People's Tax Refunds Will Be Used to Pay Decades-Old Debts From Parents

[Ares]

Don’t get too excited thinking about how you will spend your tax return just yet.

The Washington Post reports that the Social Security Administration and the Treasury Department are intercepting refund checks from thousands of unsuspecting Americans to pay off debts incurred by past family members.

In their coverage of the issue, the Post tells the story of Mary Grice, a Maryland woman who received a notice in the mail saying her refund was intercepted by federal agencies. Grice was told her funds were being used to pay off a debt from 1977 when Social Security accidentally overpaid her mother in a support payment.

The agency would not say why they waited until now to collect the old debt or why they tapped Grice to pay it. When Grice tried to protest the collection, the IRS responded with intimidation tactics.

"It was a shock," she said. "What incenses me is the way they went about this. They gave me no notice, they can't prove I received any overpayment, and they use intimidation tactics, threatening to report this to the credit bureaus."

So far this year, federal agencies have collected over $75 million in debts over 10 years old. Since 2011, agencies have collected over $424 million in these debts. The collections started in 2011, when Congress wiped out a clause in the farm bill forbidding the government from collecting debts over 10 years old.

The collections won’t stop anytime soon, either. The Social Security Administration says they plan to collect $714 million in debts over 10 years old from roughly 400,000 taxpayers.

Grice is now suing the Social Security Administration in federal court, saying they are violating her right to due process by holding her responsible for the $2,996 debt incurred on her father’s social security number.

“The craziest part of this whole thing is the way the government seizes a child’s money to satisfy a debt that child never even knew about,” said Robert Vogel, Grice’s attorney. “They’ll say that somebody got paid for that child’s benefit, but the child had no control over the money and there’s no way to know if the parent ever used the money for the benefit of that kid.”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/federal-agencies-intercept-tax-refunds-pay-decades-old-debts-parents

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

The FED's collection agency, showing their true colors.

[Ares]

The FED's collection agency, showing their true colors.

It's all about the money. With Russia and China signing a MASSIVE energy deal to perform the trade in their own currencies. The dollar is going to be decreasing in value. They know it, they're trying to get all that they can before it implodes.

"The last official act of any Government is to loot the Treasury".
-George Washington

[Neuro]

This is just astonishing! You just can't go in and take the money from a child 37 years later for a debt that the parents incurred... Try and do that type of debt collection as a private person. Ridiculous!

[Ares]

This is just astonishing! You just can't go in and take the money from a child 37 years later for a debt that the parents incurred... Try and do that type of debt collection as a private person. Ridiculous!

But it's okay, because they are "government"..... :rolleyes:

Anyone else did this it would be called what it is, theft.

[pitwab]

It always amazes me that people are surprised when the government takes anything. They think it is their job.

[Glass]

They think it is their job.

Yes but it's a more than think, Its they know. 100% their job is a protection racket. Protection rackets include the shakedown. Because the mother and the father were registered cattle, the produce of that cattle become the property of the owner (government) and evertyhing they own and produce is property the government. This includes children, just as the baby chick is not owned by the mother hen but by the farmer, the baby calf is owned not by the mother cow but the farmer, the child is owned not by the mother and father but by the farmer (government).

That's how it is. There are several videos of government officials declaring just that fact.

Now that there have been several generations since social security was introduced they can be 100% sure that no one is not cattle and that there is no one they do not own. The same applies to property, homes cars etc. None of those things can be obtained without using their money and as a result they know it all belongs to them. Including guns I should point out. Thats why vintage is treated a bit different - pre FRN's.

[SWRichmond]

she got protected and served

[osoab]

Are they data entering all of the old records from inception through the 60's so they can collect from grand kids and great grand kids?

[Glass]

Are they data entering all of the old records from inception through the 60's so they can collect from grand kids and great grand kids?

This is a good point. Without evidence they cannot do anything. So anyone pre-some-date will be ok. In Australia the date is quite late. I think it is 1985. No that is not correct. It is another date. I need to check but something changed in 1985. The system of birth records changed here, between my birth and that of my siblings the system changed, I have an old form BC and they have a new form BC. Theirs in digital and mine needs people to rummage through old ledgers. I think 1985 was when Constitutional Australia was abandoned via the Australia Act 1985 and a new system was adopted. A bit like the point in time when the 14th Amendment came into being in the US and everyone became subject/citierns to Washington DC. What date/time was that? 1933-1935?? no way before then 1868.

7thTrump. When was the SS implemented?

I'm dribbling. you are right on to it. I wonder if these online genealogy databases are being used, as people chase their family trees and update/fill in the missing pieces of information.

I believe also that the word "registration" is very different to "record". It affects ownership.

[zap]

So make sure you don't have a refund coming to you ! Don't give the government a interest free loan.

[singular_me]

the debt thread mill will be soon stop working anyway.

ps: what about the military industrial complex liabilities?

----------------------------------
Feb 12, 2010 - Fisher added, "According to our calculations at the Dallas Fed, that ... Federal Reserve President: US Unfunded Liabilities of over $100 Trillion.
According to Richard W. Fisher, the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the unfunded liabilities of the US Social Security and Medicare system stand at $99.2 trillion today. That figure is not a misprint. If the US government plans to keep operating the Social Security system and the Medicare system, then the official federal debt really is $11.3 trillion plus $99.2 trillion, or $110.5 trillion.

http://www.rapidtrends.com/2010/02/12/dallas-federal-reserve-president-us-unfunded-liabilities-of-over-100-trillion/
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/05/dallas-federal-reserve-unfunded-pension.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/139841-federal-u-s-debt-has-ballooned-to-over-100-trillion

[7th trump]

This is a good point. Without evidence they cannot do anything. So anyone pre-some-date will be ok. In Australia the date is quite late. I think it is 1985. No that is not correct. It is another date. I need to check but something changed in 1985. The system of birth records changed here, between my birth and that of my siblings the system changed, I have an old form BC and they have a new form BC. Theirs in digital and mine needs people to rummage through old ledgers. I think 1985 was when Constitutional Australia was abandoned via the Australia Act 1985 and a new system was adopted. A bit like the point in time when the 14th Amendment came into being in the US and everyone became subject/citierns to Washington DC. What date/time was that? 1933-1935?? no way before then 1868.

7thTrump. When was the SS implemented?

I'm dribbling. you are right on to it. I wonder if these online genealogy databases are being used, as people chase their family trees and update/fill in the missing pieces of information.

I believe also that the word "registration" is very different to "record". It affects ownership.

Social Security here in the US was enacted in 1935.
I'd like to clear something up about the 14th amendment that a certain individual I beleive is confusing a few on this board.
Just because the 14th amendment was ratified doesnt mean every American is automatically a "subject/citizen" when born.
To become a "subject/citizen" under the 14th amendment one must first apply for that status. Just being merely born in the US doesnt make anyone a "subject/citizen".
The birth certificate making an American a "subject/citizen" is a misnomer. There simply is no evidence of this anywhere in any law books and there are no court cases in support of this either.
The 14th says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

Notice the comma!
The comma is seperating being born and naturalized from being subject to....two seperate conditions must be met before being made subject to the jurisdiction of Congress.
You can be born and naturalized here in the US and still not be a subject. So the birth certificate making one a government "subject/citizen" is a complete lie.

Theres only one document every American must voluntarily sign under penalty of perjury to become a subject/citizen.....and that is the SS-5 form (AKA....applying for a ssn).
And to prove Social Security is the root of being a "subject/citizen" there is this reveiling statute.....5usc 522a(13)


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


Social Security is a federal agency and is a federal retirement program consisting of earning "wages" in order to build up credits towards your deferred retirement benefits.
If theres anybody who doesnt beleive me that Social Security is not a federal agency....then please ask yourself why then did the Social Security Administration recently buy all those guns and bullets?

BTW, you dont see in the statute anything about the birth certificate making one "federal personnel" do you?

[monty]

By signing a Form W4 you just declared yourself to be holding a public office, (federal personnel Trump?). By doing so you have committed the crime of impersonating a public officer. Wages come from a trade or business. The tax law defines trade or business as a function of a public office.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

So make sure you don't have a refund coming to you ! Don't give the government a interest free loan.

So true. I roll my eyes when people get excited about how much they're getting back after filing their taxes.

[osoab]

So true. I roll my eyes when people get excited about how much they're getting back after filing their taxes.

I tell them they are stupid.

[7th trump]

By signing a Form W4 you just declared yourself to be holding a public office, (federal personnel Trump?). By doing so you have committed the crime of impersonating a public officer. Wages come from a trade or business. The tax law defines trade or business as a function of a public office.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

Monty, I recall you read "Cracking the Code" by Pete Hendrickson?

Actually by signing a W4 form you are declaring you want to participate in Social Security and therefore your earnings would be deemed as taxable "income" (statutory wages).
If you look at the form W4 itself it lists two statutes-


Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. Internal Revenue Code sections 3402(f)(2) and 6109 and their regulations require you to provide this information; your employer uses it to determine your federal income tax withholding.

These two statutes are in relation to "employment". Social Security is where you find the definition and purpose of "employment".

Statute 6109 and regulations are about disclosure of the SSN on government forms...participating in Social Security which is the purpose of the SSN.
Regulation 301.6109-1(d) is the regulation that specifies that an employee doesn't have to disclose the SSN on any government forms (W4, participating in Social Security) if he so wishes NOT TO.
Statute 3402(f)(2) is about the exemption certificate (the W4 itself).


3402(f)(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.

You see what I highlighted?
Notice it says "on commencement of employment"?
Basically 3401(a) "wages" will encompass the private sector 3121(a) "wages" when participating in Social Security.
Since 3402 is about earning 3401(a) "wages" these "wages" only relate to "employment" as defined.
"Employment" as defined is only defined for the purpose of Social Security. It has no definitive legal bearing for work performed outside of participating in Social Security.

Pete Hendrickson's book "cracking the Code" isn't correct to suggest signing a W4 makes one a government employee or holding a public office.
Yes while it is true that the original revenue acts were jurisdictional to only government employees it has since evolved to encompass those private sector individuals who participate in Social Security.
So while the original revenue act did say an "employee" means government employees it has changed to a broadening definition to encompass the private sector and rewritten to "include government employees" in the performance of a public function.

Where Pete Hendrickson went wrong is he has written a book around the definitions to cater to his premise that only government employees are taxable but the statutes say a whole different thing if read in the light understanding just how much Social Security has played in the taxation of the private sector.

[palani]

To become a "subject/citizen" under the 14th amendment one must first apply for that status. Just being merely born in the US doesnt make anyone a "subject/citizen".

One form of a person is created by action. The person YOU are creating is done by the action of referring to statutes and case cites. That person by the very ACTION of doing this is a subject.


you dont see in the statute anything about the birth certificate making one "federal personnel" do you? Just by looking in the statutes for your law makes you one owned by that law (aka 'federal personnel').

[monty]

This is not about Pete Hendrickson's book. Your Social Security number enables you to become a "Public Office". Without one you cannot participare. Signing the Form W-4 you become a fiduciary, trustee, or public office, federal personnel. The trade or business refered to on the instructions to various IRS forms is "performing the functions of a public office". They use the term "trade or business" to convince the public the money they earn in their trade or business is taxable. Your earnings become public property when you sign the W-4. You have converted yourself into a legal person who is engaged in performing the functions of a public office when you signed that W-4. Without the Social Security number this is not possible.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[7th trump]

One form of a person is created by action. The person YOU are creating is done by the action of referring to statutes and case cites. That person by the very ACTION of doing this is a subject.

Just by looking in the statutes for your law makes you one owned by that law (aka 'federal personnel').


Seriously palani, you really believe a person is created by merely referencing statutes?

These statutes I reference-
1. Is not my law-
2. They are the laws of the US government stipulating what you, as the member of "The People" by birth and at birth, give up politically, by conceding to government programs such as participating in Social Security to gainfully acquire benefits of, and on, the public dime.....you therefore must sign under penalty of perjury that you are indeed telling the government you will give up the political status of king, The People, to becoming a lower political subject as a "US citizen" to gain access to public benefits.

No matter how you slice it and dice it palani .....I highly doubt you will ever find any legal evidence in support of your theory (and it is a theory).
To this day you haven't procured one (1) law, statute, regulation, court cite, case law........anything!
All we get out of you is semantic and deflective games you are well known for.

Until you can procure one (1) piece of evidence then the statutes that specifically state what happen to any individual who wishes to go on the public dole trumps any of your theories!

[7th trump]

This is not about Pete Hendrickson's book. Your Social Security number enables you to become a "Public Office". Without one you cannot participare. Signing the Form W-4 you become a fiduciary, trustee, or public office, federal personnel. The trade or business refered to on the instructions to various IRS forms is "performing the functions of a public office". They use the term "trade or business" to convince the public the money they earn in their trade or business is taxable. Your earnings become public property when you sign the W-4. You have converted yourself into a legal person who is engaged in performing the functions of a public office when you signed that W-4. Without the Social Security number this is not possible.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runners

Do you care to explain when I was a teenager and working for a seed company detassling the tops of seed corn in the summer months was a "performance of a public office"?

The W4 has nothing at all to do with a public office...and everything to do with earning "wages" that are tallied up in quarterly segments and credited to your social security account to access immediate and deferred benefits that are very much public.

What part of "Exemption certificates" don't you understand?
Show me where an exemption certificate (form W4) some how is a fiduciary, trustee relation?
Last I checked the fiduciary, trustee relation was already established when the SSN was applied for through the Social Security Administration, but not active.
Regulation 301.6109-1(d) stipulates an individual doesn't have to participate in Social Security therefore the trustee/fiduciary to beneficiary relationship set forth by application of the SSN is not active.




3402(f)(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.

[monty]

s Do you care to explain when I was a teenager and working for a seed company detassling the tops of seed corn in the summer months was a "performance of a public office"? The W4 has nothing at all to do with a public office...and everything to do with earning "wages" that are tallied up in quarterly segments and credited to your social security account to access immediate and deferred benefits that are very much public. What part of "Exemption certificates" don't you understand? Show me where an exemption certificate (form W4) some how is a fiduciary, trustee relation? Last I checked the fiduciary, trustee relation was already established when the SSN was applied for through the Social Security Administration, but not active. Regulation 301.6109-1(d) stipulates an individual doesn't have to participate in Social Security therefore the trustee/fiduciary to beneficiary relationship set forth by application of the SSN is not active.


Yes, the Social Security number establishes the trust, fiduciary relationship. Wages under tax law are the proceeds of a trade or business. A trade or business under the tax laws performs the function of a public office. By signing the W-4 you begin earning wages. These wages come from a "trade or business".

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[monty]

s Do you care to explain when I was a teenager and working for a seed company detassling the tops of seed corn in the summer months was a "performance of a public office"? The W4 has nothing at all to do with a public office...and everything to do with earning "wages" that are tallied up in quarterly segments and credited to your social security account to access immediate and deferred benefits that are very much public. What part of "Exemption certificates" don't you understand? Show me where an exemption certificate (form W4) some how is a fiduciary, trustee relation? Last I checked the fiduciary, trustee relation was already established when the SSN was applied for through the Social Security Administration, but not active. Regulation 301.6109-1(d) stipulates an individual doesn't have to participate in Social Security therefore the trustee/fiduciary to beneficiary relationship set forth by application of the SSN is not active.


You must have signed a W-4 for the seed company. If you did you were in a de facto "trade or business performing the functions of a public office" as far as tax law is concerned.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[palani]

I highly doubt you will ever find any legal evidence in support of your theory (and it is a theory).
To this day you haven't procured one (1) law, statute, regulation, court cite, case law........anything!

Read it and weep!

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2HCH0016


CHAPTER XVI. OF PERSONS, AUTHORS, AND THINGS PERSONATED

A Person What

A PERSON, is he "whose words or actions are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of an other man, or of any other thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction."

PERSONs are created by words or actions or representation. These are the 'things' under consideration. Engaging in social security creates such a person. Referring to statutes as if they are law creates such a person. Even rolling out of bed in the morning creates a person (just one that is so boring it generally is not considered).

[7th trump]

You must have signed a W-4 for the seed company. If you did you were in a de facto "trade or business performing the functions of a public office" as far as tax law is concerned.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

Monty,
What you are doing is following Pete Hendrickson's interpretation. The courts have rejected his interpretation many many times.
You do realize Pete didn't come up with this idea?
Back in the 1980's (20 some years before Hendrickson) a gentleman went to court suing the government because he thought only federal employees were the target of the IRS and guess what?.....he lost then as Hendrickson lost now.


26usc 7701(26)
(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

Before Social Security (1935) was enacted the internal revenue laws did indeed focus strictly on government entities.
The term "trade or business" did only mean the function of a public office and it was written so.
However, since Subtitle C- Employment Taxes introduced chapter 21 (social security) in the 1939 revised code the definitions were slightly changed to encompass not just federal employees.
The definitions are basically the same except for one added little word "includes".

An example of this demonstrated.
Before social security.

"Trade or business"
The term "trade or business" means the function of a public office. This is restrictive to only government employees and their public function

After social security

Trade or business"
The term "trade or business" includes the function of a public office.This is expansive to encompass more than just government employees and their public function.

Hendrickson (the source of your infection) wants to believe theres a conspiracy to hoodwink the public into paying taxes. So he concocts a scheme that the term "includes" is a definition for the word "means" when that is simple not true.

[7th trump]

Read it and weep!

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2HCH0016



PERSONs are created by words or actions or representation. These are the 'things' under consideration. Engaging in social security creates such a person. Referring to statutes as if they are law creates such a person. Even rolling out of bed in the morning creates a person (just one that is so boring it generally is not considered).

Yep...I didn't think you could find anything "legal evidence".....nice try though...better luck next time. Next time please try looking at or in government websites. The purpose of this is so we can establish what you believe in recognized by the government to have legal standing......OK!
Your link is just hearsay...its just someones opinion.

By your stand if you believe or act like you are from Mars or Jupiter then by God the governments of the world must recognize you as such....that's insane and quite frivolous.
If I drive a Ford does that make me Henry Ford?
Hahahaha....see the frivolous logic in your premise?

[palani]

Your link is just hearsay...its just someones opinion.

Leviathan is the basis for all civil government circa 16th century. How much more 'legal' can you get?

[7th trump]

Leviathan is the basis for all civil government circa 16th century. How much more 'legal' can you get?

The 16th century begins with the Julian year 1501 and ends with either the Julian or the Gregorian year 1600.
The US federal government wasn't established in circa 16 century was it?
Nope!

The 14th amendment I believe was ratified in 1868
Social Security was enacted in 1935

The USofA is not a "commonwealth" that a leviathan form of government is now is it palani
Another big fat......NOPE!

Types of commonwealth
There are three (monarchy, aristocracy and democracy)
The United States of America was founded as a "Republic" form of government....not a monarchy, aristocracy or democracy form of government.

[palani]

The United States of America was founded as a "Republic" form of government....not a monarchy, aristocracy or democracy form of government.

Fascinating. Yet you find yourself studying the statutes of the United States rather than the United States of America. And congress does sit as a democracy don't they? I mean, they all actually VOTE on issues don't they? And doesn't the executive branch ACT as a monarchy? And don't the people you like to quote the most (judicial actors and lawyers) ... aren't they the aristocracy in your little play in three branches?

[monty]

Monty, What you are doing is following Pete Hendrickson's interpretation. The courts have rejected his interpretation many many times. You do realize Pete didn't come up with this idea? Back in the 1980's (20 some years before Hendrickson) a gentleman went to court suing the government because he thought only federal employees were the target of the IRS and guess what?.....he lost then as Hendrickson lost now. Before Social Security (1935) was enacted the internal revenue laws did indeed focus strictly on government entities. The term "trade or business" did only mean the function of a public office and it was written so. However, since Subtitle C- Employment Taxes introduced chapter 21 (social security) in the 1939 revised code the definitions were slightly changed to encompass not just federal employees. The definitions are basically the same except for one added little word "includes". An example of this demonstrated. Before social security. This is restrictive to only government employees and their public function After social security This is expansive to encompass more than just government employees and their public function. Hendrickson (the source of your infection) wants to believe theres a conspiracy to hoodwink the public into paying taxes. So he concocts a scheme that the term "includes" is a definition for the word "means" when that is simple not true.

This definition only includes trades or businesses performing the function of a public office. It does not say anything about private trades or businesses. A statute is void for vagueness if it does not specifically identify ALL of the things or classes of things or persons to whom it apps because it fails "to give reasonable notice" to the reader of all the behaviors and that compels readers to make assumptions or guess. The only thing or class clearly identified in this definition is public office, I am assuming or guessing that it does not include private activities. You are assuming that it does include the private sector. Maybe the statute is void for vagueness, or maybe it actually means what it clearly states.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[monty]

Palani is right, the statutes only apply to Feds. They do not apply to the people.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[7th trump]

This definition only includes trades or businesses performing the function of a public office. It does not say anything about private trades or businesses. A statute is void for vagueness if it does not specifically identify ALL of the things or classes of things or persons to whom it apps because it fails "to give reasonable notice" to the reader of all the behaviors and that compels readers to make assumptions or guess. The only thing or class clearly identified in this definition is public office, I am assuming or guessing that it does not include private activities. You are assuming that it does include the private sector. Maybe the statute is void for vagueness, or maybe it actually means what it clearly states.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

Do you not understand the disclaimer on the back of the W4 in small print is your "notice"?

Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. Internal Revenue Code sections 3402(f)(2) and 6109 and their regulations require you to provide this information; your employer uses it to determine your federal income tax withholding.

Statute 6109 specifically states in its administrative regulations (301 prefix.....specifically 301.6109-1(d) ) that an individual doesn't have to participate in Social Security if he so wishes not to!
It isn't up to the government to know if each and every American understands the laws to his ability. Its each and everyone of ours responsibility to understand the law.

No...you're wrong....the term "trade or business" not only encompasses the private sector it also includes the function of a public office.
You're problem is you are infected with Hendrickson's idea that only government employees are taxed.
Look Monty....you know what 26usc 3401(a) "wages" are correct (well for the most part anyway)?

Then tell me why does Social Security dictate what are and what are NOT 26usc 3401(a) "wages".
Here you go...3401(a) "wages" reproduced, in part, just for you Monty.
All I need to reproduce is just the beginning of 3401(a) "wages" to make my point.


26 U.S. Code § 3401 - Definitions
US Code
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

(1) for active service performed in a month for which such employee is entitled to the benefits of section 112 (relating to certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed Forces of the United States) to the extent remuneration for such service is excludable from gross income under such section; or

(2) for agricultural labor (as defined in section 3121 (g)) unless the remuneration paid for such labor is wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)); or

(3) for domestic service in a private home, local college club, or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority; or

Ok Monty....look at (2)
Explain to me, Monty, why (2) is saying agricultural work as defined in section 3121(g) (social security) is not 3401(a) "Wages" unless the remuneration paid for such 3121(g) labor is 3121(a) "wages"?
(2) is saying that if this agricultural work is 3121(g) then the remuneration is not 3401(a) "wages". However, it will be considered 3401(a) "wages" if this 3121(g) remuneration is deemed 3121(a) "wages".

You, Monty, have some explaining to do!
For those who don't know what 3401(a) "wages" are...they are a defined "wage" for the purpose of the government to subject "withholding" from...its box 1 on a W2.
3121(a) "wages" are earnings the government classifies to calculate the amount of quarterly credits you contribute for immediate and deferred benefits of Social Security.
An example of immediate benefits is applying for "unemployment" after losing a job....you can only collect a certain amount of "unemployment" by how much you contribute and how long.

[7th trump]

Fascinating. Yet you find yourself studying the statutes of the United States rather than the United States of America. And congress does sit as a democracy don't they? I mean, they all actually VOTE on issues don't they? And doesn't the executive branch ACT as a monarchy? And don't the people you like to quote the most (judicial actors and lawyers) ... aren't they the aristocracy in your little play in three branches?
Hahahahaha...this is classic!
Hahahaha...I love it........show me one statute that is the "United States of America" and one statute that is of the "United States".
There are 50 titles of statutes palani......please introduce me to another set of Titles.
If you can you'll surprise even the most experienced law scholar they ever existed.

Go on boy....show me a different set of titles that nobodies aware of!

[monty]

Do you not understand the disclaimer on the back of the W4 in small print is your "notice"? Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. Internal Revenue Code sections 3402(f)(2) and 6109 and their regulations require you to provide this information; your employer uses it to determine your federal income tax withholding. Statute 6109 specifically states in its administrative regulations (301 prefix.....specifically 301.6109-1(d) ) that an individual doesn't have to participate in Social Security if he so wishes not to! It isn't up to the government to know if each and every American understands the laws to his ability. Its each and everyone of ours responsibility to understand the law. No...you're wrong....the term "trade or business" not only encompasses the private sector it also includes the function of a public office. You're problem is you are infected with Hendrickson's idea that only government employees are taxed. Look Monty....you know what 26usc 3401(a) "wages" are correct (well for the most part anyway)? Then tell me why does Social Security dictate what are and what are NOT 26usc 3401(a) "wages". Here you go...3401(a) "wages" reproduced, in part, just for you Monty. All I need to reproduce is just the beginning of 3401(a) "wages" to make my point. Ok Monty....look at (2) Explain to me, Monty, why (2) is saying agricultural work as defined in section 3121(g) (social security) is not 3401(a) "Wages" unless the remuneration paid for such 3121(g) labor is 3121(a) "wages"? (2) is saying that if this agricultural work is 3121(g) then the remuneration is not 3401(a) "wages". However, it will be considered 3401(a) "wages" if this 3121(g) remuneration is deemed 3121(a) "wages". You, Monty, have some explaining to do! For those who don't know what 3401(a) "wages" are...they are a defined "wage" for the purpose of the government to subject "withholding" from...its box 1 on a W2. 3121(a) "wages" are earnings the government classifies to calculate the amount of quarterly credits you contribute for immediate and deferred benefits of Social Security. An example of immediate benefits is applying for "unemployment" after losing a job....you can only collect a certain amount of "unemployment" by how much you contribute and how long.


None of these things come into play unless you sign that Form W-4, regardless of what you or Pete Hendrickson say.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[palani]

Show me a different set of titles that nobodies aware of!

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

There are no Titles in the statutes at large.

[7th trump]

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

There are no Titles in the statutes at large.

All you're doing is playing semantic and deflective games.
The statutes at large are not statutes of the United States of America either.

This is from the very same website you tried pulling off as statutes of the United States of America.


Statutes at Large

The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large, is the official source for the laws and resolutions passed by Congress. Publication began in 1845 by the private firm of Little, Brown and Company under authority granted by a joint resolution of Congress. In 1874, Congress transferred the authority to publish the Statutes at Large to the Government Printing Office, which has been responsible for producing the set since that time.

Every law, public and private, ever enacted by the Congress is published in the Statutes at Large in order of the date of its passage. Until 1948, all treaties and international agreements approved by the Senate were also published in the set. In addition, the Statutes at Large includes the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution, treaties with Indians and foreign nations, and presidential proclamations.

Backed yourself right into showing everyone you really don't know shit is what you did.

[7th trump]

None of these things come into play unless you sign that Form W-4, regardless of what you or Pete Hendrickson say.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

I whole heartedly agree with you Monty....that's the reason why I keep bringing up administrative regulation 301.6109-1(d) where it specifically states nobody has to participate in a Social Security which is the only purpose of the W4.

[monty]

Do you not understand the disclaimer on the back of the W4 in small print is your "notice"? Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. Internal Revenue Code.

For the statute not to be void for vagueness the "reasonable notice" must be in the wording of the statute itself. Are you trying to tell me the IRS, the collection agency for the US has the authority of issuing notice of the intent of the Congress? Scraps of paper from the IRS are not statutes.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[monty]

I whole heartedly agree with you Monty....that's the reason why I keep bringing up administrative regulation 301.6109-1(d) where it specifically states nobody has to participate in a Social Security which is the only purpose of the W4.

It is sad more of the people don't quit participating in Social Security.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[jbeck57143]

Regarding the term "includes"-what Pete Hendrickson says is correct. He doesn't say the term "includes" is a definition for the word "means". You can read what he says about it here: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/Includes.pdf
and: http://losthorizons.com/comment/TheLawMeansWhatItSays.pdf

Includes is a term of limited expansion-it includes the terms in the definition, and anything similar or in the same class, or within the meaning of those terms. The definition of trade or business-"The term 'trade or business' includes the performance of the functions of a public office" doesn't only include trades or businesses performing the function of a public office-it also includes anything similar (Whatever that is)


Here's the definition of includes and including from 7701(c) of the code: “Includes and including: The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”


Doesn't whether or not you earn wages as defined in 26 U.S. Code § 3401 depend on whether or not you're an employee as defined in that section?

Here's the definition of employee from 26 U.S. Code § 3401:
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the
foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

Does participation in Social Security create the presumption that our job is within the meaning of those terms? Or does it somehow cause your job to actually be within the meaning of those terms?

As far as signing the w-4 is concerned-I thought without a w-4 they still withhold, but as Single and 0 (dependents)

[palani]

The statutes at large are not statutes of the United States of America either.

The hell you say!

http://i58.tinypic.com/152c1mh.jpg

Maybe you can show me the words BE IT ENACTED BY .... in any of your codes?

[7th trump]

Regarding the term "includes"-what Pete Hendrickson says is correct. He doesn't say the term "includes" is a definition for the word "means". You can read what he says about it here: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/Includes.pdf
and: http://losthorizons.com/comment/TheLawMeansWhatItSays.pdf

Includes is a term of limited expansion-it includes the terms in the definition, and anything similar or in the same class, or within the meaning of those terms. The definition of trade or business-"The term 'trade or business' includes the performance of the functions of a public office" doesn't only include trades or businesses performing the function of a public office-it also includes anything similar (Whatever that is)


Here's the definition of includes and including from 7701(c) of the code: “Includes and including: The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”


Doesn't whether or not you earn wages as defined in 26 U.S. Code § 3401 depend on whether or not you're an employee as defined in that section?

Here's the definition of employee from 26 U.S. Code § 3401:
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State,
or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the
foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

Does participation in Social Security create the presumption that our job is within the meaning of those terms? Or does it somehow cause your job to actually be within the meaning of those terms?

As far as signing the w-4 is concerned-I thought without a w-4 they still withhold, but as Single and 0 (dependents)

Ok Jbeck...you hit where Pete fails to stay on topic with "includes" which derails his whole premise.

Petes premise is that only government employees are to be taxed through the definition of "employee" just as you shown by providing the statutory definition.
Please allow me to show you that "employee" is expansive to encompass the private sector as well as government employees.

Lets go back to the definition of 3401(a) "wages".
I just got done showing Monty that Social Security dictates what 26usc 3401(a) "wages" are and are not.
You would not see 3121(g) agricultural work in 3401(a)(2) if it were not for Social Security. Therefore Social Security 3121(a) "wages" are also 3401(a) "wages"...they are one in the same.
Unless Social Security was enacted just for government employees I would agree with Hendrickson and yourself...but Social Security was not enacted for the purpose of government employees and the courts, contrary to your belief, have ruled 3401(a) "wages" encompasses the private sector.
What I'm saying is 3401(a) "wages" having attributes to Social Security is indicating Pete Hendrickson cannot comprehend the internal revenue laws.
Did you know most government employees cannot participate in Social Security?
Probably not huh?
Well go look at 3121(b) "employment".
There you'll find that the government has banned most career government employees from participating in Social security as they are under a different welfare program.
So there goes Hendrickson's premise that only government employees earn 3401(a) "wages" when 3401(a) "wages" is dictated by Social Security that most career government employees cannot participate in.
So now Hendrickson has a problem with his theory. 3401(a) "wages" is dictated by Social Security but Hendrickson believes that "employee" consists of only government employees because of the term "includes".

Hendrickson is trying to redefine 3401(a) "wages" through the term "includes"....remember in his book that the term "includes" was the monkey on your back?
Hendrickson would be correct if 3401(a) "wages" did not have so many Social Security attributes where government employees are forbidden to participate and having a shit ton of private sector attributes.

Yes the courts ruled correctly.....3401(a) "wages" does indeed include the private sector just as "employee" includes the privates sector......along with government employees.

[7th trump]

The hell you say!

http://i58.tinypic.com/152c1mh.jpg

Maybe you can show me the words BE IT ENACTED BY .... in any of your codes?


Going to continue playing your semantic games are ya?


Statutes at Large

The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large, is the official source for the laws and resolutions passed by Congress. Publication began in 1845 by the private firm of Little, Brown and Company under authority granted by a joint resolution of Congress. In 1874, Congress transferred the authority to publish the Statutes at Large to the Government Printing Office, which has been responsible for producing the set since that time.

Every law, public and private, ever enacted by the Congress is published in the Statutes at Large in order of the date of its passage. Until 1948, all treaties and international agreements approved by the Senate were also published in the set. In addition, the Statutes at Large includes the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution, treaties with Indians and foreign nations, and presidential proclamations.
Care to take a stab at why the Constitution and Articles are added in the United States Statutes at Large?

You are definitely lost within the law palani.....fucking way lost!

[palani]

Going to continue playing your semantic games are ya?


From YOUR source


The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large, is the official source for the laws and resolutions passed by Congress.....Every law, public and private, ever enacted by the Congress is published in the Statutes at Large in order of the date of its passage

I highlighted the section you really ought to pay attention to, you little rascal. If the Statutes at Large are the OFFICIAL SOURCE then the TITLES and CODES must be ..... WAIT FOR IT!!! .... AN UNOFFICIAL SOURCE!

If you are really that interested in CODES then you might be aware that the latest and greatest Iowa code is available for the price of postage. I was told that this week by a delegate for the GOP [whatever the hell that is]. His point was that judicial actors only rely upon hard copies of this code ... the online version isn't considered good enough for court. Well ... get this ... the CODES ARE JUST SOMEONE ELSES OPINION OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE (and the people they represent) ACTUALLY WANT. Codes do not contain the magic words BE IT ENACTED BY .... and anyone who uses a code is a lost soul. The CODE is not sufficient evidence of the will of the people for me. You ... on the other hand ... would accept chicken droppings if they were mailed in an official envelope.

[palani]

Publication began in 1845 by the private firm of Little, Brown and Company under authority granted by a joint resolution of Congress.

Gee .. if this were the case then how did I come about an ORIGINAL 8th Congress 1st Session publication of the Statutes at Large (circa 1803?)

You rely upon hearsay and I don't doubt you are going to lose your shirt along with your MIND.

[7th trump]

From YOUR source



I highlighted the section you really ought to pay attention to, you little rascal. If the Statutes at Large are the OFFICIAL SOURCE then the TITLES and CODES must be ..... WAIT FOR IT!!! .... AN UNOFFICIAL SOURCE!

If you are really that interested in CODES then you might be aware that the latest and greatest Iowa code is available for the price of postage. I was told that this week by a delegate for the GOP [whatever the hell that is]. His point was that judicial actors only rely upon hard copies of this code ... the online version isn't considered good enough for court. Well ... get this ... the CODES ARE JUST SOMEONE ELSES OPINION OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE (and the people they represent) ACTUALLY WANT. Codes do not contain the magic words BE IT ENACTED BY .... and anyone who uses a code is a lost soul. The CODE is not sufficient evidence of the will of the people for me. You ... on the other hand ... would accept chicken droppings if they were mailed in an official envelope.

Ummm palani......the titles are where the statutes are located. Statutes and codes describe the same thing..........the law.
Without the statutes or codes (however one might prefer calling them) the titles are empty shells.

Funny....I found the regulation to a "statute" that says no individual has to participate in Social security.........so I brought the attention of this statute to the employer.
The employer in return disregarded the W4....now nothing is withheld from my paycheck.

[7th trump]

Gee .. if this were the case then how did I come about an ORIGINAL 8th Congress 1st Session publication of the Statutes at Large (circa 1803?)

You rely upon hearsay and I don't doubt you are going to lose your shirt along with your MIND.

Your point is what?
So a private firm was hired to print the law back then and now the government takes on that responsibility itself...........proving what?
Official and unofficial....what makes you think a private firm printing the law for Congress is unofficial?

Besides what does this have to do with you stating theres a difference, in law, between the USofA and the US?
Did you forget to take your meds?

[palani]

Statutes and codes describe the same thing..........the law.

Sure thing. We agree. The law of the federal employee. None other. Although the statutes at large are the OFFICIAL source of their law these employees are so clueless the don't care whether they look at the official source or someone elses opinion of what that official source actually MEANS.

[palani]

a private firm was hired to print the law back then and now the government takes on that responsibility itself.

I suppose I should be used to you getting things backward. It seems to be the way you choose to view the world ... from your backside view.

Again ... I have a government printed 1803 Acts of Congress. Not a PRIVATELY printed copy. The REAL THING. Now why do you suppose your source would fail to mention that these Acts of Congress were published publicly and only choose to inform you of some privately contracted source?

[7th trump]

I suppose I should be used to you getting things backward. It seems to be the way you choose to view the world ... from your backside view.

Again ... I have a government printed 1803 Acts of Congress. Not a PRIVATELY printed copy. The REAL THING. Now why do you suppose your source would fail to mention that these Acts of Congress were published publicly and only choose to inform you of some privately contracted source?

What?
Does it really matter if the government contracted a private firm to print the law for the publics use?

Hey the government continually contracts aviation firms to build them aircraft to defend America....big fucking deal!

Whats your point anyway?

[7th trump]

Sure thing. We agree. The law of the federal employee. None other. Although the statutes at large are the OFFICIAL source of their law these employees are so clueless the don't care whether they look at the official source or someone elses opinion of what that official source actually MEANS.
Nope.....you as a participant of social security are not a government employee...nor is the private sector employer the government.
There are laws against impersonating government officials....as well there are laws against impersonating the government.

Go take your meds!

[palani]

Does it really matter if the government contracted a private firm to print the law for the publics use?
There would be no need to discriminate the source if I were like you and took law from anywhere. I am not like you though. I prefer my law to have a seal attached.

[palani]

Nope.....you as a participant of social security are not a government employee...nor is the private sector employer the government. You are unable to separate out your private sector activities from your public duties. Your citizenship status establishes your attachment to civil law (or rather its attachment to you) and your use of FRNs (credit extended by a private entity to your public persona) clinches the deal. You are a wage slave buddy, a fiduciary in every sense of the word and that makes your employer the government. You work for a corporation. All corporations are under the executive branch of government. You aren't something special just because you turn down social (in)security.



There are laws against impersonating government officials....as well there are laws against impersonating the government. Right. But you don't have access to those laws. Just because a policyman shows up in your face in uniform does that make him part of your government? If someone steps into an intersection to assist traffic flow when the light isn't working is he executing a governmental function? Are your laws going to apply to him to send him to prison for directing traffic? There are de jure officers and there are de facto officers. At this time THERE ARE NO DE JURE OFFICERS. It has to do with the money you use why there are no de jure officers. They are all DE FACTO. You have no authority to cloth them in de jure status because you use paper money (a bag containing unequal weights).

[7th trump]

You are unable to separate out your private sector activities from your public duties. Your citizenship status establishes your attachment to civil law (or rather its attachment to you) and your use of FRNs (credit extended by a private entity to your public persona) clinches the deal. You are a wage slave buddy, a fiduciary in every sense of the word and that makes your employer the government. You work for a corporation. All corporations are under the executive branch of government. You aren't something special just because you turn down social (in)security.


Right. But you don't have access to those laws. Just because a policyman shows up in your face in uniform does that make him part of your government? If someone steps into an intersection to assist traffic flow when the light isn't working is he executing a governmental function? Are your laws going to apply to him to send him to prison for directing traffic? There are de jure officers and there are de facto officers. At this time THERE ARE NO DE JURE OFFICERS. It has to do with the money you use why there are no de jure officers. They are all DE FACTO. You have no authority to cloth them in de jure status because you use paper money (a bag containing unequal weights).

No evidence what so ever, no statute in the revenue title imposes a tax for merely using frn's.....not a even a court case or cite to prove your silly lawful money premise.

And you claim you're a scholar in legalities huh?
Hahahahahahaha.....

[palani]

No evidence what so ever, no statute in the revenue title imposes a tax for merely using frn's.....not a even a court case or cite to prove your silly lawful money premise.
If you actually made no FRNs income do you suppose there would be a tax owed?


And you claim you're a scholar in legalities ?
Show me where I have made any such claim. You refer to statutes all the time for your law yet have no clue that what is lawful is not necessarily legal. Government employees do legal things. Everyone else does lawful things. If you are charged with violating a statute your status as an employee is being exposed.

[7th trump]

If you actually made no FRNs income do you suppose there would be a tax owed?


Show me where I have made any such claim. You refer to statutes all the time for your law yet have no clue that what is lawful is not necessarily legal. Government employees do legal things. Everyone else does lawful things. If you are charged with violating a statute your status as an employee is being exposed.

If they can prove you are participating in their social welfare program you certainly can be assessed the federal income tax.
The federal income tax starts right here for the private sector.


26usc 3101
Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

First you are sacked for this SS tax because you are earning wages that are in respect to 3121(b) "employment".
Then you are sacked the federal income tax because earning 26usc 3121(a) "wages" is also earning 26usc 3401(a) "wages"........see the beginning of the paragraph where it says
In addition to other taxes.
You are hit multiple times for participating in Social Security which is being 3121(b) "employed".

Now lets go forward and review 26usc 3401(a) "wages" to find out if you can be assessed the federal income tax from being paid in gold, silver or even wheel barrels of horse shit.


3401(a)
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

So when you earn 3121(a) "wages" (box 3 on the W2) you also earn 3401(a) "wages" (box 1 on the W2)...this is why box's 1, 3and 5 are usually always the same amount...because even though they are defined differently they are one in the same amount reported.
as you can see 3401(a) "wages" can be paid in any medium and that cash value of "any medium" is what the IRS will attach the assessment of the federal income tax to.

You fail in understanding law once again palani!
But its your own damn fault you lose against someone who far more familiar with taxes and the tax law than you ever thought of ever understanding.
Its your fault you continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore what you need to understand.


And no palani...this isn't my law (and you know this)......this was enacted in 1935 and the internal revenue statutes were written in the 1939 revenue code....I was born in 1968....do the math!

[palani]

If they can prove you are participating in their social welfare program you certainly can be assessed the federal income tax. How can this be given the circumstance that you sign up for this program and then NEVER AGAIN EARN A SINGLE FRN TO REPORT? How are they going to tax you when you have nothing to give them?


You fail in understanding law once again palani! The problem with fiction is you eventually lose sight of reality. What you call law is merely color of law.


But its your own damn fault you lose against someone who far more familiar with taxes and the tax law than you ever thought of ever understanding. People who debate the merits of fiction are not able to win.


Its your fault you continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore what you need to understand. I ignore what I choose to not STAND UNDER.


this isn't my law (and you know this)......this was enacted in 1935 and the internal revenue statutes were written in the 1939 revenue code....I was born in 1968....do the math! When you cite it then it becomes your law. You would do better to agree rather than engage in these arguments.

[7th trump]

How can this be given the circumstance that you sign up for this program and then NEVER AGAIN EARN A SINGLE FRN TO REPORT? How are they going to tax you when you have nothing to give them?

The problem with fiction is you eventually lose sight of reality. What you call law is merely color of law.

People who debate the merits of fiction are not able to win.

I ignore what I choose to not STAND UNDER.

When you cite it then it becomes your law. You would do better to agree rather than engage in these arguments.

Hahahaha....just the standard deflection you are so well known for palani.
Thanks for admitting you lost!

And the government doesn't give a rats ass if you didn't earn frn's...all they care about is you, being a participant of Social Security, are assessed a tax for being on the public dime having access to public assistance when needed.
How you come up with frn's to pay the assessment isn't their concern just its no concern of mine about your financials....that's your private affairs which they respect.

No palani....keep showing everyone how much of a moron you are.
Just because I show people how the law operates by citing the various statutes and regulations doesn't mean its my law.
Only defeated whackadoodles would twist it around like that.

[palani]

And the government doesn't give a rats ass if you didn't earn frn's...all they care about is you, being a participant of Social Security, are assessed a tax for being on the public dime having access to public assistance when needed.

Patently a false collection of statements.

First, their creation, the strawman, is the one who applies for benefits. Others may apply but only their creation gets to be selected.

Second, once their creation has applied and been selected for an account, then their creation might cancel that account the very next day and apply for the minimum benefit the following day. No money ever need be paid into the SSN account at all ... ever.... in order to receive this benefit.

Truly head cases like you are what keeps this system alive. Only head cases need apply to be a government servant because it is an office intended for the demented and welfare cases.

[7th trump]

Patently a false collection of statements.

First, their creation, the strawman, is the one who applies for benefits. Others may apply but only their creation gets to be selected.

Second, once their creation has applied and been selected for an account, then their creation might cancel that account the very next day and apply for the minimum benefit the following day. No money ever need be paid into the SSN account at all ... ever.... in order to receive this benefit.

Truly head cases like you are what keeps this system alive. Only head cases need apply to be a government servant because it is an office intended for the demented and welfare cases.


I was wondering when the strawmen conspiracy was gonna pop up!
You've now covered every internet conspiracy known to mankind.


Are you suggesting that when joesixpack signs under penalty of perjury to being a "US citizens" as opposed to being "The People" in order to receive a ssn that they become a strawman?
So you're saying the "US citizen" that the Supreme Court recognizes, and in 1866, the US congress gave "civil rights" by enacting the "civil rights Act of 1966" to is a strawman?
So the government is giving away the publics tax money to millions of walking and talking scarecrows?
The hell you say?
You're drunk and watching the wizard of Oz aren't you palani!

And if by saying "selected for an account" you mean Social Security account?
Well let me tell you.......you cannot close the Social Security account....that number stays into existence until time runs out.
The account will go dormant, but it never closes.

And once again....an big fat "NO" if you think you can get Social Security benefits without ever disclosing the SSN on benefit application forms.

The only head case here is you if you think you can just get government benefits without ever disclosing the SSN on government forms......hahahahaha!

[palani]

You've now covered every internet conspiracy known to mankind.
I suppose you have accounted for each conspiracy and they all add up to 'ONE'?


Are you suggesting that when joesixpack signs under penalty of perjury to being a "US citizens" as opposed to being "The People" in order to receive a ssn that they become a strawman? Have I suggested this?


So you're saying the "US citizen" that the Supreme Court recognizes, and in 1866, the US congress gave "civil rights" by enacting the "civil rights Act of 1966" to is a strawman? Have I stated this?



So the government is giving away the publics tax money to millions of walking and talking scarecrows? Do you believe you work for 'MONEY'? Is that 'AIR' that you are breathing?


You're drunk and watching the wizard of Oz aren't you Is logic a topic you failed in?


if by saying "selected for an account" you mean Social Security account?
Well let me tell you.......you cannot close the Social Security account....that number stays into existence until time runs out. Things that you own you can destroy. Have I ever stated that the Social Security number is owned by you?



The account will go dormant, but it never closes. Isn't that up to the owner of the account?

you think you can get Social Security benefits without ever disclosing the SSN on benefit application forms. Did I state that benefits could be received without reference to SOME account?


The only head case here is you if you think you can just get government benefits without ever disclosing the SSN on government forms......hahahahaha! Did you know you tend to build these castles in the sky based entirely on logical fallacies? My participation isn't needed because you are next going to tell me what I MEANT to say and proceed to tear your own arguments apart. Seek help!!!

[7th trump]

I suppose you have accounted for each conspiracy and they all add up to 'ONE'?

Have I suggested this?

Have I stated this?


Do you believe you work for 'MONEY'? Is that 'AIR' that you are breathing?

Is logic a topic you failed in?

Things that you own you can destroy. Have I ever stated that the Social Security number is owned by you?


Isn't that up to the owner of the account?
Did I state that benefits could be received without reference to SOME account?

Did you know you tend to build these castles in the sky based entirely on logical fallacies? My participation isn't needed because you are next going to tell me what I MEANT to say and proceed to tear your own arguments apart. Seek help!!!

All this deflective drama and you still cant procure anything creditable that the laws of the USofA are different than the laws of the US.
But thats your distractive method of operation we know you for.

[palani]

All this deflective drama and you still cant procure anything creditable that the laws of the USofA are different than the laws of the US.

Is that your current obsession? Why don't you task me with something REALLY difficult ... like ... to prove you know anything about electronics?

[7th trump]

Is that your current obsession? Why don't you task me with something REALLY difficult ... like ... to prove you know anything about electronics?

Well did you not say theres a difference between the laws of the USofA and the US?
I'd like to see this so if you know they exist....just come out and prove it.
I only know of the 50 titles....is there another set of titles that nobody knows about?


What about electronics.......the rms value of a sinewave is just calculating the dc equivalent.
I dont care about the dc equivalent of a sinewave......I'm just reproducing a 120vac sinewave taking current (not the voltage) from a DC source (get it now grasshopper?)....no different than any amplifier block diagram setup. The DC battery bank is a source of current, not voltage...so you now understand why I say the rms is insignificant). I can and have used zener diodes to up the voltage of a 12vdc car battery while keeping the same 12vdc charge on the batteries.

Like this:

battery +12vdc
|
battery -negetive
|
48v zener diode
|
ground

This will give you 60vdc to ground (or neutral depending on the setup) at whatever current the battery will supply which in my setup is 200amps.

Electronics must have been difficult for you.
If a motor draws 10amps at 120vac my setup is capable of delivering 100amps at 120vac.

[osoab]

They have suspended collecting the payments today.

[palani]

Well did you not say theres a difference between the laws of the USofA and the US?

Maxims of law require no proof. Talis non est eadem, nam nullum simile est idem. What is like is not the same, for nothing similar is the same.


I only know of the 50 titles....is there another set of titles that nobody knows about? You KNOW or you BELIEVE?



the rms value of a sinewave is just calculating the dc equivalent
I dont care about the dc equivalent of a sinewave
I suppose because you prefer to do your calculations in CALCULUS?


I'm just reproducing a 120vac sinewave taking current (not the voltage) from a DC source (get it now grasshopper?)....no different than any amplifier block diagram setup. The DC battery bank is a source of current, not voltage...so you now understand why I say the rms is insignificant). I can and have used zener diodes to up the voltage of a 12vdc car battery while keeping the same 12vdc charge on the batteries. A batteries terminal voltage is not subject to change [with the exception of the IR drop caused by internal resistance and the amount of current flow]. A zener can be used to reduce a voltage but not to increase a voltage.


Like this:

battery +12vdc
|
battery -negetive
|
48v zener diode
|
ground

This will give you 60vdc to ground (or neutral depending on the setup) at whatever current the battery will supply which in my setup is 200amps.
If your zener is forward biased you will be able to drop the battery voltage by .7 volts.
If your zener is reverse biased no current will flow until an external power source in excess of 60 vdc is applied. A 12 volt battery is incapable of causing a 48 v zener to conduct when reverse biased.
You are LOONY TOONS!!!


If a motor draws 10amps at 120vac my setup is capable of delivering 100amps at 120vac.
You admit yourself that you don't have a clue as to what 120vac is. According to you it is not RMS and your brain can't be wired like a normal man.

[7th trump]

Maxims of law require no proof. Talis non est eadem, nam nullum simile est idem. What is like is not the same, for nothing similar is the same.

You KNOW or you BELIEVE?



I suppose because you prefer to do your calculations in CALCULUS?

A batteries terminal voltage is not subject to change [with the exception of the IR drop caused by internal resistance and the amount of current flow]. A zener can be used to reduce a voltage but not to increase a voltage.


If your zener is forward biased you will be able to drop the battery voltage by .7 volts.
If your zener is reverse biased no current will flow until an external power source in excess of 60 vdc is applied. A 12 volt battery is incapable of causing a 48 v zener to conduct when reverse biased.
You are LOONY TOONS!!!


You admit yourself that you don't have a clue as to what 120vac is. According to you it is not RMS and your brain can't be wired like a normal man.

Dont kid yourself that I dont know the reverse bias of a zener diode.
Just what do you think is in front of the 12vdc battery bank the zener?

As far as the rms goes in an earlier post in this thread said to find the rms value you take the rms and multiply that with .3535
Why are you starting with 120v(rms) and multiplying it with .3535 to get the rms value?
The equation says the (vpp) value (aka 120v) sinewave multiplied by .3535 to get the rms.
Your starting with 120vrms which is roughly 339v (dc equivalence)
Its not 120vrms (339rms) X .3535 as you suggest to calculate the rms value (you already have the rms value of 120)
Its 120v (pp) X .3535 equals the rms value.

120vrms is 120vrms....not 339vrms.
But 120vpp has a RMS value of 40.2 v....not 339v

[monty]

Deleted: posted to wrong thread

[monty]

Delete: posted on wrong thread

[palani]

But 120vpp has a RMS value of 40.2 v....not 339v

c.r.a.z.y.!!! w.h.o...n.e.e.d.s...a....s.i.g.n.a.l...l.i.k.e...t .h.i.s.???

[7th trump]

c.r.a.z.y.!!! w.h.o...n.e.e.d.s...a....s.i.g.n.a.l...l.i.k.e...t .h.i.s.???

Was it not you that calculated the rms wrong?
Yep it sure was!

The equation to calculate RMS is multiplying the Peak to peak voltage (120vac) by .3535 (vpp X .3535 = rms).
Like this:
120vpp X .3535 = 42.42rms

You fucked up!
120vpp is not 339vrms.
And 120rms is not 339vrms either.
You fucked up!

You took 120vrms and multiplied it with .3535 (WRONG!!!!) for some odd reason and got 339v


The funny thing is anybody can take a multimeter and meter any outlet in their house and it'll read 120v..and not 339v!

[palani]

Was it not you that calculated the rms wrong?

After you gave me false information ... that your power transistors were acting as switches ... in saturation. In which case the outcome would be a square wave rather than a sine wave ... and the resulting rms value would be .5 x the peak to peak value.


The funny thing is anybody can take a multimeter and meter any outlet in their house and it'll read 120v..and not 339v! Apparently not at YOUR house with your battery system. This is where you are confusing everyone who is used to referring to 120vac by which they mean the RMS rather than the PEAK TO PEAK.

[7th trump]

After you gave me false information ... that your power transistors were acting as switches ... in saturation. In which case the outcome would be a square wave rather than a sine wave ... and the resulting rms value would be .5 x the peak to peak value.

Apparently not at YOUR house with your battery system. This is where you are confusing everyone who is used to referring to 120vac by which they mean the RMS rather than the PEAK TO PEAK.

Bullshit!
I told you it was a sinewave 60hz input going into a push/pull with an 120vac output.


Take any old analog meter that doesnt have any processors to calculate the rms and every house in America is still going to show 120vac.........not this 339v bullshit.

You fucked up or were you caught in the game you are known for.....or both!
120vrms is dc equivalent to 339vac....
What that means is it takes 339vac to do the same work as 120vdc. You know this but you were caught in another one of your scams.
120vrms is the rms value for a 339vac peak to peak sinewave.
339vac (peak to peak) X .3535 = 120vrms

120vrms is not the same as the 120vac peak to peak thats coming out of an ordinary house outlet.

You lose again!!

[palani]

120vrms is not the same as the 120vac peak to peak thats coming out of an ordinary house outlet. All I can re-iterate is SEEK HELP. Preferably in the form of REMEDIAL ELECTRICITY 101.


You lose again!! Were we in some sort of contest?

[7th trump]

All I can re-iterate is SEEK HELP. Preferably in the form of REMEDIAL ELECTRICITY 101.

Were we in some sort of contest?

Was it not you who chimed in saying I was wrong with my circuit?

Did you not challenge me...and you were found to be the one wrong giving the evidence of the equation to properly calculate rms from a AC waveform?

Yes...I do beleive it was you who challenged me and lost that challenge.....just as you lose your other claims of knowing law.

You still havent provided any evidence the 14th amendment dissolved the US Constitution in order to dissolve the USofA and replaced it with the US.
Thats kinda like pulling yourself up out of mud by your boot straps.........an impossibility!

[palani]

I was wrong with my circuit?
You are just plain wired wrong.

[7th trump]

You are just plain wired wrong.

There you have it folks!
All the proof you need that palani purposely takes comments out of context, picks and chooses what he wants to hear and discards the rest to come up with something not even remotely from the truth to support his illogical reasoning.

Palani was caught straight up lying through his teeth and now he wants deflection and distraction from his crime.

[palani]

his crime.
http://i61.tinypic.com/ra2j2c.jpg