Hand It Over, Now!

[Hatha Sunahara]

Today is the day. Better write a check for what you owe, or sign the 1040 and legally volunteer to give up any claim on the money you voluntarily pay to the individuals representing satan under penalty of going to prison.

Anybody ever hear of Peter Eric Hendrickson? He wrote a book called Cracking the Code, and the government threw him in jail faster than anybody could hear of him. You could Google him, or if you don't think it's worthwhile, go to this link:

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/CrkCod.htm

And click on the first link on the page to get a brief summary of what got this man thrown in jail.

I also know of a Sui Juris named Nord Davis who has a famous pamphlet called Pardon Me about roughly the same topic, but he's never gone to jail. Google that one and you'll get an eyeful.

I just went to the post office to mail my voluntary payment and consent form.

Hatha

[Hatha Sunahara]

And, here's a link to a YT Video about the same thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-dvHsAStcQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-dvHsAStcQ

See if that doesn't get your juices flowing.


Hatha

[Ares]

You only have to hand it over if you endorse Private Credit. Public I.E. Lawful Money is exempt from IRS confiscation as it is outside their jurisdiction.

Pete got busted because he perjured himself with the I.R.S. tax forms by admitting that he was endorsing Private Credit. If you Redeem Lawful Money Persuant to Title 12 USC 411 you are not subject to I.R.S. tax collections.

[7th trump]

You only have to hand it over if you endorse Private Credit. Public I.E. Lawful Money is exempt from IRS confiscation as it is outside their jurisdiction.

Pete got busted because he perjured himself with the I.R.S. tax forms by admitting that he was endorsing Private Credit. If you Redeem Lawful Money Persuant to Title 12 USC 411 you are not subject to I.R.S. tax collections.
A bunch of crap Ares. Private credit and fiat have absolutely nothing on taxes. theres no law on the books suggesting fiat has any imposing tax nature.
Hendrickson went to jail because he cant interpret the tax laws correctly.

Pete couldnt figure out that "employment" as defined at statute 26usc 3121(b) is the cause of having to volunteer a W4.
26usc 3402 says the W4 "exemption certificate" is only required upon commencment of "employment".
"Employment" is restrictively confined to, and for, the purpose of Social Security.
A W4 is no legal standing outside of participating in Social Security which is 100% voluntary to participate in (see administrative regulation 301.6109-1(d) for the voluntary nature of Social Security.

Only a fool follows David Merrill with his assinine theory that fiat currency is the cause of taxation on labor when Social security is the bases of imposing taxes on labor!

[palani]

Only a fool follows David Merrill with his assinine theory that fiat currency is the cause of taxation on labor when Social security is the bases of imposing taxes on labor!

Income tax predated social security.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Aaron Russo's America From Freedom to Fascism deals with the same topic--taxes. Here's the essence of the fraud the IRS is perpetrating on Americans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA&feature=related


Hatha

[Awoke]

God bless Aaron Russo.

Too bad he died. Suspicious IMO, but everyone else thinks it was a standard cancer death.

[7th trump]

Income tax predated social security.
And your point is what Palani?
The fact you cant comprehend simple arithmatic?


Chapter 21 (Social Security) didnt appear in the withholding and deduction Subtitle C-"Employment Taxes" until the 1939 code.
Funny thing about Social Security's 3121(b) "employment"....it dictates what is not taxable income.
Dont beleive me Palani.........read 3401(a) "wages"....the very "wages" that are taxed and deducted from paychecks.
Start right after it says "except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—"
Anything listed after that phrase is not to be taxed or deducted.

How many "3121" do you see in the list?
Theres 22 exclusions to the rule 3401(a) "wages" and 20 of them come right out of Social Security (26usc 3121) verbatum in some instances.

Like Pete Hendrickson and David merrill, Palani, you neither can comprehend tax law structure.
And when you dont understand the tax laws you make up conspiracies that dont exist!

[palani]

Like Pete Hendrickson and David merrill, Palani, you neither can comprehend tax law structure.
And when you dont understand the tax laws you make up conspiracies that dont exist!

Lincoln decided to fund his (un)civil war with bonds. They paid a certain percentage and matured between 10 years and 40 years. They called them 1040 bonds. Quite a coincidence don't you think?

The south boundary marker (a "corner stone") of the District of Columbia was set in place on April 15 of the early 1790's in a masonic ceremony. Quite a coincidence huh?

But you are right. I don't comprehend tax code. I have no need to comprehend tax code. Those who make a living comprehending tax code do so quite well. Myself, I choose to be ignorant of foreign law as the only point of studying it is to make it domestic and a duty.

[7th trump]

Lincoln decided to fund his (un)civil war with bonds. They paid a certain percentage and matured between 10 years and 40 years. They called them 1040 bonds. Quite a coincidence don't you think?

The south boundary marker (a "corner stone") of the District of Columbia was set in place on April 15 of the early 1790's in a masonic ceremony. Quite a coincidence huh?

But you are right. I don't comprehend tax code. I have no need to comprehend tax code. Those who make a living comprehending tax code do so quite well. Myself, I choose to be ignorant of foreign law as the only point of studying it is to make it domestic and a duty.

So, you dont study the tax laws to post an opinion of facts pertaining to the subject that effects millions of Americans which funds a run away tyrantical world dominating government.

In other words Palani, you are admiting you are unqualified, having nothing of any real value to say on the subject, except to inject playful trivia?

Ok then!

[Ares]

7th Trump

I have pointed out to you on other occasions that the endorsement of Private Credit is the act that obligates someone to pay income taxes. Your failure to see it is really not my problem. Show me one person that follows David Merrill's advice and is in prison from it. Show me one.

Social Security COULD NOT EXIST without the obligation of you binding your substance with your endorsement of Private Credit. You have it backwards.

[palani]

So, you dont study the tax laws to post an opinion of facts pertaining to the subject that effects millions of Americans which funds a run away tyrantical world dominating government. The tyrannical world dominating government operates on a set of logical rules. It really is quite an admirable form of government given the material it has to work with. Hopefully you will not take anything I have said to presume that I would like to see this government replaced because I could not imagine one which could perform better. You have the government you deserve yet don't seem to appreciate it much.


In other words Palani, you are admiting you are unqualified, having nothing of any real value to say on the subject, except to inject playful trivia?
I am qualified in my own law and that of my government. I enjoy relating historical facts that helped lead to the present government you classify as 'tyrantical world dominating'. This form of government is a recent phenomena though as previous generations performed immensely better in controlling their government than the present set of zombies.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I think that specialized knowledge of the law in any area is useful only to the people who are using that knowledge to manipulate and defraud the rest of us. A solid knowledge of the principles of the law, it's practices, and it's history coupled with some good common sense, and above all, honesty--or a sense of honor is all you need.

I suspect that the good common sense is what one needs when one sees how TPTB control us. They don't like people to rip their masks off, and expose what they are doing, because after all, there are some standards or honesty and civility that people require in order to interact peacefully. Aaron Russo in that video above pulled the mask off the IRS scam. He died of cancer shortly after he made that film. Common sense will tell you that this is an area that they are very sensitive about, and to stay away from it--mostly because it is so bizarrely transparent when you see the amount of social engineering they rely on. The law doesn't matter here. What matters is that people continue to believe what they were told is the law. And not to question it. Pay your taxes. It's the law. Even if it isn't. And if you see through this, shut up about it. If too many people see through the scam, then the jig is up. The scam is over. So, shut up or you'll end up like Aaron Russo. It's just good common sense. When its about taxes, don't question authority. That's the real law. I think we all know that, whether or not it agrees with our spirit. Consider it as one of TPTBs weak points.

Hatha

[7th trump]

7th Trump

I have pointed out to you on other occasions that the endorsement of Private Credit is the act that obligates someone to pay income taxes. Your failure to see it is really not my problem. Show me one person that follows David Merrill's advice and is in prison from it. Show me one.

Social Security COULD NOT EXIST without the obligation of you binding your substance with your endorsement of Private Credit. You have it backwards.
Ares,
For your education the federal reserve act was in 1913 and millions of Americans had it their pockets all the way up until 1940 when they first had to file a 1040 and only after they applied for a ssn.
Funny thing about 1940 is Social Security was seen in title 26 until 1939 one full year of deductions and withholdings leading up to 1940.

Merrill is backwards just like Hendrickson is backwards

[Ares]

Ares,
For your education the federal reserve act was in 1913 and millions of Americans had it their pockets all the way up until 1940 when they first had to file a 1040 and only after they applied for a ssn.
Funny thing about 1940 is Social Security was seen in title 26 until 1939 one full year of deductions and withholdings leading up to 1940.

Merrill is backwards just like Hendrickson is backwards

And I kindly remind you to go back and do some research. The ONLY reason Americans never paid an income tax until much much later wasn't because of the Social Slavery system. It was because they didn't have to claim any income that which was BELOW $6,000.00. Ironically enough that still stands today. However due to the federal reserves intentional inflation. That little 6,000 limit ensnares just about everyone now who endorses private credit.

Hendrickson wasn't backwards he just couldn't see the forest through the tree's. He thought he had "Cracked the code" and attempted to put into motion what he learned. He never went and researched historic law to gain a better understanding of what a taxable exchange is. He believed he was using Lawful Money and not subject to an Income Tax. When in reality he was only using Legal Tender because he endorsed it as such.

Believe what you will about David Merrill, but I've spent 3 years researching his work as well as others in the Lawful Money vs. Private Credit argument on my own to apply it to my life now. I am not in jail, nor am I being harassed by the IRS. I haven't read a single instance of ANYONE who endorses Lawful Money being rounded up by the IRS since it first started circulating around 2005. I've even spoken to individuals who have been endorsing Lawful Money since the 1990's, they hear nothing from the IRS. No annoying letters, no threatening legal documents nothing. The same cannot be said about the followers of Hendrickson. A lot of them are in a lot of legal trouble and it started the moment they filed an amended tax form. They perjured themselves.

Socialist Slavery is evil, you are absolutely without a doubt right on the money. HOWEVER if you endorse lawful money they cannot by law force you to fund it. It is voluntary even states in the social security act. You cannot be forced into bondage, you have to agree to it.

[7th trump]

And I kindly remind you to go back and do some research. The ONLY reason Americans never paid an income tax until much much later wasn't because of the Social Slavery system. It was because they didn't have to claim any income that which was BELOW $6,000.00. Ironically enough that still stands today. However due to the federal reserves intentional inflation. That little 6,000 limit ensnares just about everyone now who endorses private credit.

Hendrickson wasn't backwards he just couldn't see the forest through the tree's. He thought he had "Cracked the code" and attempted to put into motion what he learned. He never went and researched historic law to gain a better understanding of what a taxable exchange is. He believed he was using Lawful Money and not subject to an Income Tax. When in reality he was only using Legal Tender because he endorsed it as such.

Believe what you will about David Merrill, but I've spent 3 years researching his work as well as others in the Lawful Money vs. Private Credit argument on my own to apply it to my life now. I am not in jail, nor am I being harassed by the IRS. I haven't read a single instance of ANYONE who endorses Lawful Money being rounded up by the IRS since it first started circulating around 2005. I've even spoken to individuals who have been endorsing Lawful Money since the 1990's, they hear nothing from the IRS. No annoying letters, no threatening legal documents nothing. The same cannot be said about the followers of Hendrickson. A lot of them are in a lot of legal trouble and it started the moment they filed an amended tax form. They perjured themselves.

Socialist Slavery is evil, you are absolutely without a doubt right on the money. HOWEVER if you endorse lawful money they cannot by law force you to fund it. It is voluntary even states in the social security act. You cannot be forced into bondage, you have to agree to it.
Let me educate you a little about the tax laws Ares.
You say Americans werent taxed because they never made over 6,000.00 (or is that number more like 600.00).
Your problem Ares in your theory is not the fact they didnt earn more than 600.00. The problem with beleiving quacks like David Merrill and Hendrickson is that they never cover what causes the reporting to the government.

The reason Americans werent taxed on their labor is because up until 1935 (1913 for a very little amount of Americans) there wasnt any legislation for the private sector to have to report their earnings.
Lots of Americans earned over 600.00 dollars a year and werent required to file an income tax. It was that way because there wasnt any legislation requiring the reporting like Social Security.
The W4 exemption certificate statute can be found at 3402(a)(2) which it says-

"(2) Exemption certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled."

Did you see it Ares?
It says a W4 is only required upon commencment of "employment"!
Do you understand what a W3 is Ares?
A W3 is what the employer sends to the SSA.
You dont get a W3 unless you have commenced "employment".
Guess where "employment" is defined at Ares?
Its defined for the sole purpose of Social Securitry.
"Employment" as it defined doesnt exist outside of participating in Social Security.
And guess what!
Social Security is not mandated to participate in. Infact, Ares, theres no law any where on the books mandating all Americans to participate.....NONE!
BUT......there is a regulation stipulating that Social Security is voluntary.
See regulation 301.6109-1(d) for the voluntary nature of Social Security.

You need to stop listening to quacks like Merrill and Hendrickson and start thinking for yourself!
So your now you look like an idiot for listening to quacks who havent a damn clue to what they are talking about because there was no reporting requirements for the government to know if you earn 600.00 or more until they volunteered to participate in Social Security where they are in the activity of being "employed" which requires a W4 so the employer can send a W3 to the government telling how much you earned.

Think for yourself sometime Ares....you might find you supercede the mentality rate of those you listen to.

[Ares]

Let me educate you a little about the tax laws Ares.
You say Americans werent taxed because they never made over 6,000.00 (or is that number more like 600.00).
Your problem Ares in your theory is not the fact they didnt earn more than 600.00. The problem with beleiving quacks like David Merrill and Hendrickson is that they never cover what causes the reporting to the government.

The reason Americans werent taxed on their labor is because up until 1935 (1913 for a very little amount of Americans) there wasnt any legislation for the private sector to have to report their earnings.
Lots of Americans earned over 600.00 dollars a year and werent required to file an income tax. It was that way because there wasnt any legislation requiring the reporting like Social Security.
The W4 exemption certificate statute can be found at 3402(a)(2) which it says-

"(2) Exemption certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled."

Did you see it Ares?
It says a W4 is only required upon commencment of "employment"!
Do you understand what a W3 is Ares?
A W3 is what the employer sends to the SSA.
You dont get a W3 unless you have commenced "employment".
Guess where "employment" is defined at Ares?
Its defined for the sole purpose of Social Securitry.
"Employment" as it defined doesnt exist outside of participating in Social Security.
And guess what!
Social Security is not mandated to participate in. Infact, Ares, theres no law any where on the books mandating all Americans to participate.....NONE!
BUT......there is a regulation stipulating that Social Security is voluntary.
See regulation 301.6109-1(d) for the voluntary nature of Social Security.

You need to stop listening to quacks like Merrill and Hendrickson and start thinking for yourself!
So your now you look like an idiot for listening to quacks who havent a damn clue to what they are talking about because there was no reporting requirements for the government to know if you earn 600.00 or more until they volunteered to participate in Social Security where they are in the activity of being "employed" which requires a W4 so the employer can send a W3 to the government telling how much you earned.

Think for yourself sometime Ares....you might find you supercede the mentality rate of those you listen to.

Again, and this is the last time I'm going to say this. You need to go back and LOOK at the tax rates from when the income tax was instituted. I was wrong, these are the real numbers from the IRS back in 1913, up until World War II government didn't tax incomes below 4,000 (for couples) 3,000 (single) a year. That was A LOT of money back then. Equivalent to $66,000 dollars in today's money. Quit using the socialist slavery act as your cover. It's pointless it holds no relevance as the income tax PREDATES the Social Slavery act.

So you think endorsing Private Credit from a PRIVATE BANK has no repercussions? You think endorsing Private Credit from a PRIVATE BANK is not subject to a tax or duty but is reliant upon the social security act? I have done my own research, I do think for myself. I've followed this rabbit hole. I even sat back a couple years thinking the same thing you do now. This David guy is crazy. No way is he going to get away with this. But the more I read the more logical it became. Public money (Lawful money) is not subject to an income tax because that was put into existence by an act of congress and the Treasury I.E. it's the PUBLIC's money. Which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that it IS NOT SUBJECT TO AN INCOME TAX.. Instead, every time you endorse a paycheck you're telling the Federal Reserve system you want more Federal Reserve Notes and they go tell the Treasury "Hey these idiots want more of this taxable money, go sell some more bonds so I can use them as collateral to pump out more worthless Federal Reserve Notes."

If you redeem lawful money, you throw the system into reverse. The FED has to go to the Treasury and ask for PUBLIC (Lawful) Money because it doesn't have any. It got rid of it years ago when people thought Federal Reserve Notes are all there is. Go to any local coin dealer, they will have United States Notes on display and for sale. They are lawful money, Federal Reserve Notes are nothing more than Legal Tender. The Supreme Court has even said Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, but must be redeemed in lawful money upon demand. You see what they did there 7th Trump? They admitted that it's a PRIVATE credit codified into PRIVATE LAW. If it was public law it would be illegal. But it's nothing more than a code. You bind yourself to that code if you endorse it's issuance.

That isn't quackery, that is fact. Playing semantics with social slavery wordage is pointless and a fruitless endeavor because you're still endorsing the credit to fund it.

[7th trump]

Again, and this is the last time I'm going to say this. You need to go back and LOOK at the tax rates from when the income tax was instituted. I was wrong, these are the real numbers from the IRS back in 1913, up until World War II government didn't tax incomes below 4,000 (for couples) 3,000 (single) a year. That was A LOT of money back then. Equivalent to $66,000 dollars in today's money. Quit using the socialist slavery act as your cover. It's pointless it holds no relevance as the income tax PREDATES the Social Slavery act.

So you think endorsing Private Credit from a PRIVATE BANK has no repercussions? You think endorsing Private Credit from a PRIVATE BANK is not subject to a tax or duty but is reliant upon the social security act? I have done my own research, I do think for myself. I've followed this rabbit hole. I even sat back a couple years thinking the same thing you do now. This David guy is crazy. No way is he going to get away with this. But the more I read the more logical it became. Public money (Lawful money) is not subject to an income tax because that was put into existence by an act of congress and the Treasury I.E. it's the PUBLIC's money. Which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that it IS NOT SUBJECT TO AN INCOME TAX.. Instead, every time you endorse a paycheck you're telling the Federal Reserve system you want more Federal Reserve Notes and they go tell the Treasury "Hey these idiots want more of this taxable money, go sell some more bonds so I can use them as collateral to pump out more worthless Federal Reserve Notes."

If you redeem lawful money, you throw the system into reverse. The FED has to go to the Treasury and ask for PUBLIC (Lawful) Money because it doesn't have any. It got rid of it years ago when people thought Federal Reserve Notes are all there is. Go to any local coin dealer, they will have United States Notes on display and for sale. They are lawful money, Federal Reserve Notes are nothing more than Legal Tender. The Supreme Court has even said Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money, but must be redeemed in lawful money upon demand. You see what they did there 7th Trump? They admitted that it's a PRIVATE credit codified into PRIVATE LAW. If it was public law it would be illegal. But it's nothing more than a code. You bind yourself to that code if you endorse it's issuance.

That isn't quackery, that is fact. Playing semantics with social slavery wordage is pointless and a fruitless endeavor because you're still endorsing the credit to fund it.
You should stop listening to quacks like merrill and hendrickson....they both do not incorporate the mechanism of what causes "reporting".
Most Americans were NOT required to file any 1040 because the government until 1939 didnt have a way for employers to report to the government about their employees.
If you do not participate in Social Security then no W4 is required (per 26usc 3401(a)(2) and therefore the employer doesnt have to report to the government via a W3.
No W4 means no W2's....no W2's means the government doesnt have any evidence on you having taxable income.
That is logic Ares.....something Merrill doesnt have.
Oh...by the way, did you know your guru "David Merrill Vanpelt" is in the official government records as being "incompetent".
Thats right......hes legally and officially "incompetent".
And you want to take ideas and thoughts of an "incompetent" theorist who cant even procure one(1) shred of statutory evidence that having fiat in your pocket causes your labor to get taxed!
I can provide evidence all day long linking the income tax to Social Security participation.
Oh heres one such piece of evidence that Merrill (your precious incompetent guru) doesnt like getting rubbed in his face.

"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



Yeah he doesnt want that getting out just like he doesnt want this one getting to his followers.


"RM 00206.066 Inquiries Based on IRS Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Backup Withholding Program
A. BACKGROUND
IRS regulations require payers of interest and dividends to provide IRS with the correct name and TIN of the payee. For individuals, the TIN is usually the SSN. IRS periodically provides payers with lists of TINs that do not match their records.
Since IRS records are created from SSA data, it may be necessary for the individual to contact SSA to correct or verify information contained on SSA records. In some cases, the individual will request that SSA provide third party verification to the interest payer.
Interest payers are required to withhold 31 percent of the interest or other reportable payments due when the individual does not provide a valid TIN. Those individuals who are notified for the first time that the name and TIN supplied by the payer to IRS does not match IRS data only need to notify the payer that they have taken corrective action. Those individuals notified of a discrepancy for the second time in a three year period must provide proof to the payer that they have a valid SSN through SSA third party verification before backup withholding can be discontinued. "

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100206066

And you want to tell me Social Security has nothing at all to do with the IRS and their record source huh?
You're gullible Ares.....and to an "incompetent" at that.

[Ares]

Being called an "incompetent" by someone who he himself is incompetent is a badge of honor coming form you. So if I'm an incompetent so be it.

Resorting to name calling shows a lack of intelligence as well as a lack of an argument. But hey whatever floats your boat. I'm not going to lower myself to your level of incompetence. Income tax PREDATES social slavery by 22 years. Yet somehow the IRS didn't collect taxes until social slavery was legislated into existence? Give me a fucking break.

I'll say it again, Social slavery is not the crux of this argument. It's the endorsement of Private Credit. Congress AND the U.S. Supreme Court also say otherwise to your word play of social slavery. You want evidence, well here you go.


US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182 wrote:
In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money. Meaning FRN's are NOT lawful money. It is Private Credit codified into PRIVATE LAW.


US v Ware; 608 F.2d 400 wrote:
United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

Gee I wonder what is used for duties on imports and interest on the public debt???? Hmm I wonder if it's Federal Reserve Notes. The source of the public debt to begin with?? Maybe... just maybe


31 USC § 5115 - United States currency notes
(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes—
(1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation—
(1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.


So why keep $300,000,000 in existence if there is no such thing as Lawful Money huh 7th Trump? 31 USC 5115 is still law, hasn't been amended or revoked. Notice that it is the TREASURY that issues said notes, not the Federal Reserve Bank.


United States v. Thomas 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 04/17/1986)
Currency, however, differs substantially [**13] from such objects. Paper currency, in the form of the Federal Reserve Note, is defined as an "obligation[] of the United States" that may be "redeemed in [*645] lawful money on demand." 12 U.S.C. § 411 (2002). These bills are not "money" per se but promissory notes supported by the monetary reserves of the United States.

Huh isn't that something? Even the courts say that FRN's are obligations and must be redeemed upon demand. Just more fantasy and quackery here.


12 USC § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption 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. (You see that 7thTrump? FRN's ARE NOT EVEN MEANT FOR YOU OR I) 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.

Even written into the Federal Reserve charter. Yet somehow this is all fantasy and quackery to you?

When you redeem lawful money you are stating you do not want Federal Reserve notes. You are not bound by the taxes, duties, fee's associated with it's usage as long as you redeem it. Not even social slavery can be taken out as long as you redeem lawful money.

But again, that's just quackery coming from an "incompetent."

[sirgonzo420]

Being called an "incompetent" by someone who he himself is incompetent is a badge of honor coming form you. So if I'm an incompetent so be it.

Resorting to name calling shows a lack of intelligence as well as a lack of an argument. But hey whatever floats your boat. I'm not going to lower myself to your level of incompetence. Income tax PREDATES social slavery by 22 years. Yet somehow the IRS didn't collect taxes until social slavery was legislated into existence? Give me a fucking break.

I'll say it again, Social slavery is not the crux of this argument. It's the endorsement of Private Credit. Congress AND the U.S. Supreme Court also say otherwise to your word play of social slavery. You want evidence, well here you go.

Meaning FRN's are NOT lawful money. It is Private Credit codified into PRIVATE LAW.





So why keep $300,000,000 in existence if there is no such thing as Lawful Money huh 7th Trump? 31 USC 5115 is still law, hasn't been amended or revoked. Notice that it is the TREASURY that issues said notes, not the Federal Reserve Bank.



Huh isn't that something? Even the courts say that FRN's are obligations and must be redeemed upon demand. Just more fantasy and quackery here.



Even written into the Federal Reserve charter. Yet somehow this is all fantasy and quackery to you?

When you redeem lawful money you are stating you do not want Federal Reserve notes. You are not bound by the taxes, duties, fee's associated with it's usage as long as you redeem it. Not even social slavery can be taken out as long as you redeem lawful money.

But again, that's just quackery coming from an "incompetent."



12 USC 411 is originally found in Section 16 of the original Federal Reserve Act.

The original Federal Reserve Act says nothing of Social Security.

Anyway, fun thread.

[palani]

The original Federal Reserve Act says nothing of Social Security.


That original act occurred in 1913. In law the only entity that lasts longer than 99 years is a charitable trust and the Federal Reserve is private and not trustworthy. The U.S. constitution is a charitable trust as is the Louisiana Purchase.

At any rate toward the end of 2012 we should see some signs of the Federal Reserve either dissolving entirely or undergoing a restructure that results in an entity with the same name (or similar) formed.

[Camp Bassfish]

At any rate toward the end of 2012 we should see ....... the end of the world????


~carry on~

[palani]

the end of the world????



Not mine. I don't believe in acting in the capacity of an unpaid agent. The Federal Reserve is a legal fiction. It does not exist. Things that do not exist have no credit to loan.

[7th trump]

Being called an "incompetent" by someone who he himself is incompetent is a badge of honor coming form you. So if I'm an incompetent so be it.

Resorting to name calling shows a lack of intelligence as well as a lack of an argument. But hey whatever floats your boat. I'm not going to lower myself to your level of incompetence. Income tax PREDATES social slavery by 22 years. Yet somehow the IRS didn't collect taxes until social slavery was legislated into existence? Give me a fucking break.

I'll say it again, Social slavery is not the crux of this argument. It's the endorsement of Private Credit. Congress AND the U.S. Supreme Court also say otherwise to your word play of social slavery. You want evidence, well here you go.

Meaning FRN's are NOT lawful money. It is Private Credit codified into PRIVATE LAW.



Gee I wonder what is used for duties on imports and interest on the public debt???? Hmm I wonder if it's Federal Reserve Notes. The source of the public debt to begin with?? Maybe... just maybe



So why keep $300,000,000 in existence if there is no such thing as Lawful Money huh 7th Trump? 31 USC 5115 is still law, hasn't been amended or revoked. Notice that it is the TREASURY that issues said notes, not the Federal Reserve Bank.



Huh isn't that something? Even the courts say that FRN's are obligations and must be redeemed upon demand. Just more fantasy and quackery here.



Even written into the Federal Reserve charter. Yet somehow this is all fantasy and quackery to you?

When you redeem lawful money you are stating you do not want Federal Reserve notes. You are not bound by the taxes, duties, fee's associated with it's usage as long as you redeem it. Not even social slavery can be taken out as long as you redeem lawful money.

But again, that's just quackery coming from an "incompetent."
So you can redeem reserve note into lawful money.....big deal. It has nothing at all to do with Social Security and its reporting structure.
Heres the "excise" behind the income tax.

"a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—"

I doubt you understand what the excise is Ares.
A clue for you Ares.
The excise is "employment" as even the employer is taxed for the employee's voluntary participation of Social Security.
Since when is working a privilege Ares?
I'll tell when......since 1935 when the Act introduced "employment" to the private sector....but what do you know anyway.....you've been following a legally "incompetent".
Before the 1939 code the wroking class common Joe was never taxed before.

[Serpo]

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

[Ares]

So you can redeem reserve note into lawful money.....big deal. It has nothing at all to do with Social Security and its reporting structure.
Heres the "excise" behind the income tax.

WRONG!!!! It has everything to do with the reporting structure. You withdraw consent to The District by redeeming lawful money. You are saying I want no part of the "benefit" or the fee's attached to it.


"a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—"

I doubt you understand what the excise is Ares.
A clue for you Ares.
The excise is "employment" as even the employer is taxed for the employee's voluntary participation of Social Security.
Since when is working a privilege Ares?
I'll tell when......since 1935 when the Act introduced "employment" to the private sector....but what do you know anyway.....you've been following a legally "incompetent".
Before the 1939 code the wroking class common Joe was never taxed before

*sigh* so you admit that redeeming lawful money is in fact written into law and upheld by courts throughout the land. Yet for some reason can't wrap your head around the fact that they can only tax Federal Reserve Notes. Under Lawful Money Social Slavery is illegal, you cannot steal from one and have it given to another. That's the cost of the "benefit" of accepting Private Credit.

Working class common Joe wasn't taxed because he didn't make enough to be taxed under the IRS own taxation code for that time period. The communist FDR touted that Social Slavery was voluntary, also SSA (FICA) wasn't covered for all employers. That didn't happen until much later.

We can agree to disagree, that's fine. But get off your high and mighty horse as you haven't impressed anyone with your banter about social slavery. It may compel the employers to take part to get their tax breaks, but I feel no need to contribute "my fair share" considering I won't be getting a dime of it in return after it implodes. So I'll keep redeeming lawful money withdrawing my consent.

[7th trump]

WRONG!!!! It has everything to do with the reporting structure. You withdraw consent to The District by redeeming lawful money. You are saying I want no part of the "benefit" or the fee's attached to it.



*sigh* so you admit that redeeming lawful money is in fact written into law and upheld by courts throughout the land. Yet for some reason can't wrap your head around the fact that they can only tax Federal Reserve Notes. Under Lawful Money Social Slavery is illegal, you cannot steal from one and have it given to another. That's the cost of the "benefit" of accepting Private Credit.

Working class common Joe wasn't taxed because he didn't make enough to be taxed under the IRS own taxation code for that time period. The communist FDR touted that Social Slavery was voluntary, also SSA (FICA) wasn't covered for all employers. That didn't happen until much later.

We can agree to disagree, that's fine. But get off your high and mighty horse as you haven't impressed anyone with your banter about social slavery. It may compel the employers to take part to get their tax breaks, but I feel no need to contribute "my fair share" considering I won't be getting a dime of it in return after it implodes. So I'll keep redeeming lawful money withdrawing my consent.
Get off your high horse Ares....you havent a clue!
Redeeming lawful money has a purpose otherwise it wouldnt be written and codified. However, it has no relation to what causes the imposition of the federal income tax or the reporting mechanism of income.
Social Security's 3121(b) "employment" is tied to both having overwhelming evidence....and yet nothing has ever been found regulatory or statutorily linking fiat reserve notes to the income tax.
Theres no mention of reserve notes in Title 26 period!
Show me one piece of evidence in title 26 linking fiat reserve notes to any, and I mean any, imposition found in Title 26.
Just one Ares....just one!

I gues you cant say a damn thing about this can you Ares?

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

"SSA Numident data is sent to IRS each week in the format IRS requested. This information is then used to update the IRS database"

Dont want to comment huh?

[Ares]

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.

Sure I'll bite, but you're just going to say I don't have a clue anyway.

When you redeem lawful money THERE IS NO REPORTING. So that entire section means nothing to people like me who redeem. I do not contribute so there is nothing to report or to request for a return.

Your social slave number is used for reporting / accounting purposes for the endorsement of Private Credit. It's also used to track what you contribute and what they owe you in "benefits." Stop endorsing private credit, you owe them nothing, and they owe you nothing.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I just would like to know how our 'income tax' is any different from feudal serfdom? Or 'sharecropping'? Peasants had to hand over a portion of their product--whatever it was--grain, cattle, wine, whatever, to the landlord. That's how it worked at a time when money was not widely used among the producers of goods. Today it's much easier. Because all value is measured in money. The best way to avoid taxation is to avoid using money. Bartering is the IRS's worst nightmare.


Hatha

[palani]

The best way to avoid taxation is to avoid using money. Bartering is the IRS's worst nightmare.
Hatha

Money was used to balance out unequal trades.

[7th trump]

Sure I'll bite, but you're just going to say I don't have a clue anyway.

When you redeem lawful money THERE IS NO REPORTING. So that entire section means nothing to people like me who redeem. I do not contribute so there is nothing to report or to request for a return.

Your social slave number is used for reporting / accounting purposes for the endorsement of Private Credit. It's also used to track what you contribute and what they owe you in "benefits." Stop endorsing private credit, you owe them nothing, and they owe you nothing.
Ok Ares heres where Merrill goes silent and only responds by making shit up to avoid what he cant get around.
The corner stone of Social Security is "employment".
"Employment" is defined as-

(b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed
(A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either..................

Now the pay you receive when in "employment" is a "wage".
This "wage" is defined term.

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include—

Now Ares you do understand what is meant by "means all remuneration for employment"?
This means anything and everything....even includes "cash value" of benefits.

My question posed to merrill which hasnt yet been answered "CORRECTLY" (Merrill always sidesteps in giving a straight up "yes" or "no" answer).
Let me ask you the same question I've asked Merrill and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from.

If an employee decides to participate in Social Security (being statutorily employed) where the earnings are tallied and reported as "income" via the employers transmittal W3 to the SSA and endorses his paycheck for lawful money at the end of the week. How is the employee not liable for taxes?
These same Chapter 21 Social Security 3121(a) "wages" the private sector earns ONLY through participating in Social Security the government also defines as 3401(a) "wages" in chapter 24 for the deduction of the Section 1 "income" tax.

My question Merrill never answers (and pete hendrickson) and avoids the question like the plaque raises the question that by participating in Social Security your earnings are not only subject to reporting, but also subject to deduction and withholding regardless how or what you are paid for your services.
Merrill has yet to explain if the employee endorses lawful money (after all taxes are deductions) and yet still has a W3 reporting amounts earned to the government how does his THEORY stop all the info in the SSA databanks from going to the IRS who will assess a tax based on what is reported?

My arguement is the SSA doesnt stop the W3 info from going the IRS. The IRS will eventually catch up and send a deficiency letter, a demand a 1040 be filed, or letter stating a substitute return has been file by the IRS who will then file a deficiency (from a lack of deductions withheld) which if goes ignored you'll be noticed to a day in court to explain why you didnt pay up.

As far as why nobody has been to jail using merrills theory of endorsing is because hes practically new to the scene.....give this some time Ares....hendrickson wasnt sent to jail for several years after his book was published as well as Schiff wasnt convicted for almost a decade afterwards.

Give it some time Ares as merrill hasnt completely thought through his theory yet.
Merrill is following Hendrickson foot steps to a TEE as far as leaving out the reporting aspect of "income".

Just give it some time!

[Hatha Sunahara]

Money was used to balance out unequal trades.

And the serfs paid their taxes in whatever they produced. Chickens, bushels of wheat, jugs of wine, &c. If you don't accept money for your labor, but take something else--like gold or silver coins (which are no longer money), your income--they way they measure it on the 1040 is ZERO (in dollars)

There is a great discussion of money that illustrates your point Palani, here:

http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html about one third down the page:




A ‘fairy’ tale

Let us look at another historical instance of clearing that was vitally important in the Middle Ages: the institution of city fairs. The most notable ones were the annual fairs of Lyon in France, and Seville in Spain. They lasted up to a month and attracted fair-goers from places as far as 500 miles away. People brought their merchandise to sell, and a shopping list of merchandise to buy. One thing they did not bring was gold coins. They hoped to pay for their purchases with the proceeds of their sales. This presented the problem that one had to sell before one could buy, but the amount of gold coins available at the fair was far smaller than the amount of merchandise to sell. Fairs would have been a total failure but for the institution of clearing. Buying one merchandise while, or even before, selling another could be consummated perfectly well without the physical mediation of the gold coin. Naturally, gold was needed to finalize the deals at the end of the fair, but only to the extent of the difference between the amount of purchases and sales. In the meantime, purchases and sales were made through the use of scrip money issued by the clearing house to fair-goers when they registered their merchandise upon arrival.

Those who would call scrip money "credit created out of nothing" were utterly blind to the true nature of the transaction. Fairgoers did not need a loan. What they needed, and got, was an instrument of clearing: the scrip, representing self-liquidating credit.In this example the scrip money at the fair had value only through its use at the fair, not intrinsic in itself. After the fair, if you ended up with a trade surplus (extra scrip money), you turned in your medium of exchange for gold coins, the tradable store of value at the time. Can you imagine how this concept could work in a fair that's open for business 24/7/365?But if you don't accept FRNs, what logic does the IRS use to tax you? Do you remember that fellow who paid his employees in gold coins? The IRS made up a rule that forced him to stop. I don't remember what that rule was--but it drives them crazy if people don't measure their compensation in FRNs.

Maybe if we used BitCoins to effect exchanges we could get out of paying taxes for as long as it takes the IRS to make it taxable. I seriously doubt that anyone reports bitcoin transactions to the IRS.

Hatha

.

[Serpo]

And the serfs paid their taxes in whatever they produced. Chickens, bushels of wheat, jugs of wine, &c. If you don't accept money for your labor, but take something else--like gold or silver coins (which are no longer money), your income--they way they measure it on the 1040 is ZERO (in dollars)

There is a great discussion of money that illustrates your point Palani, here:

http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html about one third down the page:

But if you don't accept FRNs, what logic does the IRS use to tax you? Do you remember that fellow who paid his employees in gold coins? The IRS made up a rule that forced him to stop. I don't remember what that rule was--but it drives them crazy if people don't measure their compensation in FRNs.

Maybe if we used BitCoins to effect exchanges we could get out of paying taxes for as long as it takes the IRS to make it taxable. I seriously doubt that anyone reports bitcoin transactions to the IRS.

Hatha

.

They seem closely related to the FED

[palani]

There is a great discussion of money that illustrates your point
Hatha

.

Good find. Thanks

[7th trump]

Here another angle of why merrill is wrong and palani (only because he follows Merrill).
Coins are minted by the US Mint....they are NOT fiat reserve coins, but US Treasury issue.
By Merrills standards (411 statute) lawful money is any Treasury issue currency.

See if the IRS cant ask the DOJ to prosecute you for not paying taxes because you were paid in "lawful" US mint dollar coins.
See how far Merrills theory last in court.

Stop the reporting and the IRS has nothing on what you earned.
To stop the reporting one must stop the W3 and in order to stop the W3 one must not sign a W4.
No where was the statute on the requirement to file a W4?
Ohhhhhh Yaaaaaa.......... it right here 26usc 3402(f)(2)


(2) Exemption certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.And just where is the definition to "employment" again?
Ohhh yes.........its located in the Social Security Act, having no legal standing outside the purpose of the Act which is to calculate welfare benefits.
"Employment" has no legal bearing outside the Act.
And looky here............an administrative regulation stating a SSN is not required if the individual wishes not to participate....whats this mean?



(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

It means a W4 is not required to work in the US.

Its not magic to know when the IRS catches up with Merrill its not going to be pretty for him!
And all those fools who beleived in Merrill will retreat thinking theres a conspiracy when the reality of it is they were listen to an idiot who couldnt find one statute supporting his "lawful money" theory.
Theres a reason why theres a lawful money clause, but it has nothing at all to do with why your taxed on your labor.
Stupid is what stupid does!

[palani]

Here another angle of why merrill is wrong and palani (only because he follows Merrill).

The government pays no interest on minted coinage. Neither are these coins reportable to any private entity. Re-think episodes in the past where people have attempted to pay fines and such with coinage and the trouble they find themselves in. Not only does the system not want to be paid in lawful money they want their own DEBT INSTRUMENTS back. I don't believe government is ABLE to be paid in any form of coinage (for the entire amount due).

As to following David Merrill's advice, I accept no checks and neither do I issue any. His non-endorsement method only applies to checks. I have no such account.


It means a W4 is not required to work in the US.
I am without the United States.

[7th trump]

The government pays no interest on minted coinage. Neither are these coins reportable to any private entity. Re-think episodes in the past where people have attempted to pay fines and such with coinage and the trouble they find themselves in. The system does not want to be paid in lawful money. They want their own DEBT INSTRUMENTS back.

As to following David Merrill's advice, I accept no checks and neither do I issue any. His non-endorsement method only applies to checks. I have no such account.


I am without the United States.
Without the United States hu......... well good for you Palani.
But your point is moot!

For one, Palani the term "United States" is found in the Social Security Act.

(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

That definition is describing federal jurisdiction isnt it Palani?
So if you are participating in Social Security you are within their jurisdiction and not any reserve banks.
See how much Merrill doesnt understand?
Hes legally incompetent....and it shows!
It would have been funny to see the look on his face when I asked him why they dont make you file a w4 when opening a bank account1
He didnt like it one bit, but then again I was exposing the idiot for what he is.


I made the point that being paid in lawful or not the Social Security Administration will report the amounts to the IRS.
I can be paid in fiat and not participate (stopping the reporting) and the IRS still knows nothing of what I earned.
This is why the IRS never knows anything when working under the "W4" table.
Its really that simple Palani!
Besides from 1913 to 1935 millions of Americans had fiat in their pockets and werent required to file an income tax. Not until they applied and recieved a ssn to work under the reporting requirments of Social Security's 3121(b) "employment".

[palani]

Without the United States hu......... well good for you Palani.
But your point is moot!

For one, Palani the term "United States" is found in the Social Security Act.

(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

That definition is describing federal jurisdiction isnt it Palani?
So if you are participating in Social Security you are within their jurisdiction and not any reserve banks.

I have no social security number. If the State of Iowa were anything other than an administrative subdivision of the United States then I might be there but they are not so there is another MOOT point for you.



I can be paid in fiat and not participate (stopping the reporting) and the IRS still knows nothing of what I earned. I refuse fiat because the U.S. debt is so out of whack ... there might be no fraud (aka material misrepresentation of a material matter of fact) in the accepting of it but the act of passing the debt along to another unsuspecting schmuck is rife with fraud. I don't accept fiat for that reason. If I did accept fiat I would be required to play by the rules established for this lawform. To do otherwise also involves fraud. Here is why:

Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.

Contra negantem principia non est disputandum. There is no disputing against or denying principles.

[Bigjon]

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100206065



Yeah he doesnt want that getting out just like he doesnt want this one getting to his followers.




https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0100206066

And you want to tell me Social Security has nothing at all to do with the IRS and their record source huh?
You're gullible Ares.....and to an "incompetent" at that.

When I click on your links, I get

"Error 404
HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - Entry not found in index"

Apparently you have special access I don't have.

My question is just who are you and who is your employer?

[BrewTech]

When I click on your links, I get

"Error 404
HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - Entry not found in index"

Apparently you have special access I don't have.

My question is just who are you and who is your employer?


Funny, I thought that question was answered long ago.

[7th trump]

When I click on your links, I get

"Error 404
HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - Entry not found in index"

Apparently you have special access I don't have.

My question is just who are you and who is your employer?
Theres no special access. The website has been changed and url is not correct from it.

I'm from Iowa and an electrician whos been studying the tax code since 1995.
Palani doesnt live far from me.....45 minutes to an hour apart.
I agree with palani on just about everything he says except I dont give any credence to David Merrill and this lawful money theory. I say theory because theres absolutely no evidence in support. Nothing in Title 26 even remotely related to fiat.
All the evidence points to Social Security....all reporting requirements are found within the statutes and regulations of Social Security......not to mention the imposition of the income tax requires 3121(a) "wages" to be earned.
26usc 3401(a) "wages" is what the government requires to be earned in order for deductions and tax to be subtracted from your paycheck.
The only way for the private sector to earn 3401(a) "wages" is when they earn 26usc 3121(a) "wages" which the result of being a participant of Social Security's 3121(b) "employment".

Anyway Merrill doesnt like it when shown how the law works and bans the person for bringing it to his forum.
Same way with Pete Hendrickson......he'll ban you in a second.

Merrill wants to be the first guru who's beaten the system and Hendrickson is no different.
They are both egotistical.

[Ares]

Theres no special access. The website has been changed and url is not correct from it.

I'm from Iowa and an electrician whos been studying the tax code since 1995.
Palani doesnt live far from me.....45 minutes to an hour apart.
I agree with palani on just about everything he says except I dont give any credence to David Merrill and this lawful money theory. I say theory because theres absolutely no evidence in support. Nothing in Title 26 even remotely related to fiat.
All the evidence points to Social Security....all reporting requirements are found within the statutes and regulations of Social Security......not to mention the imposition of the income tax requires 3121(a) "wages" to be earned.
26usc 3401(a) "wages" is what the government requires to be earned in order for deductions and tax to be subtracted from your paycheck.
The only way for the private sector to earn 3401(a) "wages" is when they earn 26usc 3121(a) "wages" which the result of being a participant of Social Security's 3121(b) "employment".

Anyway Merrill doesnt like it when shown how the law works and bans the person for bringing it to his forum.
Same way with Pete Hendrickson......he'll ban you in a second.

Merrill wants to be the first guru who's beaten the system and Hendrickson is no different.
They are both egotistical.

There is no reference to Lawful Money in Title 26 because they have no jurisdiction over it. To them, lawful money DOES NOT EXIST. But the Courts, as well as American law says that it does. The lawful money theory didn't originate with David Merrill, but he has "revived" it I guess you could say. There are individuals long before David Merrill came along redeeming lawful money. Like I've mentioned earlier I've had correspondence with individuals who have been redeeming since the mid to late 90's. They blamed Ruby Ridge for their withdrawal from the system. They too do not fund social slavery, or pay an income tax. Yet they are still out of jail and not being harassed by the IRS.

Like you, I thought David was full of shit and figured he'd wind up where Pete Hinderickson is now. Behind bars doing 10-20 for tax fraud in a federal prison. Unlike Pete, David doesn't endorse the use of Private Credit.

7th Trump I think there is more than one way to slay this beast. You and David could both be correct but have different methods for achieving the same goal. There's no reason to not learn other methods to slay a beast that seeks to enslave and rob you.

I'll keep redeeming lawful money and I'll let everyone including you know what my results are next year when I amend my tax status. So far I haven't had any issues with my banking institution or my employer.

[7th trump]

Well Ares if fiat was the cause for the federal income tax they'd have the imposing statutes in title 26 where the tax laws are all combined....but you know what the only tax laws i can find all relate to a W4. The W4 is directly associated with "employment" and not the associated with fiat currency.
"Employment" is restrictively confined to the participation of Social Security. It cannot be enforced outside of participation in Social Security. And I've supplied the administrative regulation stating an individual doesnt have to participate in SS. So that means a W4 isnt required to work in America and therefore the W3 transmittal is stopped dead in its tracks. The government has no financial information about you in its database which is what you want to accomplish. Merrill cannot accomplish this through redeeming process.
You have to stop all reporting to the government period and that only done when you do not participate in Social Security.
Like I said to a few of merrills followers..........."if the income tax was a result of fiat currency then banks would require a W4 upon opening an account, but you know what W4 are issued by employers and not banks.

[palani]

Banks have your signature on their signature card stating that you agree to abide by all the regulations of the Federal Reserve system. As no one ever asks to see a complete set of these regulations they have enough to hold you accountable (your signature takes the matter out of the Statute of Fraud).

I have the 1866 Iowa code that instructs each county treasurer to keep track of specie separate from paper money (aka two sets of books). There are actually not two books for the same entity but rather one set of books for EACH entity. The constitutional state vs the federal fiat overlay.

The federal fiat overlay state is the one that has it's tit in a wringer now. The constitutional state is looking pretty solvent.

[7th trump]

Banks have your signature on their signature card stating that you agree to abide by all the regulations of the Federal Reserve system. As no one ever asks to see a complete set of these regulations they have enough to hold you accountable (your signature takes the matter out of the Statute of Fraud).

I have the 1866 Iowa code that instructs each county treasurer to keep track of specie separate from paper money (aka two sets of books). There are actually not two books for the same entity but rather one set of books for EACH entity. The constitutional state vs the federal fiat overlay.

The federal fiat overlay state is the one that has it's tit in a wringer now. The constitutional state is looking pretty solvent.
Ok, big ass deal palani...... so the signiture card says you'll abide to the rules of the federal reserve system..............what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The statutory and regulatory requirement to "withhold", "deduct" and "report" for the imposition of the federal income tax has nothing at all to do with the federal resever system......NONE, NADDA...ZILCH!
It has everything to do with participating in Social Security.

Show me one Title 26 statute where the federal reserve system is imposing the income tax?
Heck for the matter Palani show me the law where everyone is "deducted and withheld" for having a banks signiture card!

[palani]

Heck for the matter Palani show me the law where everyone is "deducted and withheld" for having a banks signiture card!

Have you checked with your bank's attorney to see what laws and policies you have agreed to by providing a signature card?

The problem with people with theories is they fail to anticipate all the possible ways the system can extract its "due". While there could be some truth in every method used an absolute truth is that the slightest defect will be used by the system to "discourage" that method.

My own method is to establish a policy that I will only use specie in my business dealings. Specie has been defined by the courts as being of either gold or silver. I adhere to that policy strictly. Corporations use fiat money. Corporations have no social security numbers. Do corporations file tax under Title 26?

[iOWNme]

It would be interesting to see if anyone who has ever been convicted of 'willful failure to file' also had a SS number. Do you think you can find one person in prison who does not have a SS number, but still was convicted? Do you think a jury understands this? Do you think a judge would even allow it to be discussed?

Its not like the Judge says "This man volunteered for SS, which means he must pay income tax, everything else is a moot point. You will convict".

Which makes me consider this: Lets say you do 'voluntarily' leave SS, could you still 'consent' to paying income tax through various other forms of 'consent'? Like US citizenship?

[palani]

could you still 'consent' to paying income tax through various other forms of 'consent'? Like US citizenship?

Once you appear in the body politic the rules of the body politic apply to you. Voter registration. Drivers license. Home delivery of mail. Use of a zip code. Evidence of commercial presence (paying bills). Having a single FRN note in your pocket.

You might present evidence of in itinere status ... you are moving through the jurisdiction as a transient. Apologize for your ignorance in not knowing the local rules.

[7th trump]

Have you checked with your bank's attorney to see what laws and policies you have agreed to by providing a signature card?

The problem with people with theories is they fail to anticipate all the possible ways the system can extract its "due". While there could be some truth in every method used an absolute truth is that the slightest defect will be used by the system to "discourage" that method.

My own method is to establish a policy that I will only use specie in my business dealings. Specie has been defined by the courts as being of either gold or silver. I adhere to that policy strictly. Corporations use fiat money. Corporations have no social security numbers. Do corporations file tax under Title 26?

Palani, with all respect here.......but what does a banks signiture card have to do with the price of tea in China?
(If I remember correctly the signiture card says something along the lines of obeying Treasury rules and regulations....not the federal reserve system.)
The requirment of a W4 falls along the lines of Treasury rules and regs (chapter 24 of Title 26).

Income reporting requirements are traced back to the Social Security Act not any banking institute.
A W4 is only required upon commencment of "employment" (see 26usc 3402(f)(1)(2)(a)).........nothing more and nothing else!
"Employment" (26usc 3121(b)) is restrictively confined to the Social Security Act. It does not have any legal effect or enforcement outside the purpose of participating in Social Security for obtaining government benefits.

Social Security is voluntary (see regulation 301.6109-1(d)), which by the way, is a treasury regulation.

As far as citizenship (body politic) goes SUI JURIS the courts rule the income tax is an excise tax. (You're probably wondering why I bring up "excise" when talking about citizenship.)
Well.....on line 5 of the SS5 form you check "US citizen" which you then sign under penalty of perjury as belonging to that political association.
We have two political citizenships in America (See www.1215.org or www.state-citizen.org) to get a better handle of how the courts view each citizenship.
So in order to participate in Social Security you have to announce to the government you are accepting their second class citiznship over being the People of the United States of America (the political kings of the country) for their welfare benefits via the form SS-5.
It wasnt until after the Social Security Act did working for a living become an "excise" activity.
Heres what I mean (again the answer to the income tax being an "excise" is located in the Social Security statutes)-


26usc 3111
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—
Here we have the law specifically stating the employer is imposed an "excise" tax for having individuals working under him specifically earning 3121(a) "wages" in respect to 3121(b) "employment".
Up until 1935 employers werent taxed an excise imposition as 3121(b) "employment" didnt exist until 1935.
The "excise" is in respect to 3121(b) "employment" (Social Security).
An employer today can have employees who are not participating in Social Security (3121(b) "employment") because ADMINISTRATIVE regulation 301.6109-1(d) stipulates so.
In conclusion here if the employer is taxed an excise from 3121(b) "employment" then the "excise activity" is "employment" itself which is to say Social Security is an "excise".

[7th trump]

Once you appear in the body politic the rules of the body politic apply to you. Voter registration. Drivers license. Home delivery of mail. Use of a zip code. Evidence of commercial presence (paying bills). Having a single FRN note in your pocket.

You might present evidence of in itinere status ... you are moving through the jurisdiction as a transient. Apologize for your ignorance in not knowing the local rules.
Absolutley correct Palani!

[palani]

what does a banks signiture card have to do with the price of tea in China?

I presume you have no interest in the price of tea in China but rather the issue at hand?

Participation in banking was prohibited in Iowa for the first 11 years. Had you signed up for a bank account between 1846 - 1857 you would have been participating in a criminal activity based upon the organic founding document of the State of Iowa, the 1846 constitution. Why would you not believe participating in banking at the present day is not as criminal as during the first years of existence of the State? The State morphed into an entity that accepted banking activities so long as they got their share of the activity.

[7th trump]

I presume you have no interest in the price of tea in China but rather the issue at hand?

Participation in banking was prohibited in Iowa for the first 11 years. Had you signed up for a bank account between 1846 - 1857 you would have been participating in a criminal activity based upon the organic founding document of the State of Iowa, the 1846 constitution. Why would you not believe participating in banking at the present day is not as criminal as during the first years of existence of the State? The State morphed into an entity that accepted banking activities so long as they got their share of the activity.
I never assumed it wasnt a criminal activity Palani.....and what does it have to do with the price of tea in China anyway?
Also, why are you twisting this around?
I'm still waiting on an answer from you to show me a statute relating "banking" and/or "fiat currency" to the income tax reporting mechainism.....even an imposition statute would suffice.

Hey palani....whats in between the banking industry and the People?

I guess I'll just write off an answer from you like I do Merrill......a no show!

[palani]

I never assumed it wasnt a criminal activity
Yet you have no problem engaging in this activity.



and what does it have to do with the price of tea in China anyway? All right. I'll bite. Tell me what you know of the price of tea in China.



why are you twisting this around? relating the topic to its' foundation is not "twisting"


I'm still waiting on an answer from you to show me a statute relating "banking" and/or "fiat currency" to the income tax reporting mechainism.....even an imposition statute would suffice. Common law takes no cognizant of statutes.


whats in between the banking industry and the People? What People?


I guess I'll just write off an answer from you like I do Merrill......a no show! Where have you established that I have a duty to answer?

[7th trump]

Yet you have no problem engaging in this activity.


All right. I'll bite. Tell me what you know of the price of tea in China.


relating the topic to its' foundation is not "twisting"

Common law takes no cognizant of statutes.

What People?

Where have you established that I have a duty to answer?
Guess you're right palani.......you dont have a duty.....and neither do I.
Nice way of saying you cant find any statute linking the income tax to the use of fiat currency!
But then again you claim you dont have a ssn (no reporting) and yet dont pay income taxes....hmmmm!
I find that thats all the evidence I need connecting Social Security to the requirement to file a 1040. You're absence of a ssn is an exellent example of how the law is written and performs.

Dont feel bad Palani even your Merrill Van Pelt couldnt answer the obvious either.....and he doesnt want to.

It was fun chatting with you Palani.

[palani]

Nice way of saying you cant find any statute linking the income tax to the use of fiat currency!
Lots of interesting things are found by logic. Things that are not written are of more import than those that are.



But then again you claim you dont have a ssn (no reporting) and yet dont pay income taxes. I don't have a feed bill either. But then I don't claim to raise livestock either.



You're absence of a ssn is an exellent example of how the law is written and performs. I find improvising on a federal form under penalty of perjury to be a bad practice, don't you?