Image result for dr dans freedom forum

Help Educate America
Click on the following link to help educate America.
Donations are not tax deductible.

Keith Broaders
1230 N Street #510
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone (916) 399-4881

"Rare is the case that an employer actually needs an SSN. Indeed the Social Security Administration admits the numbers are actually their property and further that “no one needs an SSN to work in the United States.”

This latter fact isn't widely known, but NOT knowing and demanding an SSN where no authority to demand exists could get the employee demanding same, and his employer, involved in a civil action. Our recommendation is frankly to not push the SSN issue with employees. If an employee provides an SSN even on taxation forms it should only be done voluntarily and with NO adverse actions taken in case he refuses.

Form I-9: To our knowledge the only spot that asks for an actual SSN (and not an implied TIN) is on form I-9. However nothing in the law actually states the employee must provide the number. Because primarily government forms are intended for government employees, the majority of "spots for information" are considered voluntary when used by the general population NOT engaged in federal employment.

A twist: Indeed, the restrictions of public law regarding I-9 disclosures can actually RESTRICT the employer from using that number on ANY other form. In other words, do not assume you have the employee's permission to use that number on any other form or in any other way simply be virtue of its disclosure on Form I-9. You could possibly be in violation of the laws behind Form I-9!

Form W-4, Form W-2, Form W-3 and Form W-9: 

Let's examine W-4 first. The title of the form identifies it as an "allowance" certificate. Its only purpose is as a permission slip to ALLOW the non-governmental employer to withhold, (take) some money from the employee's compensation on behalf of government. If you think that ALLOWANCE implies a voluntary-act, you are correct! If the form is voluntary for those outside governmental employment, then what of its content including the spot for a number? We repeat: The submission of a W-4 form or any other alternative AND ITS CONTENTS is considered a voluntary act!

Common sense will dictate that one cannot make demands on behalf of government for:

(1) a form signed under oath, with:

(2) a severe penalty of perjury jurat for non truth when:

(3) someone is simply exchanging labor for compensation and when:

(4) the person demanding is not an authorized withholding agent of government.

Hint: Were you given a badge or written delegation of authority?

BEWARE: The IRS has consistently confused these two definitions especially in their publications and forms. Unfortunately-- as employers on our distribution list have identified--the IRS does not come to the aid of employers relying on IRS publications; the IRS is under the Executive Branch of government and that branch does NOT make law.

Thus, non-governmental employers make a BIG mistake if they automatically convert or assume one number for the other without the expressed permission of the employee. It is better to err on the side of safety and to simply refuse to "do the work of government”: In a government-declared "system of voluntary compliance by the making of a return", the non-governmental employer is without authority to create a "taxpayer": that responsibility is left to another. Our recommendation is that you as an employer should NOT attempt to "create taxpayers" from non-governmental employees.

REMEMBER: NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS CAN ONLY REQUEST AND NOT DEMAND!

Remember that the SSN is not "owned" by the employee and further your "need" is only to satisfy his benefit if he chooses to participate in government Social Security insurance and the government withholding program. Thus, if an employee refuses to include an SSN on any government form, that right is his own. These forms are creations of government and their existence and content cannot be made mandatory outside those in government employment.

Further, you need not inquire of his reasons. His reasons might range from religious "mark" aspects to simply never applying for an SSN or to not wanting to be forced to make an oath under penalty. And you as an employer have NOTHING to fear from not including an SSN on any government form you submit to government.

The fine for EACH employee is $50 and this can be waived by simply including this statement on the "transmittal document" you send with Form W-2 and W-3: "I requested an SSN [or Form W4]. This non-federal employee did not provide the number [or Form W4]. To my knowledge he is not a federal employee or government "individual" nor does he engage in federal (26 USC) "trade or business".

No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9 (or their equivalent), nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job.

With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.

Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides that:

(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose Social Security account number.

There is no law requiring you to obtain or use the Social Security Number. The Social Security System is a voluntary System. The Social Security Act does not require a person to have an SSN to live and work in the United States of America, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one.

If there was a law for the SSN, why does a major food chain, Taco Bell, have "optional" printed by the SSN on their applications?

The IRS only requires the employer/payer to request the SSN. If the employee/payee refuses to give or doesn’t have an SSN, the employer sends an affidavit to the IRS stating that they requested the SSN and the employee refused, (Indemnification Letter). The penalties will not be assessed against the employer.

See also:

Nowlin vs. D.M.V. 53 Cal. App. 4th 1529 Apr. 2, 1997

For video, see - http://constitutionclub.ning.com/

Views: 3178

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I hope so too.

Hey Mort , what if you don't want to loose your SSA ; you're collecting already . Don't volunteer to pay income tax but pay the SS deduction ??? Every body says that the # makes you accountable for the tax but that's government fraud ; no where does it say that you must this or that  . They made that benefit available as old age insurance ( check with Teamlaw ) and like you said you voluntarily participated . I think the tax man could be opening Pandora's box if they caused a problem .

To be frank this whole adhesion contract thing stinks of cheap underhanded British tyranny and every one involved needs a rope after ( not mentioning any names ) gives them a serious bitch slapping .

Joe,

 I understand most of you are already receiving "benefits" from the insurance program instituted in 1935, but do yourself a favor and just read the title of the Act. Wait. Let me show it to you.

"An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes."

Always look closely at the beginning and the end of a sentence. In this case, the bold. Everything in between is irrelevant when you truly understand the huge door that was opened when they said, "and for other purposes." 

As for whether this represents a true adhesion contract, I would say it fits the definition of a one sided agreement. You participate or "we" won't let you have a job. That is what I was told when I applied for my first job. They told me "You have to have a Social Security Number to get a job."

We now know this to be untrue and your first "employer" is not held accountable for his extremely wrong and unlawful suggestion that one needs a number to live and work and achieve the American Dream. I was seventeen. I cannot be held accountable for my actions as a minor. If I signed up for SSI under duress and without full knowledge of the facts or details or agreement to the nature of the terms of the assigned agreement and did so as a minor, I cannot be held lawfully OR even legally to the "agreement".

The end result of this is that the number assigned is unlawful, useless and illegal to use. It carries no weight in law and assigns no obligations upon me to participate in what amounts to a government sponsored retirement insurance program. This is all true, not made up out of whole cloth. SSI is a "voluntary compliance system". Let me translate that legalese for you. You will be forced to volunteer, like it or not. Do I have to quote my first employer again? "You MUST POSSESS a Social Security Number to get a job." But the truth is that if it were truly required by law they would not need you to fill out a request for one and it would not require a signature of a competent adult to get it processed.

My question is do I have a hook in them ? If I only want to have deductions taken out to support 'my' SSN and keep receiving benefits without them holding me responsible for the income tax ; I may be opening Pandora's box ; but , I think , ' how can they deny what they said was mine and charge me for what is another fraud .'???

Joeseph, hang the brit royalty on this one and just actually who all the foriegn agents actually where that changed all of yhis before. 1911-1913..
The social security number, card, income taxes, ALL irs forms, etc., are designed and applies to "persons." Look up the word "person" in any of THEIR codes and you will see it doesn't define it as man or [wo]man; it defines it as everything EXCEPT man.

So why do any of mankind believe it applies to them boggles my mind.

Break out of the indoctrination you have been living under and realize that you are a [wo]man with rights given to you by G0d, not government, which was created by man for the benefit of man.

Man created government for his benefit, not to cause him harm. Man is sovereign over his creation. The creation had no authority over it's creator.

You obviously DO NOT comprehend the hierarchy of law/power:
1. G0d
2. man
3. Local government
4. County government
5. State government
6. Federal government
7. corporations, fictitious entities, legal persons...

When [wo]man wakes up and realizes where he stands in the hierarchy of law/power, then will he truly be free.

When you know how to stand in your capacity as a man, and quit acting as a [legal] person created by government, then will you realize that none of these government codes which were created to regulate government DO NOT apply to man.

If you can not comprehend [and get passed] the hierarchy of law/power, and where man stands in the mix of things, you will NEVER be free and will remain in a state of confusion and voluntary servitude all your life.

-g0dspeed

Dat's all well an truu maan ;but , Ya still don't git da questiun  maan !

thanks I talked to Hagan last night a little. He is the state coordinator for NLA in Fl. I am for Ohio. Although I didn't know he was active in CL liens but we will talk again.

Ah so called common law liens, there is I believe even a Federal statute that deals with that. A court recently has sentenced Cherron Phillips to seven years in prison. They take harassment of officials very seriously and the inappropriate use of liens, which has become popular in recent years, is now covered by Federal, and many states laws. "We the People" do take care of those who represent us in the courts and governments.

Phillips, 44, who now calls herself River Tali Bey, was convicted by a jury in June of 10 counts of retaliation against a federal official for filing the bogus "maritime" liens in 2011 on then-U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, several judges and other top federal court officials.

All due process was followed in her indictment and conviction and now she is facing some real time in jail. I am sure that she meant well, but in her actions, she failed to understand their consequences.

Again the court rulings are plentiful, such as the Supreme Court of Utah ruled in Hutter v. Dig-It, Inc., 219 P. 3d 918 - Utah: Supreme Court 2009

¶ 50 The Wrongful Lien Act was originally enacted by the legislature in 1985 and was last amended in 1997. Senator Matheson, a sponsor of the original bill, stated that its purpose was to impose penalties on those filing common law liens on the property of public officials in retaliation for prosecution. After making his initial statement, Senator Matheson was questioned by Senator Carling, who was concerned that the original bill's definition of a wrongful lien was too broad for the bill's expressed purpose. Senator's Carling's question precipitated the following exchange:

Senator Carling: Mr. President, ... I thought this just went to common law liens, but apparently Senator Matheson, [you're] enacting a whole new section and that whole new section it appears goes to all liens, not just common law liens and it would go to rental liens, lessors liens, ... mechanic's liens and the thing that concerns me, I ... agree with what you're trying to do and the problem that you have but I think that you're going further than you intended to go because somebody might think that they have a valid lien against somebody, they're going to file a lien and it might be determined to be invalid. One of the things that it says here, uh, they assert a lien and then you look at line 27, page 1 it says ["]or is otherwise invalid,["] ... that kind of covers the whole waterfront, I don't see a problem where it says he ["]knows or has reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim,["] but ... where we're putting even a little bit of negligence in here I wonder why you need ["]or otherwise invalid,["] that seems to be a little too broad.
Senator Matheson: Now Mr. President, I'd have no objections to taking that out. You know the purpose of the bill and that's to cover all of you ... [who] might ... find yourself in the same position if you resist what these people are attempting to do.
...
Senator Moll: ... I believe you already know the purpose of the bill and that is to take care of ... the problems raised by [some groups] in this state ... where as a punitive measure if we don't do it their way they file what we call common law liens with recorders who are hard put to know whether they even file them or whether they have any liability.... [I]t addresses only liens on real property and I suggested some language to ... Senator Matheson, ... which says in effect, this act shall have no application to ... [mechanic's] or materialmen's liens and I believe that that would clear it up and express the... intent of the body....
...
Senator Matheson: Now Mr. President, I'd move under suspensions of rules [clause] it is fourteen words that we add the language which Mr. [Moll] has just said at the end of or after line 33 on page 1, "This act is not intended to be applicable to mechanic's or materialmen's liens."[33]

¶ 51 Ultimately, as a result of Senator Carling's concern, the amendment referenced in the legislative history quoted above passed 931*931 and the exemption of mechanic's liens was added to the bill.

 "Senator Matheson, a sponsor of the original bill, stated that its purpose was to impose penalties on those filing common law liens on the property of public officials in retaliation for prosecution."

Therein lies the rub Native,

They are not motivated by revenge or retaliation, just justice. They feel victimized by a system that punishes them for Summary Offenses without Corpus Delecti or any of their rights left intact at the end of the process. You need to slow down a little bit here.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Laws are not for the criminals to decide upon. If there is corruption of an intrinsic nature at the healm, We The People have been charged with providing the final push back solutions. After all liberty is driven out of our court systems it will be We The People who restore liberty to the nation and it's courts.

You are walking a fine line with my patience. Make your time here useful and get off your case law wagon. The courts also sent Negroes to jail for simply wanting to live their own lives and be left alone and not enslaved because no one could figure out what to do with oil. The courts do not decide law. They settle "legal" arguments perhaps, but today in America, they are "equity" courts where you can simply buy your way out. Ask OJ if he thinks he spent his money wisely. Ask why "Michael" never saw jail time or at least psychiatric evaluation. Money. That's why.

Try not waste too much of your time here writing. Go find a potter's wheel and see if you can manipulate a piece of clay into a beautiful piece of art. That is at least a noble gesture and a good way to carve your name in ACTUAL stone. Go write a song or something. Your NEVER gonna convince anyone here that you are anything other than the words you write, wherein lies the truth.

Happy responding.

Clinton trial went under the democracy and the treasonous Senate made sure of that . Under the republic he would have been impeached and our national debt would be no more ; as a result we are still a British colony ..Obama is a monument to how stupid and corrupt the American public are , self - absorbed and frivolous .

My friend Rocky used to say that anyone who votes for an incumbent is a idiot . I now say that anyone who registers and votes for anybody is an idiot .

Demand your representatives  Certificate of Office and if they can't produce it , impeach them ; contact your Attorney General's office .; it is an anti-trust violation , simulating a legal process .

Thanks Robbb

Joe,

The only problem with contacting your A.G. is that they are often just as screwed up as those you wish them to prosecute.

Morton,

You are so right... I was asking the Ohio AG for criminal charges... (These are not attached but can send on request. They were VERY professional and written PURSUANT to our Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedures). Yet the as you can see in my attachment they refused.... To PROTECT their own. Screw the elderly and the people.

Also included is the Southern District of Ohio Attorney General... (Exhibits can be posted on request) Same thing... Generic "we don't give us shit even if we are supposed to go after the bad guys in the corrupt judicial branch".

I not talking I am doing and living proof the system is worshipping baal........

RSS

© 2020   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service