NOTICE: This is an archived forum maintained only for search purposes.

Member services are being moved and revamped at

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Designated area for entrenched debates with so-called "tax professionals" (TP). Here it is cold-reality, the facts and law mano a mano with the lies spouted by agent provocateurs, propagandists, and the wanton socialist establishment.

Unread post July 23rd, 2013, 7:26 am
johnny Novice


jessejames44 wrote:
The only advise is that nobody has never really won a court case where they sued for the return of money's taken for a tax liability.

On the other hand to preempt further action from the CFTB I'd go to your employer showing them administrative regulation 301.6109-1(d).

DING. No more calls, we have our winner.

1) you misspelled "advice" exactly like odin798.

2) your advice won't work & lacks specificity. Showing a regulation won't get an employee out of SS, out of the signed W4 employee-employer contract. You're not trying to help at all, are you?

Bottom line: jessejames is a disinfo agent & likely authoring odin's posts

Unread post July 23rd, 2013, 9:10 am
jessejames44 Apprentice



If you like please post over in the"committee of core withholding" thread to avoid johnny.

You are a memeber of my group so you should have the privilege to post there.

Unread post July 23rd, 2013, 9:13 am
jessejames44 Apprentice


Go read the fine "paperwork reduction act" print on the W4 to educate yourself what the purpose of a W4 is.

And please.......explain, with law as the foundation, how lawful money stops withholding you stupid twit!

Unread post July 25th, 2013, 6:06 am
johnny Novice


Hey psychopath, get a load of this... ... b-12-2-250

Unread post July 25th, 2013, 10:08 am
jessejames44 Apprentice



You'll get used to johnny's childish replies.

Look up "psycopath" and then go back and reread johnny's posts and see if you can identify who the real spycopath is.

Unread post July 25th, 2013, 9:23 pm
johnny Novice


That was a link to someone selling Romex® copper wire for bitcoin. A reminder of when "jessejames" tried to convince us he was an electrician over at ... er_page=20

Fairly comical display on Jesse's part there, or at least would be comical, if the very freedom & livlihood of so many Americans weren't at stake. The banksters take their Federal Reserve/IRS tax scam VERY SERIOUSLY, as evidenced by the way JesseJames follows me around the internet trying to denounce my success (and actually helping me; thank you).

The point is this: The $50 sale of that Romex wire will not be a taxable event for the seller. Unless of course, the seller consents to consider it income. Why? On the surface you might say it's nontaxable because it's a fairly anonymous transaction with no reporting, IRS can't tax what it doesn't see. But that's not why. The truth is ... it's a sale not involving Federal Reserve money. There's no federal nexus, no connection, no federal privilege, no federal jurisdiction. The seller merely needs to stand up and not consent to consider it income under the Revenue Acts. As well he should because it's not income under the Revenue Acts.

But once again, only if the seller does not consent to consider it income. If the seller has been conditioned, conned, hoodwinked into the lie that everything is federal income then he might actually include it on a tax return as federal income. Doh! This is where programming, propaganda, official lies, etc. all come together. And if someone like me reveals the scam, well then, the cartel must send in a disinfo agent to put out the fire. This is where "jessejames" comes in. This is Jesse's job - to keep folks away from the real winners, away from the truth... by whatever means necessary, including posing as a union electrician from Iowa.

Unread post July 26th, 2013, 10:07 am
jessejames44 Apprentice


I know what you're trying t o do johnny and it isnt going to work.
Go play your childish games somehwere else.

You've been told many many many times about administrative regulation 301.6109-1(d) saying an individual doesnt have to participate in social security if he so wishes .
Thats why I said to look up the two statutes on the W4 referrenced by the requirement of the Paperwrk Reduction Act on the W4.
One is 6109 and the other 3402.
6109 relates to the disclosure of the ssn on the W4 itself (voluntary) and other is related to being "employed" as defined by the Social Security act from being involved in "employment".

And no johnny I could careless about your 6 years you call "success" (lies) from not reporting on yourself to even file a 1040.

Unread post July 26th, 2013, 3:35 pm
johnny Novice


I notice you're no longer willing to talk about transacting outside the scope of federal jurisdiction with bitcoin ... or electricianing, why is that?

And you're wrong, my person has been reported on in excess of 70k last year:

Thanks for your all attention to my victories over bankster oppression! :mrgreen:


Return to The Octagon