money. He endorsed private credit and was administrated against via operation of statute. It's deception writ large. It's a scam and a fraud. And it's all coming down. The end of the Keynesian experiment is upon us, the end of unbacked fiat money is at hand! You've lost Jesse. You've lost the argument and you're losing the war.

[motla68]

The debate over wages and taxes has been argued for way too long, so as such is lawful money versus fiat currency. It all falls under other property to which is the after thought of man, not the creator. It's time to stop beating ones head against the wall expecting different results, how about changing direction once in for all, this could go on for days.
We cannot all save the world, maybe Jesse just does not want to open up to other possibilities and is just happy with whatever he is doing currently ? Cannot change someones mind unless they want to change. (free will and right to self determination).

Here is another issue worth debating, are you a label or are you part of the land (natural resource). Check out this fascinating blog post a friend of mine wrote:

http://onlashuk.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/label-me-this-the-jurisdictional-entry-point/

Another group discussion on this has been started here as well:

http://groups.google.com/group/born-without-money/browse_thread/thread/aebb5c5340ae62d/497065930ec2d9bf?lnk=gst&q=Label+me+this#497065930ec2d9bf

- Part of the Peaceful Inhabitant vs. Enemy Combatant series of thought, you know from the JAG manual for armies in the field, how do you want to be marked and identified from the military occupation? Yes, they do use a procedure called identity markers in their computer systems to which are linked together and talk to eachother and that also includes I*R*S*.

[jesse james]

Jesse, Your speech indicates you do pay taxes; show us some proof you don't. And your attempts to sow division, fear & derail the thread is duly noted. HENDRICKSON says the Fed Income Tax is an excise on THEIR stuff (I suspect most here would agree). Unfortunately for him, he didn't discover the 2 capacities of our currency - private credit v. public money. Federal Reserve credit v. lawful money. He endorsed private credit and was administrated against via operation of statute. It's deception writ large. It's a scam and a fraud. And it's all coming down. The end of the Keynesian experiment is upon us, the end of unbacked fiat money is at hand! You've lost Jesse. You've lost the argument and you're losing the war.

Oh really john!
The excise is participating and earning 3121(a) "wages".
Want proof?
Here it is John!

3111. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ,

If the employer is taxed an excise tax for having in his employ individuals earning "3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment" then reason and logic says"employment" is the excise.
It only stands to reason that without "employment" an "excise" doesnt exist.
And wouldnt you know it what were Americans doing before 1939????
They were working the same jobs John.
My grandfather worked the same job prior 1939 until the outbreak of the war in 1941. He wasn't taxed until he applied for a ssn in 1941 where now the pay was considered a taxable "wage".
This isnt rocket science!

[jesse james]

The debate over wages and taxes has been argued for way too long, so as such is lawful money versus fiat currency. It all falls under other property to which is the after thought of man, not the creator. It's time to stop beating ones head against the wall expecting different results, how about changing direction once in for all, this could go on for days.
We cannot all save the world, maybe Jesse just does not want to open up to other possibilities and is just happy with whatever he is doing currently ? Cannot change someones mind unless they want to change. (free will and right to self determination).

Here is another issue worth debating, are you a label or are you part of the land (natural resource). Check out this fascinating blog post a friend of mine wrote:

http://onlashuk.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/label-me-this-the-jurisdictional-entry-point/

Another group discussion on this has been started here as well:

http://groups.google.com/group/born-without-money/browse_thread/thread/aebb5c5340ae62d/497065930ec2d9bf?lnk=gst&q=Label+me+this#497065930ec2d9bf

- Part of the Peaceful Inhabitant vs. Enemy Combatant series of thought, you know from the JAG manual for armies in the field, how do you want to be marked and identified from the military occupation? Yes, they do use a procedure called identity markers in their computer systems to which are linked together and talk to eachother and that also includes I*R*S*.

No Motla68, "wages" and taxes hasnt been argued properly!
Why do you want to derail and change the subject of my thread?
You sound like controlled opposition......steer away from the truth kinda thing.

[motla68]

No Motla68, "wages" and taxes hasnt been argued properly!
Why do you want to derail and change the subject of my thread?
You sound like controlled opposition......steer away from the truth kinda thing.

No, more like come into the enlightenment away from all that distracts one from the truth.
If you really even had put in any effort to digest what I have said you would see how
pointless this thread really is. Dog chasing tail.

[jesse james]

No, more like come into the enlightenment away from all that distracts one from the truth.
If you really even had put in any effort to digest what I have said you would see how
pointless this thread really is. Dog chasing tail.

Thats because what you said doesnt address the imposition correctly

[stoneFree]

That's it? That's the proof you don't pay taxes nor participate in SS, Jesse? You're comical. The SSA sent me a SS number when I was a teenager, but once I learned I could opt-out of paying into SS by redeeming lawful money, I did. And it worked. I haven't owed, nor paid, employment taxes nor income taxes in years. You appear to be suggesting the statutory route into "wages" is solely responsible for SS tax. Do you think the banksters running this scam have laid out the true nature of their currency scam for all to see?

The question in my mind is... what will you do when it hits the fan Jesse? You can't hide your role in support of this decades old scam. Do you plan to hide from the truth commission? In what corner of the globe?

[jesse james]

That's it? That's the proof you don't pay taxes nor participate in SS, Jesse? You're comical. The SSA sent me a SS number when I was a teenager, but once I learned I could opt-out of paying into SS by redeeming lawful money, I did. And it worked. I haven't owed, nor paid, employment taxes nor income taxes in years. You appear to be suggesting the statutory route into "wages" is solely responsible for SS tax. Do you think the banksters running this scam have laid out the true nature of their currency scam for all to see?

The question in my mind is... what will you do when it hits the fan Jesse? You can't hide your role in support of this decades old scam. Do you plan to hide from the truth commission? In what corner of the globe?

Thats it .....what?
Who are you to think you can demand me to show you something?
I've shown how the IRS assesses a tax and this endorsement idea after the fact isnt gonna stop them when you have deductions being withheld. Thats my point!
None of you have realized this and just want to argue.

It doesnt matter what you use to get out of participating. The bottom line is you must stop having W3's reported other wise you are having information being reported to the SSA which the IRS uses to determine a refund or deficiency.

So what do you tell people who have deductions taken out and tell them to put exempt on the W4 for no withholdings and endorse their paychecks to rceive lawful money?
You dont realize that the employer is still matching his percentage he required to match for FICA and thats leaving a door wide open for the IRS to come and investigate.
That to me is misleading.

Here an example, lets say a fellow decides to endsorse his paycheck to redeem lawful money and his employer is matching and reporting what his 3121(a) "wages" along with 3401(a) "wages".
Now hes endorsing the check, receiving lawful money and saved enough up to pay fopr a truck out right.
Now a year goes by and the IRS sends him a letter stating he had income the following year and didnt file. So over a course of a few letters the IRS decides to come by and seize the truck for payment of delinquent taxes.
But the truck was paid for with lawful money which is techically lawfully his and cannot be seized because it was paid for with lawful money.
Now what?

[EZrhythm]

Thats it .....what?
Who are you to think you can demand me to show you something?
Although this is a type of forum where it is common to see demands for proof, I didn't see one in his reply.

I've shown how the IRS assesses a tax and this endorsement idea after the fact isnt gonna stop them when you have deductions being withheld. Thats my point!
None of you have realized this and just want to argue.

It doesnt matter what you use to get out of participating. The bottom line is you must stop having W3's reported other wise you are having information being reported to the SSA which the IRS uses to determine a refund or deficiency.
Rebut them by affidavit until the reporting stops.

So what do you tell people who have deductions taken out and tell them to put exempt on the W4 for no withholdings and endorse their paychecks to rceive lawful money?
You dont realize that the employer is still matching his percentage he required to match for FICA and thats leaving a door wide open for the IRS to come and investigate.
That to me is misleading.

Here an example, lets say a fellow decides to endsorse his paycheck to redeem lawful money and his employer is matching and reporting what his 3121(a) "wages" along with 3401(a) "wages".
Now hes endorsing the check, receiving lawful money and saved enough up to pay fopr a truck out right.
Now a year goes by and the IRS sends him a letter stating he had income the following year and didnt file. So over a course of a few letters the IRS decides to come by and seize the truck for payment of delinquent taxes.
But the truck was paid for with lawful money which is techically lawfully his and cannot be seized because it was paid for with lawful money.
Now what?

That's a speculation that hasn't been reported yet. Again, rebut the presumptions by affidavit.

[jesse james]

That's a speculation that hasn't been reported yet. Again, rebut the presumptions by affidavit.

Yeah and I'm ridiculed for being painfully honest.
And just like hendrickson who had a better stance of his premise as he had definitions to go by the rebutals didnt fair well for him or for a major part of his readers who used Ctc did it? Like i said.........look at this upside down, inside out, backwards.....every angle under every scenario to see if it holds water.
Rebutals dont work when the law says otherwise. See the hendrickson trial.
You have to stop participating in Social Security period to stop any and all reporting from the employer to the SSA.
Nothing can be reported other wise theres a breach.
5,000.00 penalties are handed out.....can you afford 1, 2 or maybe 3 $5,000.00 penalties because it takes that many before you realize you left a door open?
How do you rebut something you have been participating in the whole time?
The nature of Social Security is you cannot rebut while participating because there are immediate benefits attached. Rebuttals dont work because you wait all year to rebut something at the end while having benefits at your disposal if you need them.
Do you get to ask for the money back from an insurance company at the end of the year because you didnt have any claims for the insurance company to reimburse?
No it doesnt work that way. Social Security works the same way as the insurance scenario!
You either participate and pay the associated taxes (3101 and 3402) or you dont!

[Life's-a-Psyop]

Rebut them by affidavit until the reporting stops.

EZrhythm,
Do you happen to have an example of an affidavit rebutting the presumptions for SS taxes that you could post?