EMPLOYEE'S WITHHOLDING

Can a Right be taxed?  Do you have a Right to sell your labor, or is selling your labor a government granted privilege?  (I use the term 'government granted privilege' loosely.  It is actually a Contract with the people who own the IRS).

An employee (similar to an indentured servant) gives up Rights to his labor in exchange for care and protection. And along with protection there is always "subjection." The legal definition of 'employee' seems somewhat convoluted, but it uses the original meanings of the word "use" and the word "assured" and the word "business."

If you want to study this; start with Clark's Summary of American Law index entry for "Employees." Then find a reprint of a Dictionary from the 1800's and look up the words: "hire" and "occupation."

"Business" is the usary of labor. According to Walter Lipmann: "The early Christian writer looked upon business as a peril to the soul" (Walter Lipmann was a Journalist who's book "Public Opinion" exposed how the elite manipulated the media to create World War I).

"Use" means "usury," the rights to your labor rather than a direct sale of labor. Directly selling your labor for a paycheck has never been taxable according to the Courts (see Appendix G). Compensation for labor is not the same as selling labor rights.

Don't think that privately owned employers are private organizations. They are Agents of the IRS (or whoever owns the IRS). When they ask for your IRS Number, they are performing an IRS function. "Corporations" are incorporated into the government.

To employ means to equitably convert. Once you get an employee identification number, you have been converted to their use. Corporations then may USE you for their purpose. IRS can then collect the usury of your labor. Employers must also pay for this government granted privilege. And, you must pay usury (income tax) whenever you profit from labor rights that you no longer own. The IRS gets wealth from the USE of labor rights that they owns. This is usury.

Business's do not purchase labor, they employ the labor owned by whoever owns the IRS.

The Social Security Act is intended for employees, not for small business owners. Don't confuse "self-employed" with a small business Proprietor. Small business owners need not give away the rights to their labor. 

"The Social Security Act protects workers whose livelihood depends upon another rather than upon the public at large."  Schwing v. United States, 165 F2d 518

"Usury" comparisons to show what happens when you sell labor rights:
 

 
If it is still confusing (or if you don't believe me), then read the Court cases in Appendix G now.

You may still be confused about the distinction between a "direct sale of labor" and the "sale of labor rights." Your IRS Bureaucrats are not confused. They know exactly when to avoid imprisonment for theft, and when to boldly attack anyone who profits from labor that is owned by the Department of the Treasury.

Your U.S. Constitution, in Article 1, Section 10, prohibits any State from impairing the Obligation of Contracts. This means the supreme law of the land prohibits the State from interfering or regulating any Contract between a real (unnumbered) worker and those who pay him for his labor. The State and Federal Governments have a duty to protect unnumbered people from any impairment (such as tax or regulation) on their labor. And they have always protected this Right (see Appendix G). But Employment is not a Contract with you as a worker, it is a Contract with those who own your labor rights.

If your employment has a Contract between you and your employer, it could not be impaired or regulated. Yet your employer:

• must be sued for your mistakes, 

• cannot sue you (the assured) for performing your duties improperly. 

• Cannot refuse to pay you for work he rejects, 

• is forced to pay minimum wage,

• is forced to pay half of your FICA contributions, 

• is forced to pay Unemployment insurance,

• is forced to pay Workman's Compensation insurance, 

• is forced take a portion of your pay and send it to your owner,

• is forced to make accounting records and submit them to your owner.

How can these impairment of Contracts possibly be "Constitutional" unless there is a written waiver of Rights? What did you sign that might have waived your Rights?

Bureaucrats (who can be put in prison for 10 years if they deny you a right [U.S. Code, Title 18, Sections 241 & 242]) will boldly impair the Obligation of most labor Contracts. How can they be so certain? Simply: Numbered persons have no labor Rights.

Go get a copy of IRS Form SS-8 and prove to yourself whether or not you have a right to Contract your own labor. An employee does not have a right to benefit from (share the profits from) his own labor. The people who own the IRS also own your labor rights (and you have waived your right to sell your labor). When you applied for a worker authorization number you voluntarily entered into an equitable conversion of your future labor. You no longer have a right to benefit from your labor. You waived your right to earn wages.

"Rights" are absolute. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable Rights. Your Rights cannot be taken away except in punishment of a crime (according to the Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City, 111 US 746).

If you had a right to something, you would have a 100% unalienable Right. If something can be legally taken from you (or regulated or a portion taxed from you), then you cannot say that you had a right to it. If someone can legally take 1% of your wages, it has to be because you gave up your Rights to your wages. You gave up ALL Rights to your wages.

There are several possibilities to explain why you work without full pay.

1. It could be a simple Contract where you agreed that others could take your wages. This would be illegal conversion of your labor unless there is a Contract. Did you sign something?

Even without a Contract, you are obligated to pay for your benefits. According to Black's Law Dictionary: "constructive contract rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another, and is not in fact a contract, but an obligation, which the law creates in the absence of any agreement. "

I suspect that it is more than just a simple Contract because Congress wasn't sure that the Social Security Act was legal. I've been looking for the book: "The Development of the Social Security Act" by Edwin E. Witte. I found an Article with this excerpt from the book attributed to Frances Perkins Secretary of Labor 1933-1945: "This was a new type of legislation --- nothing of the sort had ever come before Congress of the United States before, it took much explaining and much patience."

Also look for another book: "The Formative Years of Social Security" by Arthur J. Altmeyer.

2. Another possibility is that it is a binding Contract where you purchased a promise of protection by exchanging all rights to your future wages. As with other forms of equitable conversion: you get to hold legal title to your labor, but only as a security for the balance of the protection you purchased. This means that you get to keep "full" legal title to your labor. In a moment, I'll explain what this deceptive term means.

3. A third possibility is the medieval system of "corvee labor." This requires some forced labor as a tax payment to the Lord of the Manor. If your tribute is taken before you are paid, then you have performed some corvee labor without pay. You authorized your employer to accept this labor by a card in your right hand, or by a number from your forehead.

This is nothing new. The Hebrew word "mac" (Strong's H4522) is used 23 times in the Old Testament referring to a system of forced labor as a tax to a feudal lord, a king, or a foreign ruler. Moses lived in such a system. This is the corvee system. If you want to see how history repeats itself, try to find the Book of Jasher and read Chapter 65, Verses 19-34. The Book of Jasher is mentioned in the Bible in Josh 10:13 and 2nd Sam 1:18).

4. The fourth and most likely possibility is that Social Security is a "Cestui Que Trust." It is a Trust structured like a vow of poverty. You contracted for a Trust whereby you conveyed to the Trustee the beneficial interest in all your future labor in exchange for your benefits. You are left with legal title to your labor.

Go to a law dictionary and look up the definition of "Legal Title:" 

"... the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, ... it may also mean appearance of title as distinguished from complete title ....  Apparent right of ownership with beneficial or equitable title in another."

The Trust Contract was executed through the Secretary of the Treasury (who is an Agent for the Trustee, as I will show later).

Having taken a vow of poverty, you (of course) would be a government Ward. As with other vows of poverty, you are dependent upon the system that supports you. Does this sound Catholic to you? Perhaps there is a reason for this.

The Trustee's Agent is the Secretary of the Treasury. Perhaps his role as "Trustee" is outside his governmental duties. If so, this would explain a lot. More about this later. The "Cestui Que Trust" would be a private Trust and enforceable in any Court. Now that the Social Security Administration is an independent Agency, there is much speculation about the real nature of the Trust.

In Flemming v. Nestor, your U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security Benefits are noncontractual and can be eliminated at any time by Congress. They also stated (at 80 S.Ct., page 1379): 

"The people covered by this Act are now able to rely with complete assurance on the fact that they will be compelled to contribute regularly to this fund whenever each contribution falls due."

If you want to do some research, try to figure out the inconsistency. How can the Supreme Court can call it a "Fund" when there is no Trust Fund?

By the way, withholding is voluntary. U.S. Citizens are not subject to withholding according to Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.1441-5 entitled "Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding." [Although this section was recently repealed, the Tax Court rulings cited in the Section remain as precedent].

Internal Revenue Code, Section 6109(a)(3) requires employers to REQUEST the "identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person."
 
 

SUMMARY

Numbered persons have waived the equitable Rights to their labor, and no longer have the Right to benefit from their labor, thereby making their labor "taxable." These people are called "employees."  Except for civil servants, only indigent avowed Socialists can fall into the government's hidden definition of an "employee."

Bureaucrats can tax this labor without risking imprisonment, because they have evidence of a sworn Affidavit (sworn contrary to Scripture) that the numbered employee is an indigent avowed Socialist who has equitably converted his labor. An indigent so desperate (unable to support himself and not supported by family, Church or State) that he applied for federal funds in order to survive (knowing that the Constitution does not provide welfare to anyone other than government owned slaves).

The rights to the indigent's labor belong to whoever owns the IRS and these labor rights are administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. (More about this later, but you won't like it.)

"Enemies of Christ" have been captured, vanquished and subdued and PUT INTO PERPETUAL SLAVERY. This has been the stated intent of the Catholic Church ever since the Papal Bull called the "Doctrine of Discovery" in 1452. It seems as though their web has snared many. Is this entrapment? Just like a police sting operation, their web traps only those who are predisposed to become enemies of Christ.