So when your new employer hands you a W4, you...?

[David Merrill]

That is another illusion in my opinion. You do not need to lie about the SSN. I went to the Social Security Administration and told them to "get rid" of my Social Security Number. I was told they do not do that. The office manager explained that all I had to do was quit saying it and writing it down.

He was completely correct. I am in charge of what I have and do not have - that is the essence of property rights.

For instance one could go renew a driver license and supply an affidavit that he or she has no SSN. They would probably inquire about the "old" SSN but simply tell them that is not your SSN. Point out that the affidavit clearly says that you have no SSN.

(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), on and after October 1, 2000, an application for a driver's or minor driver's license shall include the applicant's social security number, which shall remain confidential and shall not be placed on the applicant's driver's or minor driver's license unless such applicant has waived such confidentiality; except that such confidentiality shall not extend to the state child support enforcement agency, the department, or a court of competent jurisdiction when requesting information in the course of activities authorized under article 13 of title 26, C.R.S.,or article 14 of title 14, C.R.S. If the applicant does not have a social security number, the applicant shall submit a sworn statement, together with the application, stating that the applicant does not have a social security number. The license issued as a result of said application may, at the applicant's option, contain an identification number, which shall be the applicant's social security number.

However it is very difficult to get your foot in the door without a SSN. I suppose you understand this already. Maybe the correct way to say it is, "I do not use my SSN anymore." That technically is the same as saying, "I have no SSN."


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Just a note on constructive trusts. The general social compact in place relies upon your legal name and endorsement of fiat currency. So if you and your husband are going to subject yourselves to the symptoms of sinderesis (compulsive disorder that forces you to do what you know is right and reasonable) it pays to know how you offer yourselves up to be chattel.

Have you ever heard that you appoint yourself to be the collection agent when you sign the 1040 Form? That is true, but not by statute. You simply are forming a trust so. A constructive trust around the expression of endorsement.

Many birth certificates actually say "American Bank Note Company" or "Northwest Bank Note Company" in fine print. That is just the manufacturer of the basic form and does not prove anything but just the same there is a construction in place that forms a general adhesion contract around things like going to the Department of Revenue instead of the Driver License Store.

The key term here is Colorable. If you change your name from the true name to the legal name your name is colorable. The value of the dollar shifts among two or three factors like how many of them are printed. Crank out a lot and the value goes down. Burn them in the furnace and the value goes up with rarity - colorable.

If you and your husband are going down this path, it is a tough row to hoe. But believe it or not, it is admirable. To risk being shunned and fired etc. all for your sense of what it true and right.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[PANICPASS]

The key term here is Colorable. If you change your name from the true name to the legal name your name is colorable. The value of the dollar shifts among two or three factors like how many of them are printed. Crank out a lot and the value goes down. Burn them in the furnace and the value goes up with rarity - colorable.

Yes, our money is colorable, but just because it is colorable, does that mean it is okay for the government to deceive us with their unilateral contracts, and to not uphold the law as it is written? The fact is, our money and their unilateral contracts would not be so "colorable" if the government would uphold the law.

How can there be colorable money and laws that oppose colorable at the same time?


col·or·a·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (klr--bl)
adj.
Meant to deceive; not genuine.
Seemingly true or genuine; plausible. See Synonyms at plausible.

Main Entry: col·or·able
Function: adjective
: having an appearance of truth, validity, or right <if a colorable claim — or better — can be pleaded —D. Federal Reporter Kolb and M. Pacific Reporter Carroll> —col·or·ably adverb

[PANICPASS]

The thing is, you can't have colorable money and laws that do not support that money at the same time.

Is the law supposed to support colorable money or not? YES, OR NO?

THE FACT IS, THE LAW DOESN'T SUPPORT COLORABLE MONEY. SO THEN WHAT SUPPORTS IT?

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

The thing is, you can't have colorable money and laws that do not support that money at the same time.

Is the law supposed to support colorable money or not? YES, OR NO?

THE FACT IS, THE LAW DOESN'T SUPPORT COLORABLE MONEY. SO THEN WHAT SUPPORTS IT?

1. YES, OR NO? = NO.

2. Fraud, lies and corruption are the only support for colorable money (fiat).

[David Merrill]

I consider the fraud more of a set of risk management banking policies. That there is no consideration behind the loan given to produce the fiat currency, that is of course dishonest.

My point was that the real consideration is assumpsit. By using a legal instead of given true name you tacitly admit that you endorse the processes in motion. You back the legal name on the birth certificate and by constructive trust you say, "This is my birth certificate. It has my name on it." Well, that birth certificate is the functional bank note and by your credit rating under the penumbra of that suppositional wagering scheme, you place the number in dollars attached to that otherwise colorable bank note. Debt backs the FRNs so that amount in credit is the value of the brick in the ziggurat (pyramid) of macroeconomics. If you discover your true name then that brick will only support how much you pledge of yourself into the suppositional wagering scheme (Tontine).

Thanks for the definition of colorable. I thought it meant something slightly different. However it turns out to mean nakar, or nokriy in Hebrew - foreigner or stranger (Deuteronomy 15:1-3; 23:20). One descriptor in the definition is "feign self to be another". So the definition of colorable makes sense; if you tell me you are John and I hear you telling somebody else you are Ted, I am fairly safe to presume you are up to no good.

My gist was to prepare this couple a little. Without understanding the nature of colorable names, money and land they will probably end up blaming external parties and powers. I feel from past experience it is useless to call that paranoid but if these good folks have chosen to follow the compulsive desire to do what is right, even to their own financial and career detriment, then I may be able to help them understand the source of all the assumptions being made about them. All the contracts and hidden adhesion to obligations to perform.

If the world is really like you say and nobody is held to any law, even banking policies, I would just get back into the System. Just go where it is safe. Because the commitments I make and the promises I keep are no longer my responsibility. How could God or whatever blame me for somebody elses' crimes? And if these good people believe that it is all corruption outside of their own household, they better grovel and plead insanity - beg the people in Personnel forgive that little bout of goofiness that made them look like Tax Protesters. Because they have no control over the behavior of those people in Personnel, who cowtow to the IMFIRS and its demands. So I am hopeful they will just give up the fight, or comprehend it quickly enough that it does not starve them while they blame 'government' or whatever.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[PANICPASS]

If the world is really like you say and nobody is held to any law, even banking policies, I would just get back into the System. Just go where it is safe.

Yes, the world really is like I say. The world wasn't so "colorable" before 1965, when our money was backed by silver. Now that our money is backed by nothing, it is getting more colorable by the day.

I am not suggesting anything as far as what a person should do about it. I believe "the system" is whatever you make it to be. It starts with US.

[David Merrill]

I am not suggesting anything as far as what a person should do about it. I believe "the system" is whatever you make it to be.

I feel that this couple subject have made up their minds. Maybe they are vascillating a bit because the husband is seeking a job and the wife just lost her contract. Therefore I felt urgency to inform them quickly about some of the presumed adhesion contracts imposed.

Speaking for myself I have the sum experience of over a hundred people and couples like them. I really wanted this woman and her husband to understand the obligations to perform.

Yes, the world really is like I say.

That is a bit subjective. But I must agree that your world is more likely the world this subject couple are living in. I am somewhat able to live in an idealist reality applying pure theory. It sounds so good that it may be dangerous - so I am telling this couple to get in over their heads, into the truth about colorable money, land and names; or run back and do their very best to undo what the truth has just done to their lives.

There are likely as many realities as people:

Perspective 1

Perspective 2 "Posted - Sep 04 2005 : 5:22:32 PM" by Loybost.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[PANICPASS]

so I am telling this couple to get in over their heads, into the truth about colorable money, land and names; or run back and do their very best to undo what the truth has just done to their lives.

You cannot "turn back" the hand of time, what the truth has just done to their lives. The truth once told, changes everything. Happens every time. Especially so in relationships--employers not excluded.

[unknownelement]

David Merrill,

I feel that over the course of our research we are rather well versed in the colorable nature of most all commercial affairs. In response to one of your earlier posts in this thread, you said that effectively saying that you do not use your ssn is the same as saying you do not have one. Legally, or for the benefit of a company's legal department, how is this so? If I do not have a ssn, how could I be failing to provide required information?