From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@lorrey.com)
Date: Wed Apr 28 1999 - 15:46:21 MDT
PAA11265
Subject: META:TYRANNY, Know your customer rules/taxes, WASRe: Fwd: [o.cx]
URGENT: New online petition for privacy! (fwd)
Sender: owner-extropians@extropy.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
This fight is now over, at least for now.
I'm posting a copy of a document I just received regarding income taxes
here in the US that some of you may want to read, esp. the legal types here
for evaluation purposes.
As follows:
> YOU CAN STILL BE FREE . . .
> IF . . . YOU WANT TO BE!
>
> This the first in our continuing series of “R/A Classics.” Starting with
this issue, REASONABLE ACTION will be reprinting articles from previous
issues which we believe have timeless value—in terms of information and
education. We will reprint classics for newer members who did not have the
opportunity to discover the information when it first appeared.
>
> SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE INCOME TAX
>
> The income tax is not the only form of social control that is strangling
the nation's freedom. If indeed the income tax is to be done away with, the
battleground of the future will concentrate in the area of information
management systems that infringe on rights to privacy. It should come as no
surprise that there are many large computer databases maintaining records
on almost everyone. Some are maintained by the government and some by
private business; but each system of records depends on the assignment of a
number to individuals within the database. Such assignments have one
purpose: They facilitate a positive identification of the individual who is
the bearer of the number. With rare exception, the numerical common
denominator between all of these systems of records—both government and
non-government—is the social security number. A numerical assignment such
as this has two advantages in a computer program. First, it prevents
“duplicate” records from occurring within the system of records; and second,
of him.
>
> EFFICIENCY OR CONSPIRACY?
>
> If all of this sounds ominous . . . it isn't. Computers make life easier,
and computer records facilitate an efficient business environment that
reduces costs, increases profit, and in general makes life more affordable.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with either efficiency or numerical
identification. What is ominous is the common denominator on which these
systems of records depend. . . the social security number. While the number
itself is not evil—it's intended purpose - to positively identify
everyone—has the potential for establishing a method of control far greater
than the income tax or a value added tax could ever achieve. In fact, that
9-digit number has become the greatest single threat to our individual
sovereignty today. Its mass acceptance by an increasingly apathetic and
uneducated nation makes possible an economic system where cash is obsolete
and a “new order” imminent. More than a few people have recognized that
anyone who is unwilling or unable to interface with a cashless system w
>
> THE MISSING LINK
>
> If you never applied for the benefit, and thus the number that is
associated with the account for retaining it, then there are no provisions
for maintaining that information! All of the data is keyed to, and
accessible only through, a uniform method of identification. . . the social
security number. Without that numerical identifier, the system simply
cannot function. The social security number is the “key” to this “system,”
and as long as people want the benefit and are willing to use that number,
the system will flourish and expand. But what do you think would happen if
people began revoking their applications to “obtain or retain a benefit”
from the social security entitlement program, and then stopped using the
number? Simple. . . the entire house of cards would crumble, and the method
of control could not serve its intended purpose! Many people are becoming
aware of this entanglement. They realize that real freedom exists for those
who never applied for the number. Some have taken the first step and r
>
> BATTLE LINES ARE DRAWN
>
> What you might be surprised to learn is that this movement is well under
way. Results have been predictable. Public response, for example, to the
so-called requirement for obtaining a social security number prior to
drivers license renewal is a prime example of an issue where the battle
lines have already been drawn. For clarification to new readers, there
really was (in most states) no requirement to “obtain” a social security
number to apply for a drivers license—only an illusion (intentional or not)
created for the benefit of the average person. The law does require those
who have a number to submit it; but, individuals who do NOT have a social
security number are under no obligation to obtain one. According to the
Director of the Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for example,
individuals without a number merely write “NONE” in the space provided -
but the government was not honest with the people, nor was the media who
blindly parroted what they were told without verifying the information. Un
control of an educated public willing to assert their rights, then it's all
over for global government. An increasing number of people realize the
implications of participation and do not wish to voluntarily cooperate in
the systematic dismantling of their form of government or the liberty that
their fathers have enjoyed. Growing in number, these groups of people are
asserting their rights, refusing to volunteer, and creating a major problem
for planners of global government. We understand that the States of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Indiana, and Tennessee (among others) have already
backed down on the so called requirement to obtain a social security number
for drivers license renewals (see article this issue). More are on the way,
and as the number of people willing to assert their rights continues to
increase, the government is forced to capitulate on other (globalist)
policies that have no provision in U.S. law.
>
> WHO'S WHO IN THE GLOBAL POLITICS OF POWER AND CONTROL
>
> Every U.S. president this century has worked towards globalism. The acts
of some presidents have been incidental, while the acts of others have been
in the extreme. Either way, these acts blatantly violate the oath of office
to which the president is bound. Several have performed outstanding
disservice to their country and deserve special recognition for their
actions. Most notable was perhaps President Woodrow Wilson. He was
instrumental in assisting those who resurrected the Aldrich Bill, and
turned it into the “Federal Reserve Act” which was later jammed down the
throats of the people. By controlling the money supply, Wilson's backers,
(the progenitors of the Federal Reserve system) were effectively able to
peddle influence and enact legislation to suppress free enterprise. This
action centralized economic and political functions in the hands of their
representatives. The nation has suffered untold social and economic damage
ever since; but, Wilson was by no means alone in these endeavors. Roosevelt als
>
> HOW TO INSTALL A SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION
>
> Up until that time, it was “presumed” that an individual was NOT “the
subject of” any given body of law, and thus, NOT subject to the
jurisdiction of the agency of government charged with the duty and
responsible of administering it. To exercise authority over any given
citizen, an agency of government would be required by law to prove (in
Court) that a provision of law existed which would give the agency the
jurisdiction to proceed. In other words—the burden of proof for the
existence of a lawful requirement, and thus jurisdiction with respect to
any given body of law, was on the shoulders of the government. That was—and
still is -the “essence” of freedom! Unfortunately, the “New Deal” brought
with it a change of venue. Rather than a “presumption” in favor of the
citizen, requiring the government to positively establish the existence of
a “lawful requirement,” the burden of proof would now be shifted to the
indvidual who must show that the government does not have jurisdiction with
respect to any given bo
o have authority. Then it could utilize that information in a manner which
would “encourage voluntary compliance” and more effectively integrate the
U.S. into the new emerging social order.
>
> TECHNOLOGY AND FREEDOM
>
> Technologically, the government did not have a fast, efficient way to
maintain, recall, or utilize the information on citizens over which it now
“presumed” certain jurisdiction. This inability to manage information may
well have been the nation's last vestige of unasserted freedom - a small
set back for the architects of the new paradigm considering the speed at
which technology was progressing. The die was cast however, and the
mechanics of the process used the additional time to solidify the necessary
“voluntary” participation by creating “perceived needs. They then
perpetuated their agenda in the face of opposition by “exchanging
favors”—i.e. the pur-chase of votes in exchange for entitlement benefits in
the new “voluntary” social programs that were the key to various
“presumptions” and “jurisdiction(s). These programs were designed to touch
the lives of almost every American, and today, over 50% of the general
public receives some form of government assistance. Is it any wonder that
the “vote” of the p
could establish, these programs would still serve as the basis of
“jurisdiction,” foment demand for service, and promote the acceptance of
world government to ensure security for all. The entire process would be
brought about through the synthesis of economic and social situations,
without which, there could be no effective implementation. However,
government funded technology was racing along, and preparations were being
made to lay the foundation for such a system. All that remained was to
assign numbers to everyone. There was only one stumbling block to face
within the United States. The success of the new social order would depend
on the “voluntary compliance” previously mentioned. Why? Because under the
law, (limitations imposed by the Constitution), participation could not be
required. It wouldn't have to be. Given a change in the “presumption” of
jurisdiction and sufficient time, the people would never know—but their
acceptance of this voluntary scheme would depend on such aspects as
“deception” (maki
>
> A DEAL YOU CAN'T REFUSE
>
> What person in their right mind wouldn't accept a free lunch—and such a
deal . . . how could you refuse?—But just in case you do, we'll give you
some added financial incentives! We'll put the squeeze on your budget. When
there's not enough money to go around and you can't get a job—then you'll
see things our way. Since the money supply was under the control of the
social engineers (thanks to Wilson), it was a very simple matter to
constrict. As with any shortage, people become desperate; and, desperate
people are willing to do almost anything to alleviate their discomfort. Not
too many years ago there was a shortage of gasoline and long lines at the
pump. The resulting mayhem was similar to the behavior that one might
witness at the local zoo. The effect of putting someone in that position
and then dangling a free lunch should be obvious. The ultimate contrived
financial crunch of 1929 ensured that there was sufficient incentive to
accept the scheme and by the time it was introduced in 1934, the trap for a
>
> WHERE IS OUR FREEDOM NOW?
>
> What happened to our freedom? Does it still exist? Yes - but it must be
aggressively exercised. The supreme Court has held that “your rights will
NOT be passively protected” and that if you want them, you must
“aggressively assert them.” Yes, we are still free, but that freedom
depends on the degree to which we are willing to assert our rights; and, to
be totally free, we must resolve to dissolve the link whereby the
government can maintain information on the citizens over which it
“presumes” jurisdiction. As long as that link persists, enforcement of
“perceived” requirements is possible and likely to occur. Moreover, it is
even more likely to occur when you consider that many of the personnel who
administer the programs have come to accept the notion that there is a
legal requirement and do not realize that it is voluntary. These government
employees rarely understand our form of government or the limitations on
such requirements in respect to the Constitution. With that in mind we now
examine the logical
>
> ENFORCEMENT OR VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION?
>
> If you are free and you have a “right to property”, you cannot be
“required by law” to take care of your neighbor, unless of course, you
voluntarily contract with that neighbor for the mutual support of one
another. The terms of the contract might include financial hardship which
would require “old age benefits,” or, “aid to dependent children, etc.” or,
whatever other terms of the contract you agree to. A person could
participate by making application—but a “free” person in a “free” country
could not be forced by law to participate. There certainly is a moral
imperative to assist our fellow man in time of need, but such ethical
considerations must be limited to specific times and circumstances and
dependent upon the willingness of the individual choosing to exercise
charity. Such moral obligations are dependent upon factors which can only
be assessed by the person who is in a position to give or make donations.
Yes, a person may have a moral duty to be charitable, however that
obligation does not extend t
n is constitutional. So thickens the plot. A body of law that could be
systematically misapplied (assuming that it was intentional) would fill the
bill nicely; and, the agency of government responsible for administering
its provisions (the IRS?) could, with its “broad sweeping powers”,
encourage the highest level of “voluntary compliance!” If that expression
sounds familiar, consider this . . . employment taxes fall within the
confines of Subtitle C. They are voluntarily deducted from payments made to
the employee who has voluntarily chosen to participate (by application) and
expects to build credit towards his or her social security entitlement. The
IRS has the jurisdiction to administer the provisions of such withholding!
>
> LEGAL QUICK SAND
>
> Now consider the following facts:
>
> 1) The Internal Revenue Code does NOT apply to U.S. citizens who are
living and working within the 50 states who are not involved in certain
occupations (like alcohol, tobacco and firearms) or acting as fiduciaries
of nonresident aliens; and,
>
> 2) The IRS does NOT have jurisdiction over those who are NOT the subject
of the law; but,
>
> 3) It is also a fact that the person who has “voluntarily applied” for
the privilege of participating in and receiving social security
entitlements, agrees to the terms of participation; and that,
>
> 4) The terms of participation require “an accounting” for deductions that
the agency (IRS) administers; Therefore, in so doing . . .
>
> 5) Those who have voluntarily chosen to participate have voluntarily
subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the agency that administers its
provisions (the IRS).
>
> If you have a social security number then the IRS DOES have the
jurisdiction and authority to maintain records on you in order to
administer provisions of law regarding your voluntary participation in
social security and may act (correctly or not) on presumptions with regard
to those records. Even though the law does not impose participation,
jurisdiction is established by virtue of an application to participate. But
wait—you say that you did not apply - that it was your parents who applied
for the number on your behalf, or that you applied for the number believing
that it was required, and that you are therefore NOT participating
voluntarily? Is there jurisdiction? The questions are entirely irrelevant.
The very fact that someone possesses and uses (or has used) the number, is
reason enough to “presume” that someone has knowingly and voluntarily
contracted to participate in the program. Voluntary participation involves
the “jurisdiction” of the agency of government responsible for
administering whatever p
>
> SOME SPECIFICS
>
> Who can make deductions from your paycheck, and who can have deductions
made? Only “employer(s)” and “employee(s)” who are under the jurisdiction
of, and have the relationship described for purpose of chapter 24 of the
Internal Revenue Code. The relationship is contractually significant when
the “employee” with a social security number submits a W-4 to the
“employer.” Under that circumstance, and that circumstance only, an
employer has the “authority” to withhold—not necessarily a legal
requirement (by law) to withhold—but an “authority” to withhold—granted not
by the law itself—but by the permission of the employee who wishes to enter
into the “relationship” mentioned in section 3402. The requirement to
withhold belongs to the employer—if—he has chosen to participate and
receives a W-4 from his employee, but it is the employee who makes the
final determination by submitting the W-4. To do so is to create an implied
legal obligation (a presumption). The tax associated with the requirement
(that is used as
volunteer who may be “presumed” to be a mandatory participant who is under
the law and thus any legal requirements that it might impose. The volunteer
faces any misapplication that may, for whatever reason, intentional or
unintentional, be perpetuated by the process.
>
> UP TO THE NECK IN QUICK SAND
>
> Nonresident aliens are the only people required to obtain the social
security number in order to work in the United States, and thus, they are
the only ones required to participate. But nonresident aliens are also the
subject of the income tax. Whoops! The amount of withholding (30%) is
geared to those who are the subject of the income tax laws. Since the law
is mandatory for those to whom it applies, it could be “presumed” that a
participant is “required by law” to participate, and thus the full brunt of
withholding is born by those volunteering. Does this then mean that someone
who chooses to volunteer, subjects himself to the same requirement for a
“deduction of income tax” that would be required of all nonresident aliens
under Subtitle A? No—not necessarily—but again it's irrelevant because the
nature of the problem involves a misapplication which has no provision in
law to begin with. To errantly and illegally enforce any given provision,
the presumption is all that matters. Section 1441 requires cert
from statute. If the only liability arising from statute is section 1461
(for the withholding agent making payments to nonresident aliens), then the
only plausible “presumption” that one might arrive at, is that the U.S.
citizen is filing a 1040 return on behalf of his nonresident alien
principle. Treasury Decision 2313 (TD 2313) confirms the requirement for a
withholding agent to file a 1040 return on behalf of his nonresident alien
principle. There are few other “presumptive” alternatives. For further
confirmation of this logic examine the form letter sent to most nonfilers.
A U.S. citizen living and working within the 50 states, (who has been
filing returns) but suddenly stops filing, will usually receive a form
letter 8176 from the IRS. The IRS regulations and publications identify
this form as a request for backup withholding from a “withholding agent”
who has not filed the appropriate return. The entire process is
fundamentally illogical but it results from ignorance on the part of those
who file, and
>
> BLIND MICE—SEE HOW THEY RUN?
>
> There are none so blind as those who will not see. Human nature hides
from view that which we fear. Old age, incapacity, or any “unknown” is
fearful but in the mind of the public, social security reduces the element
of fear. It provides old age and disability benefits. Who wouldn't want
social security? Conceptually, the program is not unlike insurance (hence
the deceptive title). If everyone puts just a little in, then everyone
benefits a lot, given that the unforeseen rears its ugly head --- right? To
the average person that sounds perfectly logical. Everyone runs to get the
social security card. Now they have a secure retirement! Now they are
protected in case of disaster. If it benefits everyone, then it must be for
“the general welfare”- - right? If it's for the general welfare of the
people then it must be constitutional—right? These incorrect beliefs, are
not only wrong, they are irrelevant. Since voluntary participation does not
require Constitutional authority, it is not necessary for them to bene
ancially oppressed people. Slowly people were led to believe that this
number holds the key to security and that without it, the fabric of society
would be irreparably damaged. They mindlessly accepted what they were told.
Slowly employers and businesses were led to believe that they needed a
number too, and then everyone rushed to “obtain or retain” the benefit, or
participate in what they thought was required. If you want to build credits
for your “protection” you must participate. To build credits you must
subject yourself to the requirements associated with the wage tax (that is
not imposed by law) but which subjects you to the jurisdiction of the
agency that administers it. To accomplish this, fill out a W-4 Form. Make
sure you put your number on the form or you will not receive the
“protection” you desire. Do you want a refund for the amount you overpaid
--- just file a return. Who files a return?—presumably, those who are
required by law to file a return. Oh what a tangled web we weave . . .
>
> THE EMPLOYER COOPERATES
>
> The common law employer has no legal requirement or obligation to
participate. Existing provisions are limited to “government agencies” or
“corporations” (a creation of government) that are operating in the insular
island possessions (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc.) and outside of
Constitutional purview. The employer can volunteer however. Even though the
law does not require his participation, he can apply for a number. If the
employer is not required by law to obtain a federal ID number to manage the
account whereby moneys are withheld from nonresident aliens and other
foreign entities (sections 1441, 1442, and 1443 of the IR Code) then he can
make application for approval so that a number can be assigned to create an
account for his “voluntary compliance.” Regardless of the method, once
entering into this relationship via application, the voluntary participants
become “employer” and “employee” as defined for purpose of Subtitle C. The
employee is then a “covered employee” as defined within, how
>
> THE STRUCTURE OF THE CODE
>
> The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is not applied generally. It is
structured into subtitles. Subtitle A is income tax and its provisions are
found in chapters 1 through 6. The application of the income tax is
confined to those chapters and does not extend beyond. Just as the
application of the income tax is confined within those chapters, the
application of the other taxes in the IRC are found to be confined within
their respective chapters in the same manner. Moreover, the legal authority
conferred in one subtitle does not extend to the enforcement of law in some
other subtitle. For example, the authority to withhold under Subtitle C is
found in section 3402 (keep in mind that Subtitle C is not imposed—it is
voluntary!) The requirement to withhold under Subtitle A is found within
section 1441, 1442, and 1443. The application of these sections and their
requirements are unrelated. In 3402 the authority to withhold is predicated
upon employee participation—In sections 1441, 1442, and 1443, the
requirement to
n Subtitle F, no one can find it. The IRS calls that “voluntary compliance”
and the IRS is correct. It is significant to understand why the government
uses the term “voluntary compliance.” Subtitle A (income tax) is imposed by
law, and although limited in application, compliance is mandatory for those
to whom it applies (nonresident aliens etc.). Subtitle C (employment taxes)
however is NOT imposed, therefore compliance cannot be enforced. When the
government through various IRS officials talk about “voluntary compliance,”
to what are they referring? Are they referring to their ongoing
misapplication of law with regard to Subtitle A, or are they referring to
mass participation under the un-imposed Subtitle C?
>
> GOTCHA!
>
> In examining the basis of illegal enforcement we find a tenuous but
presumptive relationship between the two subtitles. The subject of legal
actions against non taxpayers stems from the belief that everyone must pay
the “income tax” (which is confined to Subtitle A)—Cross references in
Section 5 of the Internal Revenue Code confirms that Subtitle A does not
pertain to citizens.
>
> SEC 5 CROSS REFERENCES RELATING TO TAX ON
> INDIVIDUALS
> (a) Other Rates of Tax on Individuals, etc.--
> (1) For rates of tax on nonresident aliens, see section 871.
> (2) For doubling of tax on citizens of certain foreign countries, see
section 891.
> (3) For rate of withholding in the case of nonresident aliens, see
section 1441.
> (4) For alternative minimum tax, see section 55.
>
> The federal income tax under Subtitle A is imposed on “taxable income”
not “wages.” Specifically, this is found at Section 1.
>
> SECTION 1. TAX IMPOSED (a) . . .. There is hereby imposed on the taxable
income of ..
>
> The tax on “wages” is found elsewhere, specifically within Subtitle C (26
U.S.C. 3402) and it is titled “Employment Taxes.” These taxes are withheld
by the “Employer” defined in Title 26, United States Code section 3401.
That employer is a government agency or corporation, not a common law
employer, unless of course that common law employer voluntarily applies by
submitting a Form SS-4 “Application for Employer Identification Number.”
When the employer submits this application the following terms (we will use
the terms as they are defined within Title 20 since they are more concise)
come into play. Title 20 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 404.1003,
404.1004, and 404.1005 “Employment” “means. . . any service covered by
social security performed by an employee. . .” “What work is covered as
employment” “. . .work you perform as an employee for your employer is
covered as employment under social security” “Who is an employee” “You must
be an employee for your work to be covered as employment for social s
ds entitlement. It cannot be forced (enforced) upon the citizen. However,
if the IRS were going to intentionally misapply the law, how would they do
it? Subtitle A is clearly limited in application and does not pertain to
U.S. citizens in the 50 states. Subtitle C however is different. Subtitle C
has provisions for citizens who are voluntary participants, and the
similarity in certain provisions allows for a blurring of authority as to
the application of the income tax. To make use of this, IRS personnel need
only “presume” that the individual in question had a requirement to file a
return. Section 6012 requires returns of income to be filed but only for
subtitle A (Income tax). Notice that there are no provisions in Subtitle C
which require the U.S. citizen employee to file.
>
> SECTION 6012 “PERSONS REQUIRED TO MAKE RETURNS OF INCOME”
> General Rule. --Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A
shall be made. . .
>
> Second, IRS personnel need to have the authority to assess! If a person
does not file a return, the assessment authority in Subtitle F
“Administration and Procedure” is limited to section 6201. Where is the
reference to the tax on wages under Subtitle C?
>
> SECTION 6201 “ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY”
> The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries,
determinations, and assessments of all taxes. . . which have not been duly
paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority
shall extend to and included the following.
> (1) Taxes shown on return. . .
> (2) Unpaid taxes payable by stamp. . .
>
> Stamp taxes are not the subject of Subtitle C - nor are returns required
under Subtitle A. Third, when IRS personnel misapply the law in dealing
with citizens who are not required to file, they send a notice of
deficiency. A deficiency is defined within section 6211 and it pertains to
subtitles A and B. Where is the authority to send a notice of deficiency
regarding taxes under Subtitle C?
>
> SECTION 6211 “DEFINITION OF DEFICIENCY”
> (a) In General. ---For purposes of this title in the case of income,
estate, and gift taxes imposed by Subtitle A and B and excise taxes imposed
by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44 the term deficiency means. . .
>
> SECTION 6212 “NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY”
> (a) In General. ---If the Secretary determines that there is a deficiency
in respect of any tax imposed by Subtitle A and B and excise taxes imposed
or chapters 41, 42, 43, or 44, he is authorized to send a notice of
deficiency to the taxpayer.
>
> Deficiencies do not relate to voluntarily filed returns made under the
provisions of Subtitle C. The misapplication of the law by IRS personnel is
graphically demonstrated by provisions pursuant Subtitle A pertaining to
citizens. United States citizens living and working within the 50 states
may claim their lawful exemption under the provisions of federal regulation
1.14415. The exemption applies to tax under Subtitle A, a tax to which
citizens are not subject!
>
> SECTION 1.1441-5 Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding.
> (a) Individuals. For purposes of chapter 3 of the Code, an individuals
written statement that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United
States may be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such
individual is a citizen or resident of the United States.
>
> Obviously, aliens do not give statements of citizenship! Income tax under
Subtitle A is withheld from aliens only. Chapter 3 is in Subtitle A, not
Subtitle C. Without an application for “voluntary participation”, the
employer is not an “employer” and may not participate for the benefit of
his employees. Without making application, the employer cannot be forced to
participate. But what employer doesn't want to give his employees a
“benefit.” These and other “perks” are factors that are considered in the
market place of quality labor and it is natural for the employer to want to
participate, even though he or she may not realize that it is voluntary.
Our members are aware of this. Some are employers who do not participate.
Edward Kotmair, the son of the fiduciary for the S.A.P. Fellowship, is a
large (common law) employer who does NOT participate. He has no federal ID
number, and his employees give him statements of citizenship to forward to
the IRS. The government has tried to coerce his participation but h
not require you to participate, then don't participate. With participation
comes the very intervention and control that is now stifling the economy.
Even “covered employees” (as previously defined) who have actually applied
for the social security benefit need not participate unless they wish to
build up credits. This fact can be verified by examining the general
provisions in Subtitle F. We challenge you to find any that relate to
Subtitle C. If Subtitle C does not come under the law then it can in no way
be imposed. Of course—those who don't pay, don't get any benefit.
>
> SECRET LAWS—SECRET JURISDICTION?
>
> In the Yokas case, the Court held that when Congress passes a law which
involves government agencies and their corresponding jurisdiction over
citizens, it is not incumbent upon Congress to detail how that jurisdiction
arises over the individual citizen. It is simply “presumed” that it has
jurisdiction and the citizen has the responsibility of petitioning the
agency for a jurisdictional ruling about himself. In a free country, this
“new deal” concept is ridiculous, and the Court's decision is a tacit
acknowledgment that the government has created a jurisdiction, effectively
secret in nature, which it withholds from the general public. The
non-existence of a requirement not withstanding, presumptions to the
contrary have grown into the belief that there really is a legal
requirement to obtain the number, and so to file a return and pay a tax.
Common sense should indicate that the social security number is not
required. After all, if something is required, there is no need to apply
for it—it will be given to
and though ironic - it is participation that is unpatriotic. Participation
actually serves to undermine the limits of authority that the Constitution
places on the government; and, it gives the government an authority that it
would not ordinarily have. The perpetual misapplication of law that is made
possible by its implementation, and the overall effect that it has on
limited government, serves to effectively usurp the Constitution to which
the government is subject. The average person does not understand the
reason for the number, and therefore, cannot understand the reason for
rejecting it.
>
> RESTORING LIBERTY
>
> The system will collapse when people start rejecting the benefit and
refuse to use the number. The more people who refuse to participate in
voluntary social programs, the less “hold” the government has over the
lives of the people. When people reject the number they are free again, and
that is the beginning of the end. Not only for socialism, but for world
government and a cashless environment. Politicians need the number and the
benefits associated with it to buy votes. If they can't buy votes then what
happens? We get our freedom back. Graft and influence fade away and we end
up with the constitutional government that was intended by the founders.
Right now, the tentacles of this numerical nightmare go off in every
direction. The one reaching out to grip the drivers license requirement has
just been cut off, and the government has recoiled from the adverse public
reaction that was so unexpected. That's just the beginning. With your help,
and the education of just a few, things can turn around rapidly. Th
metric progression, and that is why we must begin to educate friends and
neighbors. We must not yield to “voluntary compliance” or the jurisdiction
that it entails.
>
> SYNOPSIS
>
> In this article we have learned that the government needs to encourage
participation in the social security program in order to possess
jurisdiction that it would not ordinarily have. We have learned that this
jurisdiction is tied to the Internal Revenue laws and that together this
machinery provides the necessary social controls that will eventually lead
to world government and cashless transactions. We have examined the
structure of the Internal Revenue Code and reviewed the tenuous and
illusory relationship between Subtitles A and C. Even more important, we
have demonstrated, (by the current drivers license renewal program) just
how effective a few people can be when they assert their rights and force
the government to remain within the confines of the law.”
>
> (END OF ARTICLE)
>
> INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE?
>
> The Save-A-Patriot Fellowship has offered information since 1982, backed
by a $10,000 Cash Reward to anyone who can show a single error of fact or
substance. To date, no one - no a single judge, attorney, CPA or IRS
official - has been able to collect the reward. We offer this same
information to you at a nominal cost on whichever format you choose -
audio, video or books. Visit InFORm AMERICA! on the Internet's world wide
web at http://www.informamerica.com or call (801)-715-3890 and leave a
message clearly stating your name and both your day and evening phone numbers.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:39 MST