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?
Bcc: sls
References: <> <>

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

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
>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
>>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
>>>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