You Can Still Be Free

Part Two 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 II of the R.A. Article entitled "You can still be free if
you want to be"  (This article contains a more detailed analysis
of the tax code, along with material originally presented in
Part I.)

!!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!
IMPORTANT NOTE:  This text makes reference to documents
that were printed along with the original R.A. article.  
These are NOT reproduced here.  
!!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!  !!!!


In the last issue we had just presented the following facts:

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

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

3) the person who has "voluntarily applied" for the privilege of
participating in the program and receiving social security
entitlement, agrees to the terms of participation; and,

4) the terms of participation require 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 those who administer its
provisions (the IRS).

If you have a social security number then the Internal Revenue
Service DOES have the jurisdiction to maintain records on you, and
to act (correctly or not) on presumptions with regard to those

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 applied to participate in the program. 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.  It is the "employer" who
has a requirement to withhold if he has chosen to participate and
receives a W-4 from his employee, but it is the employee who
initiates that requirement by applying for the number in the first

The "employee" has no legal requirement to submit the W-4 nor does
the employer without it. However, the employer's requirements do
extend to obtaining the W-4 from the employee who has applied for
participation. 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. If an
employer applies to participate in the subtitle C program he is an
"employer" regardless of the legal definition contained therein;
and, if an employee applies to participate in subtitle C benefits he
is an "employee" regardless of the legal definition otherwise
limited. A letter (below) received from the social security
administration may relate the implications in more understandable

Provisions for such withholding  exist, but are limited in
application as far as actual "legal requirement" is concerned, 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?

Or to be more precise, do the voluntary participants have "taxable
income" for purpose of subtitle C participation. Obviously, if the
amount to be withheld is dependent upon and determined by the amount
of "taxable income," there must be a connection! Nonresident aliens
are required to participate; so, 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 then 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 and the amount of
withholding (30%) is geared to those who are "the subject of the
law." Whoops! Since the law is mandatory (for those to whom it
applies), could it be "presumed" that a participant is "required by
law" to participate. Could the full brunt of withholding be born by
those volunteering? And, 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?

Absolutely -- unless the individual is a U.S. citizen who "claims"
his or her lawful exemption under the provisions of regulation
1.1441-5, but how many citizens are aware that such an exemption
even exists. Under the circumstances it becomes irrelevant. The
nature of the problem involves a misapplication which has no
provision in law to begin with; And 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, 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 under subtitle A? -- the withholding agent!
Section 1461 is the liability for that entity, 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 -- and if the only liability
arising from statute is section 1461 (for the withholding agent
making payments to nonresident aliens), then the only plausible
"presumption"  is that the U.S. citizen is filing a 1040 return on
behalf of his nonresident alien principle.

Pertinent portions of Treasury Decision 2313  reprinted above,
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. Examine the form letter sent to
most nonfilers. When a U.S. citizen living and working within the 50
states, (who has been filing returns) suddenly stops filing, they
will usually receive a "Notice 515" from the IRS. The IRS
regulations and publications identify this "Notice" 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 refuse to see. Human nature
demands over reaction or preoccupation with the things that 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. It
sounds logical because it is 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 that it benefit everyone, nor is it
necessary to promote the general welfare. In fact, it does 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 are not the subject of
the law). Gradually people were led to believe that it was required
for identification. It must be required, everyone asks me for it!
The illusion eventually cemented itself deep within the mind-set of
the nation. It was rationalized as a "necessity" to promote an
efficient and highly organized society. That perception was and
continues to be fostered in our schools and may well be part of a
larger agenda to solidify political control by instituting a
one-world monetary system.

To ensure public acceptance within the U.S., financial pressure was
induced by  economic and social controls made possible through
control of the Federal Reserve System. As the standard of living
fell, 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. People
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. But -- once the employer "agrees" to participate, the
IRS has the authority to make sure the "employer" complies with the
law requiring proper notification (W-4 submission) for those
participating "employees." The IRS is charged with the duty to
enforce those laws and  ensure that the correct amount of money is
withheld and reported from those "employees" who applied for the

Mandatory requirement is 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 protection; but -- anyone can
volunteer. Even though the law may not require his participation, he
can apply for a number, enter into the jurisdiction of the agency
that administers the provisions, and subject his "employer" to the
legal requirements associated with his participation.

If the employer is not required by law to obtain a federal ID number
to manage an 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
definitions, embellished as it were by complex and confusing  text,
are found within Title 26?

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, but then distract the eyes of the general public with
sleight of hand so that the illusion is believed.


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 (from citizens of the 50
States) under Subtitle C is found in section 3402 (keep in mind that
 Subtitle C is not imposed -- it is voluntary!) The requirement to
withhold (from foreign entities) 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 the
balance of the Code) 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.
Therefore it cannot be imposed.

One is reminded of Cinderella's sisters and the glass slipper -- it
can only fit when it is made to fit, by those doing the fitting.
Perhaps that is why the Internal Revenue Code was never passed into
positive law. In any case, 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 them. 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 its various IRS officials talks about "voluntary
compliance," to what are they referring? Are they referring to their
ongoing misapplication of law with regard to Subtitle A and the U.S.
citizen, 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 living &
working in the 50 States.

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

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 to participate by submitting a Form SS-4 "Application for
Employer Identification Number." When the employer submits this
application the following terms come into play (we will use the
terms as they are defined within title 20 -- reprinted to the right
-- since they are more concise).

These definitions reveal that 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

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 "Administration and Procedure." Only one
problem (for the IRS) -- there are no provisions for enforcing taxes
under Subtitle C. Why not?

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 an  IRS employee,
with limited training, were to misconstrue his or her authority and
misapply the law, where would their error occur and how would it
effect the collection process?

Subtitle A is clearly limited in application and does not pertain to
U.S. citizens in the 50 states BUT subtitle C is different. Subtitle
C has provisions for citizens who are voluntary participants, and
the similarity in certain provisions allows for a blurring of
authority for procedure applicable to the income tax. To use a
process limited to one subtitle (subtitle A for example) to collect
a tax pertaining to another subtitle (subtitle C for example) would
be an easy mistake for an inadequately trained IRS employee. First,
the employee need only "presume" that the individual in question had
a requirement to file a return. Subtitle A has such a requirement.
Section 6012 requires returns of income to be filed but ONLY for
subtitle A (Income tax).

Second, the IRS also needs to have the authority to assess, in case
someone required to file, fails to file! If a person does not file a
return, the assessment authority in Subtitle F "Administration and
Procedure" is limited to section 6201- - BUT -- where is the
authority to assess a tax on wages under Subtitle C?

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 again, it pertains to
subtitles A, B, and D. The misapplication of the law is graphically
revealed by these conflicts but evident to those who study the law.

Those who understand the limited application of the law are familiar
with existing provisions within Subtitle A that allow for the
complete exemption of U.S. citizens from income tax. United States
citizens (and resident aliens) living and working within the 50
states may claim their lawful exemption under the provisions of
federal regulation 1.1441-5. The exemption applies to tax under
Subtitle A, a tax to which citizens are not subject!

Obviously, nonresident aliens do NOT give statements of citizenship!
Income tax under Subtitle A is withheld from foreign entities only.
The provisions for withholding from U.S. citizens come under
subtitle C only. An exemption is not necessary under subtitle C
because it is NOT imposed. Without an application for "voluntary
participation" the employer is not an "employer" and may not
participate for the benefit of his "employees." It takes two to
Tango! 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 you may not want to participate. With
participation comes the very intervention and control that is now
stifling the economy. Moreover, it fosters a public mind-set that
perpetuates the "mistakes" previously mentioned.


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
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 establishment has used the social security number to gain
jurisdiction related to a certain form of taxation, and to keep
track of those individuals. It can then perpetuate (through
ignorance if nothing else) the systematic misapplication and illegal
enforce of the law to which the average person would not ordinarily
be subject. The presumption of, if not "actual" jurisdiction arising
from an application to participate, makes it infinitely more
difficult to assert your rights in the face of a wrongful collection

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,
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 for tyrannical
bureaucrats who derive power and prestige from pushing their weight
around. Not only will it be the demise of this feudal power
structure, but it will also stymie socialism, and world government.
Furthermore, a "cashless environment" will be impossible.


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 America ends up with
the constitutional government that was intended by the founders.
Economic ills brought on by deficit spending from entitlement vote
"purchasing" will vanish. Right now, the tentacles of this numerical
nightmare go off in every direction. The one reaching out to grip
the drivers license requirement is being 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.
That geometry is already spreading. Next semester, three Bible
colleges will begin teaching their students the basics about
government, it's limitations under the Constitution, and the
restrictions on the power to tax. This curriculum and the
information that S.A.P. provides will eventually be introduced in
over 150 such colleges nationwide within the next few years. The
establishment can no longer hide the truth from the public. With
each person teaching another, and another, and still another...
momentum builds

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 (FRNs). That is the effect of
geometric progression, and that is why we must not yield to
"voluntary compliance" or the jurisdiction that it entails.


In this article we have learned that the establishment needs to
encourage participation in the social security program in order to
create a 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 government officials to
remain within the confines of the law (see also final technical note

Back to Reasonable Action...