The Snare of Legalese

Legalese:

n. The specialized vocabulary of the legal profession, especially when considered to be complex or abstruse.

formal language used by lawyers and in legal documents that ordinary people find difficult to understand.

In an earlier post I referred to legalese as a language wherein, “the meaning of common terms are skewed and twisted by legal definitions”, and “it serves to confuse, confound and ensnare sovereign (free) individuals into servitude through contracts”. In this article I want to reveal to you an example of this. An example of when common terms become by legal definition, not what you believe them to be.

Hopefully you read an earlier post entitled “Contracting away Liberties”. In that article I gave an example describing how Americans create contracts by signing documents or registering for programs that are promoted to be mandatory, when in truth,Americans have no legal obligation to do so. In that post I attempted to illustrate this point using the Social Security program as an example. There is no law requiring Americans to register with the Social Security Administration or to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN).

Briefly, Laws begin as Bills. Bills are voted upon by legislators who decide if a Bill begins the process of becoming a law or not. If a Bill passes and is approved by the president, it becomes statutory law or a Statute, an Act. From Statutes detailed regulations are written following exactly and only the defined scope of the approved Statute. The regulations must also specifically define the terms used in such regulations, or, for the purposes of defining terms, specify where the applicable definition can be found.Through this process the Statute and applicable regulations become codified or made part of the United States Code (USC).

Maybe after you read “Contracting away Liberties” you did some research and found a multitude sources that discussed the requirement of employees having a SSN and employers being required to possess them and obtain a SSN from their employees. How can this be true if Americans are not required to have a SSN. To explain it we need to look at the legal definition of Employee and Employer. This you will find at 26 USC 3401(b)(c)(d):

(b) Payroll period

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''payroll period'' means a period for which a payment of wages is ordinarily made to the employee by his employer, and the term ''miscellaneous payroll period'' means a payroll period other than a daily, weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly, quarterly, semiannual or annual payroll period.

(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.

(d) Employer

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that –

(1)if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and

(2)in the case of a person paying wages on behalf of a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means such person.

So, are you any of the people described above? Do you fall under any of those categories?

By common definition, our understanding is that an employee is anyone who is hired to work or perform a task for compensation and an employer is anyone that hires or employs people to work for them. This is quite different than the legal definition don’t you think?

Every day Americans are presented with some sort of document or application whereby they are counseled to mistakenly believe that it is a requirement for them to register for or apply for some service or program because of the misconception of the definition of employee and/or employer. Unfortunately, such a misconception leads many to make agreements or form contracts where they have no legal obligation to do so. Also, because we as Americans, by law, have an unlimited power to contract, we can and do, unwittingly though it may be, declare a change in our sovereign status. For example, by the legal definition in 26 USC, I am not an employee. However, by the common understanding of the definition of an employee, if I work for someone, I am. Therefore, If I go to apply for a job and the business owner hands me paper work to fill out and in that paper work are forms that are required by law for employees to fill out and register for, though by definition I am not an employee, if I do complete such paper work and sign it in agreement, I have, in effect, changed my sovereign status and by contract have self-proclaimed my status as an employee and am now bound to adhere to the mountain of regulations that come with that title. People do this every day led by a misconception of what their legal obligations are and even if they know the scope of their legal obligations, coercion can play a role when it comes to the need for employment out weighing the ability to convince a business owner of the law. Often times the fear of breaking traditions is greater than an individual’s ability to fully realize and act upon truth. The outcome generally ends in a tragic loss of liberties.

"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." (March 18, 1998 from Charles Mullen, Associate Commissioner, Office of Public Inquiries, Social Security Administration)

I wanted to include some of the regulations regarding these issues as a resource. Let us look the code that establishes who must have a SSN.  You will find it at 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i) which states

(B)

(i) In carrying out the Commissioner’s duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable, be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned):

(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment;

(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and

(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of sub clauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment;

(IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians; and

(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school."

            Really the only compulsory requirement created by this Act is basically for the Commissioner to make an effort, an effort to ensure SSN’s are assigned to certain people groups, “to the maximum extent practicable” or to the maximum extent possible. Would not even the use of deception fall under the description of maximum extent possible?

Quite simply, if an individual does not wish to benefit from the Social Security program, then he/she does not have to volunteer into agreement with such. Therefore it is and has been within the power of Americans to deny contributing to the failing Social Security program and freely invest, if they wish, into private retirement accounts. You may argue that a Social Security number is essential to live and prosper in the United States of America, because in order to do so you must deal with banks, and the banks tell us they are required to obtain your number to open and manage your accounts and to report the status of your accounts to the IRS. This too is untrue. Let us now look at the statutory requirement the bank must follow with regards to this issue.

The regulations regarding the requirement for someone to have an SSN for a bank to open an account is at 31 CFR 103.34 Banks are not required by law to procure an SSN number from a client or customer, merely to request one.

"it shall nevertheless not be deemed to be in violation of this section if (i) it has made a reasonable effort to secure such identification, and (ii) it maintains a list containing the names, addresses, and account numbers of those persons from whom it has been unable to secure such identification, and makes the names, addresses, and account numbers available to the Secretary as directed by him.

Then, under section 6041 C, banks are not even required to put a taxpayer identifying number on the 1099 they submit to the IRS for interest payments for customers.  If you look carefully at subsections (a) and (c), you see no requirement for a taxpayer id number, only a name, address, and amount.  Under Section 6049 , you will see in subsection (a)(2), the same requirement: name, address, and amount. 

At 26 CFR 301.6109-1(c)   Under the requirement to furnish another's number, you will see that:

"When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating."

Though the Social Security program is promoted as a mandatory benefit program, it is in truth an unsecure voluntary program.  Annually more than fifty (50) Billion dollars in damages are reported and over seventeen (17) million people are affected by identity theft.  This number continues to grow at an alarming rate. We have all seen it in the news, some corporate database gets hacked or some laptop containing large amounts of private information including the key components cherished by identity thieves, names and SSNs gets stolen. “Americans have no concept of the loss of liberties they have ascribed to by agreeing to enter into this program not to mention, the untold diverse adversities of having one’s life, financial information history, privacy, one’s complete identity, associated, and tracked by a nine digit number that was originally guaranteed not to be used as a general form of identification”.

 In reality, the coerced use of the Social Security program and number is nothing less than an attempt to categorize, itemize and track the movement of man in commerce, for the benefit of the banking cartels, dealing in the inventory of flesh, if you will, much like a rancher tags and tracks his livestock. Metaphorically speaking, legalese is an effective tool with witch the rancher can ostensibly keep the livestock ignorant, confused, and subdued.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me”:

Hosea 4:6 (KJV)

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be”. ~ Thomas Jefferson~

"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.  He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."  CRUDEN v NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. 

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

"Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Brady v U.S., 397 US 742, 90 S. Ct. Rptr. at page 1469.