SOCIAL SECURITY – DEDUCTIONS & EXEMPTIONS

By TLB Staff Writer | David-William
on this twenty-ninth day of the first month
two thousand, and seventeen
anno noster

***

It’s unlawful for anyone to require a SSN from you, so of course, it is unlawful to require a SSN as a condition of employment.  Beside the fact that not everyone has one, the greatest challenge seems to be educating the masses, payroll pencil pushers, and potential employers.  Additionally, you are not required to have any other deductions taken from your pay/compensation/property.  Your labor is your property, not the property of FEDERAL RESERVE.  The CROWN owns the FED, and they are not allowed to steal your energy.  The I.R.S. doesn’t get involved with you unless you do your banking/booking improperly, or unless you’re running a corporation.  Your lawful remedy remedy is in 12 U.S. Code 411.    Income is profits, gains, imports, exports, and excises, not your blood, sweat, and tears.  Again, your energy is your property, not theirs.

For your information, FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES – FRNs, are instruments of DEBT, with interest owed to the CROWN, so when you think you’re making your fair contribution to the common good by paying the I.R.S., in reality you’re increasing the DEBT.  Common sense would tell you, you can’t pay down a DEBT with more DEBT, right?

The content below is an over kill of evidence for the densest of potential employer who cannot snap free of their indoctrination.  It’s as bulletproof as it could be. 

 *******

Greetings,

To whom the matter of payroll deductions may concern regarding the disclosure of Social Security Numbers, deductions and other pertinent or related matters, the purpose of this missive isn’t merely to prevent a violation of privacy, it’s to benefit the readers so they can correct the way they do things as well.

The written word can seem a bit colorless and clinically cold, but such is law and it’s history. Please do not be drawn away from the intent of this document by thinking you’re left behind, per your own choice. You were intentionally deceived. You’re paying taxes you do not owe. You’re using the wrong booking entry at the bank when you deposit your checks. You’re using the wrong currency. You were born an American State National, but your birth certificate changed your status to U.S. citizen, making you the enemy of the state, in the most underhanded manner.

The contents herein will demonstrate abundantly that almost no one has the right to know what “your” SSN is, that it’s unlawful for anyone to demand it, and if you’re paying “income” tax on your labor, you’re robbing yourself. There are lawful remedies to stop the fraud you’re perpetrating against your estate.

Throughout the history of America, we have been plagued by Crown bankers, and their Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorners/Brokers who are unlawfully occupying “government” offices, and courts, and in the absence of their mandatory registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act or FARA. Their oath is to the Crown, so who do they serve in office? You? No. They write the Statutes and Codes to benefit the Crown Banks.

~~~~~~~

Affidavit Indico and Notice

Please Take Notice that Federal law forbids any individual from requiring another individual to disclose his/her Social Security Account Number, unless said individual is requesting benefits from the Social Security Administration:

“It shall be unlawful to deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of individual’s refusal to disclose his/her Social Security Number”

Title 5 U.S. Code 552 (a) (1)

This law is also known as the Privacy Act and states that any individual damaged by the denial of a right, benefit or privilege because he/she lawfully refused to disclose his/her social security number is entitled to recover:

“actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled recover or receive less than the sum of $1,000.00 and:
the costs of the action together with able attorney fees determined by the court.”

Therefore, a judgment of at least $1,000.00 plus court costs and attorneys’ fees may be assessed against any individual, business or government agency that knowingly defies a requested right, benefit or privilege because the individual making the request refuses to disclose his/her Social Security Number.

See the following Federal Court decisions:

“The right of privacy is a personal right designed to protect persons from unwanted disclosure of personal information…” CNA Financial Corporation V Local 743, D.C. III, 181 F. Supp 942, III

The Act. “was enacted for (the) purpose of curtailing the expanding use of the Social Security numbers and to eliminate the threat to individual privacy and confidentiality of information passed by common numerical identifiers.” Doyle v. Wilson. D.C. 1892 529 F. Supp, 1342

Please Take Notice that according to law, a Social Security Number must be used only in the following instances:
1.) To receive public assistance.
2.) To pay taxes and receive refunds.

Therefore, an individual may lawfully refuse to disclose his/her Social Security Number if requested to do so for any reason other than those listed above.

Please Take Notice the I, one of the people, Jane Ann Doe, am not applying for “public assistance” nor am I attempting to ‘pay taxes” on my labor/property or “receive refunds.”
Therefore, I, one of the people, Jane Ann Doe, a Christian woman, am not lawfully required to disclose my Social Security Number at this time and therefore refuse to disclose my Social Security Number for religious reasons.

I affirm the above is true, correct, complete, and certain.
By Jane Ann Doe
on this ninth day of the first month
Two Thousand, and Seventeen, Anno Noster

~~~~~~~

It’s unlawful to terminate or not hire one for failure to provide an IRS Form W-4 or W-9 (see Department of Justice Form I-9; or 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b), § 1324a(b)(2); or Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a).)

The IRS recognizes that when one disclaims benefits, it’s as if he never received any. The IRS code defines a disclaimer here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/2518

It’s a felony for a potential employer to force disclosure of a Social Security Number. See: 42 USC 408 A-8

***

SOCIAL SECURITY – SSN – EXEMPTION
To Financial Institutions and Account Holders
Regarding the Possession and Use of Social Security Numbers

There is no law requiring a person to obtain, have or use a Social Security Number to open, use or maintain a bank account or to perform bank transaction in the United States.

31 CFR 103.33 requires financial institutions to include a “notation in the record” that a customer lacks a Social Security Number or certain other identification.

31 CFR 103.34 provides: “In the event that a bank has been unable to secure…the required information, (I) it shall nevertheless not be deemed to be in violation of this section if it has made a reasonable effort to secure such identification. and (II) it maintains a list containing the names, addresses, and account numbers of the persons from whom it has been unable to secure such identification, and makes the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons available to the Secretaries directed by him.”

18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983 provides that: “Whoever, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, …shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” 42 USC 1983 further provides that a violator “shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

42 USC 408 provides that: “Whoever… (8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the Social Security Number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

***

How To Open A Bank Account Without A Social Security Number. Sue The Bank If They Refuse – Receive At Least $1,000 Plus Attorney’s Fees

Congress passed the Privacy Act in 1974 to increase the privacy of individuals. The social security number is routinely used to track individuals and their activities. Any financial transactions involving a bank account identified by your social security number, can be easily tracked as being your transactions. The contents of the account can be easily linked to you.
***

If you are a “U.S. citizen” (BAD IDEA!), IRS form 4029 is the form to use in order to initiate your exit from their system. This form allows you to terminate all taxes and contributions to the Social Security system, but you can only do it for religious reasons and when you do it, you surrender your right to collect any future benefits. We have this form online in our Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online under form 4.26. The direct link is below:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/IRS/IRSForm4029.pdf
If you are a “national” or a “state national” as a person born within and domiciled within a state of the Union, then you aren’t under federal law and you should be able to lawfully terminate payroll deductions for Social Security or Medicare by submitting a W-8BEN form form to your private employer at any time. See:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/FedStateWHOptions/FedStateWHOptions.pdf
Furthermore, any tax paid under duress is refundable, and this includes Social Security insurance premiums, so if you quit their system, you can sue for a refund of back taxes. Here is what Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Vol. II, Third Revision, Eighth Edition, 1914, pp. 3230-3238 says on the subject of refunds for taxes paid under duress:
“Income tax: In order to invoke the powers of a court of equity to restrain the collection of illegal taxes, the case must be brought within the well recognized foundations of equitable jurisdiction [* * *] and it must clearly appear not only that the tax is illegal, but that the property owner has no adequate remedy at law, and that there are special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction…” [Cites omitted.]
“Taxes become a lien on property only by statute…”
“Taxes illegally assessed and paid may always be recovered back, if the collector understands from the payor that the taxes are regarded as illegal and that suit will be instituted to compel the refunding of them; Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 15 Wall. (U.S.) 75, 21 L.Ed. 63, a case of internal revenue taxes.”
“Where a state official receives money for a tax paid under duress with notice of its illegality, he has no right to it and the name of the state does not protect him from suit; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. O’Connor, 223 U.S. 280, 32 Sup.Ct. 216, 56 L.Ed. 436, Ann.Cas. 1913C, 1050.”
“The rule is firmly established that taxes voluntarily paid cannot be recovered back, and payments with knowledge and without compulsion are voluntary; when paid under protest or with notice of suit, a recovery may, on occasion, be had, although, generally speaking, even protest or notice will not avail if the payment be made voluntarily, with full knowledge, and without any coercion by the actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposed to be possessed, over person or property, from which there is no means of immediate relief than payment; Chesebrough v. United States, 192 U.S. 253, 24 Sup.Ct. 262, 48 L.Ed. 432 (purchase of war revenue stamps for deed without protest or notice).”
The key is proving you were under duress. Section 3.4.1 covers this subject in detail.
If you try to use the W-8BEN form to stop withholding of ALL taxes, some ignorant employers will not honor this form, and if they do, you will need to meet with their legal counsel and try to educate him or her as we suggest in section 3.5.3.5. If education doesn’t help to change their mind, then the next alternative you have is to go independent and contract yourself out so you handle your own pay and benefits. If that doesn’t work, as a last resort, you may need to sue your employer for violation of your property rights and conspiracy to commit grand theft under state law in the state that you work if they are a private employer or in federal court if they are a federal employer.
* Form 4.2: Social Security Asseveration of Coercion:
http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/Forms/Emancipation/SSAssevOfCoercion.htm
* SSA-521 Withdrawal of Social Security Application:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/ssa_521.pdf

SSA Form 521 (OFFSITE LINK)-SSA website:
http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/Forms/Emancipation/ssa_521.pdf
IRS form 4029: Application for Exemption from Social Security Taxes and Waiver of Benefits:
http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/Forms/IRS/IRSForm4029.pdf
Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee-send to Social Security Commissioner and IRS commissioner to terminate participation:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/SSTrustIndenture.pdf
SSA-L996: Social Security Number Record, Request for Abstract or Photocopy-use this to find out everything the Social Security Administration knows about you:
http://famguardian.org/taxfreedom/Forms/Emancipation/SSNRecordRequestofOriginalApplicaiton.pdf

***

“Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section.”

“United States” means literally District of Columbia Municipal Corporation.
Whereas: For purposes of (a) alleged income tax and every other kind of tax imposed on nonresidents of the District of Columbia, and (b) observance of the terms of every alleged contractual or quasi-contractual relationship between a Joint Tenant in the Sovereignty and the United States, as Congress define “United States” in Title 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and elsewhere in the United States Code to mean the District of Columbia: Those Americans whose physical and economic residence lies without the exterior limits of the geographic area occupied by the District of Columbia are neither residents of the District of Columbia nor of the subject of any legislation that obtains within the District of Columbia, such as Title 26 U.S.C., and any assertion or allegation to the contrary is unsupportable in law and but another count of fraud; and
Whereas: There is no evidence that any American other than those with a physical, economic, or other factual presence in the District of Columbia is a resident of the District of Columbia; and
Whereas: It is fraudulent for any officer or elected official holding a position of Public Trust to pretend that a nonresident of the District of Columbia is a resident of the District of Columbia; and Whereas: “Lex est norma recti. Law is a rule of right” (Id. at 2143); and

Whereas: “Jus et fraus numquam cohabitant. Right and fraud never live together” (Id. at 2141); andWhereas: “Quicquid est contra normam recti est injuria. Whatever is against the rule of right is a wrong” (Id. at 2158),
Wherefore: The purported 26 U.S.C. 6013 election facility is a hoax and a wrong and evidence of actual and constructive legislative fraud on the part of Congress and treason to the Constitution on the part of Congress and all other Federal officers and elected officials permitting or enforcing it.
***

Meaning of the Title 26 U.S.C. term “United States”

The meaning of the controlling Title 26 U.S.C. definition of “United States” in Section 7701(a)(9) thereof—which provides “The term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia”—is the collective of the geographic area occupied by the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and no other thing.
***

Meaning of the Title 26 U.S.C. term “State”
The meaning of the controlling Title 26 U.S.C. definition of “State” in Section 7701(a)(10) thereof — which provides “The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title”—is identical to that of 26 U.S.C. 6103(b)(5)(A)(i), supra, paragraph 53.
***
Nature of Federal Income Tax
Every payment of Federal income tax is classified as a gift and 100% of all collections of income tax are used by the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments of interest on the debt owed by a private Federal corporate municipal government to the private Federal Reserve Bank; to wit: 

The Secretary of the Treasury may accept, hold, administer, and use gifts and bequests of property, both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the Department of the Treasury. . . .

For purposes of the Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States. Title 31 U.S.C. § 321(d). 
BEQUEST. A gift by will of personal property. [p. 339]
. . . GIFT. . . . A voluntary, immediate, and absolute transfer of property without consideration. . . . [p. 1352] BOUVIER’S, pp. 339 and 1352, respectively.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that . . . 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt . . . In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government. J. Peter Grace, “President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control: A Report to the President,” Vol. I, January 12, 1984, p. 3. 
The Federal Reserve is not an agency of government. It is a private banking monopoly. . . . [T]he policies of the monarch are always those of his creditors. Rep. John R. Rarick, “Deficit Financing,” Congressional Record (House of Representatives), 92nd Congress, First Session, Vol. 117—Part 1, February 1, 1971, pp. 1260-1261.
***

Social Security Is Not a Contract with a Government United States is Not a Government – Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A
United States (now UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4) is a private, foreign, bankrupt Crown-Vatican-Swiss held Corporation in CITY OF LONDON occupying the Territory of Columbia as of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.
Title 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 – Federal Debt Collection Procedure: The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign State.
Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).
Title 22 USC (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.
Article XI in the Bill or Rights (The 11th Amendment) states:
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State.”
United States and U.S. citizens/persons are not to be confused with the sovereign people. There is no such thing as a “sovereign citizen.”
“A “US citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914) 
“The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.” U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) 
The United States government is a corporation. This corporation has declared bankruptcy. This corporation had limited assets, so it created some assets (fictional persons) U.S. citizens, for collateral for the bankruptcy. The states also incorporated into the United States and pledged their property as collateral also.
The assets of U.S. citizens, are pledged as collateral to cover the growing federal deficit. You own nothing. You just rent it from the I.M.F. If you pay a property tax or use tax on anything, then you do not own it, because if you do not pay the tax, they will take it away from you. You no longer have the inalienable right of property.
The United States is in bankruptcy. The date it started is not really important. The fact of bankruptcy alone is what has created this mess.
As part of the bankruptcy, fictional persons were created, called United States citizens, to help collect revenue to pay the debt. These citizens are corporate employees/subjects of the federal government and have their names spelled in all caps.
This U.S. citizen is created property of the federal government foreign corporation. Therefore, all the property of these U.S. citizens, is really just the property of the federal governmental services corporation under the I.M.F. If you unknowingly contracted to become this U.S. citizen, you co-signed for all the federal debt.
All the statutes, rules, regulations, taxes, licenses, etc, of the state and federal governmental services apply only to fictional ‘persons’, residents, such as U.S. citizens. Governmental services have no powers over a sovereign individual that the sovereign did not delegate to that governmental service via the constitutions, state and federal.
A sovereign’s property is exempt from taxation, except with a direct tax with apportionment, as mandated by the Constitution.
***

Who is the DEBTOR/TAXPAYER?
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) – The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

The Social Security Card has JOHN DOE, the DEBTOR on it, not John Doe, the living man. The I.M.F. foreign Bank relies heavilyy upon the ignorance of the population to not know the difference. It would behoove the reader here to comprehend that people are not required to act as Federal or State Employees.

Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.
Capite. – Lat. By the head.

As Black’s Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one’s natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to “volunteer” himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn’t willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.

So when you are registered at birth, U.S. produces a corporation, a straw-man, by placing your name in all capitals. But why I hear you ask? Well as we are a bankrupt country (just waiting to go into an economic fold – exactly what is about to happen in the US) the government needs collateral to invest and to receive loans on, so we, the people, become slaves in bondage to be used as collateral with lenders.

***

Social Security is Not a Contract

Parts Of A Lawful Contract

1. Parties competent to contract
The parties to a contract should be competent, being of the age of consent, of sound mind, not disqualified from contracting by any law to which s/he is subject. A flaw in capacity may be due to minority, lunacy, idiocy, drunkenness, or dissimilarity of kind. The parties should be of the same kind, being either legal fiction actors, or living men/women, allowing more than two parties but never a mixture of these kinds and their respective jurisdictions.

2. Free and genuine consent
The consent of the parties to the agreement must be free and genuine. The consent of the parties should not be obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, coercion or mistake. If the consent is obtained by any of these means, then the contract is not valid or legally/lawfully enforceable.

3. Full disclosure
When negotiating a contract, full disclosure is the step of providing all material information, or telling the “whole truth”, about any matter which may influence the decision-making of the other party or parties before they decide to enter into a contract. If either party fails to make full disclosure, the contract is null and void.

4. Valuable consideration
The consideration is something of value possessed by the parties that is brought to the contract table. This something of value is bargained for and given in exchange for a promise or a performance. The parties must each receive a benefit and each suffer a detriment. To be enforceable, a contract must have valuable consideration. A contract is unenforceable if it has insufficient or unequal consideration without agreement.

5. Certainty of terms
The Terms and Conditions of the contract must be fully disclosed and agreed upon, and must be certain and fixed. Any subsequent variation of terms must be agreed.

6. Meeting of the minds
A meeting of the minds “consensus ad idem”, occurs between the parties when they recognize each other, understand their mutual obligations, and agree. A meeting of the minds occurs between living men/women in lawful matters (Common Law jurisdiction), and between legal fiction actors in legal matters (Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction). A contract must be either Lawful or Legal. If one party to a contract makes a “signature” as an “accommodation party” to a legal fiction person, while the other party makes an “autograph” for a living man or woman, the parties are of unequal kinds, and the contract is null and void.

7. Autographs or Signatures
Lawful written contracts between living men/women must carry the wet ink autographs of the parties, comprising living identification such as a thumbprint, but more often living standing is recognized by an unambiguous declaration with the handwritten wet ink autograph, including the prefix “By:”, and/or the words “All Rights Reserved” , “Without Prejudice” written below. Legal written contracts between legal fiction actors must carry the wet ink signatures of the parties, as an accommodation from a man/woman.

8. Privity of contract
A contract exists only between the parties. No third-party can obtain rights contained within a contract, or buy or sell a contract, without the express permission of the original parties.

When a corporate agency creates a Social Security Number for a newborn baby, then creates a fictional ALL CAPS entity by turning John Doe, one of the people, into JOHN DOE, the person/DEBTOR/U.S. citizen, quite often against the will of the mother/father, and certainly without the consent of the newborn baby, there certainly nothing that resembles a lawful contract, so of course for another third party to coerce the SSN upon someone who chooses not to use it for benefits, simply because it was foisted upon them before the age of majority, now it becomes quite clear, said third party, bank, employer, financial institution, payroll servicing agent immediately becomes involved in a crime called coercion into the office of the person, which is a serious felony. In the maxims for a lawful contract, the reader of this document should calculate that they too were hoodwinked into a concealment to extort energy from them, which is enticement to slavery.

When the living man/woman does not want to realize a benefit, then one should not be coerced into paying for it, especially since it isn’t a real benefit. There must be two sui juris parties, of a responsible age, with full disclosure and consent, with substantive consideration. Anyone insisting upon coercing another into a contract without their consent becomes personally liable. The Statutes and Codes are for Federal and State Employees/persons, not people who aren’t U.S. citizens, or claim/consent to be. Under 12 U.S. Code 411, the pay for labor is compensation for the work and energy, which is property, therefore the lawful remedy to use US Notes, not foreign FEDERAL RESERVE Notes. This lawful remedy is found in text and explained in audio by David Merrill in the video called Federal Reserve Act – Remedy.

Anyone using FRNs, INTERNAL REVENUE for U.S. and State Employees, and 1040 forms, for U.S. and State Employees, is voluntarily consenting to be the DEBTOR. So if you’re paying income tax on your labor, not only are you perpetrating fraud upon yourself, you’re increasing the DEBT. Every bit of the I.R.S. contribution goes to the Crown Banks. Failure to learn law costs most Americans dearly as they’re tricked by the foreign Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorneys who unlawfully occupy offices of trust in Municipalities.

Grace Commission Report 1984, demonstrated “the I.R.S. is a fraud that collects taxes for the Banking Dynasties.”

http://groups.google.com/…/total_truth…/msg/3a3764aa8d4c5e22?

“100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.”
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan – January 15, 1984

Think of the absurdity. FRNs are instruments of DEBT, so how could one pay down a DEBT with more instruments of DEBT. This perpetual bankruptcy is how the Rothschild Crown Banks retook control over America, with the unknowing, otherwise unwilling consent of every American who fails to learn history and law.

The final report of the 1984 Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans.

Not one dime of IRS money goes to the US Gov’t, according to Reagan’s Grace Commission: it all goes to pay interest on a bogus debt to the Private Federal Reserve (FED), just to allow paper money to circulate as “Federal Reserve Notes.” The Federal Reserve is a private Corporation eventually owned by the Rockefellers and Rothschilds Dynasties through intermediary agents, designed to suck the capital dry from the U.S., as the Rothschilds do in Europe.

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows: S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997.

At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows: “This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997.”

This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law. Remember, King George was the “Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America.” See: Treaty of Peace (1783) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large 80.. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA ..’

What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. and 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)

The United States is not a land mass, it is a corporation.
Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.

On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. King George funded both sides of the Revolutionary War.

All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code. By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. The OMB’s-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.

These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn’t it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K.? Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section One and various agreements.

The U. S. Government in 1937 in the case Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) argued that: “The government’s summary declared flatly that the (Social Security) Act “does not constitute a plan for compulsory insurance within the accepted meaning of the term ‘insurance’.” [FN 72: Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, at 624; emphasis added.] Arguing before the Court, Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson reiterated that, “these benefits are in the nature of pensions or gratuities. There is no contract created by which any person becomes entitled as a matter of right to sue the United States or to maintain a claim for any particular sum of money. Not only is there no contract implied but it is expressly negated, because it is provided in the Act, Section 1104, that it may be repealed, altered, or amended in any of its provisions at any time. This Court has held that a pension granted by the Government is a matter of bounty, that the pensioner has no legal right to his pension, and that they may be given, withheld, distributed, or recalled at the discretion of Congress.” [FN 73: U.S. Congress, Senate, Oral Arguments in Helvering et al. v. Davis involving the Old-Age Benefit Provisions of the Social Security Act Before the Supreme Court of the United States, May 5, 1937, S. Doc. 71, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1937]” [Bold emphasis added]
In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 609 (1960) the Supreme Court again addressed the nature of Social Security benefits. Justice Harlan said:
“The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress’ power to ‘spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare,” Helvering v. Davis, supra, 301 U.S. at page 640, 57 S.Ct. at page 908, whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. * * * But each worker’s benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
“To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. See Wollenberg, Vested Rights in Social-Security Benefits, 37 Ore.L.Rev. 299, 359. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it ‘(t)he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision’ of the Act.”
“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of ‘accrued’ interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” [Bold added]
In the context of Social Security benefits being a gratuity, the U. S. Supreme Court went further:
“Pensions, compensation allowances, and privileges are gratuities. They involve no agreement of parties; and the grant of them creates no vested right. The benefits conferred by gratuities may be redistributed or withdrawn at any time in the discretion of Congress. Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 577 (1934)” [Bold added]
(Source: Supreme Court cases shown above were taken from language in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case, dated September 2012.)
A gratuity is defined in Webster’s dictionary as: 1) “A gift of money over and above payment due for service;” 2) “Something given without claim or demand.”
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen. Social Security is not a contract with the government, it is not insurance and you as an American citizen, even though forced by law at the point of a gun, along with your employer, to contribute to the Social Security Fund through payroll deductions, have no claim or vested right to it. You are at the mercy of government’s generosity ….. period. Social Security is a “gift” from government “without claim or demand” ….. in other words, a gratuity.

The U. S. Government in 1937 in the case Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) argued that:
“The government’s summary declared flatly that the (Social Security) Act “does not constitute a plan for compulsory insurance within the accepted meaning of the term ‘insurance’.” [FN 72: Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, at 624; emphasis added.] Arguing before the Court, Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson reiterated that, “these benefits are in the nature of pensions or gratuities. There is no contract created by which any person becomes entitled as a matter of right to sue the United States or to maintain a claim for any particular sum of money. Not only is there no contract implied but it is expressly negated, because it is provided in the Act, Section 1104, that it may be repealed, altered, or amended in any of its provisions at any time. This Court has held that a pension granted by the Government is a matter of bounty, that the pensioner has no legal right to his pension, and that they may be given, withheld, distributed, or recalled at the discretion of Congress.” [FN 73: U.S. Congress, Senate, Oral Arguments in Helvering et al. v. Davis involving the Old-Age Benefit Provisions of the Social Security Act Before the Supreme Court of the United States, May 5, 1937, S. Doc. 71, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 1937]” [Bold emphasis added]
In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 609 (1960) the Supreme Court again addressed the nature of Social Security benefits. Justice Harlan said:
“The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress’ power to ‘spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare,” Helvering v. Davis, supra, 301 U.S. at page 640, 57 S.Ct. at page 908, whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. * * * But each worker’s benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
“To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. See Wollenberg, Vested Rights in Social-Security Benefits, 37 Ore.L.Rev. 299, 359. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it ‘(t)he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision’ of the Act.”
“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of ‘accrued’ interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” [Bold added]
In the context of Social Security benefits being a gratuity, the U. S. Supreme Court went further:
“Pensions, compensation allowances, and privileges are gratuities. They involve no agreement of parties; and the grant of them creates no vested right. The benefits conferred by gratuities may be redistributed or withdrawn at any time in the discretion of Congress. Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 577 (1934)” [Bold added]
(Source: Supreme Court cases shown above were taken from language in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case, dated September 2012.)
A gratuity is defined in Webster’s dictionary as: 1) “A gift of money over and above payment due for service;” 2) “Something given without claim or demand.”
***

Is One Required To Give Their Social Security Number To Their Employer?

Answer: No. Employment is a form of contractual agreement. Generally, the same points made in the previous answer regarding contractual agreements also apply here.
If the terms of employment include a requirement that the employee must supply their social security number then there are basically four options available: 1) supply the requested SSN; 2) ask to work out another arrangement where the SSN isn’t required; 3) don’t work for that company; or, 4) sue the business in court.

An employee or job applicant may be able to receive protection from coerced submission of a SSN for employment purposes by relying on federal anti-discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Section 703(a)(1), Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) makes it unlawful to discriminate against any employee or perspective employee on the bases of his or her religion. (This is in addition to the basic Constitutional First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion.)

In 1992 a complaint was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) by a Mr. Hanson, wherein he claimed as a “Christian Fundamentalist” he could not obtain or use a SSN. The EEOC filed suit against the business that fired Mr. Hanson on his behalf. The suit claimed that firing Mr. Hanson due to his not having or getting a SSN constituted discrimination due to his religious belief. The business claimed that they were required to either force Mr. Hanson to get a SSN or fire him because they were required by certain IRS Code sections and regulations to report all employees’ SSNs on certain IRS forms. The business also responded that it was required by federal law to report all employees’ SSNs to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The EEOC countered that the only requirement imposed upon a businesses by the various tax laws was that employers must “request” an employee’s or potential employee’s taxpayer identification number, and that there was be no penalty for a business not succeeding in obtaining one. The EEOC, itself a federal government agency, stated in its “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” that: “The Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the code do not contain an absolute requirement that an employer provide an employee social security number to the IRS.”

The EEOC further argued that employers were permitted to use any one of several acceptable forms of identification and employment eligibility verification other than a SSN and still comply with the Immigration Reform Act requirements.

The Court denied the employer’s motion to dismiss the complaint. A settlement was later reached in which Mr. Hanson was awarded back pay. The Court’s final decree setting out the terms of the settlement stated that: “The [employer] shall be permanently enjoined from terminating an employee for failure to provide a social security number because of religious beliefs.”

A sincerely held religious belief may serve as a valid basis for objecting to requirements for a social security number for employment purposes. A business could be found guilty of discrimination for taking adverse action against an employee or applicant due to their refusal to use or obtain a SSN.
***
Assignment of Social Security Numbers

The section of federal law that addresses issuance and assignment of social security numbers is found at Title 42 U.S. Code, Section 405(c)(B)(i), (Pub. Law 92-603, 86 Stat. 1329, Section 137 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972).
Here, it states that the Commissioner of Social Security is to take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, “to the maximum extent practicable,” be assigned to all members of the appropriate groups or categories of individuals who may be assigned numbers.

The law provides that the “appropriate” classes of individual to whom the Commissioner may assign social security numbers are: aliens; individuals who want to receive federal benefits; (including children who fall into either of those two classes); and the children of members of either of those two classes.
***

Social Security Is Not A Contract

Some people argue that when they applied for a SSN, they “unknowingly” entered into a “contract” with SSA and that by rescinding their number they absolve themselves of any commitment they may have unknowingly made. But the simple fact is, Social Security is not a contract. This very important point is clearly brought out by Larry Becraft in his brief entitled “Comment Upon Voluntary Nature of Social Security.” Therein, he states:

“Is Social Security a contract? A private insurance policy is clearly a contract because the policyholder makes a promise to pay money to the insurance company, which in turn agrees to likewise pay the policyholder if certain contingencies arise. These “promise to pay” elements are essential for a contract, but they simply are not present with Social Security. First, Social Security “payments” are not premium payments, but are taxes instead.

“Secondly, there is no corresponding and enforceable ‘promise to pay’ from the Social Security Administration to its ‘beneficiaries.’ [G]overnment contracts are very special and require an appropriation from Congress before money can be expended and a contract made. Regarding Social Security, the only ‘beneficiaries’ who have any claim against the public treasury are those for whom Congress has already made an appropriation, which can last no longer than a year. The rest of the Social Security claimants in America have no enforceable claim on public funds, and all they possess is a ‘political promise,’ upon which Congress can renege at any moment. If Congress decided tomorrow to cut off all Social Security, nobody would have any claim for payment. Thus, Social Security has never been and is not now a contract.”

Simply applying for (and receiving) a Social Security number does not constitute the making of a contract. And additionally, the Social Security Administration has never asserted that Social Security was a “contractual” agreement.

***

Disclosure of the Social Security Number

Title 42 § 408(a)(8)
Title 42 § 408
(a) In general
Whoever –
(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.Title 42 § 408(a)(8)
Title 42 § 408
(a) In general
Whoever -
(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

***

Federal Court Hearing Scheduled For Woman Representing Herself Against Newport News Shipbuilding, Case Ca 4:00Cv55

In US District Court (Norfolk, Virginia) in the Civil Rights Suit against Newport News Shipbuilding by Shelly Lynn Baltgalvis, representing herself. Hearing is set for February 22, 2001 at 11:00am in the Norfolk US District Court.

In July 1999, Ms. Baltgalvis, a Senior Analyst Technician, was fired, by Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), largest employer in the area, for “objecting to the use of the Social Security Number due to religious convictions”. Ms Baltgalvis brought suit under the Civil Rights Act for religious discrimination. She wrote “I object to the use of the Social Security Number due to My religious convictions” on her paperwork. Further, Baltgalvis states that she has an unalienable right, recognized by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America, to avoid being numbered. Whether this is a religious issue or not, NNS violated federal law.

Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of the individual’s race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, with respect to hiring, promotion, firing, compensation, or other terms, conditions, and/or privileges or employment.

Employers may not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides that:
(a)(1) it shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose Social Security account number.

NNS, represented by Assistant Counsel Dean C. Berry, has made efforts to have the case dismissed “because the proposed accommodation of Plaintiff’s religious objection to the use of her SSN would pose an undue hardship on the Company, by forcing it into non-compliance with federal law, Plaintiff cannot sustain her religious discrimination claim”. Berry claims, “the requirement to maintain and report SSNs is one imposed by federal law, not an employment requirement devised by the Company.”

There is no law requiring you to obtain or use the Social Security Number. The Social Security System is a voluntary System. The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a SSN to live and work in the United States of America, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one. If there was a law for the SSN, why does a major food chain, Taco Bell, have “optional” printed by the SSN on their applications?

The IRS only requires the employer/payor to requests the SSN. If the employee/payee refuses to give or doesn’t have an SSN, the employer sends an affidavit to the IRS stating that they requested the SSN and the employee refused. The penalties will not be assessed against the employer.

Ms Baltgalvis was quoted recently, “I know that filing a federal Civil Rights suit against a major corporation is an uphill battle, but My Civil and Constitutional Rights were violated. Federal law was violated. Federal Law states that employers cannot fire or refuse to hire you if you refuse to use or obtain an SSN, especially when you exercise your rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Using another 9-digit number, a number not associated with the Social Security System, does not cause hardship on companies. What does a number have to do with my qualifications to perform the duties for my position? I had the affidavit already typed up for NNS, which was their responsibility, ready for them to fill it out and send it to the IRS for $0.33. $0.33 is an undue financial hardship for NNS?”

Contact persons include:
Shelly Lynn Baltgalvis: (757) 882-0174; email: fired4nossn@hotmail.com
Dr. Robert B. Clarkson, Support Committee for Shelly (Constitutional attorney, an expert on Tax Procedural law): (864) 225-3061; clarksonrobt@yahoo.com

***

NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS
CAN ONLY REQUEST AND NOT DEMAND AN SSN

Rare is the case that an employer actually needs an SSN. Indeed the Social Security Administration admits the numbers are actually their property and further that “no one needs an SSN to work in the United States.”

This latter fact isn’t widely known, but NOT knowing and demanding an SSN where no authority to demand exists could get the employee demanding same, and his employer, involved in a civil action. Our recommendation is frankly to not push the SSN issue with employees. If an employee provides an SSN even on taxation forms it should only be done voluntarily and with NO adverse actions taken in case he refuses.

Form I-9: To our knowledge the only spot that asks for an actual SSN [and not an implied TIN] is on form I-9. However nothing in the law actually states the employee must provide the number. Because primarily government forms are intended for government employees, the majority of “spots for information” are considered voluntary when used by the general population NOT engaged in federal employment.

A twist: Indeed, the restrictions of public law regarding I-9 disclosures can actually RESTRICT the employer from using that number on ANY other form. In other words, do not assume you have the employee’s permission to use that number on any other form or in any other way simply be virtue of its disclosure on Form I-9. You could possibly be in violation of the laws behind Form I-9!

Form W-4, Form W-2, and Form W-3: Let’s examine W-4 first. The title of the form identifies it as an “allowance” certificate Its only purpose is as a permission-slip to ALLOW the non-governmental employer to withhold, (take) some money from the employee’s compensation on behalf of government. If you gather that ALLOWANCE implies a voluntary-act, you are correct! If the form is voluntary for those outside governmental employment, then what of its content including the spot for a number? We repeat: The submission of a W-4 form or any other alternative AND ITS CONTENTS is considered a voluntary act!

Common sense will dictate that one cannot demand on behalf of government:
(1) a form signed under oath, with:
(2) a severe penalty of perjury jurat for non truth when:
(3) someone is simply exchanging labor for compensation and when:
(4) the person demanding is not an authorized withholding agent of government.
Hint: Were you given a badge or written delegation of authority?

BEWARE: The IRS has consistently confused these two definitions especially in their publications and forms. Unfortunately– as employers on our distribution list have identified–the IRS does not come to the aid of employers relying on IRS publications; the IRS is under the Executive Branch of government and that branch does NOT make law.] Thus, non-governmental employers make a BIG mistake if they automatically convert or assume one number for the other without the expressed permission of the employee. It is better to err on the side of safety and to simply refuse to “do the work of government”: In a government-declared “system of voluntary compliance by the making of a return”, the non-governmental employer is without authority to create a “taxpayer” that responsibility is left to another. Our recommendation is that you as an employer should NOT attempt to “create taxpayers” from mere non-governmental employees.

REMEMBER: NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS CAN ONLY REQUEST AND NOT DEMAND!

Remember that the SSN is not “owned” by the employee and further your “need” is only to satisfy his benefit if he chooses to anticipate in government social security insurance and the government withholding program. Thus if an employee refuses to include an SSN on any government form, that right is his own. These forms are creations of government and their existence and content cannot be made mandatory outside those in government employment. Further, you need not inquire of his reasons. His reasons might range from religious “mark” aspects to simply never applying for an SSN or to not wanting to be forced to make an oath under penalty. And you as an employer have NOTHING to fear from not including an SSN on any government form you submit to government.

The fine for EACH employee is $15 and this can be waived by simply including this statement on the “transmittal document” you send with Form W-2 and W-3: “I requested an SSN [or Form W4]. This non-federal employee did not provide the number [or Form W4]. To my knowledge he is not a federal employee or government “individual” nor does he engage in federal (26 USC) “trade or business”.

No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9 (or their equivalent), nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one’s job.

With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one’s pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker’s explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent.

Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 provides that:
(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose Social Security account number.
There is no law requiring you to obtain or use the Social Security Number. The Social Security System is a voluntary System. The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a SSN to live and work in the United States of America, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one.

If there was a law for the SSN, why does a major food chain, Taco Bell, have “optional” printed by the SSN on their applications?

The IRS only requires the employer/payer to request the SSN. If the employee/payee refuses to give or doesn’t have an SSN, the employer sends an affidavit to the IRS stating that they requested the SSN and the employee refused, (Indemnification Letter). The penalties will not be assessed against the employer.

***

Supporting Government Court Cases

If the government cannot deny an individual a right, benefit, or privilege on the basis of an individual that refuses to disclose his or her social security number then there’s no way a private company can deny an individual a right, or privilege of employment.

“The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional right as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry’’’ 48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, page 80.
Redifield vs. Fisher (1930), the courts ruled that the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, but that the individual’s right to live and own property was a natural right on which an excise cannot be imposed.

Earl vs. US 281, 111 (1930) states: “The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed…is without support either in the language of the act or in the decisions of the courts…it is not salaries, wages or compensation for the personal services that are to be included in gross income.”
Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S.470 F.2d 585, at 589 (1972) wherein the court reaffirmed the principal by quoting from the decision in the case of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F 236, at 238 (1922) which stated: “The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessments and collection, they relate to taxpayer and not to non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made annual any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.” (Emphasis added).

***

Claims of Rights

Pursuant to the government’s case law United States v. Malinowski, 347 F. Supp. 352, 1992, (and other court cases and statutes), Erica Merkin Notice of Understanding to work without W-4 and Claim of Rights is sufficient for being employed by Mount Sinai, Business or Corporation as a human being maintaining his common law status for a tax free paycheck in the same manner the 35 millions of Americans who have stop filing, see Media Bypass Vol., 5 No. 3 March 1997. Around the time IRS confirmed that fact by posting it on their website. Thousands are legally rejecting the W-4 agreement after finding out that all tax forms are really adhesion contracts that a person can’t be forced into.

Addair v. US 208 US 161, 175 said: “In all such particulars, the employer and employee have equality of right and legislation that disturbs that equality is an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a free land.”

***

Trickery Deceit and Fraud

Supreme Court decision from “Helvering vs Davis,” and that decision has been cited in cases a thousand plus times, and it still in effect today.

Once the people finally realize that document (Certificate of Live Birth) was concealment of the REAL you, and the rebirth of a DEAD you, in the form of an (E)State, we will finally prevail in beating back the STATE and getting them off our backs.

The Certificate of Live Birth is an “Office”. They are controlling you contractually (at least that is the illusion) because they are presuming you are acting in the capacity as an government agent/employee/person within that “Office”. This is how they are applying their statutory BS codes, rules and regulations to you.

The 14th Amendment uses the word “person” several times; here you go, read it for yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv/

Do you understand what THEIR definition of “person” is? Have a look at this: http://www.freedom-school.com/office-of-the-person.pdf

Final: They had to create an Office and coerce you into acting within that Office by way of trickery, deceit, and fraud, so they could “presume” to have authority over your lives. That “Office” is the Certificate of Live Birth.

***

Social Security Administration

“The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security Number SSN to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one. However, if someone works without an SSN, we cannot properly credit the earnings for the work performed.”

Charles H. Mullen – Associate Commissioner – Office of Public Inquiries

***

The Commissioner of Social Security
Baltimore, Maryland

“We do not have the authority to require an employer to provide or deny employment or services to anyone who refuses to disclose his or her number. This is a matter between the individual and the employer.”

Dorcas R. Hardy – Commissioner of Social Security

***

“THE SIGNATURE OF A PERSON IS THE PROOF OF HIS CONSENT THAT BINDS HIM UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT”

Nexus is defined as a connection, tie, or link between individuals of a group. The signature of each person, given voluntarily, binds the U.S. citizenry together into a lifelong socialized contract with the government.

The “law” cannot be invoked when a citizen is not numbered, receives no benefits, and does not enrich himself at the expense of another. Without the law, the court cannot offer a remedy. When a court cannot offer a remedy, the court lacks jurisdiction.
Under the Social Security Act, the citizen is in a state of voluntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional (13th Amendment), but voluntary servitude is constitutional (for every positive action there is a negative reaction). One has the absolute right to enter into a contract and bind himself to specific performance, submitting himself to the law of contracts and to the laws of the contract. Within the U.S., and any place subject to its jurisdiction, no one can force a citizen into a state of involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crime whereas the party shall have been duly convicted (13th Amendment).
No one can force a citizen into a contractual agreement. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the government do not have that power. A tax judge will always remind a litigant that there are no constitutional protection (i.e., right of free speech, privacy) in a tax court (when under contractual obligations). But no judge can order a citizen to participate in the Social Security system. The system is 100% voluntary and whoever joins the system also volunteers into paying the income tax. The following case law describes a valid, constitutionally valid tax return:
“Taxpayer’s Internal Revenue Service 1040 forms containing only asterisks denoting constitutional objections constituted “returns” as a matter of law under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7203.” U.S. v. Kimball, CR- 86-0017 (1990).
“A sentence compelling a citizen to join under the “Social Security Act” is not a remedy. It would be an act of judicial abuse as a court lacks the authority to do so. Such judicial indiscretion is appealable. Compelling a person to obtain a Social Security number is also invalid. Litigation will only be allowed if the accused had a Social Security number prior to the investigation and litigation.
Where a person has been induced by fraud to make a contract, several alternatives are open to him. He can treat the contract as valid, and sue in tort for the fraud. He can rescind the contract by proceedings in equity, or he can wait until sued upon the contract and set the fraud up as a defense, but at all times, when the fraud is discovered, he must recovery can be had.” American Law and Procedure, Vol. I, “Contract.”
“Evidence that taxpayer knew he should have filed tax returns, but had made no effort to pay his taxes or get in touch with any official about his income, put question of criminal intent for jury.” U.S. v. Sullivan, 98 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1938, N.Y.).

When a fraud is discovered, the plaintiff must put the other party on notice of the fraud, as it applies to his case, and if he benefits from the fraud, no recovery can be had. When the party himself rescinds or repudiates the contract, he merely gives notice by that action to the other party to the contract that he does not propose to be bound by the contract. This he may do by his own action and he needs not turn to the courts. When, however, a court of equity grants rescission or cancellation, it wipes out the instrument, and renders it as though it did not exist; in effect, it tears up the paper and destroys it. A bill in equity to obtain a rescission is not like an action at law brought on the footing of a rescission previously completed; the foundation of the bill is that the rescission is not complete and that the plaintiff asks the aid of the court to make it so. (annot. 95 ALR 1001).
Neither an agent of the government, nor a judge, nor a legislative officer, nor an executive officer, can cancel participation in the Social Security Act of any citizen. Nor is there a provision within the code that permits and/or does not permit a citizen to withdraw from the System. These provisions are lacking because participation in the system is a voluntary contract decided by the individual.
All citizens who have rescinded their social security numbers by resorting to common law proceedings (i.e., by the mere filing of a document of asseveration recorded in the county courthouse) will most likely not be recognized by a court that proceeds in equity. But if the word fraud is implied, he can wait until sued upon and set the fraud up as a defense. If the relief asked is in equity then he who seeks equity must do equity (be given equity). The remedy that exists within the law must come from equity. (Equity: That part of law which administers and adjusts common-law rights where the courts of common law have no machinery.)
The following legal maxims are relevant to the above issues:
“He who affirms must prove”.
”If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.” “The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms.”
When Congress adopted the Social Security Act in 1935, the Supreme Court had already held in Railroad Retirement Board, supra, that Congress had no authority to establish a retirement scheme through its most tremendous power, its control over interstate commerce.
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 57 S.Ct. 904 (1937), the same rationale was used to uphold the retirement features of the act. The importance of these two cases upholding the Social Security Act concerns the issues which these cases raised: neither of them addressed the issue of whether there was a requirement for any American to join Social Security. The reason that this issue was not raised is because there is no such requirement, unless of course one works for a state government which has contracted into Social Security; see Public Agencies Opposed To Social Security Entrapment (POSSE) v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Cal.,1985), rev.,477 U.S. 41,106 S.Ct. 2390 (1986).
The purported duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security number therefore boils down to this: you get it if you need it or request it. There is no legal compulsion to do so.
With the act of applying for and obtaining a SSN being entirely voluntary, the next question to be asked is whether any State can force you to use this number which is voluntary in the first place. This appears to have been addressed by section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1896, which reads as follows:
“Sec. 7. (a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account number.
“(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to – (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.”
See U.S. v. Two Hundred Thousand Dollars in U.S. Currency, 590 F.Supp. 866 (S.D. Fla., 1984).
Thus, it seems perfectly logical, if having a Social Security number is not mandatory but purely voluntary, no state can use the lack of a number in any adverse way against anyone. The state cannot make that which is voluntary under federal law something which is mandatory under state law. What should the American people do who are opposed to Social Security for whatever reason, be it the contention that it is the prelude to the “Beast’s number” or any other? They should constantly inform those requesting the number that there is no obligation to have one.
***
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER INFORMATION
Let us briefly discuss the issue of the employee providing a Social Security number to the employer. We must take a practical and constitutional approach to this issue. What possible reason could there be for the employer to require the NON-TAXPAYER employee to furnish a Social Security number? The average payroll clerk would claim the number was needed so the employer would withhold Social Security taxes, undoubtedly. But if the employee’s job description does not involve any revenue taxable activity, he is not subject to any of these indirect taxes under any circumstances. The right to lawfully contract one’s own labor to engage in innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation cannot be (and therefore has not been) taxed for revenue purposes. Surely, the free exercise of such a constitutionally secured right cannot be limited only to those individuals who furnish a number. Surely there can be no act of Congress which would require such a number to be furnished by a NON-TAXPAYER.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
The Internal Revenue Code does indeed contain sections requiring a Social Security number from those who ARE subject to an internal revenue tax, but the NON-TAXPAYER is without the scope of the revenue laws.
Many people in the “freedom movement” have tried to obtain jobs without giving a Social Security number, only to have the employer quote a section from the Internal Revenue Code. This, of course, is not a valid reason in the case of a non-taxpayer because the revenue laws relate only to “taxpayer(s)” as defined. If an employer believes there is requirement for a non-taxpayer to furnish a Social Security number, the burden of proof rests with the employer – NOT the NON-TAXPAYER. The employer will have a difficult time here because the number can only be required from those subject to the tax (WHICH ALMOST NONE OF YOU REALLY ARE!!). The employers must know that the revenue laws only apply to those who are engaged in revenue taxable activities; i.e., unlawful, harmful and non-innocent. They must know that the withholding of ANY funds under the guise of taxation from those who are NON-TAXPAYERS and are not subject to the tax is totally and blatantly illegal. It’s only because of lack of knowledge on the part of the working men and women that this CRIME continues on and on and on, unabated.
We will point out another point of interest to these employers: THEY WILL FIND QUITE EMPHATICALLY THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WILL NOT COME TO THEIR AID WHEN THEY ARE SUED BY THE DAMAGED NON-TAXPAYER EMPLOYEE; providing such non-taxpayer presents himself as a non-taxpayer as described in the Economy Case, and not as a “taxpayer” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
The internal revenue laws authorize the employers to withhold taxes from their employees whose job descriptions involve revenue taxable activities. The laws do not authorize the employers to violate an individual’s constitutional rights or to commit FRAUD and Extortion against the employee who is merely exercising his natural, constitutionally-secured right to lawfully acquire property by lawfully contracting his own labor to engage in innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation.
***
Terms – Legal Terms – People vs. Persons
Excerpts From a Notice and Demand For Access To Courts
With regard to court fees, i, libellant, :john-roy: bxxxxxe, one of the people, believe the easiest way to show the facts that we are the sovereign people, is first to show what a person is not in Title 28 U.S.C. 1914 (District Court; filing and miscellaneous fees; rules of the court), which requires a person or persons to pay a filing fee.
Since a person or persons are required to pay a filing fee, one should denote what a person is not according to U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the sovereign American people.
What a person is not:
” ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign people, and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)
“The sovereign people are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S.v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.
“A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision such as grants of corporate existence and powers. States may exclude a foreign corporation entirely or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as, in their judgment, will best promote the public interest.” [Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868)]
What a person is:
Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 1028
Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1).
Bankruptcy Act. “Person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30).
Corporation. A corporation is a “person” within meaning of equal protection and due process provisions of United States Constitution. Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Hawaii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 911. The term “persons” in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of Houston v. U. S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181.
Foreign government. Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are “persons” entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4. Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396.

Illegitimate child. Illegitimate children are “persons” within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48.
Interested person. Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries representing interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20).
Municipalities. Municipalities and other government units are “persons” within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of Section 1983 in those cases in which a local government would be sue able in its own name. Monell v. N.Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law.
Protected person. One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made Uniform, Probate Code § 5-101(3).
U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the sovereign American people, filing fees and/or their free access to the courts.
The courts must realize the sovereign people, are not bound to pay filling fees as the sovereign people are not a person, or persons. The use of the word person is the reason the sovereign American people have been tricked into paying for filing fees. It is the use of the word person in law, and the confusion, the word person creates for the average sovereign people, when used in law.
A person is a corporation, so that’s why the courts are not supposed to be falsely charging the sovereign American people to pay filing fees. When the courts state that Title 28 U.S.C. sec 1914 requires a person or persons to pay fees, that does not apply to sovereign American people. The CODE only applies to a person or persons, which are corporations. The sovereign American people require their lawful right to free access, without fees as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. UNITED STATES and/or “STATE OF…” can control only that which it creates.
***

Citizens (Federal) and Persons vs. People
“A “US citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
“The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.” U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity.” Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. [comprehension required]
CITIZENS. Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.—U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542—
***
People
If one is established as a “people”, individually or collectively, then one is entitled to all the rights, which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
A people may do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right or property of another individual. 10 Pick. 9; United States Exp. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Iowa, 40, 28 N. W. 426; Greenl. Ev. 469a quoted in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906). A people owes no duty to the state or the public as long as he does not trespass.
Lansing v. Smith 21 D. 89. people of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative……….2. Citizens – United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship.
Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges and immunities of citizen of the state, since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other. Tashiro v. Jordan S.F.1234G. S.C.C. 5-20-1927
“Both before and after the “14th” Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.4
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified[1] in 1868, CREATES or at least recognizes for THE FIRST TIME a [federal] citizenship of the United States, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE STATES…” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
Although the Courts across The United States fail to recognize the fact that “Article XIV/14th Amendment” was never lawfully ratified, nor could it have been, per Article V of the U.S. Constitution (Congressional Record House, June 13, 1967, pg 15641-15646 and Dyett v Turner (1968) are VERY CLEAR about this).
These rulings & statutes make it clear the Residents or U.S. Citizens are Government Employees, who have no constitutional protection, like the citizens of the several States, therefore Affiant cannot be a part of the body politic, and Affiant further swears that Affiant is not a part of any body politic, nor has Affiant ever promised to abide by the body politic.
Affiant bases Affiant’s claim of not being a person but in fact a natural person on these supreme court rulings.
” ‘In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign people, (citizens of several states) and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)
The sovereign people (citizens of the several states) are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S.v.Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.
Affiant’s claim and fact, Affiant has filed papers in the Federal court under which Employees or Clerks or Magistrates insist upon charging a fee, for the citizen of the several states to use the court. This is an unlawful act as Title 28 § 1914 does not include the Natural person in the definition of person within its scope as such the only conclusion one may draw is the fee only applies to Government Employees, and corporations based on the applicable definition set by the Federal Government and the Courts.
So Affiant brings this action to demand a court order to compel the clerk to file plaintiff’s case at no charge the following AM JUR makes it clear where an officer has an obligation to protect the citizens of the several states he/she must do so.

*******

For the Readers
legal: the undoing of God’s Law [1893 Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Encyclopedia Britannica, a dictionary of arts, sciences and general literature / The R.S Peale 9th 1893]
“Persons” are not people in the legal world. Legalese is a deceptive language. Persons may extend to bodies politic, corporations, or individuals thereof. In the Corporate U.S., persons are the enemies of the state in the 1933 FDR Amendment to the Trading with the Enemy Act.
U.S. citizen/person/corporation/individual/debtor/taxpayer/fiction/child/infant/fiction/vessel/JOHN DOE/strawman/tinman (T.I.N. Taxpayer Identification Number)/fraud/mask/actor/municipality/decedent/office of the person/partner/association/estate/trust/agency/State/company/resident/alien/subject/slave/ward of the state/enemy of the state/POW/property/subordinate/employee/employer/colored/foundling/dead/salvage/war booty/soul/lost soul/tenant/ leasee/etcetera…
***
The DEBTOR is the one that left the black footprints on the back of the Birth Certificate. Explained in six minutes below is what happened to you at the hospital when you were born and birthed.
Born Alive Certificated Person by Kurtis Kallenbach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3k_o55MU30
Dear Reader, your name is John Henry Doe, but on the license in your wallet, it’s JOHN H DOE. Is that you? You better not answer, YES. If you do, you agree to be a Corporate DEAD entity, without rights.
Good luck! You too deserve freedom, the lawful way. Now you know.

~~~~~~~


tlb-tv-screen-white-bg

Join UsFind out about our great new TLB Project Membership package and benefits, add your voice and help us to change the world!

 

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

TLB has other above the fold articles, videos and stories available by clicking on “HOME” at the top of this post. Never miss a new post, sign up for E-Mail alerts at the bottom of the Home page and get a link dropped right to your in-box.

TheLibertyBeacon.com contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*