Time: Mon Dec 01 06:53:27 1997 To: Jay Robbins <han-wi@ri.ultranet.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: What's in a NUMBER? Is it a WAIVER? Cc: Bcc: sls References: <3.0.3.16.19971201063709.33b7a5c2@pop.primenet.com> <3.0.3.16.19971201080110.083710d6@pop.ri.ultranet.com> It wasn't voluntary, if we were told it was required. I think FRAUD is our best, and most affirmative, defense, all around. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://supremelaw.com At 08:44 AM 12/1/97, you wrote: >True enough, however, WHAT MUST be challanged is the application of such a >number and the fact that 'you' were lead to believe that it was REQUIRED. >This constitutes fraud, and THAT is what must be challanged! You made the >application (or your parents) and no one held a gun to your head to do it! >This is a voluntary act! You have made the decision to apply for the number >and that is by definition, a waiver! It is encumbent upon the individual to >research wheter or not he/she is required to apply or not. It is not for >the 'government' to tell you that you are not required to do so. Your >thoughts? > > >At 06:37 AM 12/1/97 -0800, you wrote: >>The immunity from direct taxes without apportionment >>is a fundamental Right, because it is guaranteed by >>the U.S. Constitution. Waivers of fundamental Rights >>must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with >>sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances >>and likely consequences. And, waivers of fundamental >>Rights cannot be presumed, ever. Against this high standard >>for waiving any fundamental Right, the acquisition of >>a Social Security Number ("SSN") simply does not meet >>the requisite conditions. The same is true of the >>SS-5 Application for Social Security Number. Thus, >>obtaining a SSN as a minor, without full disclosure, >>worked a fraud upon all of us; it hardly constituted >>a competent waiver, as that term is well understood >>in the legal community. For authority, see Brady v. U.S. >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell >>http://supremelaw.com >> >> >> >> >>At 08:01 AM 12/1/97, you wrote: >>> >>>-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List >>> >>>The Constitution protects you from the levy of a 'direct' unapportioned >>>tax, unless you have surrendered that right and protection. Do you have a >>>valid Social Security Number? If you answered yes, than you voluntarily >>>surrendered your constitutional protection from unapportioned direct taxes. >>> The Great Depression, which lasted some 6 to 8 years, allowed the >>>government of the united States to come to the peoples rescue with various >>>'make work' programs and projects, and also introduced the Social Security >>>Administration in 1935. >>> As most are aware, Social Security is nothing more than an elaborate >>>'Ponzi' scheme, and with over 40 million now collecting it's benefits, it >>>is sure to collapse under such a burden. Contrary to all the popular >>>rhetoric, it WILL FAIL. This type of scheme has resulted in many, who have >>>utilized it in the private sector, being jailed for offering such plans. >>>The government hates competition! >>> In the so called 'de-tax' and 'un-tax' movements, there is a propensity, >>>by these 'groups', to point to the Pollock, Brushaber, and Stanton >>>decisions [among others] to justify their claims that the so called income >>>tax was never imposed upon the 'sovereign' citizen(s) of the 50 States. As >>>true as this may be, the fact is that if you have a valid Social Security >>>Number, these court decisions DO NOT apply to you! Why? Because you are a >>>"taxpayer" as legally defined. (* see IRC Section 7701 (a)(14)) You have >>>entered into an agreement with the government of the United States; you are >>>required to allow money to be withheld from your pay; you are required to >>>make contributions to Social Security and YOU ARE under the legal >>>jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Collector--The IRS; as such, you are >>>'presumed' responsible to pay the income tax even though it has not been >>>legally imposed upon you, you are REQUIRED to sign a W-4 form; you are >>>legally REQUIRED to allow your employer to withhold income taxes from your >>>pay check; you are PRESUMED legally responsible to file an income tax >>>return to report your earnings to your benefactor (The Federal Government); >>>and you are presumed responsible to provide your financial information to >>>the IRS when they ask for it! >>> In exchange for all this, you can expect to receive (if you qualify) >>>welfare, food stamps, un-employment (another legal term) compensation, >>>federal mortgages, farm subsidies, low cost federal disaster loans, small >>>business loans, Medicare, Medicaid and social security....and the list goes >>>on. >>> >>>That's the agreement! >>> >>> If anyone informs you that you are NOT required to pay the tax or file the >>>return, because there is no specific law that requires you to, and you >>>still have a valid Social Security Number, they are WRONG! This kind of >>>MIS-information can, and has, gotten a lot of people into deep sh** . But >>>then it cost NOTHING for these people to disseminate false information and >>>sell it to unsuspecting 'prey'. >>> If you have a social security number, you are subject to the laws found in >>>Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. No one forced you to “apply” for >>>the number! You, or perhaps your parents applied for this number, and as >>>result of this ‘voluntary act’ you are a taxpayer as legally defined! You >>>are a ‘voluntary’ participant under the legal jurisdiction of the IRS and >>>are presumed responsible to pay the income tax to support the government >>>that YOU have made the agreement with, and are expecting the benefit from! >>>It no longer matters whether or not the tax is an unapportioned direct tax >>>or that they are only imposed upon the residents of the federal >>>territories....you have to pay them! >>> On the other hand, if one does not have a social security number, you are >>>NOT subject to those laws and as such, NOT under the jurisdiction of the >>>IRS, unless you are in the business of manufacturing Alcohol, Tabacco, or >>>Firearms. You are not only beyond the scope of IRS jurisdiction but you are >>>also beyond the scope of ALL internal revenue laws! You are a free citizen >>>- see Delima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 176 - 179 and Gerth v. United States, >>>132 F. Supp. 894 (1955) to verify this. >>> >>> >>> Jay Robbins >>> 4 Your Information >>> PO Box 672 >>> Woonsocket, RI 02895 >>> Email: han-wi@ri.ultranet.com >>> Voicemail:1-800-947-1902 >>> Website: http://www.ultranet.com/~han-wi >>> IRS: We've got what it takes, to take what you've got. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >>>-> Posted by: Jay Robbins <han-wi@ri.ultranet.com> >>> >>> >>> >> >>=========================================================================== >>Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01 >>B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02 >>tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03 >>email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04 >>website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05 >>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06 >> Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07 >> Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08 >>_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09 >>As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10 >>not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11 >>======================================================================== 12 >>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13 >> >> > Jay Robbins > 4 Your Information > PO Box 672 > Woonsocket, RI 02895 > Email: han-wi@ri.ultranet.com > Voicemail:1-800-947-1902 > Website: http://www.ultranet.com/~han-wi > IRS: We've got what it takes, to take what you've got. > > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail