0 votes

Are you a Federal Employee?

If you work at Kelloggs, and they tell you that you must cut your hair...is that illegal?
Think about it. Dont you have the RIGHT to have long hair?, then how can they diminish that right?

The answer is by Contract. Remember, the constitution (13th Amendment) only states that IN-VOLUNTARY servitude is forbidden, it says nothing about Voluntary. America is SO FREE, that we actually have the RIGHT to contract away our rights.

This happens ALL THE TIME. A marriage license is a contract, that removes the RIGHT of marriage, and replaces with the 'privilege' of Marriage, in exchange, the state gives you some sort of consideration, tax break, insurance break, etc.

Well, Just like if you worked at Kellooggs, working for the Federal Government has its downside as well. When you become federal personnel, you diminish your rights. You no longer have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, right to privacy, right to be secure in your possessions, and so on. Ask ANY congressman if he can carry a gun to work, or if the government can search him or his house without a warrant, or probable cause, or an infantryman if he can have scripture on his gear, or if he can rally a group of troops and assemble and speak poorly of the United States.

We all know, or at least I hope we all know, that the Constitution applies to the states, and NOT federal zones or territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the District of Columbia.

This brings me to my point.

Are you Federal Personnel?

    (13) the term "Federal personnel" means officers and employees
    of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed
    services (including members of the Reserve Components),
    individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement
    benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the
    United States (including survivor benefits).

Guess what Social Security is?

Guess what number they use for the draft?

Guess what number they use to Direct Tax?

Guess what number they use for Social Programs, that are benefits and must be payed for?


    A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is
    equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it,
    far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person

If you have a SS number, then you ARE federal Personnel, and you have limited Rights! They can lay a direct Income Tax on you, they can summons you for Draft, they can require that you have a license to travel, they can require you have a license to marry.

Is SS mandatory? Of course not. If it was, they would assign you a number at birth, instead of you applying for one for your kids.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Probably the biggest Federal requirement of a Federal..........

employee is being liable to pay a Federal income tax. One of the few amongst our citizenry who are. Well by few I mean in excess of 30 million Federal employees.



start at page 472 and read through 475

This is the Alaska Omnibus Act which made Alaska into a "State", you should see the amendments to the US Code:

    page 473 bottom right "internal revenue"
    IRC sections 3121, 3306, 4221, and 4233 special definition of "State" are amended by striking out Alaska

So Alaska becomes a state of the Union, and all of the definitions that relate to, what many consider Unconstitutional statutes, are Amended to no longer include Alaska! The proves the case that "State" means ONLY federal zones for the purposes of the USC where "any of the 50 states" arent specifically mentioned.

    page 474 bottom right "Social Security Act"
    "relating to the definition of "State" and "United States" for purposes of old age survivors and disabilities insurance, are each amended by striking out "Alaska"


    Public Health Service Act page 474:
    Definition of "State" is amended by striking out Hawaii and Alaska and inserting in lieu thereof Hawaii, and by Striking out the District of Columbia and Alaska, and inserting "or the District of Columbia"

This is absolute PROOF that "State" means Federal Zone!

    "...is amended by striking out the word Alaska"

This goes to show that selective service ONLY applies to the territories!!

In fact read all of 472..."Termination of certain Federal Laws"

Soil Bank Act:
"State includes Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands" <--- hawaii isnt a state yet!

Julius, I was reading the

Julius, I was reading the "applying for a passport" part of the site which links to the Family Guardian site.

In your opinion is there only a benefit in pursuing this procedure if one is going to go through ALL the other procedures pertaining to everything else?

It is my opinion that a

It is my opinion that a PROPERLY filed passport is the ONLY government document/identification you should have!!

You have the RIGHT to leave the country, and with a passport is the only way. The trick is tring to get you to declare yourself a statutory U.S. citizen vs. and American Citizen.

To answer your question, NO! When someone becomes aware of a fraud, they should be sure to make every new decision based on the new found information. Over the course of time, if you never use your social security number for ANYTHING ever again, eventually (5 years) it will be flagged as a non used number, your drivers license will expire, and so on.

That being said it seems the

That being said it seems the past of least resistance is to apply for a passport the way most people do and then later go through the amendment procedures as described by family guardian. What are your thoughts?

in my opinion that is a

in my opinion that is a foolish idea, unless of course you are domiciled on federal territory! Every document you KNOWINGLY file in error is felonious, not to mention that you allow yourself to be something that you are not, which is a "citizen of the United State" as defined in USC Title 8.
The amendment procedures you speak of are for the government contracts that you un-knowingly applied for, or that your parents applied for without your consent, or that you filed under duress or coercion.

Julius, have you ever read

Julius, have you ever read "Cracking the Code" and if so what do you think of it?

The problem with Pete's approach is that he is unwittingly

trapping you into declaring yourself liable for the tax.

Only "taxpayers" file information returns with the IRS. Non-taxpayers are outside the scope of the law entirely. Not one shred of the code has anything to do with non-taxpayers.

Pete's method encourages you to file a return to claim all of whatever was withheld from your paycheck. The problem is that by doing so, you are creating the presumption against you that YOU are one of the class of people on whom the income tax in subtitle A has been imposed. That makes you a taxpayer by your own admission.

The first place you messed up was filing a W-4 request for withholding agreement with your company and providing them with a "Taxpayer Identification Number" in this case, a Social Security number. (note, an SSN is NOT a TIN, but people with an SSN are to use that number in lieu of a TIN and it functions for the same purpose. If you are NOT one the people on whom an internal revenue tax has been imposed, then why are you giving an SSN for purposes of a TIN if you are NOT a taxpayer for that tax?)

This W-4, as well as previous 1040 and related information returns create the presumption before the court, in your own admission, that you ARE one of the class of "taxpayers." Filing an amended return only further entrenches that no matter what you claim the amount is that you actually owe.

If you are a non-taxpayer, and the law does not define you or your situation as being in one of the class of persons on whom subtitle A has been imposed, then why are you filing ANY information returns that are to be used only by taxpayers?

That is about the surest way to lose any case. Claim the law applies to you with papers filed and signed under penalty of perjury, and then claim in open court that the law doesn't apply to you. Is there any wonder why these people are getting convicted? (and even if not, STILL owe the tax?)

Joη's picture

my simple sense is tingling

You're on to something.

Say I'm in negotiations with an employer, do I simply state "I prefer to work with you, and without government involvement", or "Legally you can neither compel me to provide a social security number nor prejudice me if I do not"? Or should I entertain them with papers and citations?

I recall hearing there was a time 50 years ago when both a "public" and "private" employment option existed. If properly explained, will companies recall private employment?

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Most people, especially people in business for any considerable

length of time, are no fans of government being where it doesn't need to be.

However, many if not most are also not willing to risk their business or life savings on the bet that you are able to fend off the Feds. They really don't care that you are legally right in most cases. They just don't want to be caught in the cross hairs. Honestly, I have yet, since taking this approach, to get to the point where I have to "work" for a "company" that insists on an SSN or TIN in order to get paid from them. If that situation ever arises, I will enlist the counsel of someone more knowledgeable than myself on the exact language and tactics to use.

As for some practical experience I once interviewed for and was awarded a job as a GM of a franchise unit of a regional restaurant chain. Upon filing out the initial hiring informational paperwork (at that level, you don't fill out an "application" as I was referred by a 'head-hunter') I informed them that I did not use a social security number and asked if that would be a problem. They were slightly taken aback, but were not averse to the scenario. They were merely curious as to "how I managed to file 'my' taxes without one." I replied that I'm sure the IRS will be happy to take any check and paperwork without a number should I be required to file and pay anything and that I've never encountered any problem thus far." (which was technically true since I had not yet been required to file or pay in any job without the use of an SSN) They did not balk at this, thought it very interesting. They stated they had no beef or interest in my personal dealings with the IRS and "more power to me." I ended up not taking the job for other reasons, and I never went far enough to see how withholding and subsequent issues would be handled, but on the surface, they really didn't care to get in the middle of it. (they may have been intrigues to see how that would fly themselves) The point is that is really wasn't an issue. I didn't try to lecture them, or teach them. I simply stated I didn't use a number and asked if that would be a problem. And they indicated it wouldn't be. Very interesting.

In the case of a larger chain I was told I HAD to provide an SSN or no job. I explained my position both verbally over the phone and via an email. They were impressed with my knowledge of the situation and were sympathetic to my position, but informed me that because of their position being a national chain, they could not alter or "bend" their in-house rules even if I was legally correct. I either had to supply an SSN/TIN or not work for them. I thanked them for their time, but informed them I would not be able to work with them any further. No hard feelings, though I was told by the "head-hunter" late that they were shocked that I didn't cave in and give them a number. So I don't know if they thought I was bluffing, but I wasn't. I haven't pursued what many would consider "employment" since then and that was about 5 years ago.

As for if I need to do this again, or if I encounter resistance, I would refer anyone to the services of David Champion at http://nontaxpayer.net

He offers counseling and legal services through his in-house attorney if needed. He will be glad to speak to your payroll department or hiring officer to handle the issue of not disclosing an SSN in lieu of a TIN and the subsequent withholding that goes along with that. If the company refuses and holds firm to not following the law and desires to take money out of your check anyway, he can begin legal proceedings, but that is more for you to decide if its worth it or not. Usually, such a company is not worth the hassle for you just as it is not worth the hassle for them. The easiest course there is to work elsewhere. There ARE companies that will not be a pain in the butt about it. You just have to find them. However, it is much easier if you can avoid "working for" someone else entirely.

I wouldn't get into the "you can't do this to me" attitude as that is very accusatory and confrontational. I think a simple matter of fact, "I don't have" or "I don't use" an SSN and "Is that a problem?" as the easiest route to get what you are looking for. They may inquire a bit, and simply want to make sure they won't invite the IRS on their tails, but other than that, I'd bet they really aren't interested in the details of your personal situation. (in general, some companies or persons might be)

Jon have you ever been a tax paying business owner?

Every "job" I ever had -- and there's only been a few (some might say I work under the table and have so for the better part of 20 some years) I've been asked to show two forms of I.D., and nearly all of them want a DVL or a Soc Sec card.

If you job involves insurance or securities prepared to donate a tissue sample, a urinalysis exam, and a proctologist report; hahahaha.

If you work with kids -- just hand them your first-born, your "package," and your wifes ovaries.

Same is true if you work for the gov't.

There -- I just eliminated 90% of all jobs.
---Law Enforcement
---All 911 1st Responders
---Gov't Jobs (state and local)
---Sub-contracting to any of the above
---Working in Schools (of any kind)
---Working with Seniors
---Working in Hospitals
---Working in Banking
---Working in Wall Street
---Working in Insurance
---Working in Real Estate
---Working in Unionized Organizations
---Working in Most Retail Jobs

That leaves Under-the-Table Jobs, Construction (less it be Gov't sub-contracted), Restaraunt Industry, and Farming.

Roughtly 10% of the remaining "legal" jobs and the 20% that work in the black-market (non-taxed market).

Caveat to your list Octo

(it is a very good list though)

And this isn't directed at or against you- this is only for general consumption.

Farmers who register with the FSA for seed and planting assistance to receive federal price supports and guaranteed loans most assuredly have to provide an SSN as you are requesting federal benefits and your "earnings" are reportable. (as far as I can figure)

As a land owner where sugar cane is farmed, I was sent a request for SSN/TIN by the FSA. (Farm Services Administration) I simply replied that I had no business with their office, and disavowed all price supports, loan guarantees, and any other benefits they were offering. As a land-owner I was in an agreement with the farmer to be paid either a share of the crop, or the proceeds from the crop in lieu of "rent" for use of the land, and this had nothing to do with any government agency. Any benefit the farmer or sugar mill applied for and received from the FSA or in connection with the government had no bearing on my landlord-tenant relationship with the farmer.

I haven't heard from them again in 4 years, have not received any "1099s" in connection with the farmer's rent payment to me, or any other indication that the rental payment is being reported to anyone as "income."

Dont' forget too, that any "service" related work, such as advertising, design services, etc. would fall under the "non-taxed" market - not just construction jobs. (but don't EVER make the mistake of claiming you are an "independent contractor" as that is a specific legal term that most likely DOES NOT fit your situation.) There was a case a year or so ago, where a couple who hired someone to fix part of their house, and tried to withhold social security, medicare and income taxes from the invoice payment because they were told "they had to" because he did more than $600 worth of "personal services" for them was shown the error of their assumptions. The court ruled in the repair man's favor and advised the couple that this section of the code was much more limited than the general meanings of the words implied.

Read that again 10 times if you have to.

If you ever do "work" for a company other than as an "employee" and they try to 1099 you (as long as you haven't disclosed an SSN/TIN) ask them why. If they claim they have to do so for anyone providing them "services" ask them if they 1099 the phone company, cable company, janitorial company, their ISP etc. OF course they don't. That's just silly. An individual is no different in this regard. But many businesses never stop to think about that. They may choose not to work with you again, or you with them, but there are plenty of people, if you provide a good quality product or service, who will not care to get mixed up in that and will simply continue to pay your invoices as agreed.

Sam: I was generalizing -- Great Clarification

I was thinking of small plot organic farming; but those tax bastards are bored and inventive.

They will never out pace those of us who constantly look for tax-evading opportunities, hahaha.

Joη's picture

the comment so nice

the server sent it twice

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Pete is to be commended for

Pete is to be commended for his efforts against unlawful witholding, and for educating millions, but his approach is flawed. He uses forms which are explicitly reserved for residents and statutory citizens. For an in-depth analysis of his approach see the following document:


No it's not perfect

How do you explain all the posted refunds and documentation at losthorizons? $10+million that he knows of. I don't see any evidence that the sedm site is more correct. Both sites make sense to me when I peruse, but I never saw the "checks" or the "closing letters" at SEDM. Or have I just not looked hard enough? You could say that the SEDM approach will not create the info returns in the first place...but good luck finding someone to hire you probably. How's it working for you? If you don't mind me asking. The only flaw I see in Pete's method is just that it's hard to get the people who pay you non-federally connected money to quit sending information returns saying you were an "employee" making "wages". I still have not filed my returns claiming zero income because I dunno if I have the balls, but it seems simple enough when you read the book and losthorizons.com.
Whether you act on it or not, it is some good reading and anyone who frequents DP should give it a look at least. Please! LoL...It's like the Holy Grail of liberty!

The main issue I have, is

The main issue I have, is Pete's dis-concern for Domicile. There is TWO parts to income taxation, Taxable activity, and domicile on federal territory, the "within the United States" aspect.

again, this is why everything in the income tax code revolves around the "District of Columbia", it is a Federal Zone where the Direct tax can be laid. The 1040 form is intended ONLY for those who are domiciled on federal territory...remember, it doesnt matter if you actually are or not, because when you sign the 1040 under PENALTY OF PERJURY, you are DECLARING that you are ON FEDERAL land, thus the IRS is able to presume that you are a "person" subject to the tax, therefore a "Taxpayer".

I think what Pete does, is he files a 1040, allowing the IRS to presume he is on federal land, BUT that he has no "taxable activity", which is the 2nd part of the tax requirement. I say dont allow them to presume anything.


good link with good info.


you got a problem with Pete's technique is all? I know one of the first things you do if the IRS give's you problems using Pete's discovery is to declare that the company you work for is incorporated in a state and that they should of never withheld because the pay is from non-federally connected activity, your not performing the functions of a public office and your not the head of a corporation....basically. Then its a matter of rebutting various presumptions they will make and making sure they follow their printed rules. They have to, but they might need reminding. I dunno what I'm gonna do this year.
My take is that Pete might agree with SEDM but SEDm is getting more technical than necessary. I like the SEDM site too...thanks for the link...good info


...SEDM.org may seem overly technical, but they're teaching you how to do things the right way.

Pete's methods have landed quite a few people in prison. You need to get away from his site, and start googling around to see what's up with ole Pete. His intentions are noble but, as JB pointed out, flawed. Has a bit of a sketchy history as well...his initial way to beat the IRS was to send a mail bomb their way that wound up blowing up in a postal office worker's face.

Pete, himself, is on his way to prison.

I keep up

with his newsletters....yes he has a shady past...yes he is currently in jail...but did you read the current appeal documents? I bet he wins this just like the other 3 times they tried to silence him. I would suggest you spend more time at losthorizons and less at SEDM. While your at SEDM next time..check out the testimonials.
The few people you say were jailed using Pete's discovery...they had flaws which are pointed out at Pete's site.
Proof is in the pudding as they say...10+million in refunds..'nuff said.


...the refunds don't mean anything. The people that got thrown in prison DID get the refunds, it's just a matter of time before the IRS catches up to you. They're an understaffed and overworked agency. I've read up on his current stuff. This basically sums up how Hendrickson's deal will go:


He neglected the domicile part as Julius and Sedm.org pointed out, and that's just as important as the other point.

SEDM.org doesn't have testimonials because they're not teaching a particular method as Pete does. Their site is simply a free resource site that has just about everything you need to reclaim your sovereignty. There's no real structure to it, it's basically a library.

looks like we're on the same

looks like we're on the same page at least!;)

I have. I have a few

I have.
I have a few differences of opinion than Pete. 1040 V 1040NR for example.

see here:

So how do you revoke your...

Social Security number, and will you be able to continue to do business in the US if you don't have one.

Clarify a few things

First, the social security number is not yours, it is government property, as is the social security card. Associating this number with private property implies that the private property is being donated for public purposes. The fact that the government does not expropriate all of the money in the bank account identified with the social security number assigned to you has more to do with effective (from the government's viewpoint) taxation and the limits of tacit consent to governmental action than to the legal power of the government with regard to property donated to public purposes.

Second, as the social security adhesion contract fails to meet several standards for a valid contract, most often made with minors, and without a meeting of the minds, it is voidable, but not void. Julius has discussed the legal maxims previously.

Quod initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere.
Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin

Invito beneficium non datur.
No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.

Non videntur qui errant consentire.
He who errs is not considered as consenting.

Omnis consensus tollit errorem.
Every consent removes error.

Qui tacet consentire videtur.
He who is silent appears to consent

Third, you will not be able to be engaged in a "trade or business" without a TIN. Most Americans are not involved in a "trade or business."

Fourth, It is best to educate ones self prior to making the major decision to regain one's sovereignty. The best course I have seen in this regard is "The Path to Freedom". Section 8.5.1 indicates that the following form may be useful in Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee


SS is NOT a contract. See my reply at the bottom of the thread.

It simply is not. The Supreme Court has explained this very well. What people know as "social security" is really two separate programs. One is an excise tax on the privilege of public employment. The other is a welfare payment. Either one can be changed or revoked at the will of Congress. If there was a contract involved, it would be unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has ruled on this VERY issue.

I disagree a bit. The W-4 and

I disagree a bit.
The W-4 and other forms that use the SSn are "contracts" to procure social insurance. The SSn is the root number in ALL private/govt. contracts.
And an "agreement" is a "contract" according to blacks law. The only reason it isnt a true contract is because Social Security isnt promising to pay anything, which eliminates it's consideration element.
I would call it a constructive contract, or defacto contract, or prima facie evidence of a contract. It certainly is portrayed as a contract, in that we are expected to pay in, so someday we will receive.


A contract as I'm sure you are aware must have certain

elements to be enforceable. Since there is no consideration element, then there is NO contract. You can add adjectives all you want, it can not be enforced in a court of law or equity.

The fact that people "believe" it is a contract and that they are "entitled" to benefits later does not make it a contract. It only means those people have been suckered into parting with their money.

The W-4 is an agreement between you and your employer. Since private companies do not fit the definition of employer and since people who work for such companies do not fit the definition of employee in subtitle C, then the agreement is with the government but it is not a contract as there is no consideration. It is an agreement as in "understanding" that your gross pay will be considered your income and not be reduced by the amount withheld. Additionally, it is really more of a request than an agreement. You are requesting that your employer deduct and withhold a tax. They agree to do so. That is all. There is no element of obligation and consideration.

Filing a W-4 does not "make" you liable for any tax. (only the law passed duly by Congress can do that) It does however, since it is signed by you under penalty of perjury, serve as prima facie evidence that you have determined that you ARE in one of the classes of people on whom the Employement Tax in Subtitle C has been imposed. Additionally, unless you rebut, it serves as prima facie evidence, by virtue of your disclosing upon it a Taxpayer Identification Number, in your case most likely a Social Security Number, that you are ALSO in one of the class of persons on whom Subtitle A Income Tax has been imposed upon.

If you are not a government employee, if you are not working for a private firm for a government contract, then WHY are you filing a W-4? W-4's are to be executed only between employers and employees, and if you aren't one of the above, then the law does not require you to make such agreements, nor any tax (under subtitle C) to be deducted and withheld.

If you are not in one of the three classes of persons on whom Subtitle A has been imposed upon, why are you disclosing a TIN/SSN on forms that are only to be used by such persons?

**note - the tax deducted and withheld via a W-4 under subtitle C title 26 is NOT the same as the tax imposed in subtitle A. The two are separate taxes and are not imposed on the same class(es) of persons. If you happen to fall into both classes, the Congress was generous enough not to tax you twice, and so they give you credit for Subtitle A (income tax) up to the amount withheld as Subtitle C (employment tax).

That's why I said I disagree

That's why I said I disagree a bit:):)

as you have pointed out, an invalid contract is still a contract, and only voidable and not void. It takes the action of one of the parties to void the contract.

devils advocate for a sec...
The SSA could make the argument that they have given consideration in the form of a number and a card.
A Babe Ruth rookie card is still just a piece of paper, yet you can contract to sell it to someone for payments of $175 per paycheck until they're 68 years old! Of course, they never actually give you the card to keep, nor the number.

well said above, by the way.

Thanks, and that's an interesting perspective.

I wonder, is there a case where the government (SSA) tried to enforce FICA payments based on the contract position?

But yes, I see your point.