You Can Still Be Free

Part One of Two

| From the "Reasonable Action" Newsletter |
|                                         |
| S.A.P. Fellowship                       |
| P.O. Box 91                             |
| Westminster, MD 21158                   |
|                                         |
| 410-857-4441 (Voice)                    |
| 410-857-5249 (Fax)                      |
| (E-mail)        |

Part I of the R.A. Article entitled "You can still be free if
you want to be"


The income tax is not the only form of social control that is
strangling the nations freedom. If indeed the income tax is to be
done away with, the battleground of the future will concentrate in
the area of information management systems that infringe on rights
to privacy. It should come as no surprise that there are many large
computer databases  maintaining records on almost everyone. Some are
maintained by the government and some by private business; but each
system of records depends on the assignment of a number to
individuals within the database. Such assignments have one purpose.

They facilitate a positive identification of the individual who is
the bearer of the number. With rare exception, the numerical common
denominator between all of these systems of records -- both
government and non- government -- is the social security number.

A numerical assignment such as this has two advantages in a computer
program. First, it prevents "duplicate" records from occurring
within the system of records; and second, it allows for the
efficient searching of records within a database so that the program
can rapidly locate and distinguish one individual from all of the
others. So why not use an individuals name? The answer should be
obvious. Since two or more people can have the same name, positive
identification would be impossible. Just look in your local phone
directory and see how many John Smiths are listed -- but assign a
number to each of those John Smiths - a unique number that has no
other duplicate -- and the correct John Smith can be instantly
discerned from amongst the crowd. Computer programmers sometimes
refer to such numbers as "unique keys" because they prevent duplicate
entries from being made into the system of records.

The accurate retrieval of information depends upon these numerical
identifiers and their unique nature permits the program to reliably
distinguish one "John Smith" from another. If one "John Smith" moves
from New York to San Francisco, the key number which identifies that
particular Smith, allows the information management system to keep
track of him.


If all of this sounds ominous... it isn't. Computers make life
easier, and computer records facilitate an efficient business
environment that reduces costs, increases profit, and in general
makes life more affordable. There is nothing intrinsically wrong
with either efficiency or  numerical identification. What is ominous
is the common denominator on which these systems of records
depend... the social security number. While the number itself is not
evil -- it's intended purpose - to positively identify everyone --
has the potential for establishing a method of control far greater
than the income tax or a value added tax could ever achieve. In
fact, that 9 digit number has become the greatest single threat to
our individual sovereignty today. Its mass acceptance by an
increasingly apathetic and uneducated nation makes possible an
economic system where cash is obsolete and a "new order" imminent.
More than a few people have recognized that anyone who is unwilling
or unable to interface with a cashless system will find it rather
difficult to buy or sell! All other forms of social control are
dwarfed by this capability.

So how far  has this information management system advanced? What
kind of information does the government maintain on citizens who
possess the social security number identifier; and, who has charge
over this information? Some believe that the IRS is, or will become,
the repositor of this power. One thing is certain, the IRS does
possess a great deal of information on almost everyone and knows how
to impose its authority (real or imaginary). Reprinted below is a
page from the Internal Revenue Manual which graphically demonstrates
how extensive this computer information system is, and how it might
be used to control or manipulate people. Notice the numerical "key"
which will positively identify the individuals within the system of
records - implication obvious. It's current capabilities even include
information on your groceries, car and rent! Of course, that is
assuming that you have a social security number.


If you never applied for the benefit, and thus the number that is
associated with the account for retaining it, then there are no
provisions for maintaining that information! All of the data is
keyed to, and accessible only through a uniform method of
identification... the social security number. Without that numerical
identifier, the system simply cannot function. The social security
number is the "key" to this "system," and as long as people want the
benefit and are willing to use that number, the system will flourish
and expand -- but what do you think would happen if people began
revoking their applications to "obtain or retain a benefit" from the
social security entitlement program, and then stopped using the
number? Simple... the entire house of cards would crumble, and the
method of control could not serve its intended purpose!

Many people are becoming aware of this entanglement. They realize
that real freedom exists for those who never applied for the number.
Some have taken the first step and refused to obtain the number for
their children. Still others have revoked the application for the
number and opted not to retain the "benefit." One S.A.P. member,
revoked the application and actually went so far as to send her
social security entitlement check back to the government. To this
Patriot her freedom was more important than the money! With more
dedicated, principled Americans like her, the machinery presently
being set in place to create a new order would fail and come
crashing down around the heads of the globalists who are engineering


What you might be surprised to learn is that this movement is well
under way. Results have been predictable.  Public response, for
example, to the so-called requirement for obtaining a social
security number prior to drivers license renewal is a prime example
of an issue where the battle lines have already been drawn.  For
clarification to new members, there really was (in most states) no
requirement to "obtain" a social security number to apply for a
drivers license -- only an illusion (intentional or not) created for
the benefit of the average person. The law does require those who
have a number to submit it; but, individuals who do NOT have a
social security number are under no obligation to obtain one.
According to the Director of the Maryland Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) for example, individuals without a number merely
write "none" in the space provided - but the government was not
honest with the people, nor was the media who blindly parroted what
they were told without verifying the information. Unfortunately,
people without a number were led to believe that they must get one.
In Maryland, DMV officials who knew there was no requirement
routinely lied to applicants. The government and the media
(intentionally or not) did an excellent job of spreading this

Was this part of a vast conspiracy? Possibly -- but more than likely
it resulted from the mass mind-set of the nation and widespread
ignorance concerning the danger of such a system. More plausible, is
the likelihood that at different levels of government, to some
varying degree, there were a few well connected individuals involved
in a strategy to further the private agenda of the globalists. These
individuals were in a position to use their influence to implement
"policy," and that trickled down into a state level process which
effectively "encouraged" people to obtain the number. The entire
process was more tenuous than one might think, and therein lies the
key to restoring liberty. Once people realize that the architects
are few in number, and that they cannot possibly hope to retain
control of an educated public willing to assert their rights, then
it's all over for global government.

An increasing number of people realize the implications of
participation and do not wish to voluntarily cooperate in the
systematic dismantling of their form of government or the liberty
that their fathers have enjoyed. Growing in number, these groups of
people are asserting their rights, refusing to volunteer, and
creating a major problem for planners of global government. We
understand that the States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Indiana, and
Tennessee (among others) have already backed down on the so called
requirement to obtain a social security number for drivers license
renewals (see article this issue). More are on the way, and as the
number of people willing to assert their rights continues to
increase, the government is  forced to capitulate on other
(globalist) policies that have no provision in U.S. law.


Every U.S. president this century has worked towards globalism. The
acts of some presidents have been incidental, while the acts of
others have been in the extreme. Either way, these acts blatantly
violate the oath of office to which the president is bound. Several
have performed outstanding dis-service to their country and deserve
special recognition for their actions. Most notable was perhaps
President Woodrow Wilson. He was instrumental in assisting those who
resurrected the Aldrich Bill, and turned it into the "Federal
Reserve Act" which was later jammed down the throats of the people.
By controlling the money supply, Wilson's backers, (the progenitors
of the Federal Reserve system) were effectively able to peddle
influence and enact legislation to suppress free enterprise. This
action centralized economic and political functions in the hands of
their representatives. The nation has suffered untold social and
economic damage ever since; but, Wilson was by no means alone in
these endeavors.

Roosevelt also played an important part in moving the globalist's
agenda forward and his socialist background is well documented. 
Roosevelt's most destructive contribution to world government took
the form of a "New Deal." Of course, insiders familiar with its
intended purpose saw it for the "Raw Deal" that it was since it had
the effect of reversing the "presumption" of government jurisdiction.
Such presumptions are, at least in terms of freedom, tantamount to
making  a man "guilty until proven innocent." How was this possible
in a free society?


Up until that time, it was "presumed" that an individual was NOT
"the subject of" any given body of law, and thus, NOT subject to the
jurisdiction of the agency of government charged with the duty and
responsible of administering it.

To exercise authority over any given citizen, an agency of
government would be required by law to prove (in Court) that a
provision of law existed which would give the agency the
jurisdiction to proceed. In other words -- the burden of proof for
the existence of a lawful requirement, and thus jurisdiction with
respect to any given body of law, was on the shoulders of the
government. That was -- and still is -the "essence" of freedom!
Unfortunately, the new deal brought with it a change of venue.
Rather than a "presumption" in favor of the citizen, requiring the
government to positively establish the existence of a "lawful
requirement," the burden of proof would now be shifted to the
individual who must show that the government does not have
jurisdiction with respect to any given body of law.

One should immediately realize the implication of shifting the
burden of proof. But what is not readily apparent, are the
complications involving the nature of the proof itself. Think about
it -- if something exists (like a law)... you can just present that
law and you've proven your contention. If it does NOT exist, there is
nothing to point out. Complex corrolaries and other abstract
methodology must be employed to "prove" a negative.

It is easy to see how the reversing of the burden of proof for
jurisdiction affected our freedom. The "New Deal" changed the
presumption that we were free of any lawful requirements that might
otherwise, for example, be voluntary. Where before, we had NOT been
the subject of the law, we were now "presumed" to be the subject of
the law until such time as we challenged that "presumption." All
that remained to marry this new found power with social objectives,
was to create a method whereby any agency of government could gain
instant information on individuals over which it now "presumed" to
have authority. Then it could utilize that information in a manner
which would "encourage voluntary compliance" and more effectively
integrate the U.S. into the new emerging social order.


Technologically, the government did not have a fast efficient way to
maintain, recall, or utilize the information on citizens over which
it now "presumed" certain jurisdiction. This  inability to manage
information may well have been the nations last vestige of unasserted
freedom -a small set back for the architects of the new paradigm
considering the speed at which technology was progressing. The die
was cast however, and the mechanics of the process used the
additional time to solidify the necessary "voluntary" participation
by creating "perceived needs." They then perpetuated their agenda in
the face of opposition by "exchanging favors" -- i.e. the purchase
of votes in exchange for entitlement benefits in the new "voluntary"
social programs that were the key to various "presumptions" and

These programs were designed to touch the lives of almost every
American, and today, over 50% of the general public receives some
form of government assistance. Is it any wonder that the "vote" of
the people has been bought -- is it any wonder that the nation has
come to "expect" a government dole? In any other industry the
selling of such intangibles might be called "futures," and with
regard to liberty, very risky considering the loss of freedom which
accompanies the sale.

For the planners of global government, the programs and promises
would certainly suffice until such time as it was feasible to
tighten controls and implement a cashless environment. All financial
transactions would then depend on the number and  absolute control
of the economic environment would finally be possible.

It was at least the beginning of a long multifaceted agenda that was
theoretically possible, stymied only by the absence of high speed
computers capable of maintaining and managing the information, and
by the absence of the numerical identification of the population.
Because of this technology gap, Americans were able to hang on to
their illusion of freedom a little longer. Even without the
capability of instant information transfers and the control that it
could establish, these programs would still serve as the basis of
"jurisdiction," foment demand for service, and promote the
acceptance of world government to ensure security for all.

The entire process would be brought about through the synthesis of
economic and social situations, without which, there could be no
effective implementation. However, government funded technology was
racing along, and preparations were being made to lay the foundation
for such a system. All that remained was to assign numbers to

There was only one stumbling block to face within the United States.
The success of the new social order would depend on the "voluntary
compliance" previously mentioned. Why? Because under the law,
(limitations imposed by the Constitution), participation could not
be required. It wouldn't have to be. Given a change in the
"presumption" of jurisdiction and sufficient time, the people would
never know -- but their acceptance of this voluntary scheme would
depend on such aspects as "deception" (making people think that it
is required), "incentive" (what people will get in return for
participation), and a "presumed" jurisdiction (Roosevelt's
contribution) to enforce compliance. Offer the people a "New Deal,"
one they can't refuse, (entitlements) and public acceptance is in
the bag.


What person in their right mind wouldn't accept a free lunch -- and
such a deal... how could you refuse? -- But just in case you do,
we'll give you some added financial incentives! We'll put the
squeeze on your budget. When there's not enough money to go around
and you can't get a job -- then you'll see things our way.

Since the money supply  was under the control of the social
engineers, (thanks to Wilson) it was a very simple matter to
constrict. As with any shortage, people become desperate; and,
desperate people are willing to do almost anything to alleviate
their discomfort.

Not to many years ago there was a shortage of gasoline and long
lines at the pump. The resulting mayhem was similar to the behavior
that one might witness at the local zoo. The effect of putting
someone in that position and then dangling a free lunch should be
obvious. The ultimate contrived financial crunch of 1929 ensured
that there was sufficient incentive to accept the scheme and by the
time it was introduced in 1934 the trap for an unsuspecting public
would be sprung.

Historically, it worked so well that a goodly portion of the people
couldn't afford NOT to participate. There was little or no public
opposition and certainly no media coverage concerning the nature of
the jurisdictional entanglements. The government officials who
introduced the program became heroes in the eyes of an ignorant
public who never once realized that their inheritance was being sold
in return for a promise.

Freedom became even more of an illusion as volunteer participants
flocked to the government to seek it's grace and benevolence. Those
who promised continuance of the programs were assured re- election
and the rest is history.


What happened to our freedom? Does it still exist? Yes -but it must
be aggressively exercised. The supreme Court has held that "your
rights will NOT be passively protected" and that if you want them,
you must "aggressively assert them." Yes, we are still free, but
that freedom depends on the degree to which we are willing to assert
our rights; and, to be totally free, we must resolve to dissolve the
link whereby the government can maintain information on the citizens
over which it "presumes" jurisdiction. As long as that link
persists, enforcement of "perceived" requirements is possible and
likely to occur.

Moreover, it is even more likely to occur when you consider that
many of the personnel who administer the programs have come to accept
the notion that there is a legal requirement and do not realize that
it is voluntary. These government employees rarely understand our
form of government or the limitations on such requirements in
respect of the Constitution. With that in mind we now examine the
logical basis of that "perceived requirement" and the link that it
establishes to a presumption of jurisdiction.


If you are free and you have a "right to property" you cannot be
"required by law" to take care of your neighbor - unless of course
-- you voluntarily contract with that neighbor for the mutual
support of one another. The terms of the contract might include
financial hardship which would require "old age benefits," or, "aid
to dependent children, etc." or, whatever other terms of the contract
you agree to. A person could participate by making application --
but a "free" person in a "free" country could not be forced by law
to participate.

There certainly is a moral imperative to assist our fellow man in
time of need, but such ethical considerations must be limited to
specific times and circumstances and dependent upon the willingness
of the individual choosing to excerise charity. Such  moral
obligations are dependent upon factors which can only be assessed by
the person who is in a position to give or make donations. Yes, a
person may have a moral duty to be charitable, however that
obligation does not extend to putting his or her hand into the
pocket of some other person to exercise his own charity.

That would be theft -- certainly hypocrisy! Yet social programs
administered by the government are just that. Charity must begin and
end with your own pocket. Otherwise it is not charity at all, and
there certainly can be no freedom or right to property if
participation is forced by government. Indeed, that is why
participation is NOT required, and why there is NO constitutional
authority for the government to play the charity game. When it does,
it violates the constitution and the natural, inalienable rights to
property, given by God. If someone chooses to participate
voluntarily in such an arrangement, and applies for such benefits,
then it does NOT violate the constitution -- but while voluntary
participation solves the legal problem, how do you enforce
(encourage as the case may be) something that is voluntary?

You can't -- unless it is tied in some fashion to a legitimate legal
requirement for which jurisdiction exists and whose similar but
limited application is constitutional. So thickens the plot. A body
of law that could be systematically misapplied (assuming that it was
intentional) would fill the bill nicely; and, the agency of
government responsible for administering its provisions, (the IRS?)
could with its "broad sweeping powers... encourage the highest level
of voluntary compliance!"

If that expression sounds familiar, consider this... employment
taxes fall within the confines of Subtitle C. They are voluntarily
deducted from payments made to the employee who has voluntarily
chosen to participate (by application) and expects to build credit
towards his or her social security entitlement. The IRS has the
jurisdiction to administer the provisions of such withholding!


Now consider the following facts:

1) The IR Code does NOT apply to U.S. citizens who are living and
working within the 50 states who are not involved in certain
occupations (like alcohol, tobacco and firearms) or acting as
fiduciaries of nonresident aliens; and,

2) the IRS does NOT have jurisdiction over those who are NOT the
subject of the law; but,

3) it is also a fact that the person who has "voluntarily applied"
for the privilege of participating in and receiving social security
entitlements, agrees to the terms of participation; and that,

4) the terms of participation require "an accounting" for deductions
that the agency (IRS) administers; Therefore, in so doing...

5) Those who have voluntarily chosen to participate have voluntarily
subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the agency that
administers its provisions (the IRS). If you have a social security
number then the IRS DOES have the jurisdiction and authority to
maintain records on you in order to administer provisions of law
regarding your voluntary participation in social security and may act
(correctly or not) on presumptions with regard to those records.

Even though the law does not impose participation, jurisdiction is
established by virtue of an application to participate. But wait --
you say that you did not apply - that it was your parents who
applied for the number on your behalf, or that you applied for the
number believing that it was required, and that you are therefore NOT
participating voluntarily? Is there jurisdiction? The questions are
entirely irrelevant. The very fact that someone possesses and uses
(or has used) the number, is reason enough to "presume" that someone
has knowingly and voluntarily contracted to participate in the

Voluntary participation involves the "jurisdiction" of the agency of
government responsible for administering whatever portions of the
terms of the agreement are involved (i.e. deductions to build credit
toward entitlement). What agency of government has that
jurisdiction? -- The IRS!

Do you want to participate and receive an entitlement? (presumably
so -- if you have the number) Then you must want deductions to be
made from your paycheck! (presumably so -if you have the number) Are
you under the jurisdiction of the IRS? (presumably so - if you have
the number). Ever wonder why the social security administration will
not expunge a persons number, even after a notice of revocation of
application has been received? The government does not want to give
up its presumption of jurisdiction without a fight.


Who can make deductions from your paycheck, and who can have
deductions made? Only "employer(s)" and "employee(s)" who are under
the jurisdiction of, and have the relationship described for purpose
of chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code. The relationship is
contractually significant when the "employee" with a social security
number submits a W-4 to the "employer." Under that circumstance, and
that circumstance only, an employer has the "authority" to withhold
-- not necessarily a legal requirement (by law) to withhold -- but
an "authority" to withhold -- granted not by the law itself -- but
by the permission of the employee who wishes to enter into the
"relationship" mentioned in section 3402.  The requirement to
withhold belongs to the employer if he has chosen to participate and
receives a W-4 from his employee, but it is the employee who makes
the final determination by submitting the W-4. To do so is to create
an implied legal obligation (a presumption).

The tax associated with the requirement (that is used as the basis
for building credits toward entitlement) is then collected from
those who choose to voluntarily participate.

Provisions for such withholding (even from volunteers) do exist, but
they are limited in application as far as actual "requirements" so
the question becomes... Who are the required participants?; and, are
the voluntary participants subjecting themselves to the same legal
requirements as the required participants? More important, do the
voluntary participants have "taxable income?"

If required participation is limited to nonresident aliens, do U.S.
citizens subject themselves to any of the legal requirements imposed
on the nonresident alien? The answer is a little oblique. No, of
course not -- at least not under the law itself -- but everything is
based on presumption; and when there is a systematic effort to
"encourage voluntary compliance" the presumption that a volunteer is
a "required participant" is all that is necessary. Why? Because the
legal requirements of the mandatory participant are taken on by the
volunteer who may be "presumed" to be a mandatory participant who is
under the law and thus any legal requirements that it might impose. 
The volunteer faces any misapplication that may, for whatever
reason, intentional or unintentional, be perpetuated by the process.


Nonresident aliens are the only people required to obtain the social
security number in order to work in the United States, and thus,
they are the only ones required to participate. But nonresident
aliens are also the subject of the income tax. Whoops! The amount of
withholding (30%) is geared to those who are the subject of the
income tax laws.

Since the law is mandatory for those to whom it applies, it could be
"presumed" that a participant is "required by law" to participate,
and thus the full brunt of withholding is born by those
volunteering. Does this then mean that someone who chooses to
volunteer, subjects himself to the same requirement for a "deduction
of income tax" that would be required of all nonresident aliens
under Subtitle A? No -- not necessarily -- but again it's irrelevant
because the nature of the problem involves a misapplication which
has no provision in law to begin with. To errantly and illegally
enforce any given provision, the presumption is all that matters.

Section 1441 requires certain deductions from payments made to
nonresident aliens. So what  are the implications for the U.S.
citizen who is NOT a withholding agent, and only a "voluntary
participant" for purpose of Subtitle C and social security? Is the
citizen eligible for a refund? Perhaps -- but what provisions exist
for such refunds? Anyone who is eligible for a refund may file a
return to claim the amount overpaid, but the amount is still
dependent upon the various criteria that would apply to those who
are required to file returns, and contingent upon the filing of the
return that the "taxpayer" is required to file. Who is the taxpayer
required to file? -- the withholding agent! Section 1461 is his
liability and it is the only liability in Subtitle A. Therefore, if
a return is filed and it is known or otherwise obvious that the filer
is a U.S. citizen, is there cause for a "presumption" that he is
making payments to nonresident aliens?

Indeed, the filing of a return can only substantiate the
"presumption" that the filer is a "taxpayer" who has a liability
arising from statute. If the only liability arising from statute is
section 1461 (for the withholding agent making payments to
nonresident aliens), then the only plausible "presumption" that one
might arrive at, is that the U.S. citizen is filing a 1040 return on
behalf of his nonresident alien principle. Treasury decision 2313
(SCAN 2313) reprinted here confirms the requirement for a
withholding agent to file a 1040 return on behalf of his nonresident
alien principle. There are few other "presumptive" alternatives.

For further confirmation of this logic examine the form letter sent
to most nonfilers. A U.S. citizen living and working within the 50
states, (who has been filing returns) but suddenly stops filing,
will usually receive a form letter 8176 from the IRS. The IRS
regulations and publications identify this form as a request for
backup withholding from a "withholding agent" who has not filed the
appropriate return.

The entire process is fundamentally illogical but it results from
ignorance on the part of those who file, and a lack of education on
the part of those who administer filing requirements -- and it is
perpetuated at the highest levels of the IRS by those who have no
moral inclination to "passively protect" the rights of citizens. If
you wish to protect your rights then you must "aggressively assert
them." Does a social security number "make you liable?" No -- but it
does establish the link wherein a "presumption" may be pursued, and
allows for an entry to be made into a system of records that
facilitates pursuit. If the general pubic knew this, and understood
that the application of the tax laws was limited, do you think they
would want the number?


There are none so blind as those who will not see. Human nature
hides from view, that which we fear. Old age, incapacity, or any
"unknown" is fearful but in the mind of the public, social security
reduces the element of fear. It provides old age and disability
benefits. Who wouldn't want social security? Conceptually, the
program is not unlike insurance (hence the deceptive title). If
everyone puts just a little in, then everyone benefits a lot, given
that the unforeseen rears its ugly head --- right? To the average
person that sounds perfectly logical. Everyone runs to get the
social security card. Now they have a secure retirement! Now they
are protected in case of disaster. If it benefits everyone, then it
must be for "the general welfare" -right? If it's for the general
welfare of the people then it must be constitutional -- right? These
incorrect beliefs, are not only wrong, they are irrelevant. Since
voluntary participation does not require Constitutional authority,
it is not necessary for them to benefit everyone, nor is it
necessary to promote the general welfare. In fact they do not, but
over the years people have forgotten that it is voluntary.

Through a natural progression of events, the social security number
became the identification number of choice. The IRS started using it
to identify non-business "taxpayers" who were not the subject of the
law. Gradually people were led to believe (intentionally or not)
that it was required for identification. It must be required,
everyone asks me for it!

The illusion eventually cemented itself deep in the mindset of the
nation -- rationalized within the framework of a need to promote an
efficient and highly organized society. It was not unplanned. To
ensure public acceptance, society began to suffer the result of
increased economic and social controls brought on by globalist
manipulation of the federal reserve and people began to turn from a
concept of freedom and personal responsibility, to a concept that
demands (because of necessity) increased controls, to stem the
rising tide of social problems that plague a financially oppressed
people. Slowly people were led to believe that this number holds the
key to security and that without it, the fabric of society would be
irreparably damaged.

They mindlessly accepted what they were told. Slowly employers and
businesses were led to believe that they needed a number too, and
then everyone rushed to "obtain or retain" the benefit, or
participate in what they thought was required. If you want to build
credits for your "protection" you must participate. To build credits
you must subject yourself to the requirements associated with the
wage tax (that is not imposed by law) but which subjects you to the
jurisdiction of the agency that administers it.

To accomplish this, fill out a W-4 Form. Make sure you put your
number on the form or you will not receive the "protection" you
desire. Do you want a refund for the amount you overpaid --- just
file a return. Who files a return -- presumably, those who are
required by law to file a return. Oh what a tangled web we weave...


The common law employer has no legal requirement or obligation to
participate. Existing provisions are limited to "government
agencies" or "corporations" (a creation of government) that are
operating in the insular island possessions (Guam, American Samoa,
Puerto Rico, etc.) and outside of Constitutional purview.  The
employer can volunteer however. Even though the law does not require
his participation, he can apply for a number.

If the employer is not required by law to obtain a federal ID number
to manage the account whereby moneys are withheld from nonresident
aliens and other foreign entities (sections 1441, 1442, and 1443 of
the IR Code) then he can make application for approval so that a
number can be assigned to create an account for his "voluntary
compliance."  Regardless of the method, once entering into this
relationship via application, the voluntary participants become
"employer" and "employee" as defined for purpose of Subtitle C. The
employee is then a "covered employee" as defined within, however we
would point out that a much simpler, more readable version of the
same definition is listed within Title 20 (education). Now, why are
these terms defined within Title 20 when the same definition,
embellished as it were by complex and confusing  text, is found
within Title 26.  Hmmmm....

In fact, if it pertains to chapters 21 through 25 of the IR Code
(Subtitle C), then why is it in Title 20 at all? Is this not odd?
Like the magician who performs his sleight of hand in plain view for
all to see, the writers of the law seem to place the definitions in
plain sight, for anyone to see, but then distract our eyes with
sleight of hand! So lets examine this sleight of hand.


The Internal Revenue Code is not applied generally. It is structured
into subtitles. Subtitle A is income tax and its provisions are
found in chapters 1 through 6. The application of the income tax is
confined to those chapters and does not extend beyond. Just as the
application of the income tax is confined within those chapters, the
application of the other taxes (in the IRC) are found to be confined
within their respective chapters in the same manner. Moreover, the
legal authority conferred in one subtitle does not extend to the
enforcement of law in some other Subtitle.

For example, the authority to withhold under Subtitle C is found in
section 3402 (keep in mind that  Subtitle C is not imposed -- it is
voluntary!) The requirement to withhold under Subtitle A is found
within section 1441, 1442, and 1443. The application of these
sections and their requirements are unrelated. In  3402 the authority
to withhold is predicated upon employee participation -- In sections
1441, 1442, and 1443, the requirement to withhold is predicated upon
a legal requirement (nonresident aliens etc.). The legal requirements
within Subtitle A are within the law. Voluntary compliance (under
Subtitle C) is not under the law.

Oddly, the presence of Subtitle C within the IR Code makes it an
anomaly to the rest of the Code. If it's presence in the IR Code
does anything at all, it serves to confer jurisdiction for those who
apply for the number, and to lend merit to the overall illusion
regarding requirements for the United States citizen. The Code must
come under the Constitution in order to remain Constitutional, but
Subtitle C cannot come under the Constitution. It doesn't fit within
the law because socialism is not constitutional and that is why it
is not imposed. It can only fit when it is made to fit, by those
doing the fitting, and perhaps this is why the Internal Revenue Code
was never passed into positive law.

In any case, one is reminded of Cinderella's sisters and the glass
slipper. No matter how hard one looks for the imposition in Subtitle
C, or the general provisions to administer it within Subtitle F, no
one can find it. The IRS calls that "voluntary compliance" and the
IRS is correct.

It is significant to understand why the government uses the term
"voluntary compliance." Subtitle A is imposed by law, and although
limited in application, compliance is mandatory for those to whom it
applies (nonresident aliens etc.). Subtitle C however is NOT
imposed, therefore compliance cannot be enforced. When the
government through various IRS officials talk about "voluntary
compliance," to what are they referring? Are they referring to their
ongoing misapplication of law with regard to Subtitle A, or are they
referring to mass participation under the un- imposed Subtitle C?


In examining the basis of illegal enforcement we find a tenuous but
presumptive relationship between the two subtitles. The subject of
legal actions against non taxpayers stems from the belief that
everyone must pay the "income tax" (which is confined to Subtitle A)
-- Cross references in Section 5 of the Internal Revenue Code
confirms that Subtitle A does not pertain to citizens.

(a) Other Rates of Tax on Individuals, etc.--
(1) For rates of tax on nonresident aliens, see section
871. (2) For doubling of tax on citizens of certain
foreign countries, see section 891.
(3) For rate of withholding in the case of nonresident
aliens, see section 1441.
(4) For alternative minimum tax, see section 55.

The federal income tax under Subtitle A is imposed on "taxable
income" not "wages."  Specifically this is found at section 1.

(a) .... There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of

The tax on "wages" is found elsewhere, specifically within Subtitle
C (26 U.S.C. 3402) and it is titled "Employment Taxes." These taxes
are withheld by the "Employer" defined in Title 26, United States
Code section 3401. That employer is a government agency or
corporation, not a common law employer, unless of course that common
law employer voluntarily applies by submitting a Form SS-4
"Application for Employer Identification Number." When the employer
submits this application the following terms (we will use the terms
as they are defined within title 20 since they are more concise)
come into play.

Title 20 Code of Federal Regulations
Sections 404.1003, 404.1004, and 404.1005

"means... any service covered by social security performed
by an employee..."

"What work is covered as employment"
" you perform as an employee for your employer is
covered as employment under social security"

"Who is an employee"
"You must be an employee for your work to be covered as
employment for social security purposes"

(a) The term 'wages' means remuneration paid to you as an
employee for employment unless specifically excluded.
Wages are counted in determining your entitlement to
'retirement survivors' and 'disability insurance'

In other words, for the purpose of taxation and the U.S. citizen,
the legal term "employee" only relates to "covered employees" or
more simply, employees that are covered under government entitlement
programs (i.e. social security).

This taxation, as it would apply to U.S. citizens is found only
within Subtitle C "Employment taxes" (not income tax under subtitle
A). The provisions for administering the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code are found in Subtitle F. In this Subtitle,  chapters 61
through 80 deal with the "Administration and Procedure." Only one
problem (for the IRS) -- there are no provisions for administering
or enforcing taxes under Subtitle C.

The reason is simple... Subtitle C is voluntary and dependent on the
citizens desire to build credit towards entitlement. It cannot be
forced (enforced) upon the citizen. However, if the IRS was going to
intentionally misapply the law, how would they do it? Subtitle A is
clearly limited in application and does not pertain to U.S. citizens
in the 50 states. Subtitle C however is different. Subtitle C has
provisions for citizens who are voluntary participants, and the
similarity in certain provisions allows for a blurring of authority
as to the application of the income tax.

To make use of this, IRS personnel need only "presume" that the
individual in question had a requirement to file a return. Section
6012 requires returns of income to be filed but only for subtitle A
(Income tax). Notice that there are no provisions in Subtitle C
which require the U.S. citizen employee to file.

General Rule.--Returns with respect to income taxes under
Subtitle A shall be made...

Second, IRS personnel need to have the authority to assess! If a
person does not file a return, the assessment authority in Subtitle
F "Administration and Procedure" is limited to section 6201.  Where
is the reference to the tax on wages under Subtitle C?

"The Secretary is authorized and required to make the
inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes...
which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in
the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to
and included the following.
(1) Taxes shown on return...
(2) Unpaid taxes payable by stamp...

Third, when IRS personnel misapply the law in dealing with citizens
who are not required to file, they send a notice of deficiency. A
deficiency is defined within section 6211 and it pertains to
subtitles A and B. Where is the authority to send a notice of
deficiency regarding taxes under Subtitle C?

(a) In General.---For purposes of this title in the case
of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by Subtitle A
and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and
44 the term deficiency means...

(a) In General.---If the Secretary determines that there
is a deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by Subtitle
A and B and excise taxes imposed or chapters 41, 42, 43,
or 44, he is authorized to send a notice of deficiency to
the taxpayer.

The misapplication of the law by IRS personnel is graphically
demonstrated by provisions pursuant Subtitle A pertaining to
citizens. United States citizens living and working within the 50
states may claim their lawful exemption under the provisions of
federal regulation 1.14415. The exemption applies to tax under
Subtitle A, a tax to which citizens are not subject!

SECTION 1.1441-5 Claiming to be a person not subject to
(a) Individuals. For purposes of chapter 3 of the Code,
and individuals written statement that he or she is a
citizen or resident of the United States may be relied
upon by the payer of the income as proof the such
individual is a citizen or resident of the United States.
Obviously, aliens do not give statements of citizenship!
Income tax under Subtitle A is withheld from aliens only.

Without an application for "voluntary participation" the employer is
not an "employer" and may not participate for the benefit of his
employees. Without making application, the employer cannot be forced
to participate. But what employer doesn't want to give his employees
a "benefit." These and other "perks" are factors that are considered
in the market place of quality labor and it is natural for the
employer to want to participate, even though he or she may not
realize that it is voluntary.

Our members are aware of this. Some are employers who do not
participate. Edward Kotmair, the son of the fiduciary for the S.A.P.
Fellowship, is a large (common law) employer who does NOT
participate. He has no federal ID number, and his employees give him
statements of citizenship to forward to the IRS.

The government has tried to coerce his participation but has been
unable to do so. Ed has worked on the Library of Congress, the
Capital, and the Federal Courthouse among others. Considering that
the bulk of his contracts are with the federal government, it should
be obvious just how powerless the government is to misapply the
provisions of Subtitle C!   On one occasion, an accountant for one
of his general contractors asked the company attorney about the
legality of Ed's actions. The attorney informed the contractor that
Ed was obeying the law but that it was "not politically favorable"
and that it could effect future government contracts.

In other words, his actions were within the law, but there could be
political consequences for not "towing the party line." While that
may be true, the fact remains, you are still free if you want to be.
Just don't get a number. If you are a United States citizen, you do
not have a legal requirement to participate in the social security
program and you cannot be forced to obtain one in order to exchange
your labor for wage property. If you are an employer, and the law
does not require you to participate, then don't participate. With
participation comes the very intervention and control that is now
stifling the economy.

Even "covered employees" (as previously defined) who have actually
applied for the social security benefit need not participate unless
they wish to build up credits. This fact can be verified by
examining the general provisions in Subtitle F. We challenge you to
find any that relate to Subtitle C. If Subtitle C does not come
under the law then it can in no way be imposed. Of course -- those
who don't pay, don't get any benefit.


In the Yokas case the Court held that when Congress passes a law
which involves government agencies and their corresponding
jurisdiction over citizens, it is not incumbent upon Congress to
detail how that jurisdiction arises over the individual citizen. It
is simply "presumed" that it has jurisdiction and the citizen has
the responsibility of petitioning the agency for a jurisdictional
ruling about himself.

In a free country, this " new deal" concept is ridiculous, and the
Court's decision is a tacit acknowledgment that the government has
created a jurisdiction, effectively secret in nature, which it
withholds from the general public.

The non-existence of a requirement not withstanding, presumptions to
the contrary have grown into the belief that there really is a legal
requirement to obtain the number, and so to file a return, and pay a
tax. Common sense should indicate that the social security number is
not required. After all, if something is required, there is no need
to apply for it -- it will be given to you automatically.

One only makes application for something that is NOT required, to
receive the privilege associated with the application. Most people
just don't think. They do not realize that the "privilege" for which
they are applying is nothing more than a request to enter into the
jurisdiction of the IRS. The government uses the social security
number to gain jurisdiction over you, and to keep track of your
activities. It can then systematically misapply and illegally enforce
provisions of the law to which you may not be subject. That
presumption of  jurisdiction makes it infinitely more difficult to
assert your rights.

On the other hand, if someone does not have a social security number
it is far less likely that they will be put into a position where
they need to assert their rights -but, there are problems for those
who refuse to obtain the number. It becomes difficult to save, buy,
or sell property. The non-participant is considered an outcast -- or
worse -a criminal.

The average uneducated American often considers the non-participant
to be unpatriotic -- and though ironic - it is participation that is
unpatriotic. Participation actually serves to undermine the limits
of authority that the Constitution places on the government; and, it
gives the government an authority that it would not ordinarily have.
The perpetual misapplication of law that is made possible by its
implementation, and the overall effect that it has on limited
government, serves to effectively usurp the Constitution to which
the government is subject. The average person does not understand
the reason for the number, and therefore, cannot understand the
reason for rejecting it.


The system will collapse when people start rejecting the benefit and
refuse to use the number. The more people who refuse to participate
in voluntary social programs, the less "hold" the government has
over the lives of the people. When people reject the number they are
free again, and that is the beginning of the end. Not only for
socialism, but for world government and a cashless environment.

Politicians need the number and the benefits associated with it to
buy votes. If they can't buy votes then what happens? We get our
freedom back. Graft and influence fade away and we end up with the
constitutional government that was intended by the founders. Right
now, the tentacles of this numerical nightmare go off in every
direction. The one reaching out to grip the drivers license
requirement has just been cut off, and the government has recoiled
from the adverse public reaction that was so unexpected. That's just
the beginning. With your help, and the education of just a few,
things can turn around rapidly. The colleges are filled with
disillusioned students who realize that the "benefit" promised by the
government is a  fleeting dream, and that the government cannot
possibly fulfill its obligations. Former Commissioner (of Social
Security) Gwendolyn King stated just before she resigned that unless
emergency legislation was forthcoming, the "system" would not
survive another 3 years. These college students may not understand
the details of what is wrong but they can understand what is
happening. They understand that if they do not have to pay and
participate, they will have more of their own resources to provide
for themselves.

When one person refuses to participate and succeeds, a second will
follow. When the first and the second succeed, a third and a fourth
follow. Geometrically, it doesn't take long before word spreads.
Convince an employer to pay you only a penny a day for your
employment. Have him double it the next, to 2 cents -- and double it
again the third day to 4 cents. By the end of the month you will
have well over a million dollars. That is the effect of geometric
progression, and that is why we must begin to educate freinds and
neighbors. We must not yield to "voluntary compliance" or the
jurisdiction that it entails.


In this article we have learned that the government needs to
encourage participation in the social security program in order to
possess jurisdiction that it would not ordinarily have.

We have learned that this jurisdiction is tied to the Internal
Revenue laws and that together this machinery provides the necessary
social controls that will eventually lead to world government and
cashless transactions.

We have examined the structure of the IR Code and reviewed the
tenuous illusory relationship between subtitles A and C. Even more
important, we have demonstrated, (by the current drivers license
renewal program) just how effective a few people can be when they
assert their rights and force the government to remain within the
confines of the law.

If you want to do something to correct the problem just don't sit
there and talk about it. Take action -- become a part of the
movement to reject it -- if your not a member of S.A.P. call us


Back to Reasonable Action...