Mans Court case may have cracked open Fraud of D.C. Federal Jurisdiction

[monty]

thanks monty ... if you win do you get back the funds you PAID into SS

I don't think so. The IRS will refund back 3 years. The IRS says if you want more sue them in court. The satute of limitations for refunds is six years.

What I do believe though is, any of the livestock familes who graze their cattle on federal rangelands and are sued by the Forest Service or the BLM and the BLM landgrabs such as the one going on in Texas now could be stopped dead in their tracks using this man's demand for proof of Constittional authority.

Texas was a republic and owned their land when they joined the union. The BLM argument is that a strip of land in Texas was part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. They, in effect are saying the Louisiana Purchase Treaty gave them ownership of this parcel of land. But treatys don't trump the Constitution. Any part of a treaty that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. The United States can only own land for forts, magazines and other needful buildings which they must purchase from the state with the aproval of the state legislature.

My opinion, and my opinion and 2 dollars will get you a cup of coffee.

[Glass]

Texas was a republic and owned their land when they joined the union. The BLM argument is that a strip of land in Texas was part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. They, in effect are saying the Louisiana Purchase Treaty gave them ownership of this parcel of land. But treatys don't trump the Constitution. Any part of a treaty that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void. The United States can only own land for forts, magazines and other needful buildings which they must purchase from the state with the aproval of the state legislature.

My opinion, and my opinion and 2 dollars will get you a cup of coffee.

Same thing applies here. Fed property is that which is ceeded. Our Feds do a lot of in-state road funding of highways. I figured they would use these in land waterways to extend their reach.

[monty]

Same thing applies here. Fed property is that which is ceeded. Our Feds do a lot of in-state road funding of highways. I figured they would use these in land waterways to extend their reach.

The feds give federal highway grants to the states also here with many strings attached. They also have grant money for counties and municipalities. These come with not just strings attached but are like a noose around your neck. This is ome more way the feds increase their power over the states, counties and towns all across America. The county and town governments in Nevada have positions for grant writers. The politicians say "why not? It's free money" Yes it is free if you implement all the regulations and stipulations and give up your rights.

[palani]

... and give up your rights.

That ship sailed long ago.

[monty]

That ship sailed long ago.

It left port the day after the fitst Congress convened. But it seems to me like the wind really filled her sails after the Kennedy assasination and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Gun Control Act and Public Safety Act.

[Ares]

So if I'm reading that Statement of Revocation correctly, you could in theory go back to your employer and correct your W2 to mark it as Exempt. You'd no longer pay any taxes or be required to file a 1040 every year.

[monty]

So if I'm reading that Statement of Revocation correctly, you could in theory go back to your employer and correct your W2 to mark it as Exempt. You'd no longer pay any taxes or be required to file a 1040 every year.

No, do NOT mark you W-4 exempt. Go back to your employer and cancel your W-4. Do not sign any Form W-9. You will no longer be required to file a form 1040. No more social security, medicare or obamacare

[7th trump]

No, do NOT mark you W-4 exempt. Go back to your employer and cancel your W-4. Do not sign any Form W-9. You will no longer be required to file a form 1040. No more social security, medicare or obamacare

I think monty has been listening to me.

The form W4 is only for participating in Social Security where you give permission to the employer to treat your earnings as "wages" which such "wages" are subject to deductions and withholdings.

If you look on the back of a W4 in fine print theres two statutes that must be on the form that tells you what the purpose of the form is for.

The two statutes in fine print are all about "employment". And "Employment" is defined in the Social Security Act and can be found in Title 26 (income taxes) at 26usc 3121(c) and all federal taxes are under Subtitle C- Employment Taxes

Wow....it only took 8 plus years of pounding this keyboard on various website for someone to finally GET IT!
And it has absolutely nothing at all to do with FRN's or being a federal employee or any other stupid theory out there.
It all has to do with you participating in Social Security to earn taxable "wages".

The very most important statute when it comes to taxes being imposed on your earnings is this one (26usc 3101)

(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))—

The reason why it is the most important one is because this statute is the Dmarc that separates untaxable earnings from taxable "wages"
This statute specifically states that in order earn taxable wages (3121(a) "wages") is to be (3121(b) "employed"). And the heart of Social Security is earning credits towards your social security benefits by earning 3121(b) "wages".
If you do not participate in Social Security you do not earn 3121(a) "wages".
And theres no law in any books that says social security participation is mandatory...in fact the SSA will tell you it is not mandatory.
This is how I revoked the W4 by informing the employer just what he was forcing me into which was forcing me to give up Constitutional protections by them forcing me into participating in social security (signing the W4).
Palani will pipe in and disagree and tell you a bunch of garbage, but remember its palani who doesnt research the statutes or the law to find the exit out of the rabbit hole.

[monty]

I think monty has been listening to me.

The form W4 is only for participating in Social Security where you give permission to the employer to treat your earnings as "wages" which such "wages" are subject to deductions and withholdings.

If you look on the back of a W4 in fine print theres two statutes that must be on the form that tells you what the purpose of the form is for.

The two statutes in fine print are all about "employment". And "Employment" is defined in the Social Security Act and can be found in Title 26 (income taxes) at 26usc 3121(c) and all federal taxes are under Subtitle C- Employment Taxes

Wow....it only took 8 plus years of pounding this keyboard on various website for someone to finally GET IT!
And it has absolutely nothing at all to do with FRN's or being a federal employee or any other stupid theory out there.
It all has to do with you participating in Social Security to earn taxable "wages".

The very most important statute when it comes to taxes being imposed on your earnings is this one (26usc 3101)



The reason why it is the most important one is because this statute is the Dmarc that separates untaxable earnings from taxable "wages"
This statute specifically states that in order earn taxable wages (3121(a) "wages") is to be (3121(b) "employed"). And the heart of Social Security is earning credits towards your social security benefits by earning 3121(b) "wages".
If you do not participate in Social Security you do not earn 3121(a) "wages".
And theres no law in any books that says social security participation is mandatory...in fact the SSA will tell you it is not mandatory.
This is how I revoked the W4 by informing the employer just what he was forcing me into which was forcing me to give up Constitutional protections by them forcing me into participating in social security (signing the W4).
Palani will pipe in and disagree and tell you a bunch of garbage, but remember its palani who doesnt research the statutes or the law to find the exit out of the rabbit hole.

Actually, I read Pete Hendrickson's book. From the information he put forth I determined that I am not a taxpayer according to the relevant tax law. I no longer sign W-4 or W-9 forms.

[Ares]

The problem is most employers require a signed W-4, before they'll even let you start.

I work for a global Information Technology company, not having a signed W-4 is on file I don't think is going to fly for me.