UCC 1-207 Question

[Ares]

Tell me if I am reading this section correctly


A reservation of Thee Bill of Rights is a demand and notice, which gives We Thee People our proper status as state citizens and a court of Article III Law.

Amendment VII: "In Suits at common Law, where the controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the united States, than according to the rules of the common law."

A sovereign Citizen cannot be tried in a statutory inferior court without his consent and your contracting without a reservation of rights ensures disaster of political status. The use of the UCC is for those contracts, which are commercially forced upon the Sovereign Citizen and are essential for proper remedy at Law. The W-4, drivers license, bank, school and agency protective services are the presumptive contractual systems and these are "engraft" of "Penumbra Doctrine" and the "implied powers" of Article I and Article II, which "makes" Admiralty, and puts you before the "inferior" courts with the burden of proving innocence. Penalties of perjury are of criminal intent and must be protected or the adversity of the issue will apply via your waiver.

Black's. An accord being a contract, the requirements of mutual assent and consideration must be met. Buob v. Feenaughty Machinery Co., 191 Wash. 477, 71 P.2d 559, 564.

A contract signed under duress is unconscionable and must be represented "without prejudice" or the instrument is treated as "satisfaction and accord" before the trier of fact.

Black's. Unconcionability. Unconcionability is generally recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, to a contract together with contract terms, which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Gordon v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., D.C.Ga., 423 F.Supp. 58, 61.

Procedural advantages are granted to the executor, which allows facts agreed upon to be carried out, even police power of court. The only reason I signed a W-4 was to engrave without prejudice upon it. My job requires the W-4 form and the reservation brings peace to the issue of being exempt. Without the reservation, I would have been assessed a $500 frivolous penalty. My employer and the IRS are contracted entities and I do not wish to participate or "benefit" with them.

Remember, the perjury portion is a statute criminal matter. Once into the body of the contract, all corporate rights are protected and wiggling the facts are forbidden. The 5th Amendment cannot protect your waived rights, for court decisions advise the reservation must be made upon the instrument as a clear indicator of your intention. Your voluntary act of signature without your representation is your cause of worry. Since there is no place in the 1040 to put a claim for defense, the Citizen must write their objections upon the "unit" or prima facie. The "Privacy Act" states that when a person is "made liable;" they are required to send a "return or tax statement." A reservation of rights breaks this "made liable" into Constitutional issues that the IRS cannot deal with.

So if I am reading this section correctly, you sign your employment papers with UCC 1-207 (then your name) and write exempt on your W-4 and the IRS has no legal recourse??

[Ares]

Can you break it down for me of why I was reading it wrong? :)

[7th trump]

Nope,
To understand how it works you should read and study the Social Security Act where "employment" is defined for its purpose.
You sign a w4 for the gain of federal government sponsored benefits by converting pay of labor into a "on the books" statutory "wage". When you work under "employment" your pay is no longer considered an exchange of money for labor as it was before 1935 when the SS Act was put into law. However, there is no law anywhere, nor in the Act itself, that says every American must apply for a ssn to live and work in America.
Your pay under "employment" is defined as 3121(a) "wages" of chapter 21 of title 26 for Social Security purposes.
These same Social Security 3121(a)"wages" are deemed 3401(a) "wages" of chapter 24 of again title 26 for federal tax purposes.
If you want to stop paying taxes you must not sign a w4 for your pay to be deemed 3121(a) Social Security "wages".
Its the w4 that starts the reporting to the government of what and how much you earn towards Social Security quarterly credits.
The IRS gets all of its information from the Social Security Administration. The IRS from the info obtained from the SSA determines if a refund is issued or a notice of deficiency to which a tax bill is issued.


RM 00206.065 SSN Applications for Federal Income Tax Returns (IRS Requests)
A. Introduction
IRS generally uses the SSN as the taxpayer identification number (TIN). Each taxpayer and spouse is required to enter his/her own SSN on the return. SSNs are also required for dependents being claimed on the tax returns. However, for people who are not otherwise eligible for an SSN, IRS will assign an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).
When processing tax returns, IRS matches the name shown on the tax return with the name shown on the IRS database for that particular SSN. SSA Numident data is sent to IRS each week in the format IRS requested. This information is then used to update the IRS database. When IRS finds a return on which an SSN has been omitted or cannot be verified, they notify the taxpayer to contact SSA to determine the correct number or to obtain an SSN.
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100206065

By writting UCC on any government form doesnt stop the reporting of information to the SSA which is then requested by the IRS to determine if you owe or get a refund.

[Ares]

I just can't agree that without a central private bank would be "harder". The only thing easy about it is the "credit" it gallantly prints up or creates out of nothing, and wants us to pay for it.

I don't know the solution to our problem, but the current system is no benefit.

[Ares]

Nope,
To understand how it works you should read and study the Social Security Act where "employment" is defined for its purpose.
You sign a w4 for the benefits of the government. When you work under "employment" your pay is no longer considered an exchange of money for labor as it was before 1935 when the SS Act was put into law. However, there is no law anywhere, nor in the Act itself, that says every American must apply for a ssn to live and work in America.
Your pay under "employment" is defined as 3121(a) "wages" of chapter 21 of title 26 for Social Security purposes.
These same Social Security 3121(a)"wages" are deemed 3401(a) "wages" of chapter 24 of again title 26 for federal tax purposes.
If you want to stop paying taxes you must not sign a w4 for your pay to be deemed 3121(a) Social Security "wages".
Its the w4 that starts the reporting to the government of what and how much you earn towards Social Security quarterly credits.
The IRS gets all of its information from the Social Security Administration. The IRS from the info obtained from the SSA determines if a refund is issued or a notice of deficiency to which a tax bill is issued.


RM 00206.065 SSN Applications for Federal Income Tax Returns (IRS Requests)
A. Introduction
IRS generally uses the SSN as the taxpayer identification number (TIN). Each taxpayer and spouse is required to enter his/her own SSN on the return. SSNs are also required for dependents being claimed on the tax returns. However, for people who are not otherwise eligible for an SSN, IRS will assign an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).
When processing tax returns, IRS matches the name shown on the tax return with the name shown on the IRS database for that particular SSN. SSA Numident data is sent to IRS each week in the format IRS requested. This information is then used to update the IRS database. When IRS finds a return on which an SSN has been omitted or cannot be verified, they notify the taxpayer to contact SSA to determine the correct number or to obtain an SSN.
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100206065

By writting UCC on any government form doesnt stop the reporting of information to the SSA which is then requested by the IRS to determine if you owe or get a refund.


Ok thanks that is helpful

[Quantum]

Fantasies of using the Uniform Commercial Code to enforce rights are equally impotent to fantasies of using the ballot box to fix America.

[I am me, I am free]

One can no longer cite section 1-207 as it no longer exists. That 'acceptance or performance under an explicit reservation of rights' has been changed to section 1-308.

[sirgonzo420]

Or one could write "all rights reserved." and not cite any reference to the UCC (which is subject to change at the whim of its owner...).

[7th trump]

Or one could write "all rights reserved." and not cite any reference to the UCC (which is subject to change at the whim of its owner...).

Doesnt matter,
What rights do you think you are reserving when you consent to converting "pay for labor" pre social security act 1935 into a statutory "wage" post social security act 1935?.
The SS-5 form denotes federal "US citizenship" which is nothing more than 5USC 552a(13) "federal personel".
According to a certain Senate document "US citizens" cannot exercise the full protections of the Bill of Rights to those who do not consent tothe government.
Amendments 9 and 10 are omitted and what amendments left are watered down and gutted leaving what the federal government deems as "fundamental" with the Civil of Rights Act of 1866 that applies to federal "US citizens".

[sirgonzo420]

Or one could write "all rights reserved." and not cite any reference to the UCC (which is subject to change at the whim of its owner...).

Doesnt matter,
What rights do you think you are reserving when you consent to converting "pay for labor" pre social security act 1935 into a statutory "wage" post social security act 1935?.
The SS-5 form denotes federal "US citizenship" which is nothing more than 5USC 552a(13) "federal personel".
According to a certain Senate document "US citizens" cannot exercise the full protections of the Bill of Rights to those who do not consent tothe government.
Amendments 9 and 10 are omitted and what amendments left are watered down and gutted leaving what the federal government deems as "fundamental" with the Civil of Rights Act of 1866 that applies to federal "US citizens".


I merely noted that signing "all rights reserved" achieves the same thing as citing "ucc 1-207 (now ucc 1-308)".

But since you mention it, for those curious readers here, how does one free oneself from the system?

Or, how did YOU free YOURSELF? (since you DO speak from experience, right?)

[7th trump]

Or one could write "all rights reserved." and not cite any reference to the UCC (which is subject to change at the whim of its owner...).

Doesnt matter,
What rights do you think you are reserving when you consent to converting "pay for labor" pre social security act 1935 into a statutory "wage" post social security act 1935?.
The SS-5 form denotes federal "US citizenship" which is nothing more than 5USC 552a(13) "federal personel".
According to a certain Senate document "US citizens" cannot exercise the full protections of the Bill of Rights to those who do not consent tothe government.
Amendments 9 and 10 are omitted and what amendments left are watered down and gutted leaving what the federal government deems as "fundamental" with the Civil of Rights Act of 1866 that applies to federal "US citizens".


I merely noted that signing "all rights reserved" achieves the same thing as citing "ucc 1-207 (now ucc 1-308)".

But since you mention it, for those curious readers here, how does one free oneself from the system?

Or, how did YOU free YOURSELF? (since you DO speak from experience, right?)

Two things you need to know and understand.
1. Know and understand the different law forms in exercise.
2. Know that the Bill of Rights is different from privileges of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Bill of Rights rest in the Common Law form and the privileges of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 rest in the Roman Civil Law form which is where you end up when you consent to the federal government via SS-5 form.
Thats all I have to say.

[I am me, I am free]

Or one could write "all rights reserved." and not cite any reference to the UCC (which is subject to change at the whim of its owner...).

Doesnt matter,
What rights do you think you are reserving when you consent to converting "pay for labor" pre social security act 1935 into a statutory "wage" post social security act 1935?.
The SS-5 form denotes federal "US citizenship" which is nothing more than 5USC 552a(13) "federal personel".
According to a certain Senate document "US citizens" cannot exercise the full protections of the Bill of Rights to those who do not consent tothe government.
Amendments 9 and 10 are omitted and what amendments left are watered down and gutted leaving what the federal government deems as "fundamental" with the Civil of Rights Act of 1866 that applies to federal "US citizens".


I merely noted that signing "all rights reserved" achieves the same thing as citing "ucc 1-207 (now ucc 1-308)".

But since you mention it, for those curious readers here, how does one free oneself from the system?

Or, how did YOU free YOURSELF? (since you DO speak from experience, right?)



Thats all I have to say.

I get the impression that 7th Trump hasn't found anything that works in practice, seeing as this is not the first time he's been asked to elaborate on 'what works'.

[The Great Ag]

Two things you need to know and understand.
1. Know and understand the different law forms in exercise.
2. Know that the Bill of Rights is different from privileges of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Bill of Rights rest in the Common Law form and the privileges of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 rest in the Roman Civil Law form which is where you end up when you consent to the federal government via SS-5 form.
Thats all I have to say.

Wow, 7th Trump:
I have never seen such a succinct and accurate statement regarding the difference of US citizens and Americans. Brilliant!!!!

If someone can find a copy, I have not, The Law of Persons by Sohn is supposed to be one of the best authorities on Roman Law.

Hey, Sir G:
I agree with you on the use of "all rights reserved"; however, the use of it does NOT erase, reverse or eliminate the duties owed when one accepts the benefit of social security.

The legal maxim "whomever accepts the benefits ALSO accepts the obligations" applies.

I have read where a man sent letters to all the appropriate agencies stating he was using checking and savings accounts, SS# BUT under protest, as life in the USA is difficult without them. I have NOT heard the legal outcome of this.

The Great Ag

[sirgonzo420]

Funny thing, never in my life have I signed a SS-5 form.

[Ares]

Funny thing, never in my life have I signed a SS-5 form.


I have unfortunately when I had to have my card replaced after I accidently washed in when I was in my teens.

[sirgonzo420]

Funny thing, never in my life have I signed a SS-5 form.


I have unfortunately when I had to have my card replaced after I accidently washed in when I was in my teens.


Were you 18?

I'm gonna guess you were a minor at the time... in which case, how did you have the legal capacity to make the legal determination to sign that form? (this is a rhetorical question of course, it just illustrates how shady the SSA is... doing business with minors to trap them into a system that some will spend their lives trying to escape)

[7th trump]

Why is it that people like Mr Ag can see what I'm saying and others do not?
Look at AG's excitement over what I said and I didnt really say a whole lot except go to the heart of the matter..............................Rights!
Any wonder why it takes your CONSENTING signiture and why there is no law requiring anybody to get a ssn to live and work in America?
If the dang SS Act was mantory it would be deemed Unconstitutional because it forces you into a law form thats not recognized by the US Constitution and most of all strips you of some of your protections found in the Bill of Rights.
You other guys dont get it do you?
As Hypertiger would say: you are asleep!

[The Great Ag]

As a follow up to 7th Trump's post.

There are 4 forms of law recognized by the US CON:
1. Common Law or criminal
2. Civil Law or equity
3. Admiralty
4. Administrative

If you search the US CON the word "administrative" is absent. However, it is alluded to in Article 1, Section 8:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
What this means, CONgress can create ANY rules and regulations within its jurisdiction. All gov'ts can do this. Legally this is called "Administrative Law," but is really nothing more than rules and regulations. The gov't has a set of books called the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) that augments the US Code.

Administrative Law is taught in every law school.

The Great Ag

[sirgonzo420]

Why is it that people like Mr Ag can see what I'm saying and others do not?
Look at AG's excitement over what I said and I didnt really say a whole lot except going to the heart of the matter..............................Rights!
You other guys dont get it do you? S
As Hypertiger would say: you are asleep!


No I appreciate what you said... but what are we supposed to do about it?

If you want an exercise in futility, call up the SSA and ask them how to "get rid" of a SSN!

[7th trump]

As a follow up to 7th Trump's post.

There are 4 forms of law recognized by the US CON:
1. Common Law or criminal
2. Civil Law or equity
3. Admiralty
4. Administrative

If you search the US CON the word "administrative" is absent. However, it is alluded to in Article 1, Section 8:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
What this means, CONgress can create ANY rules and regulations within its jurisdiction. All gov'ts can do this. Legally this is called "Administrative Law," but is really nothing more than rules and regulations. The gov't has a set of books called the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) that augments the US Code.

Administrative Law is taught in every law school.

The Great Ag

Yep, US citizens via the SS-5 form are in the jurisdiction of Congress.
Read the first paragraph of the 14th amendment and then read 26CFR 1.1-1(c) on who is taxed and burdened with regulation after regulation after regulation!
Adminstrative law is basically American (Roman) Civil Law that is not recognized by the Constitution but the 14th allows such law form under Congress's jurisdiction.

As Jetgraphics says:"Stop consenting".

[Ares]

Why is it that people like Mr Ag can see what I'm saying and others do not?
Look at AG's excitement over what I said and I didnt really say a whole lot except go to the heart of the matter..............................Rights!
Any wonder why it takes your CONSENTING signiture and why there is no law requiring anybody to get a ssn to live and work in America?
If the dang SS Act was mantory it would be deemed Unconstitutional because it forces you into a law form thats not recognized by the US Constitution and most of all strips you of some of your protections found in the Bill of Rights.
You other guys dont get it do you?
As Hypertiger would say: you are asleep!


Not at all, I see what the law says. But I really don't have an remedy for it. I have read and understand what you have written, but again. Care to point some of us in the direction of remedying the situation? Like forms to "give back" the SS# we no longer want? Or to assert our proper citizenship status?

SG-

I was 19 at the time, so I was of "legal age" still doesn't mean I didn't have a clue as to what I was signing back then. LOL

[The Great Ag]

Funny thing, never in my life have I signed a SS-5 form.


I have unfortunately when I had to have my card replaced after I accidently washed in when I was in my teens.


Were you 18?

I'm gonna guess you were a minor at the time... in which case, how did you have the legal capacity to make the legal determination to sign that form? (this is a rhetorical question of course, it just illustrates how shady the SSA is... doing business with minors to trap them into a system that some will spend their lives trying to escape)

I understand your point and it is valid. Personally I am enrolled in the system and as soon as I remove two liabilities, I will be able to remove myself from the system.

As far as SS# goes, the number cannot be rescinded, as it is NOT mine. It belongs to SS administration. However, one can ask to be removed from the rolls and NOT participate in the program by revoking the signature ab initio (Latin for, from the beginning).

What I wonder would be, can someone who removes him/herself from the program SUE the gov't to get the monies back stating the agreement was signed by a minor and that had you known, you would not have signed.

[Ares]

That's a damn good question AG.

AG, can you point me in the direction you are taking to remove yourself from said system?

[The Great Ag]

Yep, US citizens via the SS-5 form are in the jurisdiction of Congress.
Read the first paragraph of the 14th amendment and then read 26CFR 1.1-1(c) on who is taxed and burdened with regulation after regulation after regulation!
Adminstrative law is basically American (Roman) Civil Law that is not recognized by the Constitution but the 14th allows such law form under Congress's jurisdiction.

As Jetgraphics says:"Stop consenting".

I do not have the link, but the quote states a taxpayer is synonomous with US citizen. Membership has it privileges!

The Great Ag

[7th trump]

Funny thing, never in my life have I signed a SS-5 form.


I have unfortunately when I had to have my card replaced after I accidently washed in when I was in my teens.


Were you 18?

I'm gonna guess you were a minor at the time... in which case, how did you have the legal capacity to make the legal determination to sign that form? (this is a rhetorical question of course, it just illustrates how shady the SSA is... doing business with minors to trap them into a system that some will spend their lives trying to escape)

I understand your point and it is valid. Personally I am enrolled in the system and as soon as I remove two liabilities, I will be able to remove myself from the system.

As far as SS# goes, the number cannot be rescinded, as it is NOT mine. It belongs to SS administration. However, one can ask to be removed from the rolls and NOT participate in the program by revoking the signature ab initio (Latin for, from the beginning).

What I wonder would be, can someone who removes him/herself from the program SUE the gov't to get the monies back stating the agreement was signed by a minor and that had you known, you would not have signed.

No, they've covered their asses from law suit with a little rights warning document that comes with the initial ssn card after your parents applied it for you.
Blame your parents for going to sleep.
You are to know the law which ignorance whether it be intentional or innocent is no excuse.

The parents can use you as a tax write off until you turn 18 when you as a consenting adult decide for yourself.

[The Great Ag]

That's a damn good question AG.

AG, can you point me in the direction you are taking to remove yourself from said system?

I believe it to be rather simple. Send a letter of notice to every appropriate agency stating you no longer wish to participate in social security and to remove you from their rolls effectively day, month, year. Make sure it is sent certified.

Be aware the SS# is keystone to our society. Make sure you have a way of earning a living without an SS# (banks, employers will require them).

THe Great Ag

[7th trump]

Yep, US citizens via the SS-5 form are in the jurisdiction of Congress.
Read the first paragraph of the 14th amendment and then read 26CFR 1.1-1(c) on who is taxed and burdened with regulation after regulation after regulation!
Adminstrative law is basically American (Roman) Civil Law that is not recognized by the Constitution but the 14th allows such law form under Congress's jurisdiction.

As Jetgraphics says:"Stop consenting".

I do not have the link, but the quote states a taxpayer is synonomous with US citizen. Membership has it privileges!

The Great Ag

That wouldnt be from the SSA website would it?
On that website somewhere hidden in the law theres a statute that says the same damn thing.
I book marked it and then lost it.
I'm kicking myself to this day because I didnt just print it out when I told myself I should be.
Same thing with the Iowa state government website. I found in the law where it says US citizens operate in Commerce. Cant find that one either.

[7th trump]

That's a damn good question AG.

AG, can you point me in the direction you are taking to remove yourself from said system?

I believe it to be rather simple. Send a letter of notice to every appropriate agency stating you no longer wish to participate in social security and to remove you from their rolls effectively day, month, year. Make sure it is sent certified.

Be aware the SS# is keystone to our society. Make sure you have a way of earning a living without an SS# (banks, employers will require them).

THe Great Ag

Yes people its that easy. Start by writing letters to the SSA. Arm yourself by writing to the SSA with the fact that participating in SS strips you of your Constitutional protections.
Remember that when writing to the SSA keep in mind that these people need you to participate in the system to keep the system going. Let them know where you stand when it comes to knowing your Rights. Dont let them take them away from you!
Also use 26CFR 301.6109-1(g), look around in this reg because it will say that if a person wishes not to participate, or cannot, in the program he doesnt have to apply for a ssn.
Most everything else falls into place.

[The Great Ag]

No, they've covered their asses from law suit with a little rights warning document that comes with the initial ssn card after your parents applied it for you.
Blame your parents for going to sleep.
You are to know the law which ignorance whether it be intentional or innocent is no excuse.

The parents can use you as a tax write off until you turn 18 when you as a consenting adult decide for yourself.

I will have to look into it. I know one can sue to get tax monies refunded. My thinking is one of good faith. The gov't is not and has not been acting in good faith. SS is a commercial transaction and a contract subject to contract law.

Can it be said, "ignorance of the law is no excuse?" There are several maxims of law that place the onus strictly on both parties to know with whom they are contracting with. However, public schools do NOT go into any detail regarding SS, nor is their a disclaimer on any SS form stating SS is voluntary and not required and by agreeing to participate places one within the jurisidiction of the US gov't and participant further waives many rights.

I think a case could be built along those lines. Whenever the gov't enters into the private realm, it opens itself to suits.

The Great Ag

[The Great Ag]

Yep, US citizens via the SS-5 form are in the jurisdiction of Congress.
Read the first paragraph of the 14th amendment and then read 26CFR 1.1-1(c) on who is taxed and burdened with regulation after regulation after regulation!
Adminstrative law is basically American (Roman) Civil Law that is not recognized by the Constitution but the 14th allows such law form under Congress's jurisdiction.

As Jetgraphics says:"Stop consenting".

I do not have the link, but the quote states a taxpayer is synonomous with US citizen. Membership has it privileges!

The Great Ag

That wouldnt be from the SSA website would it?
On that website somewhere hidden in the law theres a statute that says the same damn thing.
I book marked it and then lost it.
I'm kicking myself to this day because I didnt just print it out when I told myself I should be.
Same thing with the Iowa state government website. I found in the law where it says US citizens operate in Commerce. Cant find that one either.
I have lost a lot of good info that way, too. Actually, I found it in the CFR for Title 26 which I have at home. If I remember to look, I will post it here.

Title 26 is a terrific (I use the older meaning) mosaic. I am oftened in awe when I see how words were twisted and contorted to make the code fit within the confines of the US CON.

The Great Ag

[Ares]

Lots of good info here, I'll have to PDF this thread.

AG, and 7th. I host a data backup service (very small) I could create accounts for you 2 to store that kind of data if you'd like? It would always be available.

[Quantum]

There is but ONE law earthly governments recognize:

The law of Force.

[Ares]

Very true, when the force becomes overwhelming they collapse.

[7th trump]

Lots of good info here, I'll have to PDF this thread.

AG, and 7th. I host a data backup service (very small) I could create accounts for you 2 to store that kind of data if you'd like? It would always be available.

Sounds like a good idea.
I'd like to startwith section 3101 of title 26 and grow from there into how the government can and does tax you in regards to taxing your labor.
It really starts with section 6051 of title 26 which is all about the nature and requirements of the W4. From there it can be easily disected or reversed engineered to show the truth of the matter.

[SLV^GLD]

My primary concern at this point is not extricating myself but keeping any potential progeny out. If I am entangled and I produce offspring is there some aspect of my entanglement that also extends to progeny? If I refuse a birth certificate (say I use a family bible, here) and SSN for any progeny have I successfully kept them out of the system I am embroiled in? They, of course, can opt-in whenever they choose.

[7th trump]

"Federal Reserve Note"

Not "The Great Ag Note" or "7th trump Note" or "Vaughn Pollux Note"

To use $ is a benefit.

Stop your use of $ and you will immediately see your exit from "the system"

But I maintain that the benefits far outweigh the liabilities. It's not all evil and nefarious - it's a way to more quickly prosper than by trade of goods and services alone.

I've pondered on the reserve note thing alot and I think it doesnt really matter.
Its what ever congress deems as a note and we have real no say in the matter. The gold standard was suspended in 1933 but yet the SS Act wasnt enacted until 1935 and from 1935 to about roughly 1937 or 1938 the IRS and SS both show a huge increase of filed 1040 by the millions as people applied and worked towards 3121(a) "wages" to receive SS benefits. It wasnt until 1939 did Title 26 had to be rewritten to include the new chapter 21 of now subtitle C "Employment taxes".
There is a few years where reserve notes were used and nobody was taxed until they worked towards SS credits.

If you dont mind Von can you go over how using reserve notes makes you liable for a tax thats based on you earning 3121(a) "wages" that congress deems as 3401(a) "wages" that is for fact on the law books as taxable?
I havent seen any laws yet that says by using the fiat private notes you are liable.

[iOWNme]

This is directly from the SS website:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html



MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Myths:

"Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) program. He promised:

1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary;
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program;
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year;
4) That the money the participants paid in would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.;
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income."



CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)


Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Seems to me that if you consent to work at a place that has accepted said privileges (Biz license, permits, registration, Incorporated, LLC, et al) then you have agreed to the beast system. If you work at Walmart, and try and say that it is voluntary, you fail. But if you dig your own ditches, who can compel you to participate?

[7th trump]

My primary concern at this point is not extricating myself but keeping any potential progeny out. If I am entangled and I produce offspring is there some aspect of my entanglement that also extends to progeny? If I refuse a birth certificate (say I use a family bible, here) and SSN for any progeny have I successfully kept them out of the system I am embroiled in? They, of course, can opt-in whenever they choose.

No, your children have a choice in the matter as to use the number or not when reaching consenting age. Thats what the nice little document that comes along with the initial ssn card explains about their rights being effected if they use the number is all about.

Accepting the birth certificate doesnt get the progeny into the system. Getting them into the system would applying for a ssn for them.
However, it could be hard for them to prove to the government they are your progeny when it comes to inheritence rights to property. The government is going to say they are not because they are not seen in the system as your progeny. But who really cares anyway.

[Bigjon]

Most of the laws we have to abide by are private law.

As I understand this a lot of the US Code has never been passed as a law by the government, but is included in the US Code as private law. For instance when you get a bank account you sign a bank card and the fine print specifies that you will abide by all the laws of the US Treasury, which include those private laws requiring you to pay income taxes.

So just getting rid of your SSN isn’t all you have to do, you also have to get rid of your agreement with the bank. It is my understanding that you can redeem your checks for lawful US money instead of FRN’s. FRN’s are expandable money and as such you get the (they say) benefit, which obligates your participation in the Income Tax Code.

http://state-citizen.org/Mercier%20-%20Invisible%20Contracts%20%28law%20as%20legalized %20slavery%29%281984%29.pdf

[7th trump]

Most of the laws we have to abide by are private law.

As I understand this a lot of the US Code has never been passed as a law by the government, but is included in the US Code as private law. For instance when you get a bank account you sign a bank card and the fine print specifies that you will abide by all the laws of the US Treasury, which include those private laws requiring you to pay income taxes.

So just getting rid of your SSN isn’t all you have to do, you also have to get rid of your agreement with the bank. It is my understanding that you can redeem your checks for lawful US money instead of FRN’s. FRN’s are expandable money and as such you get the (they say) benefit, which obligates your participation in the Income Tax Code.

http://state-citizen.org/Mercier%20-%20Invisible%20Contracts%20%28law%20as%20legalized %20slavery%29%281984%29.pdf



Theres no law thats says you must do anything that otherwise is against the Constitution thats why its private law.

[7th trump]

This is directly from the SS website:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html



MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Myths:

"Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) program. He promised:

1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary;
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program;
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year;
4) That the money the participants paid in would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.;
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income."



CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)


Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Seems to me that if you consent to work at a place that has accepted said privileges (Biz license, permits, registration, Incorporated, LLC, et al) then you have agreed to the beast system. If you work at Walmart, and try and say that it is voluntary, you fail. But if you dig your own ditches, who can compel you to participate?



Ok to understand this you have to read and study the Social Security Act.


In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.
In the Act there were mandatory city and state jobs that make it mandatory for the employee of the city and state to participate in. See "215 agreements" within the Act.
All other jobs are voluntary to participate in when you see Administrative regulation 26CFR 301.6109-1(d)http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-18.0.1.1.2.1.54.96.html at


(d) Obtaining a taxpayer identifying number—(1) Social security number. Any individual required to furnish a social security number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall apply for one, if he has not done so previously, on Form SS–5, which may be obtained from any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office. He shall make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. The form, together with any supplementary statement, shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the form, instructions, and regulations applicable thereto, and shall set forth fully and clearly the data therein called for. Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

[Bigjon]

Most of the laws we have to abide by are private law.

As I understand this a lot of the US Code has never been passed as a law by the government, but is included in the US Code as private law. For instance when you get a bank account you sign a bank card and the fine print specifies that you will abide by all the laws of the US Treasury, which include those private laws requiring you to pay income taxes.

So just getting rid of your SSN isn’t all you have to do, you also have to get rid of your agreement with the bank. It is my understanding that you can redeem your checks for lawful US money instead of FRN’s. FRN’s are expandable money and as such you get the (they say) benefit, which obligates your participation in the Income Tax Code.

http://state-citizen.org/Mercier%20-%20Invisible%20Contracts%20%28law%20as%20legalized %20slavery%29%281984%29.pdf



Theres no law thats says you must do anything that otherwise is against the Constitution thats why its private law.


Thanks for clarifying that.

It seems like a contradiction in terms that they include private law in the US Code. What I’m trying to say is shouldn’t the US code only have laws in it that are passed as law by the congress?

Are there other legal codes in separate categories outside the US Code?

Or are all laws of the USA in the US code?

[The Great Ag]

If you dont mind Von can you go over how using reserve notes makes you liable for a tax thats based on you earning 3121(a) "wages" that congress deems as 3401(a) "wages" that is for fact on the law books as taxable?
I havent seen any laws yet that says by using the fiat private notes you are liable.
Hey, 7th Trump:
As far as I can tell, use of an un-redeemed FRN does NOT obligate one to pay a federal tax. BUT, and it is a big but, the use DOES make one a holder in due course. I am at work, so I do not have access to case law, but it came out of a New York court.

When one uses an un-redeemed FRN one is liable to the contract between the US gov't and the fed.

This should not surprise anyone, it does make sense. When someone uses a debt instrument as a form of payment, whomever holds it is liable for the debt.

The Great Ag

[iOWNme]

This is directly from the SS website:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html



MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Myths:

"Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) program. He promised:

1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary;
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program;
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year;
4) That the money the participants paid in would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.;
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income."



CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)


Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Seems to me that if you consent to work at a place that has accepted said privileges (Biz license, permits, registration, Incorporated, LLC, et al) then you have agreed to the beast system. If you work at Walmart, and try and say that it is voluntary, you fail. But if you dig your own ditches, who can compel you to participate?



Ok to understand this you have to read and study the Social Security Act.


In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.
In the Act there were mandatory city and state jobs that make it mandatory for the employee of the city and state to participate in. See "215 agreements" within the Act.
All other jobs are voluntary to participate in when you see Administrative regulation 26CFR 301.6109-1(d)http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-18.0.1.1.2.1.54.96.html at


(d) Obtaining a taxpayer identifying number—(1) Social security number. Any individual required to furnish a social security number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall apply for one, if he has not done so previously, on Form SS–5, which may be obtained from any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office. He shall make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. The form, together with any supplementary statement, shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the form, instructions, and regulations applicable thereto, and shall set forth fully and clearly the data therein called for. Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.


Which i find incredibly interesting considering the SS Act, and the Privacy Act both state that nobody can ever ask you to provide that number as a condition of employment.

........?

[7th trump]

^^^
Right.

I do not disagree with your posts from the last couple years regarding 3121(a) and 3401(a) as they inspired me to do my own research and I do not believe your angle to be false. However, what it states in what Sui Juris posted seems like it could be a bit of a kink in that logic. Anyway, let me digress and get back to your question:

I don't think "wages" are the only thing in play, here. Let's think about how much time and resources we would use obtaining land for raising a cow and planting a garden, feeding that cow and tending to that garden, milking the cow and harvesting crops, butchering the cow tilling the land, making cheese, flour, baking bread, etc. Yet I can go get a cheeseburger with all the fixins for $3. Just think about that. How many hamburgers could we obtain every hour for sitting behind a desk and answering phones (doing nothing)? How is that possible?

Now, we could of course trade what we do best (perhaps we could fix a friend's car of the farmer's tractor) in exchange for clothes or tomatoes or beef... but do we do that? No! We go and use these credits/debt notes/whatever you want to call them as a way to facilitate an easy, level way to exchange the things we know how to do with these companies that mass produce the bread, milk, beef, and tomatoes. Did we create this money? No! Someone else has implemented this system that simplifies and enhances our lives. Who? Our government, aka the Federal Reserve.

BUT, it certainly is true you could instead not assign a $ value to those pieces of paper yourself and just trade the paper itself for these items and be in the clear. But good luck arguing in tax court or in front of a jury of 12 that it was your intent to trade someone 4 cents worth of paper for 400 bucks worth of goods.

Hey Vaughn all I'm saying is that by participating in SS you fall into what is described in 5USC 552(a) (13) as "federal personel"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sec_05_00000552---a000-.html

(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

The Social Security trust fund is a federal US government program and not a state program or local program. Unemployment benefits are state administered as such are food stamp which SS act allows such administration on the state level.
Now since everyone has consented to the federal government for immediate and deferred benefits they are therefore in the eyes of the government considered "federal personel".
As you know once you consent to the government you are pauperized into slavery and at the whims of the government and it policies and regulations until you unconsent.
Now that everyone is pauperized the pauper cannot exercise all of the protections of the Constitution as a King in his own land would be able to. This is the reason why the Senate has a statutory version of the US Constitution that every politician is given a copy off. This statutory Constitution, in a section, lays the foundation that certain protections of the Bill of Rights are fundamental between the People (the unconsenting Kings of America) and the consenting paupers who have privileges eminating from the Civil Rights Act of 1866. (someone has the link to footnote 37 of this Senate document I gave a few months back)
As a federal "US citizen" you only have access parts of the Bill of Rights as the Senate deems fundamental.
Now, understand theres a reason why the SS Act doesnt make it mandatory for every American to participate in SS and why you fill out a W4, by signiture, before the start of every job you wish to convert your earnings to statutory 3121(a) "wages" for the purpose of benefits.
Its that way because if SS was mandatory it would be blocking everyone from accessing the full protections of the Constitution and that is a tort of law.
BTW, the only law requiring the employer to apply for an EIN is if the employer has one or more employee's wishing to earn 3121(a) "wages". There are other stipulations that apply, but these stipulations apply to non 3121(a) "wage" occupations and such.

[7th trump]

A bankrupt entity (the United States) loses all authority to enact public law. All it has left is public policy and a curtain (they call this law) to hide behind. In common law this might be termed "conflict of law" while in civil law it is called "private international law".

Yes sir we have another with his eyes opened!

[The Great Ag]

Understood, and like I said, I do not disagree. I have a lot of pieces missing from smack dab in the middle of my puzzle, though I can clearly see what the final picture should look like. The pieces on the left side show me the part of the picture with all the things we've always discussed here. The right side pieces show me that the benefits far outweigh the liabilities. I think the middle pieces would more clearly show the context in which I am to view both sides.

Hey, Vaughn:
I probably should call you sometime, lots of things to discuss (it's been awhile).
In terms of benefits outweighing liabilities, I think that comes down to personal choice. For me, having total responsibility over myself and taking care of my old age is far more desirable than having a pittance from a federal program coupled with the obligations of being a "subject." Again that is a personal preferance. I know people who would gladly continue their monthly pittance and could care less about being a "subject" of the United States. I think they like having something to complain about, such as rising taxes, extra "traffic citation" fees. . .etc.

My understanding of the situation is the so-called "elite" must gain more and more control over our lives to accomplish their goals. The US CON was the first step in their ability to do this. The Articles of Confederation GREATLY restricted the scope of gov't. Under the AoC, there is NO way the federal gov't could have grown to this size. Since 1787, crafters of code have been using the vague terms in the US CON as a legal plank to do what the want to do.

Social security is one part of that plan. As 7th Trump has written, acceptance of SS benefits makes one a "federal personnel" and also a "pauper" by legal definition. Whenever one accepts any type of support, one cannot claim legal freedoms. With most people accepting gov't support, the gov't can inflict its rules and regulations irrespective of the US CON - gov't calls this "administrative law." I suspect you know all of this, though.

The next part calls for a continuing decline in the standard of living of all US citizens. Wages have been stagnant since 1972, often requiring both husband and wife to work to have the same purchasing power as their parents had.

The overall goal is global statism. All ready the US gov't has a totalization agreement with the IMF/UN so that anyone who makes contributions in one country can retire to another and receive their benefits. From SS website http://www.ssa.gov/international/agreements_overview.html

Since the late 1970's, the United States has established a network of bilateral Social Security agreements that coordinate the U.S. Social Security program with the comparable programs of other countries. This article gives a brief overview of the agreements and should be of particular interest to multinational companies and to people who work abroad during their careers.

International Social Security agreements, often called "Totalization agreements," have two main purposes. First, they eliminate dual Social Security taxation, the situation that occurs when a worker from one country works in another country and is required to pay Social Security taxes to both countries on the same earnings. Second, the agreements help fill gaps in benefit protection for workers who have divided their careers between the United States and another country.


As soon as I can remove a couple of liabilities, I will stop participating.

The Great Ag

[iOWNme]

The Social Security trust fund is a federal US government program and not a state program or local program. Unemployment benefits are state administered as such are food stamp which SS act allows such administration on the state level.



Can you please show me the Law which states that SS is a Trust Fund?

Any Trust fund of the US Government must be listed in the organizational chart of each Government agency, in this case the Treasury, in the USC.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00001321----000-.html

There is no trust Fund listed as Social Security. Although there are 2 different Trust Funds listed as:

- (2) Philippine special fund (internal revenue)
- (62) Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue).

Notice the upper/lower case difference.

[7th trump]

The Social Security trust fund is a federal US government program and not a state program or local program. Unemployment benefits are state administered as such are food stamp which SS act allows such administration on the state level.



Can you please show me the Law which states that SS is a Trust Fund?

Any Trust fund of the US Government must be listed in the organizational chart of each Government agency, in this case the Treasury, in the USC.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00001321----000-.html

There is no trust Fund listed as Social Security. Although there are 2 different Trust Funds listed as:

- (2) Philippine special fund (internal revenue)
- (62) Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue).

Notice the upper/lower case difference.




http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/describeoasi.html


The trust fund provides automatic spending authority to pay monthly benefits to retired-worker (old-age) beneficiaries and their spouses and children and to survivors of deceased insured workers. With such spending authority, the Social Security Administration does not need to periodically request money from the Congress to pay benefits.

[Quantum]

Most of this thread is pure bollocks.

If you refuse to comply with the Social Security requirement, you are subject to arrest, encagement, and loss of any or all of your assets by thugs from the IRS.

That is simple fact.

Those who impose "law" are not subject to such "law." Stop pretending reality is otherwise. Those who truly believe you can hold off tyranny with idiot's legal mumbo-jumbo are surely in need of a padded cell.

[Gaillo]

Most of this thread is pure bollocks.

If you refuse to comply with the Social Security requirement, you are subject to arrest, encagement, and loss of any or all of your assets by thugs from the IRS.

That is simple fact.

Those who impose "law" are not subject to such "law." Stop pretending reality is otherwise. Those who truly believe you can hold off tyranny with idiot's legal mumbo-jumbo are surely in need of a padded cell.


After listening to various "legal patriots" spewing UCC and IRS Code nonsense for 10+ years, and watching the results of those who follow their legal "advice", I'm inclined to believe Quantum is correct on this one. However, I've also seen some MINOR victories for some of those who have the time, patience, money, and willingness to sit in jail until their day in court... enough to make one believe that if you had a lifetime to devote to this stuff, you might just end up being fractionally more free than when you started.

The thing about our "justice" system is this: even when you win, you typically still lose.

I'm personally inclined to do as much as possible to stay OUT of THEIR courts!

[Quantum]

After listening to various "legal patriots" spewing UCC and IRS Code nonsense for 10+ years, and watching the results of those who follow their legal "advice", I'm inclined to believe Quantum is correct on this one. However, I've also seen some MINOR victories for some of those who have the time, patience, money, and willingness to sit in jail until their day in court... enough to make one believe that if you had a lifetime to devote to this stuff, you might just end up being fractionally more free than when you started.

The thing about our "justice" system is this: even when you win, you typically still lose.

I'm personally inclined to do as much as possible to stay OUT of THEIR courts!


Yes! Their turf, their rules.

The minor "victories" occur merely because, as you state, the plaintiff expends the necessary amount - usually quite substantial - of time, patience, money, and freedom to make their case too costly to pursue. And that's the key: the government GIVES UP because they don't find smashing the plaintiff's face with their very large boot "profitable" in that particular circumstance. And then the legal mumbo-jumbo advocate screams, "See! See! It works!"

I'd be much more inclined to consider the "UCC" and related arguments if:

1) demonstrable proof of success in significant, meaningful cases could be provided;
2) these "arguments" and tactics were not used primarily by con-artists for revenue streams (endless "seminars," "books," etc.).

[7th trump]

Most of this thread is pure bollocks.

If you refuse to comply with the Social Security requirement, you are subject to arrest, encagement, and loss of any or all of your assets by thugs from the IRS.

That is simple fact.

Those who impose "law" are not subject to such "law." Stop pretending reality is otherwise. Those who truly believe you can hold off tyranny with idiot's legal mumbo-jumbo are surely in need of a padded cell.

Well a social program that doesnt have anything that states everyone must apply and participate for the rules to take effect. If you do consent you better play by the game rules or else.
Why would you be going to the IRS about you volunteering yourself into socialism? You do not have any sense about you.
Ever wondered if the law is the way you say it is then why do they need your permisable signiture?
You are just an example of sheeple.......scared out of your two bit wits to question anything.
Go lick your lollypop over at the government feed house.

And what makes you think you are qualified to post in this thread? You certainly lack knowledge in the matter to begin with.

[Gaillo]

You are just an example of sheeple.......scared out of your two bit wits to question anything.
Go lick your lollypop over at the government feed house.


This constitutes a personal attack on Quantum... consider this your only warning. Further attacks will result in a ban.

[Bigjon]

Stoping the use of social security is just one of the elements to free yourself. How many other federal forms have you signed? How many other adhesion contracts are you a party to?

You have to get rid of all of them or they will come looking for you.

[7th trump]

You are just an example of sheeple.......scared out of your two bit wits to question anything.
Go lick your lollypop over at the government feed house.


This constitutes a personal attack on Quantum... consider this your only warning. Further attacks will result in a ban.

Trust me................I'm not apologizing!

[Quantum]

Well a social program that doesnt have anything that states everyone must apply and participate for the rules to take effect.


We're not discussing a "social program."

We are talking about the IRS requiring everyone to have an SSN.




If you do consent you better play by the game rules or else.


You play by their rules or you get locked up, fined, or even shot dead. It's as simple as that.



You do not have any sense about you.


Are you one of the con-artists that makes his living selling lies about this type of scam?




Ever wondered if the law is the way you say it is then why do they need your permisable signiture?


If you file a Form 1040 without your signature, you will be fined a "civil penalty" by the IRS. You pay it, or they fine you more, or take your assets, and possibly even lock you up.

If you refuse to file said 1040, you are subject to big fines, seizure of your assets, and quite possibly being locked up.




You are just an example of sheeple...


I am an example of someone calling BULLSHIT on the scam you are hell-bent on promoting.




....scared out of your two bit wits to question anything.


I am not "scared out of my wits." I FACE REALITY LIKE A MAN, unlike you.




And what makes you think you are qualified to post in this thread?


I speak the Truth.




You certainly lack knowledge in the matter to begin with.


I see right through you. How much money have you made off of unsuspecting fools by peddling these lies about "get out of government tyranny quick & easy" schemes?

[Quantum]

You are just an example of sheeple.......scared out of your two bit wits to question anything.
Go lick your lollypop over at the government feed house.


This constitutes a personal attack on Quantum... consider this your only warning. Further attacks will result in a ban.


Gaillo, it's OK. 7th Trump only exposes himself by opening fire with blanks.

[Quantum]

Stoping the use of social security is just one of the elements to free yourself. How many other federal forms have you signed? How many other adhesion contracts are you a party to?

You have to get rid of all of them or they will come looking for you.


If you have traceable income, you either file Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ annually, or they WILL come looking for you.

If they demand you sign a form or file a form, you either sign it or file it, respectively, or they fine you "civil penalties." If you refuse to pay said "civil penalties," you get more fines, and likely "criminal penalties."

I don't like any of this tyrannical shit one bit, but it's reality. Comply or be targeted.

[sirgonzo420]

Stoping the use of social security is just one of the elements to free yourself. How many other federal forms have you signed? How many other adhesion contracts are you a party to?

You have to get rid of all of them or they will come looking for you.


If you have traceable income, you either file Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ annually, or they WILL come looking for you.

If they demand you sign a form or file a form, you either sign it or file it, respectively, or they fine you "civil penalties." If you refuse to pay said "civil penalties," you get more fines, and likely "criminal penalties."

I don't like any of this tyrannical sh*t one bit, but it's reality. Comply or be targeted.


Do you comply?

Or are you "targeted"?

[Quantum]

Do you comply?

Or are you "targeted"?


I'm not suicidal (yet), so I comply.

Since you're still alive, not in jail, and have property (your computer, at least), you do, too.

[sirgonzo420]

Do you comply?

Or are you "targeted"?


I'm not suicidal (yet), so I comply.

Since you're still alive, not in jail, and have property (your computer, at least), you do, too.




Actually, I don't.

Hold on, someone's knocking at my door...

[Quantum]

26 USC 6109(a)(1):

Inclusion in returns

Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document shall include in such return, statement, or other document such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.

26 USC 6109(d):

Use of social security account number

The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.



Of course, now we'll hear from the "get out of government tyranny quick & easy" circus that:

1) "I'm not subject to this law."
2) "I don't have to file and/or pay income taxes, since I have 'no income' (despite my $800,000 of net gain last year)."
3) "I'm not eligible for an SSN, because I'm not a 'resident of the United States'."

[iOWNme]

The Social Security trust fund is a federal US government program and not a state program or local program. Unemployment benefits are state administered as such are food stamp which SS act allows such administration on the state level.



Can you please show me the Law which states that SS is a Trust Fund?

Any Trust fund of the US Government must be listed in the organizational chart of each Government agency, in this case the Treasury, in the USC.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00001321----000-.html

There is no trust Fund listed as Social Security. Although there are 2 different Trust Funds listed as:

- (2) Philippine special fund (internal revenue)
- (62) Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue).

Notice the upper/lower case difference.




http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/describeoasi.html


The trust fund provides automatic spending authority to pay monthly benefits to retired-worker (old-age) beneficiaries and their spouses and children and to survivors of deceased insured workers. With such spending authority, the Social Security Administration does not need to periodically request money from the Congress to pay benefits.


That is not the Law. That is the 'Policy' of the SS Dept and the US Gov. I am not saying your wrong, I just have yet to find it enacted or codified that it is truly a Trust. And it is not listed as a Trust according to the US Gov and the US Treasury Dept. I just find it interesting.

[Quantum]

Do you comply?

Or are you "targeted"?


I'm not suicidal (yet), so I comply.

Since you're still alive, not in jail, and have property (your computer, at least), you do, too.




Actually, I don't.

Hold on, someone's knocking at my door...


Do you have net annual gain?

Is all of it untraceable?

How many years ago since you filed a Form 1040?

[sirgonzo420]

Do you comply?

Or are you "targeted"?


I'm not suicidal (yet), so I comply.

Since you're still alive, not in jail, and have property (your computer, at least), you do, too.




Actually, I don't.

Hold on, someone's knocking at my door...


Do you have net annual gain?

Is all of it untraceable?

How many years ago since you filed a Form 1040?


I don't GAIN/PROFIT a damn thing... I trade my time/labor for little slips of paper which I then exchange for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value.

If somebody thinks I owe them something, they can track me down and prove it.

And I ain't signing any damn forms.

[Bigjon]

I'm sure that L. B. Bork doesn't pay any state or federal income tax and his status is that of an Illinois National. There are several other members of People's Awareness Coalition who also have achieved State National status and don't pay taxes either.

http://www.pacinlaw.org/home/

Buy and read L. B. Bork's book The Red Amendment and it will clarify many things that have been covered up.

[Quantum]

I don't GAIN/PROFIT a damn thing... I trade my time/labor for little slips of paper which I then exchange for non-negotiable federal reserve notes of face value.

If somebody thinks I owe them something, they can track me down and prove it.

And I ain't signing any damn forms.


OK, fine, you want to end up like Irwin Schiff.

"Proof" in a Federal "court" involves re-reading the indictment. A "defense" in a Federal "court" is essentially non-existent, since the "judge" simply disallows effective defensive evidence or arguments, and takes "judicial notice" that whatever the IRS (or FBI, etc.) says is "true." Federal juries are selected from the bottom of the barrel, i.e., those who have absolutely nothing else to do, which usually means low-IQ types on welfare.

You admit here that you have Federally-deemed "income," because you trade paper, which is intimately traceable. I could respect your position far more if you only bartered for untraceable goods, such as commodities. Using traceable paper instruments is the mark of the foolishly arrogant or arrogantly foolish "tax protester."

If you want to end up in Federal "court," eventually, keep on trucking just like you are! Ignore the advice to avoid getting oneself in such predicament, namely, avoiding court at all reasonable costs. I find paying their "protection fee" much less painful than shooting it out with their goons. My life is not defined by how much money or property I control. If the Feds want my life, my family's lives, or my guns, or my freedom to live spiritually, that's a much different story, I will fight, to the death. But not over a portion of my income.

Oh, and BTW, I don't sign any forms when I do tax returns, either - all-electronic.

[Quantum]

I'm sure that L. B. Bork doesn't pay any state or federal income tax and his status is that of an Illinois National.


Please cite even one case where this "State National" garbage has worked in any way.

The Federal regime IMPOSES itself on us. It doesn't ask us whether we want to play or not. It's a God-damned lie of the most devilish nature to claim the satanic US government depends upon "consent."

[Bigjon]

I'm sure that L. B. Bork doesn't pay any state or federal income tax and his status is that of an Illinois National.


Please cite even one case where this "State National" garbage has worked in any way.

The Federal regime IMPOSES itself on us. It doesn't ask us whether we want to play or not. It's a God-damned lie of the most devilish nature to claim the satanic US government depends upon "consent."


I already have, if you don't like it take it up with LB.
You can call him a liar to his ear on their biweekly callin program.
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=62794&cmd=tc

Or on his forum
http://www.notmygovernment.us/register/

http://www.notmygovernment.us/forum/

[Bigjon]

I'm sure that L. B. Bork doesn't pay any state or federal income tax and his status is that of an Illinois National.


Please cite even one case where this "State National" garbage has worked in any way.

The Federal regime IMPOSES itself on us. It doesn't ask us whether we want to play or not. It's a God-damned lie of the most devilish nature to claim the satanic US government depends upon "consent."


Can you cite any way that being a State National hasn't worked?

To be honest, I pay my taxes just like you and I don't think the State National route will work for me.
As far as LB goes, it doesn't sound like he makes enough money to have to pay taxes.

[Bigjon]

According to Dave Merrill today's lawful money is another FRN, that is not expandable.

[UFM]

if you dont want your money send it to me

[7th trump]

Well a social program that doesnt have anything that states everyone must apply and participate for the rules to take effect.


We're not discussing a "social program."

We are talking about the IRS requiring everyone to have an SSN.
(ever ask yourself why the irs would have anything to do with a welfare program to be issueing a ssn?)



If you do consent you better play by the game rules or else.


You play by their rules or you get locked up, fined, or even shot dead. It's as simple as that.
(you play by their rules if you fall within their jurisdiction)


You do not have any sense about you.


Are you one of the con-artists that makes his living selling lies about this type of scam?
(Nope i debunk many con artist)




Ever wondered if the law is the way you say it is then why do they need your permisable signiture?


If you file a Form 1040 without your signature, you will be fined a "civil penalty" by the IRS. You pay it, or they fine you more, or take your assets, and possibly even lock you up.

If you refuse to file said 1040, you are subject to big fines, seizure of your assets, and quite possibly being locked up. (if have to sign a 1040 its because you earned 3121(a) "wages" for the purpose of social security. The IRs gets all of it information from the SSA before the IRS authroizes any refund or issues a notice of deficiency.)




You are just an example of sheeple...


I am an example of someone calling BULLsh*t on the scam you are hell-bent on promoting.
(Let me educate you with the law quantum because the law is not bullshyt. I dont promote anything except the law itself))



....scared out of your two bit wits to question anything.


I am not "scared out of my wits." I FACE REALITY LIKE A MAN, unlike you.
( then you can face reality and accept being taught how the law operates then...no?)




And what makes you think you are qualified to post in this thread?


I speak the Truth.
(you speak no truth because you've never read the law to understand the truth.)



You certainly lack knowledge in the matter to begin with.


I see right through you. How much money have you made off of unsuspecting fools by peddling these lies about "get out of government tyranny quick & easy" schemes?
( Hahahahah now thats hillarious! How can you see through me? You dont even know the law to see if I'm transparent of the law. I havent made any money off any scam. In fact, I have steered many from scam artists)



Quantum, do you have ears to listen?

[7th trump]

26 USC 6109(a)(1):

Inclusion in returns

Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document shall include in such return, statement, or other document such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.
( stop right there quantum and reread what it says. Its says if you are required to make a return. If you never have had a ssn how can you sign a W4? If no W4 then you didnt make 3121(a) "wages" nor were subject to 26USC 3101 because you were not statutorily 3121(b) "employed" for social security purposes.)

26 USC 6109(d):

Use of social security account number

The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.
( and what is 205(c)(2)(a)?)


(2)(A) On the basis of information obtained by or submitted to the Commissioner of Social Security, and after such verification thereof as the Commissioner deems necessary, the Commissioner of Social Security shall establish and maintain records of the amounts of wages paid to, and the amounts of self-employment income derived by, each individual and of the periods in which such wages were paid and such income was derived and, upon request, shall inform any individual or his survivor, or the legal representative of such individual or his estate, of the amounts of wages and self-employment income of such individual and the periods during which such wages were paid and such income was derived, as shown by such records at the time of such request.

( solely for the purpose of social security)


Of course, now we'll hear from the "get out of government tyranny quick & easy" circus that:

1) "I'm not subject to this law." (you are subject to the law if earn 3121(a) "wages" for the purpose of earning ss quarterly credits)
2) "I don't have to file and/or pay income taxes, since I have 'no income' (despite my $800,000 of net gain last year)." (if the social security administration has you down as earning 800,000 in either 3121(a) "wages" or self "employment" will be paying sooner or later.)
3) "I'm not eligible for an SSN, because I'm not a 'resident of the United States'."
(Anyone is eligable for a ssn if the SSA says you are. Try getting a ssn when you tell the SSA you would rather not participate via 301.6109-1(g) or is it (d) because would like to exercise your 9th and 10th amendments)

[Quantum]

I'm sure that L. B. Bork doesn't pay any state or federal income tax and his status is that of an Illinois National.


Please cite even one case where this "State National" garbage has worked in any way.

The Federal regime IMPOSES itself on us. It doesn't ask us whether we want to play or not. It's a God-damned lie of the most devilish nature to claim the satanic US government depends upon "consent."


I already have, if you don't like it take it up with LB.


You did? Where? I just checked again, and you cited a WEBSITE.

I want a court case, where the accused is charged with tax evasion, and the charges were dropped due to lack of jurisdiction / non-obligation to pay taxes due to the accused being a "State National."

DO NOT tell me to "look around the website." Post it here, IF it exists (I assert it does not).




You can call him a liar to his ear on their biweekly callin program.


I'm not going to waste my time battling him on turf he controls.

[Quantum]

So you expend $10 to have a stamp made that reads "REDEEMED FOR LAWFUL MONEY 12 USC 411" to stamp the BACK of the FRN you receive when you exchange yours.


Neither the US Government (nor the Federal Reserve) issues anything but Federal Reserve Notes. There is no more "lawful money" - so the tactic of stamping it with this cute phrase is IRRELEVANT.

Care to explain how FRNs are exchanged for "lawful money" except by simply conducting a private transaction with a holder of physical gold and silver?

[Quantum]

ever ask yourself why the irs would have anything to do with a welfare program to be issueing a ssn?


Yes, I have, and I realized long ago there is no basis for the connection.

But that's irrelevant for the US Government. They do what they want.




If you do consent you better play by the game rules or else.


And you better play by the game rules or else, even if DO NOT consent.



you play by their rules if you fall within their jurisdiction


Their "jurisdiction" is wherever their goons are.




if have to sign a 1040 its because you earned 3121(a) "wages" for the purpose of social security. The IRs gets all of it information from the SSA before the IRS authroizes any refund or issues a notice of deficiency


The SSA does not tell the IRS what to do. The IRC tells the SSA it must cooperate with the IRS.



Let me educate you with the law quantum because the law is not bullshyt.


Of course, the "law" is bullshit. They are arbitrary rules imposed on the population, without the consent of the governed.



then you can face reality and accept being taught how the law operates then...no?


I could ask you the same question.

I assert that "the law" operates simply in this way: the government declares, you obey, or you may get an ass-kicking. Simple, huh? The idea that the government does as we say is crazy.

Tyranny is force.



you speak no truth because you've never read the law to understand the truth


Spewing such a lie does not make it true.

Why don't you address "the law" which I cited earlier?




Quantum, do you have ears to listen?


Do you have any truth for me to hear?

[Bigjon]

I'm sure that L. B. Bork doesn't pay any state or federal income tax and his status is that of an Illinois National.


Please cite even one case where this "State National" garbage has worked in any way.

The Federal regime IMPOSES itself on us. It doesn't ask us whether we want to play or not. It's a God-damned lie of the most devilish nature to claim the satanic US government depends upon "consent."


I already have, if you don't like it take it up with LB.


You did? Where? I just checked again, and you cited a WEBSITE.

I want a court case, where the accused is charged with tax evasion, and the charges were dropped due to lack of jurisdiction / non-obligation to pay taxes due to the accused being a "State National."

DO NOT tell me to "look around the website." Post it here, IF it exists (I assert it does not).




You can call him a liar to his ear on their biweekly callin program.


I'm not going to waste my time battling him on turf he controls.


There are NO court cases, because the court doesn't have jurisdiction over State Nationals..

[UFM]

if you dont want your money send it to me


So, Mr UFM, exactly why would you believe that money exists when FDR outlawed it in 1933? Am I to obey the authority of congress when they state that federal reserve notes only circulate between federal reserve banks? As I am not one of these banks then why exactly would I have possession of any of these notes?


dont you know how to buy stuff? there is only one kind of money and it is dollars. $ <--- that is the sine for moeny and it how you buy stuff. i dont care what FDR ssay. he did not outlow money that is horseshit.

do you work and tell them you dont want the money or do you take it and buy stuff you need?

[Quantum]

There are NO court cases, because the court doesn't have jurisdiction over State Nationals..


Oh boy...

"I understand my assertions are way out there, and unfortunately, there's no evidence to demonstrate what I say is true. You just have to believe me."

[Bigjon]

There are NO court cases, because the court doesn't have jurisdiction over State Nationals..


Oh boy...

"I understand my assertions are way out there, and unfortunately, there's no evidence to demonstrate what I say is true. You just have to believe me."


The ball's in your court. Put up or shut up.

[Bigjon]

^ You must be related to eyeofliberty?


I think I know who you are talking about, but that is about all i know.

He seems like a stand up kind of guy to me.
Is this him?
http://www.notmygovernment.us/forum/NMG.pl?num=1274504927/15

[The Great Ag]

According to Dave Merrill today's lawful money is another FRN, that is not expandable.

The key to understanding 12USC411 is the definition of the word "redeemed."

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.
From Black's Law Dictionary 5th ed.

Redeem: To buy back. To free property or article from mortgage or pledge by paying the debt for which it stood as security. To repurchase in a literal sense; as, to redeem one's land from a tax-sale. It implies the existence of a debt and means to rid property of that incumbrance.

Redeeming a FRN does not mean receiving gold or silver. As Palani wrote, they do NOT have any. Redemption means the obligation has been removed. As that pertains to a FRN, redemption means the obligation to pay the fed back with interest has been removed. In essence the FRN has become PUBLIC MONEY, debt free. This is as close as a FRN can come to gold and silver. All public money is debt free; as such, I believe it to be free from taxation.

Free from taxation does NOT mean free from filing 1040. If you have a SS#, you are REQUIRED to file. The amount of income you claim could be zero, if every FRN you have has been redeemed. Have I personally tried this approach with the 1040? NO! This is my working theory.

The Great Ag

[Quantum]

There are NO court cases, because the court doesn't have jurisdiction over State Nationals..


Oh boy...

"I understand my assertions are way out there, and unfortunately, there's no evidence to demonstrate what I say is true. You just have to believe me."


The ball's in your court. Put up or shut up.


You want me to provide proof, because YOU propose the absurd? No, it doesn't work that way. He who asserts the ridiculous has the burden.

[Quantum]

You are confused if you believe you are buying anything with paper currency (as it exists today).


You walk into a coin shop, present intrinsically worthless FRNs, and walk out with (untraceable) gold and/or silver coins. This plan works because the coin shop owner is confident that he can unload the FRNs for more valuable products before the system collapses.



I see you were a public school graduate.


Are insults the only ammunition you have here?



Are you inferring that I would exchange my labor for a piece of paper that doesn't translate to ownership and which congress says only banks should possess?


You are trying to imply you would refuse to accept an FRN if someone gave you one?

Stop with the Jew-jitsu-like sophistry.

[Quantum]

If you have a SS#, you are REQUIRED to file.


Federal "law" states that you are required to have an SSN because you are required to file.

[The Great Ag]

If you have a SS#, you are REQUIRED to file.


Federal "law" states that you are required to have an SSN because you are required to file.

Hey, Quantum:
First thanks for participating in this thread and bringing a contradictory view point. Debate is a wonderful tool. I am not here to prove you wrong and myself right; I am NOT your adversary, nor do I wish to change your mind. Merely, I want to disclose facts and let the readers make there own choices.

So let's debate.
In your first post you stated MOST of this thread is "bollocks." What info in this thread is NOT? I am curious to know what you agree with in this thread?

Can you show me what fundamental law requires me to have a SS#?

Based upon my research, a man CANNOT be forced to accept a benefit There are legal maxims that corresponds. From Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed:

“A benefit is not conferred on one who is unwilling to receive it. That is to say, no one can be compelled to accept a benefit.” (Invito beneficium non datur.

“Consent makes the law.” (A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden.

These are historic legal maxims recognized by every court in every land. They have stood the test of time and culture.

The Social Security program is a gov't benefit. Prior to 1935 the only benefit programs for the homeless, the poor, the paupers were usually run by churches and private organizations. The gov't stepped in and created a socialist program whereby all would contribute their earnings "wages" to help those in need. The gov't CANNOT force one to give up their labor for the benefit of another. That is why Social Security is voluntary, in the hopes that if I need gov't assistance, I will be qualified to receive it. Social Security is a gov't contract between the gov't and the citizen who applies and accepts the benefit. Signing the SS card means one has accepted the benefit and obligations that come with it. The three legal maxims above support my points.

One might ask, "If the program is voluntary, why do businesses require it?" As far as I can tell, it is for tax purposes ONLY. When one works for a business, the "wages" earned are a tax deduction for the business. Without a SS#, the business CANNOT shift the tax burden away from the business onto the employee. If a worker does NOT have a SS#, then potentially, the business' gross income increased by the amount the worker made. A worker without a SS# COULD be potentially a negative to the company compared to an employee who has an SS#.

Several years ago, I called the SS administration to inquire about a SS# for my little girl. I asked why she needed a number? Their response was without a SS#, she could not be credited for her work and could not receive any disability or retirement benefits. I asked about working for a business without a SS# and they did not have an answer. I thanked them for their time.

All gov't benefits are voluntary; one must ask (apply) to get them. They are NOT automatically granted. I think that also shows SS is voluntary.

Social security rules and regulations apply ONLY to those who have accepted the benefit. When you write that people MUST file and SIGN a 1040, you are correct insofar as it pertains ONLY to taxpayers. non-taxpayers are NOT required to file a 1040. I have given my facts showing how SS is voluntary.

Please show me your facts that SS is mandatory.

The Great Ag

[SLV^GLD]

I will also add that I am greatly appreciative of Quantum's steadfastness to the contradicting opinion. Lots of people disbelieve but rarely does one take the time to flesh out an appropriate argument. This has been the best thread on this subject I have seen in a very long time.

[UFM]

dont you know how to buy stuff?
Other than barter? You are confused if you believe you are buying anything with paper currency (as it exists today). When paper was first used it represented a warehouse receipt. Now it represents debt. If debt could buy anything then my IOU might be as valuable as Bill Gates fortune. As it is not then I suspect Mr Gates has no fortune either.


there is only one kind of money and it is dollars. $ <--- that is the sine for moeny and it how you buy stuff. i dont care what FDR ssay. he did not outlow money that is horsesh*t. I see you were a public school graduate. No doubt then you could tell me precisely what a foot is, what an hour is, what an ounce or gram are. Could you tell me the current definition of a dollar?


do you work and tell them you dont want the money or do you take it and buy stuff you need? Are you inferring that I would exchange my labor for a piece of paper that doesn't translate to ownership and which congress says only banks should possess?



what the hell are you talking about man when you want to buy stuff you have to use money. trading and barter is not the same as buying stuff. money is what the government says it is. dont you know what treasury notes are? the treasury sells debt and gets dollas in return. ther is no other form of us currentcy. yes i went to public skool. i think you qualify for a free lobotomy

[Quantum]

OK, all you smart ones...

Who is this man?

And why is he famous?


(bonus question: what is his current residence, and why is he living there?)

[Quantum]

You walk into a coin shop, present intrinsically worthless FRNs, and walk out with (untraceable) gold and/or silver coins. This plan works because the coin shop owner is confident that he can unload the FRNs for more valuable products before the system collapses.

This plan works because you are willing to commit fraud upon an innocent victim. If the coin shop owner refused to accept FRNs as legal tender then you would inform him that congress has dictated that he shall accept them or face federal penalties.


There is no "fraud." Coin shop owners are well-aware of the nature of FRNs, yet they take them, since they know the likelihood of getting rid of them before they lose significant value is great. Legal tender laws apply to DEBT, not to purchases. Proprietors know this, which is why they post signs "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."




You are trying to imply you would refuse to accept an FRN if someone gave you one?

Have you ever met anyone with the capacity to "give" you something that belongs to someone else? Isn't this called "conversion" or (street slang) "fencing"?


ANSWER THE QUESTION: would you refuse to accept an FRN if someone gave you one? Any shred of credibility you have hangs on this answer from you.

[Quantum]

All gov't benefits are voluntary; one must ask (apply) to get them. They are NOT automatically granted. I think that also shows SS is voluntary.


Of course accepting Title II benefits is voluntary. Why would the government want to force you to take payments from a bankrupt system?

However, taking a Social Security Number is NOT voluntary, as I have shown above. The status of "voluntary" exists only when a person is completely free to reject a relationship or transaction without penalty whatsoever. The US Government declares that one must have a "Taxpayer Identification Number" and this is defined as synonymous with an SSN for the vast majority of us. You can't weasel out of these statutes by making up sophistic "arguments" about being a "State National," since there is no provision for that within their "law."

I want to make clear I have no contempt nor condemnation for anyone who simply chooses not to pay taxes to the satanic regime that rules this land. I say Bravo! to them. They have chosen to reject illegitimate "law," and recognize that there may be dear consequences down the road, but act upon their moral imperative nontheless.

I do, however, have great contempt for those who claim FALSELY that there are magic "remedies" to avoid paying taxes "legally." I regard such people as criminals, not because they break "laws" regarding paying taxes, but because they fraudulently teach their fellow man a non-effective way to avoid penalties and consequences. Such people are confidence artists ("con artists"), and are criminals according to the Laws of God (the common law).

[Quantum]

what the hell are you talking about man when you want to buy stuff you have to use money. trading and barter is not the same as buying stuff. money is what the government says it is. dont you know what treasury notes are? the treasury sells debt and gets dollas in return. ther is no other form of us currentcy. yes i went to public skool. i think you qualify for a free lobotomy


This guy isn't stupid, and it's an insult to the mentally retarded to compare him to them. Malice and stupidity are mutually exclusive.

He is a confidence artist, teaching that one can avoid penalties and consequences using his secret magic formulae. He aims to gain your confidence through his art of sophistry. Hence, the term, "con artist."

I'm waiting to hear from him if he will accept an FRN from someone, if they give him one. Watch, he won't answer that question. He dares not answer that question, because it damns him either way.

[UFM]

what the hell are you talking about man when you want to buy stuff you have to use money. trading and barter is not the same as buying stuff. money is what the government says it is. dont you know what treasury notes are? the treasury sells debt and gets dollas in return. ther is no other form of us currentcy. yes i went to public skool. i think you qualify for a free lobotomy


This guy isn't stupid, and it's an insult to the mentally retarded to compare him to them. Malice and stupidity are mutually exclusive.

He is a confidence artist, teaching that one can avoid penalties and consequences using his secret magic formulae. He aims to gain your confidence through his art of sophistry. Hence, the term, "con artist."

I'm waiting to hear from him if he will accept an FRN from someone, if they give him one. Watch, he won't answer that question. He dares not answer that question, because it damns him either way.


you are right an you say it better than i. it is a simple answer i wonder what he says. 1 frn is 1 dollar. it not rocket science

[sirgonzo420]

what the hell are you talking about man when you want to buy stuff you have to use money. trading and barter is not the same as buying stuff. money is what the government says it is. dont you know what treasury notes are? the treasury sells debt and gets dollas in return. ther is no other form of us currentcy. yes i went to public skool. i think you qualify for a free lobotomy


This guy isn't stupid, and it's an insult to the mentally retarded to compare him to them. Malice and stupidity are mutually exclusive.

He is a confidence artist, teaching that one can avoid penalties and consequences using his secret magic formulae. He aims to gain your confidence through his art of sophistry. Hence, the term, "con artist."

I'm waiting to hear from him if he will accept an FRN from someone, if they give him one. Watch, he won't answer that question. He dares not answer that question, because it damns him either way.


you are right an you say it better than i. it is a simple answer i wonder what he says. 1 frn is 1 dollar. it not rocket science


No, one FRN is NOT a "dollar".

One FRN may be a dollar BILL, but not a DOLLAR itself.

A FRN is a Federal Reserve NOTE.

A NOTE = a promise to pay.

FRNs are not payment in DOLLARS, but merely a PROMISE TO PAY.

[UFM]

what the hell are you talking about man when you want to buy stuff you have to use money. trading and barter is not the same as buying stuff. money is what the government says it is. dont you know what treasury notes are? the treasury sells debt and gets dollas in return. ther is no other form of us currentcy. yes i went to public skool. i think you qualify for a free lobotomy


This guy isn't stupid, and it's an insult to the mentally retarded to compare him to them. Malice and stupidity are mutually exclusive.

He is a confidence artist, teaching that one can avoid penalties and consequences using his secret magic formulae. He aims to gain your confidence through his art of sophistry. Hence, the term, "con artist."

I'm waiting to hear from him if he will accept an FRN from someone, if they give him one. Watch, he won't answer that question. He dares not answer that question, because it damns him either way.


you are right an you say it better than i. it is a simple answer i wonder what he says. 1 frn is 1 dollar. it not rocket science


No, one FRN is NOT a "dollar".

One FRN may be a dollar BILL, but not a DOLLAR itself.

A FRN is a Federal Reserve NOTE.

A NOTE = a promise to pay.

FRNs are not payment in DOLLARS, but merely a PROMISE TO PAY.


no dopey. look at a $1 federal reserbe note. it say DOLLAR on it as in $1 = one dollar bill

[SLV^GLD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792#Authorization


So, if my wife and I stop just practicing and produce another human being and that human being never bothers to sign up for a SSN at what point do the feds haul him away to cage and why?

[Quantum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792#Authorization


So, if my wife and I stop just practicing and produce another human being and that human being never bothers to sign up for a SSN at what point do the feds haul him away to cage and why?


After a few years of not submitting Form 1040 and/or new "legislation" is passed requiring a universal ID with SSN.

[UFM]

what the hell are you talking about man when you want to buy stuff you have to use money. trading and barter is not the same as buying stuff. money is what the government says it is.
Are you not the government? Are you not saying that money is what YOU say it is?


dont you know what treasury notes are? the treasury sells debt and gets dollas in return. ther is no other form of us currentcy. Where does the federal reserve get them from if they are to supply them to Treasury?


yes i went to public skool. i think you qualify for a free lobotomy I suspect public skool is where you got yours?


HEY PALANI ARE YOU A DUMBSHlT?

[Gaillo]

what the hell are you talking about man when you want to buy stuff you have to use money. trading and barter is not the same as buying stuff. money is what the government says it is.
Are you not the government? Are you not saying that money is what YOU say it is?


dont you know what treasury notes are? the treasury sells debt and gets dollas in return. ther is no other form of us currentcy. Where does the federal reserve get them from if they are to supply them to Treasury?


yes i went to public skool. i think you qualify for a free lobotomy I suspect public skool is where you got yours?


HEY PALANI ARE YOU A DUMBSHlT?


He's not enough of one to break the forum rules on personal attacks in such a blatant and bannable way.

See you in 3 days.

Everyone else on this thread... keep it cool.

[Quantum]

He's not enough of one to break the forum rules on personal attacks in such a blatant and bannable way.

See you in 3 days.

Everyone else on this thread... keep it cool.


Palani has attacked both UFM and myself with ad hominem - "you went to public skool" and the like, implying that because we don't swallow his confidence scam, we're stupid and ignorant. He's been egging opponents on.

UFM's ban serves no purpose. Like "the law," "the rules" need to serve people and not vice-versa. If UFM is a "disrupter," so is palani.

[Quantum]

The status of "voluntary" exists only when a person is completely free to reject a relationship or transaction without penalty whatsoever.

And your definition of a "person" is?


I asked you some questions:

OK, all you smart ones...

Who is this man?

And why is he famous?


(bonus question: what is his current residence, and why is he living there?)

[Gaillo]

He's not enough of one to break the forum rules on personal attacks in such a blatant and bannable way.

See you in 3 days.

Everyone else on this thread... keep it cool.


Palani has attacked both UFM and myself with ad hominem - "you went to public skool" and the like, implying that because we don't swallow his confidence scam, we're stupid and ignorant. He's been egging opponents on.

UFM's ban serves no purpose. Like "the law," "the rules" need to serve people and not vice-versa.


He was banned for a blatant and "in your face" attack. The ad hominem attacks of Palani's that you refer to were veiled, implications, etc. You returned some of the same in some of your posts. If we were adhering strictly to "the rules" with no deviation, 3 or 4 posters in this thread would be banned right now.

Sometimes it's a fine line, but UFM clearly stepped over it in that post.

[Quantum]

The fraud is on you because you believe you actually bought something.


I would have untraceable gold or silver under my exclusive control. That is the rational definition of "ownership."

Your "argument" is sophistry.




My policy is not to accept fiat currency of any form. You couldn't give me one even if you did own any. If I found a note abandoned on the street I would feel no compulsion to pick it up. Happy?


There is NO ONE on this forum who believes you are telling the truth. Therefore, I'll make it plain: YOU ARE A LIAR.

You DO have Federal Reserve Notes, you DO use them, and you would absolutely pick one up if you saw one.

The little credibility you had previously is now GONE for good after this WHOPPER.

[sirgonzo420]

The fraud is on you because you believe you actually bought something.


I would have untraceable gold or silver under my exclusive control. That is the rational definition of "ownership."

Your "argument" is sophistry.




My policy is not to accept fiat currency of any form. You couldn't give me one even if you did own any. If I found a note abandoned on the street I would feel no compulsion to pick it up. Happy?


There is NO ONE on this forum who believes you are telling the truth. Therefore, I'll make it plain: YOU ARE A LIAR.

You DO have Federal Reserve Notes, you DO use them, and you would absolutely pick one up if you saw one.

The little credibility you had previously is now GONE for good after this WHOPPER.


Who are you to call him a liar?

Just because you endorse the Federal Reserve's private credit does not mean that everyone else does.

Some people, believe it or not, live with SUBSTANCE and without the Federal Reserve.

[Quantum]

He's not enough of one to break the forum rules on personal attacks in such a blatant and bannable way.

See you in 3 days.

Everyone else on this thread... keep it cool.


Palani has attacked both UFM and myself with ad hominem - "you went to public skool" and the like, implying that because we don't swallow his confidence scam, we're stupid and ignorant. He's been egging opponents on.

UFM's ban serves no purpose. Like "the law," "the rules" need to serve people and not vice-versa.


He was banned for a blatant and "in your face" attack. The ad hominem attacks of Palani's that you refer to were veiled, implications, etc. You returned some of the same in some of your posts. If we were adhering strictly to "the rules" with no deviation, 3 or 4 posters in this thread would be banned right now.

Sometimes it's a fine line, but UFM clearly stepped over it in that post.


This is a perfect microcosm of the tyranny that exists in the United States, and existed at GIM.

Bans over minor "personal attacks" - especially when solicited by the "offended" - are unjust, unfair, and reflect a defective & malignant power structure.

What is the purpose of UFM's ban? Because someone decreed it? Get real. We have a CROOK on this thread, who is methodically LYING, and trying to mislead people into harming themselves with bollocks theories that DO NOT WORK. Yet he is given a pass, and UFM gets three days over calling him what many of us think (think based on good reasoning)?

No, I will NOT retract my statements about palani here. You KNOW I am right, Gaillo. Oh, and yes, I AM challenging your rules AND your authority. Any free man who wouldn't isn't worthy of the the name.

[Gaillo]

Bans over minor "personal attacks" - especially when solicited by the "offended" - are unjust, unfair, and reflect a defective & malignant power structure.

Regarding this, and your statement about "my rules and my authority", I respond that they are NOT my rules, they are set by JQP - the forum owner. I have VOLUNTARILY accepted the thankless task of enforcing those rules, because I believe in what he's done here in facilitating the creation of this community, and I want this forum to succeed. Degeneration into namecalling and unchecked personal attacks would defeat that goal.






My policy is not to accept fiat currency of any form. You couldn't give me one even if you did own any. If I found a note abandoned on the street I would feel no compulsion to pick it up. Happy?


There is NO ONE on this forum who believes you are telling the truth. Therefore, I'll make it plain: YOU ARE A LIAR.

You DO have Federal Reserve Notes, you DO use them, and you would absolutely pick one up if you saw one.

The little credibility you had previously is now GONE for good after this WHOPPER.


Quantum... the ONLY reason this post did not result in an immediate ban is that, to any rational person, you appear to be stating the truth about Palani. However, the post STILL goes against the spirit of "keep it civil", and deserves at LEAST the benefit of a stern warning. No more of that kind of language will be tolerated on this thread, from you or ANYONE else. No more calling each other liars, scammers, idiots, or dumbsh*ts. KEEP IT CIVIL, PEOPLE!

I asked that people keep it cool in this thread after UFM's ban, I'm going to re-affirm that request - with a strong warning that I'm going to be hawking this thread, ban hammer locked and loaded.

[Quantum]

I would have untraceable gold or silver under my exclusive control. That is the rational definition of "ownership."
Your "argument" is sophistry.

I could imagine the same argument being made by a thief.


I'm sure you'd know about that.




The burden of proof is on he who affirms rather than he who denies. Start proving (if you can).


EVERYONE, even your allies, KNOWS you are lying about not picking up a stray FRN and putting in your pocket for future "use."




Are you ignoring my little question as to what a "person" is?


OK, all you smart ones...

Who is this man?

And why is he famous?


(bonus question: what is his current residence, and why is he living there?)

[Quantum]

Who are you to call him a liar?


Someone who speaks the Truth, that's who.

[Quantum]

Quantum... the ONLY reason this post did not result in an immediate ban is that, to any rational person, you appear to be stating the truth about Palani.


Ban the Truth and that makes you a fascist.




However, the post STILL goes against the spirit of "keep it civil", and deserves at LEAST the benefit of a stern warning.


I WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK THE FACTS. The facts are what they are. MEN are not afraid of the facts.

Civil is when people engage in HONEST discussion. Palani is spewing falsehoods and sophistry, misleading good people into dangerous territory that will not profit them. SOMEONE has to stand up to him, and if that be me, so be it.




No more of that kind of language will be tolerated on this thread, from you or ANYONE else.


Palani is a LIAR and a FRAUD. I will NOT censor myself because you don't like the facts being stated.




No more calling each other liars, scammers


You believe he would not pick up an FRN and use it?

You believe any of the bullshit he's saying about getting out of paying taxes is true?




I asked that people keep it cool in this thread after UFM's ban, I'm going to re-affirm that request - with a strong warning that I'm going to be hawking this thread, ban hammer locked and loaded.


To what end? For what purpose? To stroke your ego? To make yourself feel powerful?

Please explain how you are different from Scorpio or Skyvike. Or are you the same?

[Ares]

I think Palani and Quantum should take it take it to the Thunderdome.

Let's get some use out of it. :whip

[sirgonzo420]

Quantum.

There are taxpayers, and there are non-taxpayers.

Taxpayers are liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers are not liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers aren't "getting out" of anything. They simply don't owe taxes.

[Quantum]

I think Palani and Quantum should take it take it to the Thunderdome.

Let's get some use out of it. :whip


I have no "personal" beef with Palani. He is but one of many con artists I've come across in the "patriot movement." He's spewing dangerous nonsense that will only lead to huge fines or prison, for the unsuspecting that follow it. It is the responsibility of good people to expose that, and IGNORE any "rules" that attempt to restrain doing the RIGHT thing.

[Gaillo]

Quantum... the ONLY reason this post did not result in an immediate ban is that, to any rational person, you appear to be stating the truth about Palani.


Ban the Truth and that makes you a fascist.

You are not banned, are you? I rest my case.




However, the post STILL goes against the spirit of "keep it civil", and deserves at LEAST the benefit of a stern warning.


I WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK THE FACTS. The facts are what they are. MEN are not afraid of the facts.

Civil is when people engage in HONEST discussion. Palani is spewing falsehoods and sophistry, misleading good people into dangerous territory that will not profit them. SOMEONE has to stand up to him, and if that be me, so be it.

I think anyone who has half a brain and reads this thread can see that is the case, there is no need for blatent personal attacks to drive the point home.




No more of that kind of language will be tolerated on this thread, from you or ANYONE else.


Palani is a LIAR and a FRAUD. I will NOT censor myself because you don't like the facts being stated.

You've already stated as much in so many earlier posts, do you think that repetition will drive the point home any more clearly?




No more calling each other liars, scammers


You believe he would not pick up an FRN and use it?

You believe any of the bullsh*t he's saying about getting out of paying taxes is true?

Of course I don't believe that he wouldn't pick up an FRN and use it. Only a fool or liar would say such a thing. As for the "get out of paying taxes" thing, I'm not qualified to judge that matter, not knowing enough of the legal details.




I asked that people keep it cool in this thread after UFM's ban, I'm going to re-affirm that request - with a strong warning that I'm going to be hawking this thread, ban hammer locked and loaded.


To what end? For what purpose? To stroke your ego? To make yourself feel powerful?

Please explain how you are different from Scorpio or Skyvike. Or are you the same?

[b]To the end of trying to keep this thread civil, as requested by JohnQPublic. He owns this forum, has the right to set the rules, and the right to choose who he wants to enforce those rules. If he wants me to go, I'll go. If you think I have ANYTHING in common with Scorpio or Skyvike, you're sadly mistaken... I don't do perma-bans, bans for ego, or powertripping BS. I just try my best at what is essentially an impossible task - to "moderate" these discussions and keep them from erupting into all-out flame wars, name calling, attacks, and unreadable garbage.

[Quantum]

Quantum.

There are taxpayers, and there are non-taxpayers.

Taxpayers are liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers are not liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers aren't "getting out" of anything. They simply don't owe taxes.


Could you provide a letter from the IRS deeming you a "non-taxpayer"?

[Quantum]

If you think I have ANYTHING in common with Scorpio or Skyvike, you're sadly mistaken... I don't do perma-bans, bans for ego, or powertripping BS. I just try my best at what is essentially an impossible task - to "moderate" these discussions and keep them from erupting into all-out flame wars, name calling, attacks, and unreadable garbage.


With all due respect, I will believe you if you unban UFM.

I have NO - absolutely no - connection to him. I just see him as a victim of injustice for simply returning fire after repeated daggers thrown his (and my) way.

I DESPISE bans and punishments for expression, including for palani. That's why I objected to 7th Trump being threatened when he attacked me - it's much better to see my opponents be allowed to continue to fire blanks at me. ;D

[Ares]

Could you provide a letter from the IRS deeming you a "non-taxpayer"?

I believe the burden of being a "non-taxpayer" rest with you, to show the government why you're not a taxpayer.

With that, we'll have to look up the SS/IRS definitions of what constitutes a "taxpayer".

[sirgonzo420]

Quantum.

There are taxpayers, and there are non-taxpayers.

Taxpayers are liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers are not liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers aren't "getting out" of anything. They simply don't owe taxes.


Could you provide a letter from the IRS deeming you a "non-taxpayer"?


I'm not sharing any personal information here, but attached is something I found online.

Didn't ya ever wonder why they call it the INTERNAL Revenue Service?

INTERNAL to what....

[Gaillo]

If you think I have ANYTHING in common with Scorpio or Skyvike, you're sadly mistaken... I don't do perma-bans, bans for ego, or powertripping BS. I just try my best at what is essentially an impossible task - to "moderate" these discussions and keep them from erupting into all-out flame wars, name calling, attacks, and unreadable garbage.


With all due respect, I will believe you if you unban UFM.

I have NO - absolutely no - connection to him. I just see him as a victim of injustice for simply returning fire after repeated daggers thrown his (and my) way.

I DESPISE bans and punishments for expression, including for palani. That's why I objected to 7th Trump being threatened when he attacked me - it's much better to see my opponents be allowed to continue to fire blanks at me. ;D


Given the nature of the situation, I'm considering unbanning him a day early... but that's as far as I'm likely to go. He erupted a low-level background sub-text of insults into an outright attack (ARE YOU A DUMBSHIT?). He knows the rules and knows better, he's been here from almost day one. Claims of "victim of injustice" only go so far in a situation like that.

[SLV^GLD]

So, um, where were we? Derailed is where we are now.
I was enjoying this thread but it seems to have no direction whatsoever at this point.
I spoke too soon, I suppose.

[Quantum]

Could you provide a letter from the IRS deeming you a "non-taxpayer"?

I believe the burden of being a "non-taxpayer" rest with you, to show the government why you're not a taxpayer.


Exactly.

And the IRS will not accept any arguments that someone residing within the territorial boundaries of the United States (PLEASE - no, "well I live in Missouri, not 'within the boundaries of the United States'" garbage - to the IRS, it is ONE AND THE SAME) is NOT a "taxpayer."

[sirgonzo420]

So, um, where were we? Derailed is where we are now.
I was enjoying this thread but it seems to have no direction whatsoever at this point.
I spoke too soon, I suppose.


Well this is off-topic, (it doesn't have much to do with "UCC 1-207") but I find it noteworthy anyway:


Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights. U.S. vs. Dickerson 413 F 2D 1111.

[Quantum]

Quantum.

There are taxpayers, and there are non-taxpayers.

Taxpayers are liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers are not liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers aren't "getting out" of anything. They simply don't owe taxes.


Could you provide a letter from the IRS deeming you a "non-taxpayer"?


I'm not sharing any personal information here, but attached is something I found online.

Didn't ya ever wonder why they call it the INTERNAL Revenue Service?

INTERNAL to what....


"Internal" meaning taxes stolen from the peons INSIDE the United States, as opposed to the Constitutional tariffs taken from people OUTSIDE the United States.

And what is the source of that letter? I don't regard it as authoritative - in fact, I question its authenticity.

The man whose photos I've posted several times now would not be in his current state of affairs if that letter were IRS / Federal regime policy.

[Quantum]

I have NO - absolutely no - connection to him. I just see him as a victim of injustice for simply returning fire after repeated daggers thrown his (and my) way.

I DESPISE bans and punishments for expression, including for palani. That's why I objected to 7th Trump being threatened when he attacked me - it's much better to see my opponents be allowed to continue to fire blanks at me. ;D


Given the nature of the situation, I'm considering unbanning him a day early... but that's as far as I'm likely to go. He erupted a low-level background sub-text of insults into an outright attack (ARE YOU A DUMBsh*t?). He knows the rules and knows better, he's been here from almost day one. Claims of "victim of injustice" only go so far in a situation like that.


OK, I will not argue my position any more. I only ask that you seriously & deeply ponder the purpose of such rules and your role in applying them. And then compare those rules and your role to the principles of liberty of the individual (recognizing that no man owns someone else, even if such person is "on someone else's property").

[sirgonzo420]

Quantum.

There are taxpayers, and there are non-taxpayers.

Taxpayers are liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers are not liable for taxes.

Non-taxpayers aren't "getting out" of anything. They simply don't owe taxes.


Could you provide a letter from the IRS deeming you a "non-taxpayer"?


I'm not sharing any personal information here, but attached is something I found online.

Didn't ya ever wonder why they call it the INTERNAL Revenue Service?

INTERNAL to what....


"Internal" meaning taxes stolen from the peons INSIDE the United States, as opposed to the Constitutional tariffs taken from people OUTSIDE the United States.

And what is the source of that letter? I don't regard it as authoritative - in fact, I question its authenticity.

The man whose photos I've posted several times now would not be in his current state of affairs if that letter were IRS / Federal regime policy.


I have no idea regarding the authenticity of that letter; I was not who originally received it.

But obviously the Internal Revenue Code does not apply to EVERYBODY.

There are taxpayers and non-taxpayers.

Sometimes, people who would otherwise be non-taxpayers volunteer to be taxpayers.

[Quantum]

So, um, where were we? Derailed is where we are now.
I was enjoying this thread but it seems to have no direction whatsoever at this point.
I spoke too soon, I suppose.


Nah, temporary diversion... :D

Do you pay taxes, SLV^GLD? ;D ;D

[Quantum]

Sometimes, people who would otherwise be non-taxpayers volunteer to be taxpayers.


Who is the man whose pictures I have posted? Did he volunteer to be a taxpayer? Is he residing where he is because he volunteered to be a taxpayer?

[sirgonzo420]

I have NO - absolutely no - connection to him. I just see him as a victim of injustice for simply returning fire after repeated daggers thrown his (and my) way.

I DESPISE bans and punishments for expression, including for palani. That's why I objected to 7th Trump being threatened when he attacked me - it's much better to see my opponents be allowed to continue to fire blanks at me. ;D


Given the nature of the situation, I'm considering unbanning him a day early... but that's as far as I'm likely to go. He erupted a low-level background sub-text of insults into an outright attack (ARE YOU A DUMBsh*t?). He knows the rules and knows better, he's been here from almost day one. Claims of "victim of injustice" only go so far in a situation like that.


OK, I will not argue my position any more. I only ask that you seriously & deeply ponder the purpose of such rules and your role in applying them. And then compare those rules and your role to the principles of liberty of the individual (recognizing that no man owns someone else, even if such person is "on someone else's property").


Exactly, which is why you cannot lawfully have your property/labor stolen from you (unless you sign a permission slip saying it's ok...).

[Quantum]

Exactly, which is why you cannot lawfully have your property/labor stolen from you (unless you sign a permission slip saying it's ok...).


SG, please don't ever get me wrong: I regard the Internal Revenue Code as UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMMORAL.

It is not legitimate, authoritative law. It is "law" enforced by force of arms. And because it is the latter, one cannot use legal arguments to get out from under it.

My point is not that we are "legally obligated" to pay taxes. WE ARE FORCED BY GOVERNMENT THUGS TO DO SO.

[Quantum]

OK, OK...I guess people either don't know who he is, or a few do know, and are quite afraid to let him be brought up in this topic...

This should be a more than obvious hint who he is:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mg7D3kYysfw/SbhfXsa4a_I/AAAAAAAAMcc/i2_BFJJgPDM/s400/IrwinSchiffFederalMafia.jpg

[sirgonzo420]

Sometimes, people who would otherwise be non-taxpayers volunteer to be taxpayers.


Who is the man whose pictures I have posted? Did he volunteer to be a taxpayer? Is he residing where he is because he volunteered to be a taxpayer?


He's a jewish fella named Irwin who fought the IRS and lost. There are many "tax protesters" who fight the IRS using flawed arguments.

Here is a list of such arguments published by the IRS - http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

What is interesting is what that publication DOESN'T say..

[sirgonzo420]

Exactly, which is why you cannot lawfully have your property/labor stolen from you (unless you sign a permission slip saying it's ok...).


SG, please don't ever get me wrong: I regard the Internal Revenue Code as UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMMORAL.

It is not legitimate, authoritative law. It is "law" enforced by force of arms. And because it is the latter, one cannot use legal arguments to get out from under it.

My point is not that we are "legally obligated" to pay taxes. WE ARE FORCED BY GOVERNMENT THUGS TO DO SO.


We are "coerced", but it is ultimately us who puts our signatures on a form....

If a man is being escorted into prison, in a way, he is walking voluntarily if he is not being dragged.

They need our consent to make the System work.

[Quantum]

The life of Irwin Schiff (Peter's dad) is the best destruction of any of these "get out of paying taxes quick & easy" schemes there is.

This is a brilliant man with morality and common law on his side.

Nonetheless, Irwin Schiff is currently in Federal Gulag Terre Haute until 2016 for using the same nonsense "arguments" that so many have presented here. He has been jailed several times prior, for the same reasons.

His books, no matter how well-written, his assertions, no matter how well argued, his legal citations, no matter how well research, DID NOT KEEP HIM OUT OF THE CAGE.

And using the same tactics will not keep YOU out of the cage.

Sure, you can hide from the Feds for years, not filing 1040s, using gold & silver & barter, but eventually they'll find you out, because on one or more occasions you'll use TRACEABLE methods of commerce. Then you'll be given heavy fines. If you still refuse to pay tribute, they'll put you in a cage.

If you make yourself notable in any way, they'll come after you even more quickly. Al Capone went to the Federal cage not because of his many real crimes, but for tax evasion.

[JohnQPublic]

...No, I will NOT retract my statements about palani here. You KNOW I am right, Gaillo. Oh, and yes, I AM challenging your rules AND your authority...
Quantam:

I almost banned you for this. But since you stated this, I am going to give you another chance:


..OK, I will not argue my position any more. I only ask that you seriously & deeply ponder the purpose of such rules and your role in applying them. And then compare those rules and your role to the principles of liberty of the individual (recognizing that no man owns someone else, even if such person is "on someone else's property")...


I do not want to ban anyone, nor does Gaillo. If you want to argue Palani's points, do so, but don't resort to insults. Palani needs to follow this, also. If this continues, I may go for a short ban, or lock the topic and send it (or parts of it) to the thunderdome. Please keep your cool. I am interested in this topic, and am willing to consider various viewpoints. Your concerns about Palani misleading people into doing something which could get the a**es in trouble are valid, and I am glad you expressed them. Please back off the moderators, and don't challenge them. They have a hard job and don't need the extra stress of being attacked. Please consider this your final warning.

[Quantum]

Sometimes, people who would otherwise be non-taxpayers volunteer to be taxpayers.


Who is the man whose pictures I have posted? Did he volunteer to be a taxpayer? Is he residing where he is because he volunteered to be a taxpayer?


He's a jewish fella named Irwin who fought the IRS and lost. There are many "tax protesters" who fight the IRS using flawed arguments.

Here is a list of such arguments published by the IRS - http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

What is interesting is what that publication DOESN'T say..


Irwin Schiff is as smart, or smarter, than any of these clowns who claim they have "the" answers to avoiding taxes. He used the best "arguments," but words don't trump guns. And that's why people have to pay taxes; not because "it's the law," but because the IRS will come after you with guns (figuratively, mostly, but literally occasionally).

Schiff was absolutely right: "The Federal Mafia." You pay their tribute, or they send Special Agent Guido.

[SLV^GLD]

I knew it was Irwin Schiff, he was already mentioned in the thread so I saw no point in revisiting the topic.

I pay taxes. I made that abundantly clear at the beginning of this thread. Again, I saw no point in revisiting that topic either.

At this point in my life I have no interest in trying to untangle myself from the system. However, I am imminently interested in not volunteering my progeny to the system and therefore am deeply interested in this topic from the standpoint of how all this might affect someone who never consented or whatever term you choose to give it.

I'm not so certain that if an unencumbered person conducted their affairs appropriately that they would still be beholden to the IRS or any other bureaucracy.

My only interest in disentangling myself would be to remove any liabilities for my progeny. Failing that I'll opt to not procreate.

[Quantum]

Exactly, which is why you cannot lawfully have your property/labor stolen from you (unless you sign a permission slip saying it's ok...).


SG, please don't ever get me wrong: I regard the Internal Revenue Code as UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMMORAL.

It is not legitimate, authoritative law. It is "law" enforced by force of arms. And because it is the latter, one cannot use legal arguments to get out from under it.

My point is not that we are "legally obligated" to pay taxes. WE ARE FORCED BY GOVERNMENT THUGS TO DO SO.


We are "coerced", but it is ultimately us who puts our signatures on a form....

If a man is being escorted into prison, in a way, he is walking voluntarily if he is not being dragged.

They need our consent to make the System work.




That's a curious definition of "voluntary." You either walk, or you are beaten, possibly Tased, and end up in the same location, just hurting a whole lot more. If you resist enough, you might even get to leave...horizontally.

I can pay taxes, electronically, with no signatures, or I can just let them "come for me," and lose everything, probably my life, as well. It's cheaper to pay them tribute, for now.

[JohnQPublic]

Quantam, please read this. (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/ucc-1-207-question/msg67557/#msg67557)

[Quantum]

At this point in my life I have no interest in trying to untangle myself from the system. However, I am imminently interested in not volunteering my progeny to the system and therefore am deeply interested in this topic from the standpoint of how all this might affect someone who never consented or whatever term you choose to give it.


Taxes have been a reality since the rise of the State millennia ago. They ain't going away.

If you want less taxes from the Federal regime, the only way that's going to happen is for it to collapse.

Words won't do it. It didn't work in 1776, and it doesn't work now.




My only interest in disentangling myself would be to remove any liabilities for my progeny. Failing that I'll opt to not procreate.


A high tax burden on the working class (mostly White people) is one of the means by which to reduce births amongst our race.

If you fail to procreate as a protest against paying taxes, you simply remove the steps the government put in your way - the end result is the same, actually, much worse. Zero kids instead of two.

[Quantum]

I almost banned you for this. But since you stated this, I am going to give you another chance:


Banning me would serve WHAT purpose? Make you save face? Is this forum established for freedom of expression and exchange of ideas, or to stroke your ego? Are you afraid of mere words?

I hope you don't think I'm afraid of you pushing a few buttons. No truly free man is. Nor is a ban really much of an obstacle to participation on an Internet forum.




Please consider this your final warning.


Is your forum better with me or without me? If the answer is yes, YOU need to back off. If not, I'll leave on my accord, right now. Would you like a poll about this question, whether Quantum should stay or go? Are you up for that challenge? Can your EGO handle the possible result? Mine can.

You seriously need to get philosophical about your "rules," and THINK about what purpose they serve, and what they should serve. Rules serve people, not vice-versa.

[SLV^GLD]

That's your opinion, I respect it but I also reject it.

There is strong evidence that a person who never signs up for SSN and ALSO conducts themselves appropriately is outside the system in a pretty big way.

It's not just about taxes. It's about slavery. I refuse to produce another slave for the masters to work to death for their own enjoyment and gain.

I understand the implications of the rapidly disappearing white race and I am very torn in regards to it. I understand that maybe making another slave but fostering its mind may be a worthwhile venture but I remain unconvinced one way or the other.

The biological clock is definitely nearing its end, though.

Apologies to all for the tangent.

[JohnQPublic]

I almost banned you for this. But since you stated this, I am going to give you another chance:


Banning me would serve WHAT purpose? Make you save face? Is this forum established for freedom of expression and exchange of ideas, or to stroke your ego? Are you afraid of mere words?

I hope you don't think I'm afraid of you pushing a few buttons. No truly free man is. Nor is a ban really much of an obstacle to participation on an Internet forum.




Please consider this your final warning.


Is your forum better with me or without me? If the answer is yes, YOU need to back off. If not, I'll leave on my accord, right now. Would you like a poll about this question, whether Quantum should stay or go? Are you up for that challenge? Can your EGO handle the possible result? Mine can.

You seriously need to get philosophical about your "rules," and THINK about what purpose they serve, and what they should serve. Rules serve people, not vice-versa.


Quantum:

The rules are a feeble human attempt to make the forum civil for all participants. I am sorry it falls beneath your standards. I really do not want to see you go, but it is up to you. I will wait a day and see if you want to change your mind, but if you want I will delete your account as requested. This is not about my ego. This board is very open, and a lot of taboo topics are discussed every day, openly.

[UFM]

I almost banned you for this. But since you stated this, I am going to give you another chance:


Banning me would serve WHAT purpose? Make you save face? Is this forum established for freedom of expression and exchange of ideas, or to stroke your ego? Are you afraid of mere words?

I hope you don't think I'm afraid of you pushing a few buttons. No truly free man is. Nor is a ban really much of an obstacle to participation on an Internet forum.




Please consider this your final warning.


Is your forum better with me or without me? If the answer is yes, YOU need to back off. If not, I'll leave on my accord, right now. Would you like a poll about this question, whether Quantum should stay or go? Are you up for that challenge? Can your EGO handle the possible result? Mine can.

You seriously need to get philosophical about your "rules," and THINK about what purpose they serve, and what they should serve. Rules serve people, not vice-versa.


Quantum:

The rules are a feeble human attempt to make the forum civil for all participants. I am sorry it falls beneath your standards. I really do not want to see you go, but it is up to you. I will wait a day and see if you want to change your mind, but if you want I will delete your account as requested. This is not about my ego. This board is very open, and a lot of taboo topics are discussed every day, openly.



what happened to quantum? he was the only one speaking the truth - and damn he is a no bullshit kinda guy. tells it like it is. is that why you drove him out?

[jetgraphics]

Pardon my late (belated?) reply to this conundrum.
The argument over the definition of "person" is a nullity. The point is that when you declare yourself to be a "person liable", it's moot.

We know that the term "person", when used in statutes, explicitly excludes the sovereign - as in a sovereign individual. Government is not sovereign except over its subject citizens, etc.,etc. Government is the servant of the sovereign people. The subject citizens are the servants of government.

UCC 1-207 is not germane to the issue of national socialism and usury, since (a) the Uniform Commercial code is not law, (b) it is a guideline that State legislatures may or may not enact in its entirety. If you wish to use the UCC, you have to find your state's code designation for the specific clause. And many have already changed the enumeration of 1-207, so "reservation of rights" under that clause is ineffective.

Finally, the compact with Socialist InSecurity is not a contract for specific performance on their part. It is more akin to an application to participate in a charitable institution, where you agree to perform to the rules, in order to be eligible for the benefit.

To the best of my knowledge, the only people who are hassled by the Eye Are Us are those with (a) SSN, and (b) open interest bearing bank accounts (usury).
And those who are left alone, myself included (since 1993), do not have an SSN, nor an interest bearing bank account.
Furthermore, no instrumentality of the Federal Reserve will allow an unnumbered American to "accidentally" open an interest bearing account -- bless their hearts.

In the past, many pay-triots sold information that one could escape prosecution for traffic tickets, etc, by signing with a reservation of rights.

However, if you examine the various laws, they often are limited to "persons liable" and are in respect to a trespass - requiring licensure and obedience, regardless of what "rights" you thought you had. No one has a "right" to trespass. The government may extend a privilege to trespass, in specific cases, but that is determined by the specific civil liberty involved.
(A physician's license to practice medicine is the permission to trespass / injure his patient without criminal liability, as long as his treatment conforms to the norms of his profession.)

An American national, free inhabitant, domiciled upon his private property, within the boundaries of the USA retains his natural and personal liberty. Therefore, he has absolute freedom over his private property (land, house, tools, chattels - i.e., his "person") and can defend that private property with deadly force (as in "No Trespassing"). And personal liberty is the right of locomotion, the right to travel upon the public highways and waterways in his private automobile, boat, or whatever.
Anyone who lacks natural and personal liberty (i.e., resident / vagrant, debtor / bankrupt) needs permission (license) because it is a trespass. Non-residents are not prosecuted for failure to have license, tag, nor insurance.

After one restores his sovereign status by withdrawing consent, and establishing a domicile upon private property absolutely owned, it might be helpful to post notices like:
"This person is private property. No Trespassing. Trespassers will be shot."
"This automobile is private property. No Trespassing. Trespassers will be shot."
You get the idea.