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/

[Wayne Bachmann]

I was not there, so I cannot speak as a first hand witness, but from my research, the first one (13th Amendment) came about because of a woman in New England who married a (brother?, relative anyway), of Napoleon Bonapart (the marriage only lasted 2-3 years), or however his name is spelled. She was one of those high nose hob-nobs who felt that her royalty should have exclusive rights to the government positions. The wise leaders of the time felt differently, already being familiar with that type of abuse from England, so they drafted the original 13th Amendment, preventing such conduct. It was passed, with 2 or 3 states opposing, just prior to the War of 1812, which is what that war was about, and there is plenty of evidence to back that up. England had wanted to maintain a stranglehold on us, and had planned on doing so, through their legal agents, which have since come to be known as the BAR association. I forgot the original name. The Brits burnt our capital down in an effort to destroy all documents of it, in the war of 1812.

After the war, It was reintroduced and ratified again on March 12, 1819. It stood until Abraham Lincoln's era. Abraham Lincoln was the first President to violate the original 13th Amendment. He had no business running for president as he was an Attorney, registered with that secret organization which came to be known as the BAR, which is based in the foreign country known as London, England. Most people don't know it, but he is also a descendant of the Rothschild family. It was his duty to "divide and conquer", as the Rothschilds wanted the US split, with the Bank of England controlling the northern states, and the Bank of France controlling the southern states. Who owns both banks??? That is right! The Rothschilds. 

Abe refused to follow orders, but violated our rights by another process. He declared Martial law, making him a dictator, and forced the southern states to stay united with us. Here is the story on that.

In 1791 we had a war, and a war loan with the Bank of England (again,who owns that bank?) International loans are due in 70 years, and who became President when that note came due? Pres. Lincoln. The Bank of England said Pay up, Lincoln said We can't. Will you let us re-negotiate. Bank of England said Sure! The collateral on the original loan was the 13 states. Now there are 34 states. We want all 34 states to be the collateral for the extension of the loan. The southern states rebelled, and said We weren't a part of that war and we don't want our land being held as collateral for a war we weren't involved with. That is why the southern states tried to secede from the Union. Thomas Jefferson said "All states joined voluntarily, therefore they have the right to secede." Lincoln wouldn't let them. He was in a jam, and needed them as collateral for the loan, or the original 13 states were going to be taken over by the Bank of England. Now you know the REAL reason for the Civil War. It had nothing to do with slavery, and slavery was not even an issue with the war until a long ways into the war. When it did become an issue, it was used as a (red flag?) excuse for the war.

There are several lessons can be learned from this.

1. See what happens when you put yourself into debt by taking loans.

2. See what happens when you don't get those loans paid back in a timely fashion.

3. See what happens when you allow authoritarian figures to be put into places of authority, who don't put it to a vote before the People they are supposed to be representing.

4. See what happens when you allow BAR registrants to infiltrate our government and court systems.

5. See what happens when you don't hold Public Servants accountable IMMEDIATELY when they violate the Constitution, as our Founding Fathers had drafted it.

After Lincoln was assassinated, Congress created the "corporation" and the new constitution to go along with the corporation. At this point, notice the use of upper and lower case letters. The Civil War is the dividing line, basically speaking, for where the distinctive use of upper case/lower case letters starts to make a major appearance (legalese). After the Civil War is also where the Marriage License and Birth Certificates show up. I refuse to show honor for the corporate constitution, therefore, I refuse to capitalize it.

The original Constitution contained the original 13th Amendment. It was deliberately omitted in the corporate constitution, presumably to permit BAR registrants in our Public Service jobs, without punishment, if they were caught. Note: this whole process was done without full disclosure to the public, of abandoning the "Republic" and creating this corporation to run the country under, of omitting the original 13th Amendment, again without full disclosure or being voted on. The 13th amendment we now have should be the 14th, except that the corporate constitution was created through fraud in 1871, therefor is without legitimacy to begin with.

The laws at the time of the Civil War made it illegal to intermarry with the Blacks, so after the war was over, the Marriage license was created to keep track of those inter racial marriages. No one else needed a Marriage License. A Certificate of Marriage was used. Over time, the public lost meaning of the two, and now very few know the distinction between the two. HERE IS A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS. All licenses are about COMMERCE.The Marriage LICENSE is what gives government the presumption that they can be a 3rd party interloper, a dominant 3rd party in your marriage, and any kids you produce presumably belong to the government, and presumably permits government agencies to come in and take your kids, even if there has been no crime committed, and this is being attempted on friends of mine right now as I write this. The Birth Certificate is a warehouse receipt, with the government claiming ownership of the kids. The reason for this is to permit government to separate the new generation from family ties, for government schools to teach them in the ways of Marxism. No religion, no family ties, that is the agenda, just as Hitler was doing.

The remedy in all of this is to use the Uniform Bonding Code to punish and remove the bonds from these criminals in this corporation that is feigning to be our government. The bonding companies are the conscience of the courts. They are aware of what is going on, but they need to have the public bring these issues to the surface to act as first hand witnesses to hold the criminals in government accountable. Will we do it??? It is up to each of us to be responsible.

30 days from criminal complaints being served, all bonded parties pertaining to the crimes have to report to the bonding companies, including the State Insurance Commissioner. If they don't, they loose their bonds then and there. If you have not been given your remedy within 90 days, the bonding companies will pay you, and go after the criminals themselves, collecting whatever collateral is necessary to settle the debt the criminals have created.

Is this puzzle starting to fit together and make sense? The corrupt individuals have been here since before the creation of the country, but their major take-over started with the Civil War.

[Rosanna Miller]

Wayne,

This post has me shaking. Did you open my links I put in my post on page 5 concerning the 13th amendment?  That was a lot of work to blow off that proved the validity of the original 13th amendment for 40 yrs.

I hope you just missed it.

[Wayne Bachmann]

I,m not sure what you are talking about. I have been gone for about 3 weeks in Oregon and Washington. I have no idea what has been happening since I left.

[Rosanna Miller]

I just wrote the post yesterday.. go to the previous page 5 I wrote on 13th like I just wrote.. I think you missed it.

[Wayne Bachmann]

It was valid, and guess what? It doesn't stop there! Since it was removed by fraud, it is still legitimately in place!! We just need to let the public know about it!! I am using it in my law suits if I can make it apply with commercial law and the UBC.

[Wayne Bachmann]

When I said red flag I meant red herring.

[Wayne Bachmann]

Thank you for posting this 13th Amendment post. I have a couple other versions of it but this gives more details since it is more recent. I didn't really expect it to pass, but it is showing interest, and disgust with what is going on. It is a start in the right direction. A friend of mine in Oregon was exposing it and sent a copy of it to me. I exposed it here in Utah, but most Utahns are sheeple and ostriches, have no clue what is going on, never had it anyway as they didn't become a state until after it was already abandoned by Abe and company.

[Rosanna Miller]

What is really sweet is that American Own Book published in 1853 by congress. It shows the original 13th for 40 years like I said. That is a lot of years just to move something out with no justification, motion, amendment or nothing to show on the books. 

[Andee Kleinhans]

Thanks for you wonderful input!  Now I know even more than I did.  I am working hard to rid this state of Governor Meade; I need all the help I can get and when I can learn more, it often spurs more thoughts of what to look for here to help me with it.  I will go after the SOS as will about 4000 of my supporters or am I their supporters?  No difference, just need 4000 more!

[Wayne Bachmann]

I have dedicated my life to helping however I can, and yes, I have a strong interest in seeing the original 13th amendment re-activated, Obvious, since I use the second ratification date as my email address.

[Wayne Bachmann]

Is this what you are referring to? I read it, but I don't understand the question, I guess. Try me on it again. I have picked up on one point. You are referring to a state constitution, whereas I am referring to the Constitution of the united States of America. I have a copy of the Wyoming Territory Constitution from back in the 1800s if I recall correctly, and it has the original 13th Amendment in it. I don't know what has happened since then. 1871 is when the corporate constitution was supplanted in place of the Republic Constitution. There were limbo years, that's what I call it anyway, between 1860 when Abe became President, and 1871 when congress committed treason by creating the corporation and supplanting it in the place of the Republic Constitution, without full disclosure, and without it being voted on by the Citizens of this country.

[Wayne Bachmann]

I don't see DC as being stupid, but deliberately treasonous and engaging in tyranny.