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

[motla68]

Hey motla, over at the Q Famspear has accused you of posting a fake quote:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/view...php?f=8&t=7892

And I suspect Famspear is our very own "jesse james."

As I have said before I do not take too much stock in the opinions of Quatloos, it is not like they have ever fabricated anything.
It was my interpretation of the case based on my own knowledge, my quote as well as in the case itself was about winning
an argument over being denied due process. It was there for you all to look up and read through to form your own opinion
about the case because that is all case law is " court opinions ", that in which he did. Instead of reading into the case though
he let EGO get in the way.

Literally break down the word Quatloos though and what do you get? A kamikaze pustule with nothing to lose.

[JohnnyCash]

Um, OK. I got a fictional currency that first debuted on Star Trek in 1968, The Gamesters of Triskelion ...

The brains speak, identifying themselves as the Providers, ancient beings of pure intellect that pass their time gambling between one another, wagering sums of "quatloos" over the outcomes of the contests. They demand to hear Kirk's own wager. He tells the brains that he and his team can defeat the drill thralls. If Kirk's crew are victorious, the brains must free the Enterprise and let the team, including all thralls, go. The Providers must in turn end their death games and use their knowledge to teach the thralls how to start a free society. If Kirk loses, he promises a lifetime of entertainment in further competitions with the entire ship's crew.

Can't speak for anyone else but, none of my posts over at Quatloos.com have been approved for over 2 months now. Censorship via extreme moderation. What are you so afraid of Famspear? My take is I've learned too much truth (much of it learned here at Planet Merrill) and they don't like me sharing it.

________________________________
You Earth people are most stimulating.

[jesse james]

Hey motla, over at the Q Famspear has accused you of posting a fake quote:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/view...php?f=8&t=7892

And I suspect Famspear is our very own "jesse james."

So your weak conspiracistic mind still beleives I'm famspear huh?
For all that matters for questioning something that you simply haven't and cannot prove I could as well be the golly green giant in your eyes.
You cant win can you!

[jesse james]

As I have said before I do not take too much stock in the opinions of Quatloos, it is not like they have ever fabricated anything.
It was my interpretation of the case based on my own knowledge, my quote as well as in the case itself was about winning
an argument over being denied due process. It was there for you all to look up and read through to form your own opinion
about the case because that is all case law is " court opinions ", that in which he did. Instead of reading into the case though
he let EGO get in the way.

Literally break down the word Quatloos though and what do you get? A kamikaze pustule with nothing to lose.

And this is what lead me away from pete hendrickson. Pete would misquote court cases altogether.
He even lead people to beleive his version of "privilege" to suit his defunked and misguided "cracking the code", and being of no surprise, is found in the "FICTION" section of public libraries

[David Merrill]

The diverse opinions (squabbling) being generated around Motla68 lately seems to be, from all parties thought out and substantiated. My stance is that as long as people can articulate their arguments without resorting to evidence of a poor vocabulary - words like liar, and bullshit, then people who enjoy it may read it and those who do not can avoid it. My hope is of course that this kind of bickering will not detract from intelligible threads.

[stoneFree]

ohh "conspiracistic." That's an awful big non-word for a lowly carpenter. Yes, thanks to Cracking the Code and Planet Merrill, I've won. I've beaten the banksters' system of wealth extraction. And now we work to set all of America free. Here's the two 60-second Swiss America ads refused by the networks: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/tv.php

oh and the reason you're so bored over at the Q is ... you've squelched all debate, silenced all your critics via extreme moderation. Whaddya expect? You've only got 17 users online. You've become an incestuous little clique of 1 percenters laughing at the 99%.

[jesse james]

ohh "conspiracistic." That's an awful big non-word for a lowly carpenter. Yes, thanks to Cracking the Code and Planet Merrill, I've won. I've beaten the banksters' system of wealth extraction. And now we work to set all of America free. Here's the two 60-second Swiss America ads refused by the networks: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/tv.php

oh and the reason you're so bored over at the Q is ... you've squelched all debate, silenced all your critics via extreme moderation. Whaddya expect? You've only got 17 users online. You've become an incestuous little clique of 1 percenters laughing at the 99%.

I'm not a carpenter nor am I famspear or even associated with quatloos (only when I was in my early early 20's was a a carpenter)......................electrician!

Actually "conspiracist" is a word.
And no you haven't yet won.
This lawfully money wont hold any water at all.
Remember that court case where a employer paid in gold coin to skirt under the 600.00 minimum requirement to report?
He was convicted of fraud because the coin was worth much more than the face value.
Yeah you rememebr that case but done want to bring it up.
You are only left alone because you have control over reporting to the SSA..................and thats it. It has nothing at all to do with Hendrickson or Merrill. The gold coin case proves Merrill is wrong.....and well hendrickson was convicted so you havent proven you won anything.

[David Merrill]

ohh "conspiracistic." That's an awful big non-word for a lowly carpenter. Yes, thanks to Cracking the Code and Planet Merrill, I've won. I've beaten the banksters' system of wealth extraction. And now we work to set all of America free. Here's the two 60-second Swiss America ads refused by the networks: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/tv.php

oh and the reason you're so bored over at the Q is ... you've squelched all debate, silenced all your critics via extreme moderation. Whaddya expect? You've only got 17 users online. You've become an incestuous little clique of 1 percenters laughing at the 99%.

That brings on a big chuckle here!

I'm not a carpenter nor am I famspear or even associated with quatloos (only when I was in my early early 20's was a a carpenter)......................electrician!

Actually "conspiracist" is a word.
And no you haven't yet won.
This lawfully money wont hold any water at all.
Remember that court case where a employer paid in gold coin to skirt under the 600.00 minimum requirement to report?
He was convicted of fraud because the coin was worth much more than the face value.
Yeah you rememebr that case but done want to bring it up.
You are only left alone because you have control over reporting to the SSA..................and thats it. It has nothing at all to do with Hendrickson or Merrill. The gold coin case proves Merrill is wrong.....and well hendrickson was convicted so you havent proven you won anything.

I don't see it that way. All it proves is that you have not watched my videos.



Public Money v. Private Credit.
Federal Reserve Act - Remedy.

To read the article alone Click Here.

[stoneFree]

Actually "conspiracist" is a word.
And no you haven't yet won.
This lawfully money wont hold any water at all.
Remember that court case where a employer paid in gold coin to skirt under the 600.00 minimum requirement to report?

Yes, conspiracist is a word, but you said "conspiracistic." You really have a hard time not misconstruing what others say, don't you? As for the employer paying in gold coin, we already explained. If the gold was purchased with unredeemed private credit of the Federal Reserve, then guess who has first lien on it?

Lawful money is holding water just fine for us J. I'm sorry you're unhappy with my win.

EDIT: Pete Hendrickson has released this 27-page book today.
THE SHIELD

[allodial]

Hmm. So now I wonder if banks required endorsement before the Federal Reserve came into existence.

This is more of an expansion on (post #202)... if an instrument is payable to order, it cannot be paid until the order is affixed. A mere signature of the payee without any extra writing is akin to writing "Pay to bearer". You might do well to look study negotiability of promissory notes and ancient "Statutes of Anne". There are likely a few treatises which reference such. "Pay to" vs "Pay to the order of".... assignment vs. negotiation. Negotiation is merely a convenient way of assigning title however it may open doors for the Law Merchant to apply whereas "Pay to" might not invoke the Lex Mercatoria.

[ Post #202 > http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post5649 ]

[David Merrill]

This is more of an expansion on (post #202)... if an instrument is payable to order, it cannot be paid until the order is affixed. A mere signature of the payee without any extra writing is akin to writing "Pay to bearer". You might do well to look study negotiability of promissory notes and ancient "Statutes of Anne". There are likely a few treatises which reference such. "Pay to" vs "Pay to the order of".... assignment vs. negotiation. Negotiation is merely a convenient way of assigning title however it may open doors for the Law Merchant to apply whereas "Pay to" might not invoke the Lex Mercatoria.

[ Post #202 > http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showt...ull=1#post5649 ]

We evolve in our thinking.

This poem is difficult to read through because of the distracting doodles, but it has some interesting themes.

I have put this to memory and when I recite it to The Science of Mind crowd, they are quite impressed. The line about 'being the first to walk on land' goes over well I suspect because we love the idea of the Christ Mind and that performing miracles through metaphysics, mastery of the natural law, is available to us too. That is indeed the stuff that the kingdom of heaven is made of. However it has a dual meaning to me. The other meaning has been in me for many years now as I lead people to notify the admiralty that they are courts of competent jurisdiction (courts of record) and therefore are capable of keeping their feet dry.

That is and always has been the purpose of the 1789 'saving to suitors' clause.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[jesse james]

That brings on a big chuckle here!



I don't see it that way. All it proves is that you have not watched my videos.



Public Money v. Private Credit.
Federal Reserve Act - Remedy.

To read the article alone Click Here.

Watched some of both videos and not one of them addresses my concern about the tax imposition within Social Security and how Social Security 3121(a) "wages" are included in the wages (3401(a)) which the government defines for deduction and withholding.
Most working class Americans didnt pay income taxes until 1940. 1939 was the first year they were subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 tax only to find themselves filing their taxes by April 15th in 1940.
1940 is 27 years after 1913 when the reserve act came about. So Dave lets be honest by addressing why millions of Americans didnt pay taxes for 27 years until 1940 and yet used the same fiat reserve notes we use today?
This 27 years is a big hurdle to overcome Mr. Merrill as history is proving the fiat endorsing theory of yours isnt corralating with unprecedented historical fact. You have 27 years of explaining why millions of Americans didn't pay taxes until the enactment of Social Security.
I'm not at all trying to discredit you Mr. Merrill. As you say we evolve in thinking which I beleive we get sharper and sharper in understanding when the correct questions are posed and (honestly) answered.

[David Merrill]

Watched some of both videos and not one of them addresses my concern about the tax imposition within Social Security and how Social Security 3121(a) "wages" are included in the wages (3401(a)) which the government defines for deduction and withholding.
Most working class Americans didnt pay income taxes until 1940. 1939 was the first year they were subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 tax only to find themselves filing their taxes by April 15th in 1940.
1940 is 27 years after 1913 when the reserve act came about. So Dave lets be honest by addressing why millions of Americans didnt pay taxes for 27 years until 1940 and yet used the same fiat reserve notes we use today?
This 27 years is a big hurdle to overcome Mr. Merrill as history is proving the fiat endorsing theory of yours isnt corralating with unprecedented historical fact. You have 27 years of explaining why millions of Americans didn't pay taxes until the enactment of Social Security.
I'm not at all trying to discredit you Mr. Merrill. As you say we evolve in thinking which I beleive we get sharper and sharper in understanding when the correct questions are posed and (honestly) answered.

I believe the article in my first video does but that you missed it.

Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

I can knock off twenty years of your twenty-seven with the original 1913 charter for the Fed Banks of twenty years.

You might see that the Supreme Court did not address how Social Security qualified as a valid Income Tax for four more years after that so that is twenty-four of your twenty-seven years right there. In the Introduction to The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt we find that the New Deal was not invented as a Logo for the Bankers' Holiday and the War on the Great Depression until 1938.

Most working class Americans didnt pay income taxes until 1940. 1939 was the first year they were subject to withholding and deduction for the Section 1 tax only to find themselves filing their taxes by April 15th in 1940.

That would sound about right. The income tax as Hitler came into power would be like a war chest. Here is the formation of the new trust in 1933:

You can see how that is a far cry from a fully formed income tax system for the new Fed banks in general. Presuming your comment to be true it took seven years to implement the New Deal Trust, if that is what you want to call it. It took seven years to complete a formal taxation system in America. That sounds reasonable, considering that there being an alternative to endorsing private credit was kept secret through fraud by omission. Albeit there was a much more prevalent sense of patriotism then, according to my veteran father anyway, a lot of people would have chosen to redeem lawful money by demand.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. In my Dad's final days I read a great deal of Carroll QUIGLEY's Tragedy and Hope; The History of the World in Our Time out loud to him. It drew some great recollections as his long term memory was excellent. We discussed things like you are saying, usually just before my reading aloud knocked him out like a light.

[David Merrill]

P.P.S. Above me in the shelf are the five years of the Roosevelt Administration from 1932-1936. And the full set is available to me at the federal repository. If you really wanted to outline what you are saying in detail about the implementation of the Income Tax that would be a great way to do it. For the April 15th Deadline though, you might have to go earlier by a few years (1861):

[allodial]

If the SSA sold the revenue stream from contribution to the US Department of the Treasury, that might have been enough to make it a tax.

Re: endorsements, I'd have to chalk it up to the attorneys-at-bar. I recall how adamant a bank was back in the mid 90s about absolutely NOT making any changes to the format of checks --that is, if they printed them. They offer free check printing because its not likely that you'll go print your own. There are at least two ways to make something payable to order:

Pay to the order of...

or

Pay to ......................... or order

The attorneys probably suggested the former over the latter. With the latter (the 2nd one) there shouldnt be any need to do anything but "show ID". There'd be no need to endorse the 2nd at the drawer's bank, of course, the payee wanted to give an order. Of course, the same "Pay .. to the order of" verbiage pervades Quickbooks and perhaps almost every popular check printing or accounting software package on the planet. You're just not "supposed" to know there is any alternative because the conditioning and misleading called "education" is just "supposed" to work.

If you cross the Pacific to, say, New Zealand you dont see that kind of wording on checks. Instead you see something like..

Pay ...
The sum of...