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/

[Native Born Citizen]

Fill out the criminal complaints, get them notarized, served, sent to at least 5 bonding companies, wait 30 days for the criminals to report to the bonding companies (or loose their bonds) wait for 60 more days to be paid by the bonding company, and watch the bonding company collect collateral from the criminals! 

Unlikely to happen, more likely is that one would join Terry in the slammer for exactly the same charges.

As to a Quo Warranto, it's originally a writ, used to challenge the title to an office. Nothing much can be done with it really, but I am sure that Wayne can help us understand how such a writ can be used.

At the Federal level, the writ can only be applied to Federal Officers, in the DC Court. 

As to the extraordinary writ of mandamus, again, it rarely works.

Funny how people hold such mythical beliefs about these writs. Id love to learn more about what cases were involved.  I have seen claims that quo warranto was used but its lacking in details.

Let's explore Quo Warranto at the Federal Level:

Quo Warranto — Quo warranto (Latin for “by what authority”34) is “an ancient writ used by the King of England to determine if an individual’s claim to an office or franchise is well-founded.”35 Theoretically, federal courts can issue writs of quo warranto against corporate officers, but a court must have subject matter jurisdiction to do so.36 A more likely use of this writ is to challenge the authority of federal public officials to hold office.

Interestingly, “[q]uo warranto actions in federal courts seem to be governed by the provisions of [the D.C. Code].”37 Additionally, the writ may only be sought by the “Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney” or, “by leave of the court,” an “interested person” acting as a relator on behalf of the United States.38 Despite the D.C. Code’s relator provision, the D.C. Circuit has held that “actions against public officials . . . can only be instituted by the Attorney General.”39 Nonetheless, a person having a claim to an office may be able to institute quo warranto proceedings if the Attorney General or U.S. attorney refuses to act.40 

Federal quo warranto has gained attention as a result of the “birther” movement. In Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010), the court was confronted with a quo warranto petition challenging President Obama’s right to hold office. The court dismissed the claim: “Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office.”41 As a practical matter, federal quo warranto is probably best viewed by Florida practitioners as a theoretical matter only — based on a search for “quo warranto” in Westlaw’s CTA11 database, only two cases discuss the writ in passing.

Source: Florida Bar

For Rosanna, in Ohio Quo Warranto is guided by statute

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2733

2733.01 Proceedings against a person.

A civil action in quo warranto may be brought in the name of the state:

(A) Against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, civil or military, or a franchise, within this state, or an office in a corporation created by the authority of this state;

(B) Against a public officer, civil or military, who does or suffers an act which, by law, works a forfeiture of his office;

(C) Against an association of persons who act as a corporation within this state without being legally incorporated.

Look at the rest of the statute to understand what requirements need to exist for jurisdiction and who can, under what circumstances proceed. It's an unlikely writ to succeed in these cases. But Wayne may explain otherwise.

[Native Born Citizen]

The writ of QW was tested in Teri Schiavo's case, with expectedoutcome.

As far as I have been able to determine, no such writ was tried in Kevorkian's case, although a mandamus was tried. As far as I can tell, the mandamus failed. But without further details, I cannot comment as to whether or not such a writ was used successfully. It's an extraordinary writ, rarely granted.

See 

Kevorkian v. Arnett, 939 F. Supp. 725 - Dist. Court, CD California 1996

BASED ON THE FOREGOING, this Court hereby dismisses Plaintiff Jack Kevorkian from this action for lack of standing. Plaintiff Jack Kevorkian's motion is therefore moot.

There is a case which may have led to some confusion

Kevorkian v. Judges of the Superior Court, 295 Mass. 355 - 1936

1936...

[Timothy Alan Gard]

Prospective employer : 'Why did you not enter your social security number on your application?"

You : " Please read this." You hand them the above letter.

Prospective employer : Reads letter and says "Very good. We will call you if a position opens up for you."

Ya. That worked ...

Molon Labe!

[Wayne Bachmann]

I have been told that about 50% of employers will hire you and let you subcontract, which lets you take care of tax business yourself, and gets them off the hook for being a tax collector for the IRS. You just have to find one of the 50%.

[Morton Thomson Jr.]

The problem with that is they still ask you for that number to put on your 1099.

There's only one right answer for everyone to win except the IRS.

You can indemnify the "Employer",("Witholding Agent"), from prosecution with a letter for them to send to the IRS, claiming they tried and failed by no fault of their own and thereby avoid the HUGE $15.00 fine for not providing the number to the IRS.

Our current system is a Constructive Fraud and we avoid it to preserve our CCCCCCitizenship, (See the CAPITOL C?). No one is on a crusade to expose this fraud. We are however trying to keep our Citizenship intact; you know the freedom we were born with.

[joseph cronin jr.]

Rosanna , any employer who did that to you can be sued ; get a hold of a lawyer . Taco Bell includes that statement on their form because an illegal got refused employment on that basis years ago in Texas and he won a lot of money . The next year his sister applied and they hired her , no problem .

[Wayne Bachmann]

Nobody should want a lawyer or attorney. Their first duty is to the court, and they have a superseding oath to do whatever the judge says. They also have a high bill to pay to the BAR assoc, therefore they are loyal to who has the money. They loose their BAR membership if they rat on fellow BAR members. Their loyalty is to the British Accreditation Registry. Why are foreign agents permitted in our politics and courts anyway? That is treason. It is a secret society based in London, which the last I knew, was still a foreign country.

You won't find BAR on searches, but now that I have told you what it stands for, you can find lots of references by searching British Accreditation Registry. Look up Outer Temple, Middle Temple, Templar, and other related links you will find. The American BAR is run through the Middle Temple. The Canadian BAR is run through the Outer Temple. There is lots of info available, once you know what it stands for. That is the secret!

[Aaron Bolinger]

This is something I've looked at since the time when the first "employer" wanted it, and some tax forms, to "put me to work."  I knew immediately something was wrong with this picture.  Haven't had or used that number at all now in over 20 years.  We even set up Sherman Institute in such way as to not use it for student tracking either. (Policy on SSN's is HERE.) For some serious research on it, I suggest the following reads:

• Amish battle with the SSN (good introduction to the religious aspect).
• Is it the "Mark of the Beast?"  (Incredibly detailed study from an ally.)
• The SSN and the US Navy (Another friend, and his battles with it.)
• A Sermon I recently did on the subject, from the perspective of getting out from under it.  (This is a streaming station, so you may have to stop the player at the TOP of the page, and click to start the stream from the archive link on this show I did on Feb. 26.)

[Aaron Bolinger]

(Forgot the S.I. Policy link ... it is on our FAQ page.)

Why does Sherman Institute not request a Social Security Number of students?

Sherman Institute does NOT use Social Security Numbers in student transcripts (your e-mail address is all we need for that), or for tracking a student in any way, shape or form. If a transfer student provides an existing transcript to any of our Deans, and wishes to use a magic marker to blot out the SSN on what they give us, no problem.  (In fact, we prefer if you do that — no sense giving us that number.)  We don’t want it, don’t need it, have no interest in the responsibility of protecting you against “identity theft,” etc. Simple policy here: SSN’s are a government tracking number.  We are not a government operation, we take no money or other benefit from government.  It is beyond useless to us.

Further, you will not find this campus giving or requiring “biometric” forms of identification connected with student activites.  Your DNA is your property.  We do not want a sample of it. We are not obsessed with facial recognition software either. Relax. This is Sherman Institute.

[Wayne Bachmann]

I have never heard of them. Where are they? They deserve letters of appreciation!

[Andee Kleinhans]

I do not know where they are but agree a big thanks is needed; we need to get rid of our SS and get State I Ds they are not as invasive.

Guess I will do a search and see what I find.

Go into a Search Engine, I used Bing but like Google better; there are several paragraphs regarding SI; it goes back to the 1700s, is a liberal arts school and it appears, as I scanned through the long article, also a school of theology. This was the time of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. I am going back to read it all, suggest you do the same!  You will be glad you did!

[Wayne Bachmann]

If you happen to find the link, I would be interested in making some good quality duplicates of it. I just copied it, but it is not the best quality.