Cracking The Code is Successful! - Page 12

PANICPASS · #**111** 04-25-2006, 08:18 PM

I read the form.

I need a definition of U.S. citizen. None of the other choices apply to me.

AndyK · #**112** 04-25-2006, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

I read the form.

I need a definition of U.S. citizen. None of the other choices apply to me.

This is really difficult: You have four possibilities: A, B, C, or D. You've eliminated three of them. What is left?

As to US citizenship, if, with a few specific exceptions, you were born within the geographic boundaries of one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, then you have the right to claim US citizenship. If you choose to do otherwise, there are specific procedures for renouncing your citizenship.

If you need a definition, look it up.

David Merrill · #**113** 04-25-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

AndyK,

I don't care about all that "stuff" you said about David. That stuff might be important to me if I was personally interested in him. Right now I'm not personally interested in him, but I might be later.

Are you personally interested in David, Andy?

Now, back to the topic...

Here is an SSN application. http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5_rev.pdf It asks what kind of citizen you are!! How in the heck am I supposed to know what kind of citizen I am?

AndyK is most likely trying to get you to quote him so that I will read it and be prompted to respond. That Ignore List is really quite clever. Especially if it has him resorting to things he thinks he knows about me, or better yet, just making stuff up.

The kind of citizen you are is the product of your declaration. Try looking at it that way. A great study about citizenship is the Book of Acts around Chapters 18 to the end of the Book. Understanding especially that Paul spent time under protective custody of Felix and then two years under house arrest in Rome from where he basically wrote the New Covenant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

If all citizens of the United States are federal employees then everyone with an SSN is a federal employee. You, me, and the guy next door knows that that is not true.
Where do get that idea, David?

[Do you have a SSN? You have to be a federal employee/citizen of the United States to have a SSN.]

You become a U.S. citizen when you apply for the SSN. I don't see where the "federal employee" label comes into the picture.

That is more along the lines of getting a benefit of having a legal or full name. License to operate in commercial intercourse. Presumption of social compact wherein obligations to perform as a person (corporation) are exchanged for the ability to earn a living.

The proposition was first presented by Eric W. Madsen of Team Law trust in Denver. He pointed it out over the Thirteenth Amendment and then that prepared me for the quoted IRS agent, "All citizens of the United States are federal employees." But there are many other confirmations along the way.

You are welcome to try making sense of the Thirteenth Amendment in any other context. I will gladly listen to that.

Regards,

David Merrill.

PANICPASS · #**114** 04-25-2006, 09:24 PM

I wish I had known what a U.S. citizen was when I was 12 years old because had I known I was one of the people of New York, and not a U.S. citizen, I would not have applied for a number.

David Merrill · #**115** 04-25-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

I wish I had known what a U.S. citizen was when I was 12 years old because had I known I was one of the people of New York, and not a U.S. citizen, I would not have applied for a number.

Well I have some good news for you. Like citizenship it is completely up to your testimony. I went to the SSA and inquired, actually demanded they get rid of my SSN. Well, they don't do that. They explained that is something that I do.

You can get rid of your SSN by ceasing to say it or write it down. It sounds as crazy as AndyK is trying to make me sound but serious as a heart attack, that is what the SSA told me and I can assure you I have no SSN according to the revokation instructions of the SSA.

Regards,

David Merrill.

AndyK · #**116** 04-25-2006, 09:34 PM

Since David is "ignoring" me, I'm sure he won't be upset if I post a 9 digit number in the format of 3-2-4 which he knows very well and another number with 5 digits after the dollar sign which he also knows very well.

David is a wordsmith. He has the ability to string together phases which sound erudite but, upon examination, are devoid of content.

He is the verbal equivalent of the Emperor's tailor.

He also chooses to ignore people who pose a threat to his carefully crafted world-view.

Have you noticed how he has refused to respond to direct questions from me, JRB, Shoora, and others? He does this because providing straight answers would cut the foundation out from his verbal house of cards.

Did you ever wonder why David Merrill is here?

Check out ecclesia.org/forums. Check out Quatloos and HIS profile http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/p...profile&u=3189

David Merrill (FKA David van Pelt) is starved for attention. He posted regularly at ecclesia until they got tired of him. He then moved to Quatloos until he realized he had become the villiage idiot, that his lies were all unmasked, and that his carefully constructed history was crumbling in the light of the truth.

So, David came here. His pronouncements are so deep and inscrutable that they must be correct. His casual brush-off of anyone who fails to see his brilliant truths are wonders in themselves.

With respect to David Merrill, two words: caveat emptor.

He lies, lies about his lies, and lies about people who are truthful.

Beware of what he says and research every word of it yourself.

BOBT12 · #**117** 04-25-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyK

Start with 26USC 1 and 60 through 63.

They are the heart of the matter.

You can find them at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...section_1.html

and

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...rts/i/toc.html

There are regulations associated with these, but you said "the law"

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOBT12

"If any person liable to pay any tax". Who is liable for a Subtitle A tax? Again, I have never been informed, under penalty of perjury, that I was liable for any tax under the Code, by the Secretary or any agent of the government.

None of your cites discuss who is made liable for the tax. As I read your cites, a tax is imposed once someone is liable. Where is the explanation of who is liable? This was the question! There seems to be a implication that only Married individuals filing joint returns, etc., are liable, however, just as indicated in the quote below, it could mean no one is liable. Thus, they are void of vagueness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Quote:

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

David Merrill wrote:
The 6331(a) missing clause argument is garbage because if you are arguing it, you are a federal employee/citizen of the United States. Just the same, at a glance it looks like it has merit:

If you're not supposed to argue about it then they should put the paragraph back in; otherwise the missing paragraph is fraud by ommission. It doesn't matter what the paragraph says. The fact that it's omitted is what's important.

Emphasis added.

Section 6331(a) provides information on who the section applies to. However, when section 6331(a) is removed, there is no replacement section to inform the reader who it clearly must apply to. This, then, forces the reader to imagine who it might apply to, which could be anyone, or no one. Thus, it is void for vagueness! This sums up the way that the IRS perpetuates BS and calls it "the LAW".

David Merrill · #**118** 04-25-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOBT12

None of your cites discuss who is made liable for the tax. As I read your cites, a tax is imposed once someone is liable. Where is the explanation of who is liable? This was the question! There seems to be a implication that only Married individuals filing joint returns, etc., are liable, however, just as indicated in the quote below, it could mean no one is liable. Thus, they are void of vagueness.

I for instance am not a person liable for paying income tax. I have no SSN and therefore have no Taxpayer ID No. I have no DOB and therefore cannot be associated to any birth certificate that has been gambled on as a bank note in the Tontine or suppositional wagering scheme. I have no last name (family or surname) and therefore provide no prima facie evidence of a social compact called full or legal name.

Regards,

David Merrill.

BOBT12 · #**119** 04-25-2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I for instance am not a person liable for paying income tax.

I agree, based on what I see.

David Merrill · #**120** 04-26-2006, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BOBT12

I agree, based on what I see.

It is an interesting argument and a friend gave me a disk with all the amendments since the 1930s on it. He walked me through the formation of who is liable. However I retain information that appertains to myself much better than information that appertains to others. At the time I figured he wanted to clear the argument and was using me for a sounding board.

As I recall the BATF being the source of enforcement for the IRC, there was only one place in the entire IRC defining the person liable to pay income tax. That was someone importing liquors, which connects to the legislative history of 6332(a) being a genuine, blatant government employee who was importing liquors. This also connects to the proprietor of the clerk's telephone (US Supreme Court) being upon reverse index, "THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS SUPREME COURT OF THE US". It is the clerk who decides which cases go to the justices.

Regards,

David Merrill.