A: NO!

This page has had the decision of the judge added on 02/20/99

The purpose of this web site is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to restore the rights of all Americans and to provide you with the tools to go about removing ineffective public servants or elected public servants who continue to violate their oaths of office. This especially includes judges below the federal level. If you have read the article in my December 1996 newsletter by constitutional attorney, Steffen Bertsch, you will begin to understand that ALL federal judges have been compromised by the IRS and so there can be no justice in federal court regarding this renegade organization. Only Congress can remove these evil-doers. In the last 100 years, to my knowledge, only two federal judges have been impeached. It is truly one of the ten greatest failures of Congress over the last 100 years. Now it's time for the people of this country to force the issue.

One of the larger problems we have in America is the ignorance by employers as to what the statutes or laws really say about things like W-4 forms, social security numbers and the Privacy Act. Due to the dedication of my computer volunteer, an unsung hero who has donated countless hundreds of hours assisting me in getting the material posted to this web, each day we are able to put more and more critical information up for reading. Hopefully after you read this important material, you will make ten copies and give it to ten people and tell those ten people to do the same. The next time you're at a business meeting, a Rotary or Lion's meeting, give it out to others who own a business so employers all over this country can get the truth.

Tonight as I was listening to one of the cable "news" programs, Congressman Bob Livingston, a Republican, was speaking about how most pollsters feel that the Republicans will pick up 15-20 seats in the House in November. Of course, people like me understand that the Masters of the Game orchestrating this "new world order," desperately need to quiet down the avalanche of rage in this country and the best way to do this is at the ballot box. That way, millions of Americans will say, oh boy, tax cuts are coming, the Republicans are going to straighten things out, just you wait and see. Tragically so many will go back to sleep while the globalists continue their relentless march towards bringing America into a global one-world government.

Well, I've been waiting since January 5, 1995 when the Republicans took control of both house of Congress and I've seen nothing but more lies. Livingston was chanting the same old rhetoric I've been hearing for 25 years: I think we'll get a tax cut in next session. Know what? Millions of people will believe this pablum. The problem is, double digit millions already know that only a very limited category of people in America are required by statute to file an "income tax" return. For the rest of us, it is and always has been voluntary. So, Livingston is just putting forth new lies for old lies.

Below is the submission of a young woman fighting the IRS on the social security number issue. I can already hear all the constitutionalists who read this say: "Tax court isn't a real court and the worst thing anyone would want to do is get into their jurisdiction." You will be correct. However, the options one has these days are very limited due to corrupt federal judges. If you don't file an appeal or don't pay the thieves at the IRS their extortion money, they will slap liens on your bank accounts and real property and sometimes charge you with willful failure to file.

This young woman lives below the poverty level. She has no money for an attorney and while I counseled her, not in a legal capacity because I am not a lawyer, but as a friend, that she would lose, she still wanted to have her day in court. She did over in San Francisco on September 8, 1998; I was in the courtroom and I held her hand for the five hours it required. Considering the circumstances, things actually went quite well. The judge slapped the IRS' counsel in the face, told him to shut up and sit down. The government suit objected to her exhibits [included with this posting] and the judge overruled and allowed all her exhibits but the first two which he already had since they were documents from the government.

When it was all over, the judge told her that this was not a regular case, that she had presented him with cites from Title 42 that he was not familiar with and might have to take it back to Washington, DC and study the matter before making a decision which could take months. The IRS contends that this young woman owes them about $900. By the time the salaries are paid for these liars for hire [IRS attorneys], and all the other costs, it probably will end up costing the government about ten grand to force this woman to pay what she doesn't have to give. Perhaps she could write to Bill & Hill Clinton who chant that they "feel our pain."

The petitioner is a victim of constructive fraud and you will learn what that is by reading her submission. You will also learn by seeing the exact wording from Title 26 that you are not required to submit a W-4 form to an employer. The employer may request one from you but you both must enter into this agreement voluntarily. It is through the social security number and the W-4 that the IRS tracks your income and conducts its fraud and extortion.

I hope if you are an employer that you read all the postings on this web site regarding the IRS, social security and the law. If we're ever going to turn things around, one of the greatest assets to this movement will be employers in this country standing up to the IRS and telling them, no, we aren't going to break the law for you and we aren't going to violate the God-given rights of our employees. Go ahead and threaten us, we'll see you in court.

To borrow an old phrase from Samuel Adams, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence: "What liberty can there by where propertyis taken away without consent." This is the crime taking place today and it's being done by the IRS while Congress sits back and continues chirping their new lies for old about tax cuts.

The bottom line: Is anyone required to have a social security number? For work? To live in the United States? Is there anywhere in the four feet [five volumnes] of Title 42 that requires or mandates anyone to obtain a social security number? The answer is a resounding NO. Now what are Americans going to do about it? Sit around and let millions get beat up by the IRS or are we going to have a non-violent revolution where we educate and motivate our fellow Americans to start standing up for the truth and start recalling bad judges, state legislators and demanding paper ballots so we can get rid of these liars in Congress?

I have removed the petitioner's name and other personal information to protect the privacy of the petitioner. When the decision comes down from the "court," it will get posted.


Washington, DC 20217



v. Docket No: XXXXXXX

Trial On : September 8, 1998


Respondent. Trial At : Room XXXXX, Federal

Building and U.S. Courthouse

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102



I, XXXXXXXX, come before the court with exact and precise legal evidence that I am not liable for any self-employment taxes as claimed by Respondent.

Respondent named as Jeremy L. McPherson, served me with a Trial memorandum for Respondent on August 22, 1998. The following facts are in dispute as relates to that document; this document is labeled Exhibit 1:

Respondent states that I was the only manicurist in the beauty salon located in XXXXXXX, California where I work. This statement is in error. I work at a salon in XXXXX, California and there is another manicurist who comes in on Mondays.

Legal Authorities Cited by Respondent in Exhibit #1:

Respondent sets great store in the Trial Memorandum for Respondent document by citing two specific legal cites, I.R.C. 1401 and I.R.C. 1402(b) as the basis for argument that I am required to have a social security number and therefore, am liable to pay a social security tax.

Chapter 2 - Tax on Self-Employment Income covers Section 1401. It is interesting that Respondent cites the section which deals with self-employment tax when in their own document, Trial Memorandum for Respondent, they state in two separate places that I am an employee. If Respondent determined, incorrectly as I previously pointed out, that I was an employee, how can they cite Section 1401 and Section 1402(a) of the I.R.C. which deals with self-employment taxes?

Exhibit 2, attached, is titled Stipulation of Facts and signed by me on August 8, 1998. This document was authored by a representative of Respondent. Please note in this Stipulation of Facts, page 2, item #5: During the taxable years at issue, petitioner was a self-employed nail technician. In two separate documents submitted by Respondent, I am listed as being both an employee and self-employed. The correct classification is self-employed. I have never ask any person at XXXXX salon where I rent a space to enter an agreement with me to execute a W-4 form. I have never received any income or wages from XXXXXX during the entire time I have rented space at that business establishment.

However, putting that inconsistency aside for the moment, an examination of Chapter 2 - Tax on Self-Employment Income, Section 1401(a) Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance. No where in this section, in fact no where in the entire 9,200+ pages of the IR Code is the word social security or social security number defined.

I have read every pertinent section of 42 U.S.C. and do not find anywhere in these enormous tomes, any language that states every single person in the United States is required by any law to apply for this number to obtain a later benefit called "insurance" nor will Respondent provide me with this specific information. Respondent can only cite sections from the Internal Revenue Code which refer to the rate of tax for those who have chosen to participate in this benefit program; the tax is the cost of this alleged insurance and disability program.

On page 2 of Exhibit 2, Respondent uses only I.R.C. 1401 as follows:

"Self-employment tax, as provided in I.R.C. 1401, is imposed on the self-employment income of every individual. I.R.C. 1401. In the previous paragraph, Respondent states that Petitioner is an employee. However, the language "self-employment tax is imposed on the self-employment income of every individual" does not in any stretch of the imagination translate to: every American residing in the fifty states of the Union is required to obtain a social security number. This section of the IR Code states that if an individual is a participant in the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance program, a tax is provided in section 1401 and imposed on self-employment income. As will be clearly proven later in this statement, we will see that this tax for an alleged "insurance" program is not applicable to individuals within the fifty states of the Union.

I use the word alleged insurance program when referring to "social security " for a very specific reason. Social security is a tax plain and simple. The word insurance as used in 42 U.S.C. does not

conform to the legal requirements of any known insurance plan. No American in this country is forced to pay premiums for any insurance program against their will. Somehow, the IRS thinks they can force me to pay a tax for a benefit I do not want nor will ever make a claim for in the future by misrepresenting specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

I ask the court to examine Subtitle C - Employment Taxes, specifically Chapter 21 - Employment Taxes and the Federal Insurance Contributions Act found in Vol. 2, page 6125 of the IR Code. No where in this entire chapter does it state anywhere that I am required to have a social security number. It simply uses the boilerplate language such as:

Sec. 3101 Rate of Tax

(A) Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance. - In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following......

No where in that language does it state that I am required to have this "insurance." It says that in addition to other taxes, there is another tax imposed on the income of every individual a tax having to do with wages.

I have consulted several dictionaries to learn the definition of insurance and this is the standard one provided:

Insurance: The act, business, or system of insuring. The state of being insured. A means of being insured. Coverage by a contract binding a part to indemnify another against specific loss in return for premiums paid.

Social security is a tax that goes into the general fund of the treasury and is not earmarked for any specific purpose as found in Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619-646. There is no guarantee that anyone will ever receive any benefit from social security. Social Security is a tax and as such can be taken away anytime by the whims of Congress. This has been demonstrated time and again regarding the contractual promises guaranteed to military veterans and stripped by Congress, session after session.

Additionally, there is a very interesting legal point regarding Chapter 21 called the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, Section 3102: Deduction of Tax From Wages.

Notice that the word insurance does not appear in the body of the written text. We jump from an insurance to a tax. The word "tax" appears within the sentence structure of the body of the law. This has legal import. Section 7806 of the IR Code explains it quite plainly:

IR Code 7806. Construction of Title

(a) Cross References. The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other

provisions of the law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience and shall be given no legal effect.

(B) Arrangement and Classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section of provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title shall be given any legal effect.

Because the word "insurance" appears with the table of contents and the table of contents is "descriptive matter" used as an "outline," the word "insurance" has "no legal effect." In other words, no words in the table of contents have any force of law. The word which does have legal effect is "tax" because it is used within the body of the law itself; therefore, it has the full force of law. Legally, the word "insurance" does not apply, means nothing, to the chapter of the Code entitled "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."

This has direct bearing on my argument. Since the term "insurance" as applies used under the IR Code has no legal effect. In essence what we have is a forced tax for an alleged insurance promise, which according the IR Code, such insurance has no legal effect. Under the threat of being unable to obtain employment, was forced to obtain a number obligating me to pay a tax for an "insurance" program that meets no legal definition and has no effect of law according to the IR Code.

Attached as Exhibit 3. It is the full documentation from SSA to acquire a social security number. No where in any of these documents or on the form SS-5 does it state that anyone is required under any law to apply. I have made repeated attempts to withdraw my participation from this program and have been met with hostility at every juncture of the way. Since I can find no law or statute which requires me to have this number and since I was coerced into obtaining one as a minor, I am the victim of constructive fraud. However, Respondent, through carefully crafted twists and turns, demands that I pay a tax for an insurance program that I willfully choose not to participate in and will never make claims against.

Please note the language in Exhibit 4. This is a letter dated March 19, 1998 from Charles H. Mullen, Associate Commissioner, Office of Public Inquiries, SSA:

"The payment of social security taxes is mandatory, regardless of the citizenship or place of residence of either the employer or the employee. Unless specifically exempt by law, everyone working in the United States is required to pay Social Security taxes."

No where in this letter does Mr. Mullen state any law or statute that specifically and in clear and unambiguous states every American is required to obtain a social security number.

Now, let's look at Exhibit 5. This is a letter dated March 18, 1998, one day before Mullen's response to me. This letter is also authored by Charles Mullen, Associate Commissioner, Office of Public Inquiries, SSA. This letter is to an individual in Alabama:

"The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one. However, if someone works without an SSN, we cannot properly credit the earnings for the work performed."

Notice the clever way in which these responses are crafted:

In the letter to me by Mullen, he says that payment of social security taxes are mandatory and that everyone working in the United States is required to pay SS taxes. In the letter to Mr. McDonald, he states that the Social Security Act does not require a person to have an SSN to live and work in the United States but if you don't have one, SSA can't properly credit the earnings for work performed.

This is quite interesting. On one hand this Associate Commissioner for SSA states that it is mandatory that everyone working in the United States is required to pay SS taxes. However, the day before, he states that no one is required to have this number to live or work in the United States. In the next paragraph of the McDonald letter, Mullen states:

"Other laws require people to have and use SSN's for specific purposes. For example, the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6109(a)) and applicable regulations (26 CFR 301.6109-1(d)) require an individual to get and use an SSN on tax documents......"

This would be a difficult thing to do since Mullen has stated that no one is required to have this number to either live or work in the U.S. But, Sec. 6109(a) of the IR Code is titled Identifying Numbers. At the bottom of this section, it states: "For purposes of this subsection, the identifying number of an individual (or his estate) shall be such individual's social security account number.

This particular section of the code would be impossible for anyone to comply with according to Mullen's letter of March 18, 1998. The IRS instructs individuals to obtain a TIN [Taxpayer's Identification Number] using a W-7 Form. However, as one can clearly see on Exhibit 6 attached, the small print states: For use by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, nationals or permanent residents.

A further examination of the actual wording of all these codes is important in the validity of my claim that the SS program is voluntary. Southerland's Rules of Statutory Construction, an authoritative legal guidebook, under Section 66.01 titled "Strict Construction of Statutes Creating

Tax Liabilities" explains the limited application of tax laws. The guidebook refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Gould v. Gould, 245 US 151, which states: "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen." So the Supreme Court tells us that the IR Code sections mean only that which is stated; nothing else can be added to that which is stated in the code section.

With this Supreme Court ruling in mind, let's examine the wording again of Sections 2101(a) and 3111(a) which are imposition statutes for the so called social security FICA tax - Section 3101(a) applying to employees and 3111(a) to employers respectively.

Sec. 3101. Rate of Tax. (A) Old-Age, survivors and disability insurance.

In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))-

Sec. 3111. Rate of Tax. (A) Old-Age, Survivors and disability insurance.

In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b))-

The popular mistaken belief is that the FICA tax which is imposed on the income of "employees" under Section 3101(a), is a "wage" tax. However, a reading of Section 3101(a) shows clearly that the tax is not, in fact, a wage tax but rather is imposed on "income" which is measured by "wages." Hence, the FICA tax is simply another income tax. However, what is of vital important in both these sections is the limited application of the terms "wages" (as defined in Section 3121(a)) and "employment" (as defined in Section 3121(b). The definitions of these terms create a territorial limitation on the application of the tax.

As a sidebar here, the Handbook for Special Agents issued by the Department of Treasury, Section 451, Definition and Purposes, see Exhibit 12 states: Definition.-An excise tax is a duty or impost levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country and upon certain occupations.

I could not find anywhere in the IR Code or 42 U.S.C. that lists the occupation of manicurist as subject to an excise tax. Nor could I find anywhere in Title 26 where it states I am required by law to obtain a social security number so I can pay an excise tax for an insurance program that one must apply for to receive benefits at some later date.

Continuing, Section 3121 states:

Definitions. (a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means an remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include....

Note that the term "wages" identifies monies paid for the activity identified by the term "employment" which is defined in Section 3121(b), the essential part of which is as follows:

Section 3121(b). Employment. For purposes of this chapter, the term "employment" means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (i) within the United States, or (ii) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft under a contract of service which is entered into within the United States or during the performance of which and while the employee is employed on the vessel or aircraft it touches at a port in the United States,....

As shown, the term "employment" means a service performed by one identified by the term "employee" within the "United States...". "United States" is also a term used in this chapter as defined in Section 3121(e)(2):

Section 3121(e)(2). For purposes of this chapter -

(2) United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

The definition of the term "United States" lists those areas in which the activity described by the term "employment" takes place. The definition lists only the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa as the areas in which the tax imposed by this chapter applies.

When words are used as terms in order to establish their clear and unambiguous meanings, precise definitions of those terms are always included in the law. These definitions explain the exact meaning of terms used in the IR Code. As quoted earlier, the Supreme Court in the decision of Gould v. Gould established that, in taxing statutes, definitions of terms used in the statutes cannot be expanded by implication. Nothing can be added to the definition of a term; it means only that which is stated, regardless of any belief to the contrary.

At first blush, it may be difficult to believe that the definition of the term "United States" could be limited to mean only the four island possessions of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. But that is exactly what this definition means because statutes mean only that which is stated, nothing more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) in United States v. Varbel, 780 F2d 758 on P. 761 (1986):

We begin our interpretation by reading the statutes and regulations for their plain meaning. The plain meaning rule has it's origin in U.S. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 278 U.S. 269 (1929). There the Supreme Court stated that "where the language of an enactment is clear and construction according to it's terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the words employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning intended"...The principle was more recently affirmed in Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 103 S. Ct. 986, 74 L.Ed2d 845 (1983), rehearing denied, 461 U.S. 911, 103 S.Ct. 1887, 76 L.Ed.2d 815 (1983), where the court stated, "In determining the scope of a statute, one is to look first at its language. If the language is unambiguous, ...it is to be regarded as conclusive unless there is a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary."

Also, code Section 3121(e)(2) uses the term "includes" which, in law, is a word of confinement and not expansion. This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court said in the decision of Montello Salt v. Utah, 221 U.S. at page 455 wherein they stated:

"Include" or the participle form thereof, is defined 'to comprise within'; 'to hold'; 'to contain'; 'to shut up'; and synonyms are 'contain'; 'enclose'; 'comprise'; 'comprehend'; 'embrace'; 'involve'".

This U.S. Supreme Court decision and others in support of its ruling that "includes" is a word of limitation also support the Court's decision in Gould v. Gould that there can be no broadening of the statute by implication. If the term "United States" could constitutionally include the fifty states of the union, they would have specifically included them. As an example of this, Code Section 4612, which relates to a tax on crude oil, defines the term "United States" as: "the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the trust territory of the Pacific Islands." This shows that when the term "United States" means the fifty states of the union, it says so.

Consequently, it is very clear that the term "United States" when used to describe the areas where the "Social Security" tax applies, means, and is limited to, the four island possessions which are the only areas listed in the term's definitions. Therefore, according to the wording of the law itself, the FICA tax does not apply within the fifty states of the Union. This makes sense when one understands the limitations of the direct taxing authority of the Federal government as contained in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, both of which prohibit any federal direct tax within the states of the union other than those laid on the fifty state governments in proportion to their populations. The FICA tax is administered by the IRS as if it were a direct tax on individuals.

According to the IR Code and all previously mentioned sections, I am not liable for this self- employment tax as I do not reside in any of the four island possessions which are specifically listed in the term's definitions as found in the Internal Revenue Code.

IR Code Section 7655 also supports the limited meaning of the term "United States" as relates to both the self-employment tax imposed in Chapter 2 of the Code as well as the FICA tax imposed in Chapter 21. Section 7655 states:

Sec. 7655. Cross references. (a) Imposition of tax in possessions. For provisions imposing tax in possessions, see-(1) Chapter 2, relating to self-employment tax; (2) Chapter 21, relating to the tax under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

Clearly this section also shows the application of both the self-employment tax and the FICA tax imposed under Chapters 2 and 21 to be limited to "possessions" (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and America Samoa as listed in IR Code sec. 3121(e)(2) defining the term "United States").

Although I am self-employed, I also wish to point out, using the words in the IR Code, that even if I were an employee, withholding of any taxes by an employer is voluntary:

Chapter 21 imposing the so-called Social Security (FICA) tax. These "tables and procedures" are authorized to be provided by the Secretary under Section 3402(p)(3):

Section 3402(p)(3). Authority for other voluntary withholding. The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding- (A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and

(b) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter, if the employer and employee, or the person making and the person receiving such other type of payment, agree to such withholding. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated as if they were wages paid by an employer to an employee to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is in effect.

Note that the Secretary is authorized to provide for withholding by issuing tables, computational procedures and other instructional material on withholding that apply to only those who have voluntarily agreed to withholding. An agreement exists only when an individual who is hired voluntarily requests that money be deducted and withheld from his pay for payment of taxes and the one for whom he works completes the agreement by his voluntary act of collecting money as an unpaid tax collector for the government.

The use of the words "the person making" and "the person receiving such other type of payment" related to non-Federal employers and employees who voluntarily "agree to such withholding". Federal regulation Number 31.3402(p)(1) states:

Sub-Section 31.3402(p)- Voluntary withholding agreements. (T.D. 7096, filed 3-17-71; amended by TD 7577, filed 12-19-78).

(a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of Sub-Section 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 21, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder.

(B) form and duration of agreement.

(1)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3403(p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding.

(ii) In the case of an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) with his employer, if the employee performs services (in addition to those to be the subject of the agreement) the remuneration for which is subject to mandatory income tax withholding by such employer, or if the employee wishes to specify that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the employee shall furnish the employer with a request for withholding which shall be signed by the employee, and shall contain -

(a) The name, address and social security number of the employee making the request,

(b) The name and address of the employer,

(c) A statement that the employee desires withholding of Federal income tax, and, if applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph (d)(3)(i) of Sub-Section 301.6361-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration)), and

(d)(iii) No request for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an agreement between an employer and employee until the employer accepts the request by commencing to withhold from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.

Note the wording in sub-sections (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this regulation: "...an employee who desires to enter into an agreement" and "request for withholding", "desires withholding," all of which clearly and unambiguously show the voluntary nature of the entire withholding system. The significance of a Form W-4 "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate" is clearly explained in this regulation which states:

"The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding."

The printed heading on the Form W-4 confirms the voluntary nature of withholding; it states "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate." If withholding were mandatory, why would the form be called an "Allowance" Certificate? Allowance, as defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, is defined as: The act of allowing, something given. It does not say something taken or mandatory. To "allow" means to "permit" - if the law required the withholding of tax from an individual's pay, no permission or request form would be needed.

To further illustrate my point about social security numbers and employment, I refer the court to Exhibit 9: Handbook for Employers M-274 (Rev. 11/21/91)N. This handbook carries a return address of the Internal Revenue Service, WADC-9999, Rancho Cordova, California, 95743-9999, Official Business, IRS Bulk Rate. However, it states that if anyone has any questions regarding the contents of the booklet, do not contact the IRS but rather your local INS office.

On page 20 and 21 of this booklet, displayed in the exhibit, is Part Eight: Acceptable Documents for Verifying Employment Eligibility. You will discover that to establish employment eligibility, a person must present a document from List C, such as a Social Security Card, a United States birth certificate, or one of the other documents listed. If having an SSN were mandatory for purposes of employment, individuals would not be given a choice of which documents they choose to submit for eligibility - the social security number being only one in a long list of acceptable documents.

There are three sections of the IR Code which apply to not giving your social security number:

26 U.S.C. Sec. 6109(a)(3)

26 U.S.C. Sec. 6721(a)(2)(b), Sec. 6721 (c)(1)(b)

26 U.S.C. Sec. 6724(a)

These passages came about, for the most part, as a result of the passage of Public Law 101-239 on December 19, 1989 (The Omnibus Budget Restoration Act). According to the IR Code, the employer is to request (Sec. 6109(a)(3)) the employee to provide the employer with his SSN or TIN. If having an SSN were mandatory, the code would not request such an action by an employer, the language would read the employer must obtain or other clear language. The IRS regulation interpreting Section 6109 provides:

"If he [the employer] does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, he shall request such number of the other person. A request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under the authority of law. When the person filing the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, he shall sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service so stating. Teas. Reg. Sec. 301.6109(c)."

The applicable IRS statute and regulation place a duty on the employer to request a taxpayer identifying number from the employee. If a document must be filed and the employer has been unable to obtain the number but has made the request, then the employer need only include an affidavit stating that the request was made.

If the employee refuses to provide the number and the employer fails to include that information, (the employee's refusal), in his return, then a penalty is normally imposed (Sec. 6721(a)(2)(b)). The Treasury Regulation interpreting the statute states:

Under Section 301.6109-1(c) a payor is required to request the identifying number of the payee. If after such a request has been made, the payee does not furnish the payor with his identifying number, the penalty shall not be assessed against the payor. Treas. Reg. Sec. 310.6676-(1).

If there is just one or two returns with the SSN left out then Sec. 6721(c)(1)(B) applies. The penalty provided in Sec. 6721(a) is only $50.00 per incomplete return, and that is considered to be "de- minimis failure" (Sec. 6721(c)). Black's Law Dictionary definition of de-minimis doctrine is: "The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles."

The law permits the employer to simply ask for the SSN, and if it is refused, to simply notify the IRS by affidavit, that it had requested the number. The IR Code provides for a waiver of any penalty upon a mere asking for the number and having it refused. The IRS is not exempt from the law in that the provisions of the IR Code only make it appear to require that which is voluntary, but as stated above, other provisions of the IR Code explain that an affidavit will resolve the apparent conflict.

I again address the voluntary nature of social security and again, this is critical to my argument:

The genesis of Social Security is the events of the Great Depression. While that era saw extraordinary unemployment and a tremendous decline in national production, still it was not as cataclysmic as other events in our nation's history, such as the War Between the States. Further, no constitutional amendment was adopted during this era which can offer any basis for an expansion of Congressional powers. The legislation which started SS in 1935 must be viewed in the light of the various Supreme Court cases decided within a few decades of that legislation and prior thereto.

When Congress adopted the Social Security Act in 1935, the Supreme Court had already held in Railroad Retirement Board, supra, 295 U.S., at 368, that Congress had no authority to establish a retirement scheme through its most tremendous power, its control over interstate commerce:

"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical

attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it be fairly said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially solely to the social welfare of the workers, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power."

Additionally, the revolutionary acts of Congress adopted in the two preceding decades had been emasculated in a series of Supreme Court decisions. Are we to suppose that, against this legal background, Congress decided to enact legislation of the caliber which had been struck as unconstitutional in the same year?

In the Social Security Act, Congress imposed excise taxes upon employers and those tax receipts were to be deposited with the Treasury. The act further provided schemes whereby participants could enjoy employment and retirement benefits. When the act was adopted, parties opposed thereto made challenges to the act, relying upon some, if not all, of the varied cases which I'm sure, the court is well aware of as more and more Americans become aware of the fraud which has been perpetuated upon them.

The major arguments mounted against the act were premised upon contentions that the legislation constituted an invasion of states rights. This constant battle of course, is nothing new and in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has correctly sided with the states regarding abuse of power by Congress, see United States v. Lopez 514 US -, 131 L Ed 2d 626, 115 S. Ct - [No. 93-1260] and Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana, Petitioner 95-1478 v. United States and Richard Mack, Petitioner 95-1503 v. United States on writs of certiorari and decided in the Supreme Court of the United States (1997). In all these cases, the Court decided that Congress had overstepped their lawful authority to legislate under Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

In Steward Machine Co. V. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 833 (1937), an employer challenged the unemployment tax imposed upon it and the Court held that such tax was an excise which Congress could impose. In reference to the contention that the subject matter of the act was properly within the historical field reserved to the states, the Court held that Congress could enact legislation to aid the states in an area of great concern. The Court placed considerable emphasis upon the fact that the states were reluctant to adopt unemployment acts because such taxes created differentials between states which had such legislation and those which did not. By creating a national unemployment act, this difference was eliminated and the court claimed a great benefit to the American people resulted. No "great benefit" resulted to the American people, only another clever scheme to tax the American people for a "benefit" they have to make application for to receive. In any event, the Court found nothing constitutionally objectionable to the act as to the issues which were raised - a very important legal point.

In Helvering v. Davis, which I referred to earlier, the same rationale was used to uphold the retirement features of the act. The importance in these two cases upholding the Social Security Act concerned the issues which these cases did not raise: neither of them addressed the issue of whether there was a requirement for any American to join Social Security. The reason this issue was not raised is because there is no such requirement, unless of course, one works for a state government which has contracted into Social Security! See Public Agencies Opposed To Social Security Entrapment (POSSE) v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Calk 1985), rev., 477 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 2390 (1986).

The bottom line is this: The reason for this absence of a challenge to such alleged requirement to have a social security number for any reason, let alone employment, can only be explained by analyzing the act itself to determine if there is such a requirement. Because Congress lacks the constitutional authority to compel membership in Social Security, the act simply imposes no such requirement and I challenge Respondent to provide a specific section in 42 U.S.C. where it states such a requirement.

The modern version of the act is codified at 42 U.S.C., section 301-433. If there were a requirement that every American join the Social Security scheme, one would expect to find language in the act similar to the following:

"Every American of the age of 18 years or older shall submit an application with the Social Security Administration and shall provide thereon the information required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every member of Social Security shall pay the taxes imposed herein and records of such payments shall be kept by the Secretary for determining the amount of benefits to which such member is entitled hereunder."

Amazingly, no such or similar language appears within the act anywhere, and particularly there is no section thereof which could remotely be considered as a mandate that anyone join Social Security. The closest section of the act which might relate to this point is the requirement that anyone seeking benefits under the act must apply for the same. But, this relates to an entirely different point than a requirement that one join.

Since the statutory scheme fails to impose such requirement, the next question to be asked if whether perhaps the Social Security regulations themselves might impose such duty. But here, the regulations are no broader than the act itself, and the duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security card or number boils down to the following found at 20 C.F.R., section 422.103:

"(b) Applying for a number. (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed Form SS-5, 'Application for a Social Security Card,' at any social security office and submitting the required evidence...

"(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a state...to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.

"(c) How numbers are assigned. (1) Request on form SS-5. If the applicant has completed a Form SS-5, the social security office...that receives the completed Form SS-5 will require the applicant to furnish documentary evidence...After review of the documentary evidence, the completed Form SS-5 if forwarded...to SSA's central office...If the electronic screening or other investigation does not disclose a previously assigned number, SSA's central office assigns a number and issues a social security number card...

"(2) Request on birth registration document. Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office....Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address."

Every American has the right to be fully informed of the law and the consequences of entering into any contract that binds them to any program. Forcing a newborn, incapable of understanding anything other than life giving functions such as food and shelter or a teenager to enter into a contract, which is nothing more than the assignment of a number for a benefit program disguised as a tax, is reprehensible and flies in the fact of all the principles of freedom and free choice that this nation was founded upon.

The purported duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security number therefore boils down to this: you get it if you want it or request it. There is no legal compulsion to do so and the Respondent cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.

To further corroborate my position, see Exhibit 7. This is Standard Form 83, Request for OMB Review. The court is fully aware that any document issued by the government must contain an OMB number or is invalid. In Section 1 of this form, the department/agency and bureau/office originating request is: DHHS/SSA Office of Retirement and Survivors Insurance. Note Section 4: Title of information collection or rulemaking: Application for a Social Security Number Card (Original, Replacement or Correction) SS-5.

As you will see on side 2, this is a regular submission and note on side two of this exhibit Box 22: Purpose of information collection, box 1 is checked: Application for Benefits. It does not state that mandatory application for benefits is being made.

Again, side 2 of this exhibit, see Box 24: Respondent's obligation to comply (check the strongest obligation that applies):

1. Voluntary

2. Requested to obtain or retain a benefit

3. Mandatory

Box 2 is checked for the 21,000 respondents who wish to be issued social security numbers to obtain or retain a benefit. Box 3, Mandatory, is not checked.

Exhibit 8 is the SSA-521: Request for Withdrawal of Application and is self-explanatory but conflicts with Exhibit 4, Mullen's letter to me in which he states:

"People cannot voluntarily end their participation in the program."

Please note Box 1 on Exhibit 8: Give reasons for withdrawal.

1. I intend to continue working. (I have been advised of the alternatives to withdrawal for applicants under the age of 65 and still wish to withdraw my application.)

My final exhibits are 10 & 11:

#10: This is a letter to a constituent from then U.S. Senator Lloyd Bensten, who later became Secretary of the Treasury; dated May 24, 1988:

"There is no law requiring every citizen of the United States to obtain a Social Security Number. There are a limited number of circumstances in which an individual would be able to meet his or her legal obligations without one."

Was Senator Bensten lying?

#11: This is a letter from Daniel Sutherland, Attorney, Office of Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, April 29, 1993:

"However, under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, there is no requirement that a person present a Social Security card for the purpose of proving his eligibility to work."

This goes straight back to Exhibit 9, the Handbook for Employers. If having a social security number was mandatory as claimed by Respondent, why are employers given the option of accepting any number of forms of identification for employment?

Due to my poverty income level, I cannot afford to subpoena and bring in each and every one of the individuals who have authored these documents. However, there is nothing which would prevent

the court from bringing these individuals forward to verify the authenticity of all of my exhibits.

In conclusion, I state the following:

1. Respondent states on page two of Exhibit 1 that I am incorrect in my position that payment into the social security system is voluntary and I choose not to participate. "She is incorrect."

This would be correct if such an individual were fully cognizant of the legal requirement to even obtain such a number and in my case, this number was forced upon me in my mid-teens by threat of not being able to secure employment in the United States.

2. If everyone where required by law to have this number, why do Americans have to make an application for a social security number?

3. Respondent has not provided one single bona fide statute or law with any specific language which states that anyone living or working in the United States is required to apply for a social security number.

I believe that I have provided overwhelming legal evidence which supports my position. I believe that I am the victim of constructive fraud and had I known the law and statutes regarding Social Security, I would never have applied for this number. I applied only for this number because I was led to believe by my parents and perspective employers that I would be unable to obtain employment in the United States without it.

4. Respondent maintains that I owe social security taxes for the years 1994 & 1995. I maintain that I was forced to enter into a binding contract with the Social Security Administration as a minor, under a threat of non-employment, and therefore, misled as to the nature of this tax.

5. While the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the tax aspect of the social security insurance program, the court has never undertaken the real question of voluntary v. mandatory. I have already explained why they haven't but it bears repeating: It hasn't been addressed by the court because it is voluntary and Respondent has no legal evidence to the contrary.

6. I maintain that since this system has always been voluntary. Even if it was mandatory, under section 3121(e)(2) of the IR Code, this tax does not even apply to me but only to those employed as defined in aforementioned section who reside in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

I ask the court to find in favor my position under the law and deny Respondent's claim.

Date: ________________________ _____________________________________________

XXXXXXXXXX, Petitioner


How many Americans would even know where to look in Title 42 or Title 26 for all these cites? How about the court cases cited above? This is exactly how these agencies have been able to operate illegally for so long. Of course they would not have gotten away with this smoke and mirrors for so long without the aid of corrupt federal and state judges.

The American people are so overwhelmed just looking at these gigantic tomes of double- talk, subtitles, sub-sections, see P.L. this and strike that sentence and refer to this subtitle, that they just give up and surrender their rights, their dignity and their property. Why do you think I've gone to such much trouble to get you this information? Because I understand that, been there done that. Now I'm giving you the tools to help turn things around before we lose everything. I thank you.

Devvy Kidd, September 12, 1998


I was present during this sham of a court trial. Also present was an IRS Treasury Agent that I know who heard the same lies out of Judge Carluzzo's mouth. At the end of the trial, Carluzzo stated that he wasn't sure how long it would take for him to make a decision for two reasons: (1) Some of the issues raised by Petitioner required he do some research and since he was only going to be in California for two weeks, he probably would have to do the research back in Washington and (2) Again, his schedule was hectic and it could be several months before he rendered a decision. The trial, which was nothing more than a sham for public consumption, was held September 8, 1998. Carluzzo's decision was rendered September 11, 1998 - three days later. It was signed and mailed September 30, 1998.

The scanned images of the judges decision are available to view or download. Let me point out to you the lies contained in his decision. Since Carluzzo's tripe is only a few pages, you might want to print it out and compare it with my analysis. This decision is apparently taken from a multi-page document and begins at the top right hand corner with page 31 and ends at page 36; the pages contain numbered lines so I will use those along with the page numbers for reference.

Page 31, lines 22-25: Note the language at the end of this sentence: "....constitutes net-earnings from self-employment subject to the self-employment tax." Sounds very logical and innocent, doesn't it? "Earnings are subject to the self-employment tax." The problem is, the self-employment tax is voluntary, so determining whether any self-employment tax is due, must be first qualified by the individual's desire to participate in this voluntary program and this is the rub. Ninety-nine percent of the American people have been lied and tricked into believing that they must participate in this program and that they must supply an SSN for purposes of employment. SSA [Social Security Administration] says this is false.

For those who doubt these words, allow me to use the words of SSA:

Charles H. Mullen, Associate Commissioner, Office of Public Inquiries, March 18, 1998 to Scott McDonald: "The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one. However, if someone works without an SSN, we cannot properly credit the earnings for the work performed."

What Mullen stated, is that no one is required to have this number and second, if you don't have this number, SSA cannot credit your social security account with the amount of social security taxes paid over the years. So, if a person chooses not to participate in this program and does not pay social security taxes, they get no "old-age and survivors benefits" at retirement age. Yet, in this young woman's case, the IRS refuses to allow her the lawful avenue available and instead, threatens to take everything she owns and when she goes to court, the corrupt system sides with the extortioners and ignores the law.

Richard Sanderson, Operations Supervisor, SSA, January 25, 1999: "The issuance of SSN's is not forced upon the individual. SSN's are issued based upon the request of proper applicants..."

The problem we have here is that no one told this young woman that she had this option. She was forced by lies and an uneducated employer base in America who demand this number before they will hire an individual. As a minor, she was forced to enter into a contract, which for all intends and purposes, was fraudulent from the onset. The problem here is that she decided not to pay this voluntary tax to receive a benefit down the line but the IRS refuses to adhere to their own statutes and the court backed them up. Continuing with Judge Carluzzo's bilge:

Page 32, line 25 and page 33, line 1: "Petitioner did not treat such net profits as net earnings from self-employment or pay any self-employment tax during either year in issue." This is true. The Petitioner hardly has enough money to keep food in her mouth and a roof over her head and had already decided not to voluntarily pay these self-employment taxes any longer. She had already notified SSA of her desire to withdraw from this voluntary program long before the IRS raised it's grotesque head.

Page 33, lines 8-19. This is where it gets interesting because it reflects the same old carefully crafted lies and twisting of sections contained in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. Carluzzo uses the tired and worn out 1401: "...imposes a self-employment tax on self-employment income." True, Judge. However, the application of this section is for people who want to participate in this program, not for people who are being forced against their will to participate. Big difference.

In this entire section, Carluzzo deliberately ignored the point of the Petitioner arguments during the trial. Petitioner argued during the trial that (1) She was lied to by everyone as to what the law said about the requirement to obtain an SSN for the purposes of employment. The result of this is constructive fraud. (2) Respondent does not wish to participate in this program any longer and therefore, this voluntary tax is not due to the IRS. Carluzzo's response is found on page 34, lines 9 & 10: "...[petitioner's] arguments are either misguided, at best, or frivolous, at worst."

This is the standard, boiler-plate language used by all federal and state judges for every tax case. According to the IRS and the courts, the people always present misguided or frivolous arguments. It doesn't matter that those arguments are based on the written law or statute, the people are always misguided or frivolous. Is it any wonder that there is such a rage blowing across this country at Congress and our state legislatures who continue to allow this criminal RICO activity to continue?

Judge Carluzzo continues with more blowzy malarkey, notably, page 34, line 25 and page 35, lines 1-8: "The constitutionality of the self-employment tax was upheld in ...." and he names all the cases. The Petitioner did not argue the constitutionality of this self-imposed tax - self-imposed because the program is voluntary and you voluntarily pay a tax for a later benefit. More smoke and mirrors.

One page 36, it reflects at line 14 that the hearing in the above-titled matter was adjourned at 9:44 a.m. I wonder what hearing they are talking about? This mock trial was on September 8, 1998 and the Petitioner wasn't called up for her case until early afternoon. On page 31 it says this was a bench opinion issued September 11, 1998. I can only surmise that some sort of hearing was held with oral findings by this pretend judge three days after the original trial and without notice to the Petitioner. Do we expect anything less? Certainly not from me. I don't live in a state of denial.

How do these judges continue to get away with this? Because not one of the 535 members of the U.S. Congress, and I don't care what "party" they belong to, not one of them have the backbone to begin the legislative process to start removing these corrupt judges from the bench and abolishing this criminal entity called the IRS. I don't see such a bill. They're all cowards with the exception of Dr. Ron Paul but I don't see him introducing the legislation either. I was shocked last year when he came out with a bill to give parents a $3k "tax credit" for education. This just covers up the lie instead of exposing it. I was very disappointed when he did this but then, I was equally disappointed when he voted MFN for the Commies in China. He was the last person I thought would support Communism by supporting the destruction of our job base and putting even more billions in the hands of our mortal enemy.

This will go on until employers all across this country stop asking people for social security numbers - other than informing the employee that this is a voluntary program and if they wish to submit a voluntary withholding statement, they may do so but it's not required. That's what it says in Title 26 and all the cites can be found in this section - just go back up to the original case and you can click on the exhibits.

This will go on until the people of this country decide once and for all to breaks the chains of bondage and tyranny by this government. This will go on until the people of this country decide once and for all to stand up and say NO, NO but hell NO.

The balance of Carluzzo's nonsense is presented in the exhibit. Since this young woman has nothing to give the IRS, I encouraged her to submit a little known Form 911 with the General Counsel for the goon squad over in San Francisco. This Form 911, which she did submit on October 18, 1998, is issued by the IRS and is called Application for Taxpayer Assistance Order (ATCO). This form requests relief for taxes owed. The IRS can and does excuse a tax burden if an individual can show extreme hardship - you know, when it means the difference between eating and keeping the electricity and heat on, instead of paying a tax you don't owe. She received a response on October 28, 1998 from the liars for hire, I mean IRS lawyers, at the SF IRS office. They forwarded the form to another location and to date, she has heard nothing more from any of these people.

If I sound a bit caustic or angry, you're darn straight I am. I have written dozens and dozens of letters to so-called conservative big-shot Republican members of Congress, both the house and the senate. I have begged for hearings to bring in a half dozen retired judges and an army of lawyers who will testify under oath at any committee hearing, that filing an income tax return is voluntary except for a small class of individuals, that the IRS is guilty of fraud and extortion and that the SSA is doing everything in their power to assist in this fraud.

What response have I received over the past seven years from all these hot-shots? Doublespeak, stupidity, carefully crafted lies and in the majority of cases, no response at all. I listen to conservative talk radio periodically throughout the day, specifically KSFO HOT TALK out of SF. If you live out of the area and have audio on your computer, you can listen to them live over your computer by going to: www.geoffmetcalf.com

Once you're in, click onto real audio and you'll hear the shows. I hear people call in all the time and itch, moan and groan about taxes, the IRS, flat tax or this kind of tax. I have now done close to 1,000 radio shows across this country and have run for Congress twice. I've given hundreds of speeches and answered thousands of phone calls. Everyone wants to know how to fix the problem. Most don't want to do what's necessary and some have bought into all these magic bullet tax scams that nine times out of ten, lands them in jail or the IRS takes their bank accounts and homes.

If we don't straighten out our election process, we will never get constitutionalists elected who will kick out the un-FED & the IRS, just for starters. I've explained all this in detail in my updated Blind Loyalty booklet which you can order by going to the main menu and clicking on the banner ad or A Good Beginning. Employers all across this country have got to start fighting the IRS, starting with the SSN. The voluntary withholding form is what turns your employee into the IRS. Please, if you're an employer, stand up for what's right and fight!

Education is critical and that's why I wrote my booklets. I didn't write them because I don't have anything better to do with my life. I didn't write them because I am trying to get rich or earn a living. I don't get paid a penny. We must reach as many people as we can with the truth so that they can get busy and my little booklets have gone a long way towards this effort. Those who think the problem is going to go away by letting someone else make the sacrifices of doing all the work are not only being selfish, they are being stupid. Those who don't want the truth because it's too painful, will remain on their knees like the slaves they are. If you're someone who is fed up and knows the truth, thank you for taking the time to find out the facts. I hope you will join with others in working towards curing the cancer instead of more treating the symptoms.

Become a monthly sponsor of the Wallace Institute. We are trying to bring some of these issues to state courts with a legal strategy that goes to jurisdiction among other things. We can't do this without the financial resources it takes and that's why we need your help. If you don't know about our legal institute, **click here.**

Devvy Kidd
February 10, 1999