You Can Still Be Free...IF...You Want To Be!

Today's Feature Article • Published Tuesday, July 24, 2001

You Can Still Be Free ... IF ... You Want To Be!

-- from a 1991 issue of Reasonable Action, the members' newsletter of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship

Introductory Comments From Gordon

Quiz question: Nowhere within the entire Internal Revenue Code (26 United States Code) can a statue be found that requires the participation in Social Security of the citizen living and working within the 50 union states. True ___ False ___

While you're mulling the truth or falsehood of that statement (it's true), did you catch the Orwellian oxymoron? Requires means "mandatory" or "compulsory". Participation means "consensual", "elective", or "voluntary". Required participation would mean "mandatory consent" or "compulsory election", a clear impossibility.

And how exactly does one acquire a SSN, EIN, birth certificate, marriage license, fishing license, motor vehicle operator's license or library card? Answer: By making an application.

Can applying for a license or government benefit ever be mandatory? That is, can the applicant be FORCED to apply? Of course not. If your arm were forced down to the desktop and your signature extracted from you, that would not constitute consent. It would be coercion. It would be as no signature at all.

Conversely, if a particular law to which you were made subject by statute were for that very reason to cause certain legal requirements to be imposed upon you, there would be no need, or means, to apply to come under its purview. The force of the law (the legislative intent of Congress) would be enough to require your compliance, without your consent. Of course, we are speaking here of a constitutional law.

So, then, why ARE there application procedures and forms for such things as SSN's and EIN's? Could the mere fact of the existence of an application be prima facie evidence of the voluntary nature of the thing applied for?

Through the application of a little logic, it becomes evident that everything you have ever signed in your entire life (including all applications) have been, and could only be, voluntary -- i.e., participatory. Otherwise, your signature -- your overt act of consent -- would not have been requested.

Clear? OK, let's look at an example of this. If you examine the regulations for Selective Service you discover that ... there are none! Many millions of folks entered military service when, as barked at at the induction center, they took "one step forward". That step is the overt act of consent, the physical signature if you will.

If he refuses to budge, the recalcitrant would-be inductee will be whisked out of the room so fast his head will spin. Why? Because no one in the room can force him to take that step! What can they do, push him? That would be equivalent to forcibly extracting his signature. Interestingly, induction refusers are removed quickly lest anyone else in the room should get the same idea. And they'll never hear from the recruiters again.

Now, back to participation in Social Security? Mandatory or consensual? The article to follow will cover the truth about participation in Social Security from a general and philosophical perspective. The next issue of "THE INFORMED AMERICAN" will present an article titled "Social Security Is Voluntary With The 50 States" which will cover the actual law itself.

French lawyer and writer, Frederic Bastiat, observed in his 1849 essay titled "Government" that: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Translated, this could be read: "Everybody wants free cheese!"

Social Security welfare payments are not dispensed from a dedicated escrow fund containing the lifelong tax withholdings of the beneficiary, but are made from taxes withheld LAST MONTH from 3.2 working total strangers, 2 of whom are flipping hamburgers at minimum wage.

Within just the first few years of "retirement", the average recipient of Social Security benefits will have received back all that he paid in during his entire working career. Where will the remainder of the free cheese come from then?

How can this pernicious Ponzi scheme persist without one day crashing, as all such schemes eventually must? Answer: by raising the tax and/or lowering the benefits -- i.e., through so-called "means testing". Perhaps the ultimate answer will one day lie in the grisly means resorted to in the movie "Soylent Green" starring Edward G. Robinson -- the ultimate intergenerational wealth transfer technology.

To prevent forced socialism in America, the 5th Amendment makes clear that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation", thereby slamming the door against mandatory wealth redistribution such as dreamed of by Karl Marx.

Seen in its proper light, marxist Franklin Roosevelt's entire property transfer/vote buying program (Social Security) is a violation of the 6th Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Steal" -- an intergenerational wealth transfer scheme under which approximately 50 million benefits recipients volunteer, if unwittingly, to defraud their younger neighbors each month.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 authorize direct taxes to be apportioned among "the several states", not among "the citizens of the several states". Nowhere in the Constitution can language be found that authorizes the passage of a taxing statute that, like an ICBM, could launch from its legislative silo within the "ten miles square" seat of the federal government, to arc parabolically up and into the union states, then swoop down into the citizen's house and directly pick his pocket.

Bear in mind also that the 16th Amendment did NOT repeal the above clauses which are still in full force and effect as I write. Please allow me to repeat that. The 16th Amendment did NOT not repeal the above clauses which are still in full force and effect as I write.

The Constitution cannot conflict with itself, and does not. For an example of one amendment repealing another, see the 21st which repeals the 18th. No such language can be found in the 16th occasion of tinkering with (amendment to) the original Constitution.

The notoriously disinformational 16th, the creation of bad bankers' boy, Nelson Aldrich, merely clarified the power of indirect taxation under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (also still in full force and effect, by the way) by preventing an excise (a privilege tax) on income from being taken OUT of the indirect class of taxation and moved into the other, or direct class. The above facts have apparently confuse legions of expensively educated academics, legislators and tax professionals.

So, then, how exactly does one "quit" Social Security as I did in 1991? The answer is so wondrously simple that it eludes the sophisticated mind: simply stop participating.

* * *

"YOU CAN STILL BE FREE...IF...YOU WANT TO BE!"

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, it allows for the efficient searching of records within a database so that the program can rapidly locate and distinguish one individual from all of the others. So why not use an individual's name? The answer should be obvious. Since two or more people can have the same name, positive identification would be impossible. Just look in your local phone directory and see how many John Smiths are listed, but assign a number to each of those John Smiths, a unique number that has no other duplicate, and the correct John Smith can be instantly discerned from amongst the crowd. Computer programmers some-times refer to such numbers as "unique keys" because they prevent duplicate entries from being made into the system of records. The accurate retrieval of information depends upon these numerical identifiers and their unique nature permits the program to reliably distinguish one "John Smith" from another. If one "John Smith" moves from New York to San Francisco, the key number which identifies that particular Smith, allows the information management system to keep track 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 will find it rather difficult to buy or sell! All other forms of social control are dwarfed by this capability. So how far has this information management system advanced? What kind of information does the government maintain on citizens who possess the social security number identifier; and, who has charge over this information? Some believe that the IRS is, or will become, the repository of this power. One thing is certain, the IRS does possess a great deal of information on almost everyone and knows how to impose its authority (real or imaginary). One page from the Internal Revenue Manual which graphically demonstrates how extensive this computer information system is, and how it might be used to control or manipulate people, shows a numerical "key" which will positively identify the individuals within the system of records - implication obvious. It's current capabilities even include information on your groceries, car and rent! Of course, that is assuming that you have a social security number.

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 refused to obtain the number for their children. Still others have revoked the application for the number and opted not to retain the "benefit." One S.A.P. member revoked the application and actually went so far as to send her social security entitlement check back to the government. To this Patriot, her freedom was more important than the money! With more dedicated, principled Americans like her, the machinery presently being set in place to create a new order would fail and come crashing down around the heads of the globalists who are engineering it.

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. Unfortunately, people without a number were led to believe that they must get one. In Maryland, DMV officials who knew there was no requirement routinely lied to applicants. The government and the media (intentionally or not) did an excellent job of spreading this misinformation. Was this part of a vast conspiracy? Possibly -- but more than likely it resulted from the mass mind-set of the nation and widespread ignorance concerning the danger of such a system. More plausible is the likelihood that at different levels of government, to some varying degree, there were a few well connected individuals involved in a strategy to further the private agenda of the globalists. These individuals were in a position to use their influence to implement "policy," and that trickled down into a state level process which effectively "encouraged" people to obtain the number. The entire process was more tenuous than one might think, and therein lies the key to restoring liberty. Once people realize that the architects are few in number, and that they cannot possibly hope to retain 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 also played an important part in moving the globalist's agenda forward and his socialist background is well documented. Roosevelt's most destructive contribution to world government took the form of a "New Deal." Of course, insiders familiar with its intended purpose saw it for the "Raw Deal" that it was since it had the effect of reversing the "presumption" of government jurisdiction. Such presumptions are, at least in terms of freedom, tantamount to making a man "guilty until proven innocent." How was this possible in a free society?

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 individual who must show that the government does not have jurisdiction with respect to any given body of law. One should immediately realize the implication of shifting the burden of proof. But what is not readily apparent, are the complications involving the nature of the proof itself. Think about it -- if something exists (like a law)... you can just present that law and you've proven your contention. If it does NOT exist, there is nothing to point out. Complex corollaries and other abstract methodology must be employed to "prove" a negative. It is easy to see how the reversing of the burden of proof for jurisdiction affected our freedom. The "New Deal" changed the presumption that we were free of any lawful requirements that might otherwise, for example, be voluntary. Where before, we had NOT been the subject of the law, we were now "presumed" to be the subject of the law until such time as we challenged that "presumption". All that remained to marry this new found power with social objectives, was to create a method whereby any agency of government could gain instant information on individuals over which it now "presumed" to 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 purchase 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 people has been bought -- is it any wonder that the nation has come to "expect" a government dole? In any other industry the selling of such intangibles might be called "futures," and with regard to liberty, very risky considering the loss of freedom which accompanies the sale. For the planners of global government, the programs and promises would certainly suffice until such time as it was feasible to tighten controls and implement a cashless environment. All financial transactions would then depend on the number and absolute control of the economic environment would finally be possible. It was at least the beginning of a long multifaceted agenda that was theoretically possible, stymied only by the absence of high speed computers capable of maintaining and managing the information, and by the absence of the numerical identification of the population. Because of this technology gap, Americans were able to hang on to their illusion of freedom a little longer. Even without the capability of instant information transfers and the control that it 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" (making people think that it is required), "incentive" (what people will get in return for participation), and a "presumed" jurisdiction (Roosevelt's contribution) to enforce compliance. Offer the people a "New Deal," one they can't refuse, (entitlements) and public acceptance is in the bag.

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 an unsuspecting public would be sprung. Historically, it worked so well that a goodly portion of the people couldn't afford NOT to participate. There was little or no public opposition and certainly no media coverage concerning the nature of the jurisdictional entanglements. The government officials who introduced the program became heroes in the eyes of an ignorant public who never once realized that their inheritance was being sold in return for a promise. Freedom became even more of an illusion as volunteer participants flocked to the government to seek it's grace and benevolence. Those who promised continuance of the programs were assured re-election and the rest is history.

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 basis of that "perceived requirement" and the link that it establishes to a presumption of jurisdiction.

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 to putting his or her hand into the pocket of some other person to exercise his own charity. That would be theft -- certainly hypocrisy! Yet social programs administered by the government are just that. Charity must begin and end with your own pocket. Otherwise it is not charity at all, and there certainly can be no freedom or right to property if participation is forced by government. Indeed, that is why participation is NOT required, and why there is NO constitutional authority for the government to play the charity game. When it does, it violates the constitution and the natural, inalienable rights to property, given by God. If someone chooses to participate voluntarily in such an arrangement, and applies for such benefits, then it does NOT violate the Constitution -- but while voluntary participation solves the legal problem, how do you enforce (encourage as the case may be) something that is voluntary? You can't -- unless it is tied in some fashion to a legitimate legal requirement for which jurisdiction exists and whose similar but limited application 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 portions of the terms of the agreement are involved (i.e. deductions to build credit toward entitlement). What agency of government has that jurisdiction? -- The IRS! Do you want to participate and receive an entitlement? (presumably so -- if you have the number) Then you must want deductions to be made from your paycheck! (presumably so -- if you have the number) Are you under the jurisdiction of the IRS? (presumably so -- if you have the number). Ever wonder why the social security administration will not expunge a person's number, even after a notice of revocation of application has been received? The government does not want to give up its presumption of jurisdiction without a fight.

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 the basis for building credits toward entitlement) is then collected from those who choose to voluntarily participate. Provisions for such withholding (even from volunteers) do exist, but they are limited in application as far as actual "requirements" so the question becomes: Who are the required participants?; and, are the voluntary participants subjecting themselves to the same legal requirements as the required participants? More important, do the voluntary participants have "taxable income?" If required participation is limited to nonresident aliens, do U.S. citizens subject themselves to any of the legal requirements imposed on the nonresident alien? The answer is a little oblique. No, of course not -- at least not under the law itself -- but everything is based on presumption; and when there is a systematic effort to "encourage voluntary compliance" the presumption that a volunteer is a "required participant" is all that is necessary. Why? Because the legal requirements of the mandatory participant are taken on by the 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 certain deductions from payments made to nonresident aliens. So what are the implications for the U.S. citizen who is NOT a withholding agent, and only a "voluntary participant" for purpose of Subtitle C and social security? Is the citizen eligible for a refund? Perhaps -- but what provisions exist for such refunds? Anyone who is eligible for a refund may file a return to claim the amount overpaid, but the amount is still dependent upon the various criteria that would apply to those who are required to file returns, and contingent upon the filing of the return that the "taxpayer" is required to file. Who is the taxpayer required to file? -- the withholding agent! Section 1461 is his liability and it is the only liability in Subtitle A. Therefore, if a return is filed and it is known or otherwise obvious that the filer is a U.S. citizen, is there cause for a "presumption" that he is making payments to nonresident aliens? Indeed, the filing of a return can only substantiate the "presumption" that the filer is a "taxpayer" who has a liability arising 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 a lack of education on the part of those who administer filing requirements -- and it is perpetuated at the highest levels of the IRS by those who have no moral inclination to "passively protect" the rights of citizens. If you wish to protect your rights then you must "aggressively assert them." Does a social security number "make you liable?" No -- but it does establish the link wherein a "presumption" may be pursued, and allows for an entry to be made into a system of records that facilitates pursuit. If the general pubic knew this, and understood that the application of the tax laws was limited, do you think they would want the number?

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 benefit everyone, nor is it necessary to promote the general welfare. In fact they do not, but over the years people have forgotten that it is voluntary. Through a natural progression of events, the social security number became the identification number of choice. The IRS started using it to identify non-business "taxpayers" who were not the subject of the law. Gradually people were led to believe (intentionally or not) that it was required for identification. It must be required, everyone asks me for it! The illusion eventually cemented itself deep in the mind set of the nation -- rationalized within the framework of a need to promote an efficient and highly organized society. It was not unplanned. To ensure public acceptance, society began to suffer the result of increased economic and social controls brought on by globalist manipulation of the federal reserve and people began to turn from a concept of freedom and personal responsibility, to a concept that demands (because of necessity) increased controls, to stem the rising tide of social problems that plague a financially 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, however we would point out that a much simpler, more readable version of the same definition is listed within Title 20 (Education). Now, why are these terms defined within Title 20 when the same definition, embellished as it were by complex and confusing text, is found within Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code). Hmmmm.... In fact, if it pertains to chapters 21 through 25 of the IRC (Subtitle C), then why is it in Title 20 at all? Is this not odd? Like the magician who performs his sleight of hand in plain view for all to see, the writers of the law seem to place the definitions in plain sight, for anyone to see, but then distract our eyes with sleight of hand! So lets examine this sleight of hand.

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 withhold is predicated upon a legal requirement (nonresident aliens, etc.). The legal requirements within Subtitle A are within the law. Voluntary compliance (under Subtitle C) is not under the law. Oddly, the presence of Subtitle C within the IR Code makes it an anomaly to the rest of the Code. If it's presence in the IR Code does anything at all, it serves to confer jurisdiction for those who apply for the number, and to lend merit to the overall illusion regarding requirements for the United States citizen. The Code must come under the Constitution in order to remain Constitutional, but Subtitle C cannot come under the Constitution. It doesn't fit within the law because socialism is not constitutional and that is why it is not imposed. It can only fit when it is made to fit, by those doing the fitting, and perhaps this is why the Internal Revenue Code was never passed into positive law. In any case, one is reminded of Cinderella's sisters and the glass slipper. No matter how hard one looks for the imposition in Subtitle C, or the general provisions to administer it within 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 security purposes" "Wages" (a) The term 'wages' means remuneration paid to you as an employee for employment unless specifically excluded. Wages are counted in determining your entitlement to 'retirement survivors' and 'disability insurance' benefits. In other words, for the purpose of taxation and the U.S. citizen, the legal term "employee" only relates to "covered employees" or more simply, employees that are covered under government entitlement programs (i.e. social security). This taxation, as it would apply to U.S. citizens, is found only within Subtitle C "Employment taxes" (not income tax under Subtitle A). The provisions for administering the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are found in Subtitle F. In this Subtitle, chapters 61 through 80 deal with the "Administration and Procedure." Only one problem (for the IRS) -- there are no provisions for administering or enforcing taxes under Subtitle C. The reason is simple... Subtitle C is voluntary and dependent on the citizen's desire to build credit towards 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 has been unable to do so. Ed has worked on the Library of Congress, the Capitol, and the Federal Courthouse among others. Considering that the bulk of his contracts are with the federal government, it should be obvious just how powerless the government is to misapply the provisions of Subtitle C! On one occasion, an accountant for one of his general contractors asked the company attorney about the legality of Ed's actions. The attorney informed the contractor that Ed was obeying the law but that it was "not politically favorable" and that it could effect future government contracts. In other words, his actions were within the law, but there could be political consequences for not "towing the party line." While that may be true, the fact remains, you are still free if you want to be. Just don't get a number. If you are a United States citizen, you do not have a legal requirement to participate in the social security program and you cannot be forced to obtain one in order to exchange your labor for wage property. If you are an employer, and the law does 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 you automatically. One only makes application for something that is NOT required, to receive the privilege associated with the application. Most people just don't think. They do not realize that the "privilege" for which they are applying is nothing more than a request to enter into the jurisdiction of the IRS. The government uses the social security number to gain jurisdiction over you, and to keep track of your activities. It can then systematically misapply and illegally enforce provisions of the law to which you may not be subject. That presumption of jurisdiction makes it infinitely more difficult to assert your rights. On the other hand, if someone does not have a social security number it is far less likely that they will be put into a position where they need to assert their rights - but, there are problems for those who refuse to obtain the number. It becomes difficult to save, buy, or sell property. The non-participant is considered an outcast -- or worse -a criminal. The average uneducated American often considers the non-participant to be unpatriotic -- 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. The colleges are filled with disillusioned students who realize that the "benefit" promised by the government is a fleeting dream, and that the government cannot possibly fulfill its obligations. Former Commissioner (of Social Security) Gwendolyn King stated just before she resigned that unless emergency legislation was forthcoming, the "system" would not survive another 3 years. These college students may not understand the details of what is wrong but they can understand what is happening. They understand that if they do not have to pay and participate, they will have more of their own resources to provide for themselves. When one person refuses to participate and succeeds, a second will follow. When the first and the second succeed, a third and a fourth follow. Geometrically, it doesn't take long before word spreads. Convince an employer to pay you only a penny a day for your employment. Have him double it the next, to 2 cents -- and double it again the third day to 4 cents. By the end of the month you will have well over a million dollars. That is the effect of geometric 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."