Hand It Over, Now!

[Ares]

7th Trump

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

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

[palani]

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

The tyrannical world dominating government operates on a set of logical rules. It really is quite an admirable form of government given the material it has to work with. Hopefully you will not take anything I have said to presume that I would like to see this government replaced because I could not imagine one which could perform better. You have the government you deserve yet don't seem to appreciate it much.

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

I am qualified in my own law and that of my government. I enjoy relating historical facts that helped lead to the present government you classify as 'tyrantical world dominating'. This form of government is a recent phenomena though as previous generations performed immensely better in controlling their government than the present set of zombies.

[Hatha Sunahara]

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

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

Hatha

[7th trump]

7th Trump

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

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

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

Merrill is backwards just like Hendrickson is backwards

[Ares]

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

Merrill is backwards just like Hendrickson is backwards

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

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

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

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

[7th trump]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ares]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7th trump]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

[Ares]

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

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

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

US v Rickman; 638 F.2d 182 wrote:
In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 USC § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. (You see that 7thTrump? FRN's ARE NOT EVEN MEANT FOR YOU OR I) The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

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

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

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

[sirgonzo420]

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

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

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

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





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



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



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

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

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

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

The original Federal Reserve Act says nothing of Social Security.

Anyway, fun thread.