SSN Not Required

[Morton Thomson Jr.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) a form signed under oath, with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides that:

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

[Andee Kleinhans]

Interesting; I will add just a little to this:  Mid 1800s the Constitution had one word changed; my understanding is that it made the USA a corporation and "we" the people its assets.  I also understand that during FDR's reign, he declared  bankruptcy of the USA, again we became assets of the USA; this is where I get a little fuzzy.  I did not understand all I read but it seems Truman would do the same and then Johnson did something other than move SS to the general fund.  This left all SS participants in a future bind - as we see now.

DC is so stupid they do not understand the difference between entitled and entitlement; no amount of writing to Lummis has done a bit of good as I tried to explain it to her, Ryan, Cruz, etc. but then, I am just a peon they consider stupid and a terrorist!

Look at your State Constitutions and if they are like WY, then decide to do what is needed and rid yourselves of the lawyers in the Houses, Governor, etc.  Ours happens to be the 2nd Amendment forbidding ESQ/lawyers in a Federal position of this stature.

[Wayne Bachmann]

Andee,

The year was 1871, and there was more than just one word changed. They omitted the whole "original 13th Amendment" which was in the Wyoming Territory Constitution. I have a copy of it. Do a Google search on the original 13th Amendment.  After that, they slipped in what we now have as the 13th, which should actually be the 14th, except it was done by the corporate govt. therefore, everything after the original 13th is not legitimate anyway. It was done by the corporation, not the Republic. There was no authority of we the People, and was done without full disclosure, and wasn't voted on.

[Andee Kleinhans]

Yep, Wayne, I just finished reading what you told me to: corruption way back then!  With that in mind, people should learn about it and just take it to heart and vet the lawyers out until we think of something better.  The States will not be so hard; by 16, in WY if our Constitutional candidate for SOS wins, and she should, no one will be placed on the ballot that is an attorney.

[Wayne Bachmann]

Again, I don't do well with abbreviations. To me, SOS is Morse code for help, or something on shingles, served in military chow halls. I have no idea what you are referring to. There are always more than one way abbreviations to be interpreted, and I always get it wrong, unless I am given a reference to begin with.

[Rosanna Miller]

I posted this a few weeks ago to see if anybody was interested about the orginal 13th amendment but nobody commented back. Maybe it wasn't the right time or place. Anyway here it is.

There were actually THREE 13th amendments. All 3 are listed in this book printed 1938 ordered by an act of congress. The Constitution of the United States annotated book by Congress in 1938. This one page PROVES there were THREE 13th amendments. Read the last two footnotes slow and carefully. * 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7s9euplszbbgrgc/Laws%20Constitution%20of%...

The original 13th was actually in the constitution till at least 1853 when this book was printed titled The American's Own Book again ordered by an act of congress. Notice the wording of the original 13th amendment.  

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZmxOmpDfxPE/ULarat9OIiI/AAAAAAAAAz0/Q-wN8...

Friends found Virginia's Constitution Book and the 13th was in there word for word. They did confirm it in Virginia's Laws of 1819 (go to book page 30) *

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xdqcanzxl7aa9z6/Laws%20of%20Virginia%20Ma... 

Notice the Masonic seal on the book header page?

I PERSONALLY HELD ALL THESE BOOKS IN MY HANDS ON MARCH 3, 2014.. I KNOW THEY ARE REAL............ BY THE POWER VESTED IN ME FROM THE STATE OHIO I AUTHENTICATED EVERY PAGE of THESE DOCUMENTS AS DIRECT COPIES FROM THE BOOKS........

My question is if the original 13th amendment was in there for almost 40 some years where is the act of congress to remove it? If it was never properly removed the current one is no good. I think we should hold our Fed Reps accountable to show us where it was voted on to remove it. If I can get out of my current dilemma that is where i was headed next.

So in 1865 they replaced the original 13th with the current 13th, 6 yrs before the birth of the District of Criminals was incorporated...... HUMmmmmmm....

 

**************************************************

This is New Hampshire bill they introduced with some history. CTRL + Click to follow link" size="3"">http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB638/id/719435

 

[Andee Kleinhans]

Thanks for more info on this subject; The 13th then became the law against slavery if I understand it right; the part regarding who shall serve was dropped?  Is that correct? 

With evidence available,  I would think that is still the "law" right?

[Wayne Bachmann]

Interesting that someone else is aware of what has gone on! There was one version ratified before the war of 1812, which is what the war was about, and why the Brits burnt our Capital building down, to destroy the documents. Then after the war of 1812, it was ratified again, which was 1819 March 12, which is also my e-mail address. Those are the first two that I am aware of, besides the one now, which is fraudulent to the original Constitution.

[Andee Kleinhans]

Thanks, the first White House was in Philadelphia if I remember correctly, Washington was not the first President but rather the 2nd, something to do with the war I believe.

I suffer as a TBI and as such, sometimes, I cannot recall all I want to; apologies, this is one of those times.

[joseph cronin jr.]

try new york

[joseph cronin jr.]

all the land grants were signed in an office on water st.,nyc

[Rosanna Miller]

Ok I get it now I think.... The civil war started in 1861 the same year the 2nd 13th amendment was introduced but never went thru. the 3rd 13th amendment was voted in 1865 when the civil war ended. Funny the TWO 13's were attempted within the war years.

It is obvious they were trying to get this set up to coincide with the civil war and put the Bar Association Union in full control and start us at war with the courts for power ... They might have to give up black slave power but they made us all slaves by closing the courts to us.

Hence why they removed the original 13th amendment with the civil war.....

SNEAKY!!!!!!

[Rosanna Miller]

Isn't it also weird you can be charged with "unauthorized practice of law" without holding a license or degree in law but you can't be charged with "medical malpractice" without holding a license or a degree in medicine???? HUMmmmmm......