David Merrill and 12 USC 411

[palani]

David Merrill reported on another forum (as written by one of his 'suitors') :


I can only testify regarding my own affairs. My latest experience:


Ten checking accounts were closed on Monday this past week by way of Notice to Quit. Meaning the banking agreement says they can Quit for any cause.

So we paid the bank a visit to see if we could determine the reasoning for the Notice. It turns out that the bank had been doing some recent accounting of the books and it turns out that they were not very pleased to find out that their front line manager had not picked up on the fact that we had been making a DEMAND FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12USC411 regarding all instruments touching said accounts.

From what we gleaned from said Manager he and his staff were reamed and people lost their jobs. I BELIEVE that said bank was upon the practice of Fractional Reserve Lending touching instruments that were Redeemed. As such, said bank was in desperate need of balancing the counterfeit book entries.

So today we decided to walk in and with draw 9.5k because you know - WHY NOT, right? So as usual we made a demand for lawful money on the withdrawal ticket - to wit:


1. The teller upon RECOGNIZING said disclaimer launched herself from her seat and quickly moved to the banking managers office; and,

2. The banking manager, upon being awakened, [I jest] asked us to enter his office; and,

3. We had a discussion whereupon we informed him that we had informed his predecessor that we intend to remain without the Federal Reserve Districts and Cities and we do not use Federal Reserve Credit; and,

4. he informed us that we could not use that disclaimer; and,

5. not to be egotistical but I informed him that he was NOT going to give us legal advice as we did not ask for it and that he was going to accept our disclaimer as this was the business he chose and he was going to take the good with the bad and we were not going to be told by some banking manager how to sign a record; and,

6. he said that his bosses told him he was not to accept any withdrawal or check with that disclaimer to which I said, Call Legal now.; and,

7. He called and put us on speaker phone; and,

8. Unbelievably we entered into a three-way conversation - usually legal will only speak to their client; and,

9. I asked if they were trying to FORCE account holders to execute a Record without legal capacity; and,

10. I asked if they were aware of Art I - Sec 10 and were they trying to make a policy that would impair the obligation of an existing contract?; and,

11. In deadpan voice, counsel said, Do it!; and,

12. We got a huge grin on our faces and said manager went and counted out the hundreds; and,

13 Afterwards, he invited us back into his office and said he was directed to ensure that the accounts closed; and,

14. It was obvious to everyone in the room that said manager had recently gotten his rear end chewed on extensively; and,

DON'T TELL ME that something IS a certain way. Maybe for you, but not for me. I have spoken to banking managers in the past five years and without exception they ALL know what I am up to. In fact, I have had some very interesting responses.

Regarding the IRS we have now had CONSISTENT returns of 100 percent even with with-holdings returned - even though we did not ask for them. We tried to GIFT the withholdings - but they were returned to us 100%. So today we went to another bank and opened up all new accounts - and the manager just smiled as we executed the Agreement in FULL DISCLAIMER.

I can remember the first time I walked up to a teller to cash a check drawn on that bank with the following disclaimers:

NAME OF TRUST COMPANY, by its Agent, Me, absent individual capacity, absent individual liability assumed, absent surety, absent accommodation, absent recourse, without prejudice, and principally and perpetually made subject to the terms of conditions of NAME OF TRUST COMPANY and demand is made for lawful money per 12U.S.C.411: signature

6 font text - you can get this on the back of a check within the allowed space - without problem.

I thought the red/blue lights would start flashing as my heart raced - no one was there to help me or to give me words in case things did not go my way - and to my great surprise the teller said - "What the heck is all of this?" To wit, I responded, perhaps you should speak to your manager. Upon her return she said "I learn something new everyday".

Egypt is a reed shaken in the wind - but the children of the King are free.

Hopefully, my report will encourage some of you. Trust in God. But Faith absent Deeds is dead. I in every event always prayed over the event prior to attempt - the victory was mine before I left my car. I walked it out as a WITNESS to the Glory of God.

Make of it what you will.

[7th trump]

David Merrill reported on another forum (as written by one of his 'suitors') :



Make of it what you will.
Ok, so I will make of it as I will.
First of all I've caught you in yet another lie. You said in the past you didnt know of any David merrill Vanpelt........so many lies Palani you cant keep track of them can you?
David Merrill Vanpelt claims redeeming fiat magically turn the paper into tax free and by filing a 1040 his way will catch you a refund of all money's withheld.
To this day not one follower of Vanpelts has gotten a refund.

Also before anybody thinks this Vanpelt quack is onto something the courts have ruled this same Vanpelt quack as "incompetent".
This guy went to court over abusing his elderly mother where the court ruled Vanpelt as "incompetent".

I've told this forum before to keep Palani at arms length because he listens and takes advice from people who abuse their own mother and are ruled incompetent.
Be careful!

[palani]

Funny when you bait the hook you might catch a whale or your bait might be swallowed as a minnow.

Do you concentrate upon the message or the messenger?

[Glass]

Does he do the 1040 thing? I thought it was just the redeeming lawful money process.

I'm not sure I have an issue with the 1040 but it does depend on how it's applied. I've heard of people fabricate things with stupid numbers or try an use the OID and in my opinion that constitutes a fraud arising from stupidity. But if it's normal amounts and redeemed, I'm not so sure there's an issue. It's about balance and "they" simply have to balance the entries. This policy can not be deviated from. If you don't give them a balance because your paperworks loaded with unredeemed balances they have a problem. They will take all necessary action to get that balance.

I would think the refund in general would be a discharge rather than a credit at bank/cash in hand refund. It would go to the national debt, rather than the person submitting the redemption. You see that's the whole point of the process IMO. To redeem the national debt. Isn't there some congressional record that says how much is outstanding. I think palani might have even posted it (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?65036-346-681-016&highlight=small+price).

Without getting bogged down in that. Is there a link for this case of Merrill?

[7th trump]

Does he do the 1040 thing? I thought it was just the redeeming lawful money process.

I'm not sure I have an issue with the 1040 but it does depend on how it's applied. I've heard of people fabricate things with stupid numbers or try an use the OID and in my opinion that constitutes a fraud arising from stupidity. But if it's normal amounts and redeemed, I'm not so sure there's an issue. It's about balance and "they" simply have to balance the entries. This policy can not be deviated from. If you don't give them a balance because your paperworks loaded with unredeemed balances they have a problem. They will take all necessary action to get that balance.

I would think the refund in general would be a discharge rather than a credit at bank/cash in hand refund. It would go to the national debt, rather than the person submitting the redemption. You see that's the whole point of the process IMO. To redeem the national debt. Isn't there some congressional record that says how much is outstanding. I think palani might have even posted it (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?65036-346-681-016&highlight=small+price).

Without getting bogged down in that. Is there a link for this case of Merrill?
Yes hes attempting the 1040 filing.
Filing a redeemed 1040 will fail because its no different than Schiff's zero return or Hendrickson's 4852 return where income was reported to the government through participating in Social Security and tey try to file showing no income.
Merrill believes the "excise" activity that causes the imposition on labor is endorsing reserve notes.
The excise activity is no secret. You find the excise activity in 26usc 3111......its 3121(b) "employment" (aka the heart of Social Security)
Merrill isn't smart enough to understand what causes the imposition on labor to begin with and those who are stupid enough to try this retarded scam is going to get a hard smack in the financials.
A $5,000.00 penalty is no laughing matter.
Hendrickson's CtC followers are getting smacked with multiple $5,000.00 for one year. One CTC'er has three $5,000.00 penalties for one year and hes filed over 5 years this way. And the kicker is the penalties have to get paid first before the initial tax is paid which is occurring interest the whole time the penalties are getting paid off.

Beware of what you hear from quacks and their theories and those quacks who push this kind of scam.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I am at a bit of a loss here. The gist of what is going on is not explicitly stated, so I am having to guess at the substance and the importance of it. What new thing did the teller learn on this day?

Here is my guess. Please confirm whether this guess is correct or way off base, and if so, please describe in plain logical English the point of this story.

If you write a check on a bank where you hold an account, to close that account, and on the check you put a disclaimer, as it appears in the OP, and they give you FRNs--which are not in compliance with the Constitution's requirement that only gold and silver will be real money, and you accept those FRNs, you have received a sum that is not real money. Therefore, you cannot be taxed on it because it has no intrinsic value. I presume that interpretation extends to a paycheck from which tax money has been withheld that has been deposited in your account, and to perhaps all the FRNs that have been deposited in your account. The claim here is that the IRS will honor your interpretation that the money is not in compliance with the constitutional requirement for money, and that they will return all money withheld for taxes because your tax liability is zero. This is because you have not received any compensation of substance in exchange for your labor or any other thing you have been paid for.

Having to guess about this is an invitation to exhibit my ignorance, which most people are reluctant to do, and therefore allows the lawyers to trample all over them when they pretend they understand by remaining silent and acquiesce to whatever it is the lawyers and their clients want to do to them. I would doubt that the IRS would return money withheld for taxes on this claim, particularly if you use the money to exchange with others for items that have value, such as food or medicine, or if you buy gold or silver coins with it.

Hatha

[palani]

Is there a link for this case of Merrill?

Got to be here somewhere ... I haven't checked.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/forum.php?

[palani]

Yes hes attempting the 1040 filing.

See .... you know more about it than I do.

[palani]

I am at a bit of a loss here. The gist of what is going on is not explicitly stated, so I am having to guess at the substance and the importance of it. What new thing did the teller learn on this day?

Here is my guess. Please confirm whether this guess is correct or way off base, and if so, please describe in plain logical English the point of this story.

If you write a check on a bank where you hold an account, to close that account, and on the check you put a disclaimer, as it appears in the OP, and they give you FRNs--which are not in compliance with the Constitution's requirement that only gold and silver will be real money, and you accept those FRNs, you have received a sum that is not real money. Therefore, you cannot be taxed on it because it has no intrinsic value. I presume that interpretation extends to a paycheck from which tax money has been withheld that has been deposited in your account, and to perhaps all the FRNs that have been deposited in your account. The claim here is that the IRS will honor your interpretation that the money is not in compliance with the constitutional requirement for money, and that they will return all money withheld for taxes because your tax liability is zero. This is because you have not received any compensation of substance in exchange for your labor or any other thing you have been paid for.

Having to guess about this is an invitation to exhibit my ignorance, which most people are reluctant to do, and therefore allows the lawyers to trample all over them when they pretend they understand by remaining silent and acquiesce to whatever it is the lawyers and their clients want to do to them. I would doubt that the IRS would return money withheld for taxes on this claim, particularly if you use the money to exchange with others for items that have value, such as food or medicine, or if you buy gold or silver coins with it.

Hatha

12 USC 411 holds that you can demand lawful money at any time. You do so by properly endorsing checks. What they hand you will be FRNs for all outward appearance but since you have demanded lawful money and this is what they gave you then why not agree that it is now lawful money. Lawful money comes with no hidden strings or usury.

If you don't do the 12 USC 411 endorsement then you are underwriting private credit and somehow this appears on the banks ledgers as an asset from which they can borrow large sums of money. With the endorsement if they have been counting these things as assets and suddenly find they are not (as lawful money was given) suddenly they have an accounting nightmare and a banking crisis.

Darned pity is all I can say.

[palani]

See .... you know more about it than I do.

By the way, I know David Merrill no better than I know YOU!!!

[Ares]

I've researched it quite a bit, and to get your return. You fill out a 1040EZ as you would any other year. However you also send along additional paperwork showing you've been redeeming lawful money since such and such date. It helps to keep proper record forming. Opening a misc case, or a libel of review at your U.S. District Court will suffice. You can also use that misc case or libel of review to execute refuse for cause. Which I'm pleasantly surprise works rather well but that's another topic for discussion.

You don't miscalculate, file 0, or even do what Hendrickson did. You just be upfront, honest, and tell them you've been redeeming lawful money. Attach the paperwork showing that you've made the demand public (case file at local U.S. District Court) and that you are doing everything that you know to be lawful.

I have heard of not one individual being harassed, arrested, or intimated by the IRS by utilizing this method.

According to the Savings to Suitors Clause of The Judiciary Act of 1789 (in particular 28 U.S.C.S. § 1333.) states the Government has to offer Remedy and it was written in the Federal Reserve Charter. If you read Title 12 USC 411 you'll notice that Federal Reserve Notes are not even meant for you or the public at large. It even says so:


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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

When you endorse a check without seeking Remedy you're basically saying that you're a Federal Reserve Bank, and or an Agent of the Federal Reserve Bank. So you're subject to it's penalties as well as benefits. I say benefits loosely, like child tax credit, tax write off's etc etc. You can't claim those while redeeming lawful money.

[steel_ag]

tag

[7th trump]

I am at a bit of a loss here. The gist of what is going on is not explicitly stated, so I am having to guess at the substance and the importance of it. What new thing did the teller learn on this day?

Here is my guess. Please confirm whether this guess is correct or way off base, and if so, please describe in plain logical English the point of this story.

If you write a check on a bank where you hold an account, to close that account, and on the check you put a disclaimer, as it appears in the OP, and they give you FRNs--which are not in compliance with the Constitution's requirement that only gold and silver will be real money, and you accept those FRNs, you have received a sum that is not real money. Therefore, you cannot be taxed on it because it has no intrinsic value. I presume that interpretation extends to a paycheck from which tax money has been withheld that has been deposited in your account, and to perhaps all the FRNs that have been deposited in your account. The claim here is that the IRS will honor your interpretation that the money is not in compliance with the constitutional requirement for money, and that they will return all money withheld for taxes because your tax liability is zero. This is because you have not received any compensation of substance in exchange for your labor or any other thing you have been paid for.

Having to guess about this is an invitation to exhibit my ignorance, which most people are reluctant to do, and therefore allows the lawyers to trample all over them when they pretend they understand by remaining silent and acquiesce to whatever it is the lawyers and their clients want to do to them. I would doubt that the IRS would return money withheld for taxes on this claim, particularly if you use the money to exchange with others for items that have value, such as food or medicine, or if you buy gold or silver coins with it.

HathaRedeeming lawful money is not in any way, shape or form nontaxable.
All redeeming is is converting fiat reserve notes to a currency thats backed by metal. Howerver, since the gold standard is suspended and silver certificates are no long printed by the US Treasury that redeeming statute is archaic and no o0onger needed.

How David Merrill Vanpelt connects redeeming to nontaxable is.....well nobody knows!
Hes been asked many times by many people, including myself, and has yet to come up with any viable evidence.
If you want to know how your pay check gets hit with taxes deductions you must read Title 26 "Internal Revenue"...........not Title 12 "Banking".

How I explained to Merrill that his theory about redeeming lawful money is full of holes and didnt hold any water was the fact it didnt coexist with the "reporting" laws nor any statute in Title 26. I warned him he was going to get a lot of people in financial trouble to which the IRS will eventually sick the DoJ on him to stop this insanity
Seriously, if you want to learn how your subject to the federal income tax just follow the "reporting" path....not the money path that so many people have done and failed and are sitting in the pokey.
There are two definitions that relate to having taxes deducted and withheld from a pay check and they are 26usc 3121(a) "wages" and 26usc 3401(a) "wages".
To make a long story short in order for the government to impose the federal income tax on your paycheck you must earn 3401(a) "wages". 3401(a) "wages" is what the government classifies for the purpose of withholding for the 26usc 1 (Title 26---United States Code---Section 1) income tax imposition.
So how does a person come into earning 3401(a) "wages"?
Easy, just read the 26usc 3401(a) "wage" definition to see if your earnings qualify under this specific definition.
In the 3401(a) definition you'll notice TW0 (2) references. One reference is government officials/employees and the other reference is 3121(a) "wages" and 3121(b) "employment" (aka----Social Security).
If you are not a government official/employee....skip it..........as it obviously doesnt pertain to you. Whats left is Social Security (3121a "wages" and 3121b "employment").....this pertains to the private sector (nongovernment official/employee).
How the Social Security Adminstration determines the amount credits you contribute into your SS account is measured by the amount of 3121(a) "wages" you earn.....you get this anual SS report mailed to you once a year.
The only way to earn SS credits is by earning 3121(a) "wages" and the only way a nongovernment official/employee person can earn 3121(a) "wages" is by being "employed" which is defined at 26usc 3121(b) "employment" and Title 42 where the Social Security itself is codified. The only way to be "employed" is by participating in Social Security.
So if David Merrill Vanpelt and his followers think they can get full refunds from redeeming lawful money and filing a 1040 a certain way is a financial train wreck when the IRS comes knocking on their door.
For those who are not very familiar with Social Security....its no different than the operation of a car insurance policy.
Have you ever heard of anybody getting full refunds from a vehicle insurance company because you didnt file a claim?
No, you dont get a full refund. You pay the premium for the coverage whether or not you filed a claim or not.
Social Security has many benefits that are immediate and deferred. The immediate benefits are "underemployment", food stamps, unemployment and the list goes on.
Now you are covered for these SS benefits even if you dont apply for them. Its no different than the workings of a car insurance policy.
Merrill would like everyone to think you can receive a full refund at the end of the year, but all year you were earning 3121(a) "wages" to be covered by Social Security. All year long your earnings were considered 3121(a) "wages" which these same 3121(a) "wages" happen to be included in the same 3401(a) "wages" the government defines for the purpose of deductions and withholding.
You cant tell the IRS you didnt earn 3401(a) "wages" (taxable income) at the end of the year when in fact you did because you earned 3121(a) "wages".
Redeeming has absolutely nothing at all to do with taxable or nontaxable and David Merrill Vanpelt is headed for a world of hurt just like Irwin Schiff and Pete Hendrickson and the rest.
Vanpelt wants it both ways, hes wants all his money back even though hes receiving SS benefits (even if he didnt claim them).
The problem with David Merrill Vanpelt is he's ignorant to how the income tax laws work and apply.
(and I didnt even get into the "reporting" aspect behind the income tax).
I'd stay clear away from David Merrill Vanpelt and anyone who pushes that snake skin oil redeeming lawful money is nontaxable bullshit.

[7th trump]

By the way, I know David Merrill no better than I know YOU!!!
You're lying palani.
You and merrill are both frequent posters over at the sui-juris website.

[Glass]

There's a couple of interesting Traits of Civil law that I've noticed over time. The first thing I have noticed is that a court ruling does not apply across the board to all occurences of the matter tried.

Say for instance I received a claim of some sort. A Bill of Attainder or an Infringement. I take it to court and miracles of miracles I manager to convince the Judge that the claim is untenable, for what ever reason. It didn't have the corporate seal on it. It wasn't supported by an afirmed declaration of facts. It was outright unlawful. or other.

The ruling of that matter does not automatically apply to all other examples of claim using the same erroneous claim. Only my matter is dealt with. All the other claims are untouched. The Court will not order that all other examples be dealth with in the same manner. It is up to each and every "respondent" to deal with their matter.

This is one of the key precepts of their law. It means that who ever lets the fraud passed them just has to wear it. It doesn't mean you can't claim a precedent but you'd be hard pressed to get evidence of the precedent from the civil courts.

The other thing about civil law is that they can use heresay as evidence of FACTS. In common law there needs to be claimants with 1st hand knowledge of the FACTs otherwise no case.

[Bigjon]

Yes hes attempting the 1040 filing.
Filing a redeemed 1040 will fail because its no different than Schiff's zero return or Hendrickson's 4852 return where income was reported to the government through participating in Social Security and tey try to file showing no income.
Merrill believes the "excise" activity that causes the imposition on labor is endorsing reserve notes.
The excise activity is no secret. You find the excise activity in 26usc 3111......its 3121(b) "employment" (aka the heart of Social Security)
Merrill isn't smart enough to understand what causes the imposition on labor to begin with and those who are stupid enough to try this retarded scam is going to get a hard smack in the financials.
A $5,000.00 penalty is no laughing matter.
Hendrickson's CtC followers are getting smacked with multiple $5,000.00 for one year. One CTC'er has three $5,000.00 penalties for one year and hes filed over 5 years this way. And the kicker is the penalties have to get paid first before the initial tax is paid which is occurring interest the whole time the penalties are getting paid off.

Beware of what you hear from quacks and their theories and those quacks who push this kind of scam.

The thing that stands out the most here is why do you who claim to be an electrician in Iowa care so much and know so much?

[palani]

You're lying palani.
You and merrill are both frequent posters over at the sui-juris website.

You are a frequent poster here. I still don't know you.

By your attitude you are the last one to be advising anyone on any subject. You fly off in fits of rage and spread accusations around like they are jelly. You jump to one conclusion and no amount of reason can affect your position at all. You resort to ad hominem attacks and presuppose others will consider your actions to be rational when they are altogether irrational.

Hope this helps but I doubt it will.

[palani]

The thing that stands out the most here is why do you who claim to be an electrician in Iowa care so much and know so much?

He works for Deere & Co. I've have met quite a few of their employees and mostly they are experts at everything and masters of nothing.

[palani]

Redeeming lawful money is not in any way, shape or form nontaxable.

Bouviers 1856 law dictionary discusses redemption as


REDEMPTION, contracts. The act of taking back by the seller from the buyer a thing which had been sold subject to the right of repurchase.

2. The right of redemption then is an agreement by which the seller reserves to himself the power of taking back the thing sold by returning the price paid for it.

12 USC 411 holds in part


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.

Congress is reserving the right to redeem the thing sold (a FRN) by returning the price paid for it. What pays for it is what they will exchange it for (lawful money). Lawful money has associated with it no tax or other obligations. Lawful money need not be metal nor does it need to be backed by metal. Constitutional money on the other hand is lawful money in the form of gold or silver specie. Congress thru 12 USC 411 has never stated that you will receive constitutional money or specie but they have said you will receive "lawful" money should you request it.

I am open for other interpretations but you can forget all the Title 26 nonsense. The IRS does not impose themselves upon people who handle lawful money. I expect if one of their agents even touched a lawful note they would burst into flames but I have never seen it happen so this part is merely conjecture.

[7th trump]

Bouviers 1856 law dictionary discusses redemption as



12 USC 411 holds in part



Congress is reserving the right to redeem the thing sold (a FRN) by returning the price paid for it. What pays for it is what they will exchange it for (lawful money). Lawful money has associated with it no tax or other obligations. Lawful money need not be metal nor does it need to be backed by metal. Constitutional money on the other hand is lawful money in the form of gold or silver specie. Congress thru 12 USC 411 has never stated that you will receive constitutional money or specie but they have said you will receive "lawful" money should you request it.

I am open for other interpretations but you can forget all the Title 26 nonsense. The IRS does not impose themselves upon people who handle lawful money. I expect if one of their agents even touched a lawful note they would burst into flames but I have never seen it happen so this part is merely conjecture.
12usc 411 is just what it is.....redeeming lawful money....it has absolutely nothing at all to do with taxes.

Lets say you are working and earning a paycheck where you earn 3121(a) "wages" to cover yourself under Social Security.
So all year you are covered under Social Security and when it come to April 15 you file a 1040 purporting you didn't earn 3121(a) "wages" and now want all the deductions returned to you.
What do you think the IRS is going think when they receive your 1040 asking for all your money returned.
Here's what the IRS is going to do when they process your -0- return. They are going to get the W3 information from the Social Security Administration and compare whats on that file to your 1040.
What they are going to find is you earned 3121(a) "wages" all year for being covered under the Social Security Act.
Since 3121(a) "wages" are the same as 3401(a) "wages" and since being covered by the Social Security Act is no different than a car insurance policy in operation you cant say you want all your money returned when you were covered for benefits.
So the IRS is going to sent a frivolous letter stating your position is frivolous and tell you to please amend the 1040. If you don't you'll be getting a $5,000.00 penalty for doing so.

[palani]

12usc 411 is just what it is.....redeeming lawful money....it has absolutely nothing at all to do with taxes.

Guy walks up to a gorgeous blond and asks if she would sleep with him for a thousand bucks. She thinks for a millisecond and comes back with a solid 'yes'. He next asks her if she will sleep with him for fifty bucks. She responds 'what do you think I am?' He says 'we have already established what you are. Now we are haggling over the price.'

The IRS has no interest in charging taxes for things that don't belong to them. If you deal in FRNs by all means you should follow their instructions to a tee. Accepting a FRN has established what you are (subject to Title 26). If you don't handle FRNs at all then maybe, just maybe, you are not a hooker after all.

And don't suggest that you can get by handling just a few FRNs. A hooker holds that title no matter what she charges.

[7th trump]

Guy walks up to a gorgeous blond and asks if she would sleep with him for a thousand bucks. She thinks for a millisecond and comes back with a solid 'yes'. He next asks her if she will sleep with him for fifty bucks. She responds 'what do you think I am?' He says 'we have already established what you are. Now we are haggling over the price.'

The IRS has no interest in charging taxes for things that don't belong to them. If you deal in FRNs by all means you should follow their instructions to a tee. Accepting a FRN has established what you are (subject to Title 26). If you don't handle FRNs at all then maybe, just maybe, you are not a hooker after all.

And don't suggest that you can get by handling just a few FRNs. A hooker holds that title no matter what she charges.
The IRS doesn't charge the tax....Congress does!
The IRS is just a tax collector for the Treasury.
They don't have any interest huh?

Just what do you think 3401(a) "wages" are to the government?
Funny if the IRS didn't have any interest, 3401(a) "wages", which is listed in Title 26 "internal Revenue" wouldnt be in Title 26 for the government to have an interest in.

Keep up the baseless and merit less comments Palani....I'm having fun watching you make yourself into a senseless moron.

[palani]

Just what do you think 3401(a) "wages" are to the government? Things they pay their employees.



Funny if the IRS didn't have any interest, 3401(a) "wages", which is listed in Title 26 "internal Revenue" wouldnt be in Title 26 for the government to have an interest in. And just where do you suppose Title 26 comes into play when there are no wages?


Keep up the baseless and merit less comments Palani....I'm having fun watching you make yourself into a senseless moron. Fun is my Chinese neighbors middle name. Moronic, maybe. Hooker, no!!!

[7th trump]

Things they pay their employees.
So you are going with old tired arguement that has never won a court case huh.
Well.......for your education is was just for government employees until the 1939 internal revenue code. The 1939 code introduced chapter 21 into Subtitle C- "Employment taxes". (Same Subtitle C where the original government employee were located and still are....hey imagine that!....now government employees have the private sector for company to share the same imposition)
Guess what is defined in chapter 21....."employment" is defined. And guess where this title 26 definition comes from Palani?
It comes from the Social Security Act of 1935 thats where!



And just where do you suppose Title 26 comes into play when there are no wages?
Exactly my point thick-skulled grass hopper.....without Social Security defining the private scetors earnings as "wages" there is no imposition. What the hell is so hard about this?........unless you are wanting to beleive in a conspiracy, which is exactly what you want!


Fun is my Chinese neighbors middle name. Moronic, maybe. Hooker, no!!!
Not ever worth replying to..............completely stupid comment from palani

[palani]

So you are going with old tired arguement that has never won a court case huh.
I don't argue. I reason.



guess where this title 26 definition comes from Palani?
It comes from the Social Security Act of 1935 thats where! The definition of words comes from the sovereign.




.without Social Security defining the private scetors earnings as "wages" there is no imposition. Would you rather be a $50 hooker or a $1,000 hooker? Either way you are still making your living flat on your back.



Not ever worth replying to..............completely stupid comment from palani
Odd. This comment of yours comes in the form of .... a REPLY.

[7th trump]

Reason huh...............and yet you purposely refuse to acknowledge that the private sector is in the same definition as government employees for Congress to impose the federal income tax.

Sovereign's didnt write the Social Security Act..............matter of fact, the People didnt have a say in the Act.

$50 or $1000 huh..........what ever palani. keep on deflecting you really are out of touch with reality. It isnt very hard to see that you'd rather beleive a lie when the truth fits.
Maybe thats why you are a master at cut and pasting. Its simple, easy and makes you look smart.
Theres an old saying...........stupid is what stupid does!

You are what others say about you...............a worthless poster having nothing to say.

[palani]

you purposely refuse to acknowledge that the private sector is in the same definition as government employees for Congress to impose the federal income tax. You are not private sector when you slurp at the same trough as government employees.

Sovereign's didnt write the Social Security Act..............matter of fact, the People didnt have a say in the Act. Culpa est immiscere se rei ad se non pertinenti. It is a fault to meddle with what does not belong to or does not concern you

keep on deflecting you really are out of touch with reality. It isnt very hard to see that you'd rather beleive a lie when the truth fits.
Maybe thats why you are a master at cut and pasting. Its simple, easy and makes you look smart.
Theres an old saying...........stupid is what stupid does! Perhaps you would be move 'beleivable' if you used a spell checker?

You are what others say about you...............a worthless poster having nothing to say. If I had something to say don't you 'beleive' I would be picking up a telephone? Its' either that or shouting really loud.

Your principal problem is that you have figured out something to fit your present circumstances and apparently see no need to do any further digging. There is a whole array of remedies available to you but first you have to figure them out. Some non-remedies will give you unsatisfactory results. Experience is a good teacher but it is an awfully hard way to learn. Good luck with your journey.