Working without a Soc Sec #

[adventurous1]

I collect retirement pay from my past military service. I don't think I'll be able to "opt out" from paying income taxes on that; without losing it.

I'd screw myself financially by just that.

So there's two things in life that are sure for me. Death.... and taxes.

First, thank you for your past military service.

No Sir you cannot opt out of taxes on your retirement pay (lol) - even if you wanted to because they use your Tax ID. That's the entire key. Once a worker provides a payor a TAX ID #, said worker is a TAXPAYER as it pertains to compensation from that particular payor. When the worker declines to provide a payor with a TAX ID #, the payor simply states so on an affidavit on the transmittal document. (It's the penalty of perjury clause that the payor signs for everyone anyway ). Then the Citizen is working and is not a Taxpayer (one word as defined by Congress) and is not subject to title 26 USC or 26 CFR (tax codes/ statutes).

btw, here's the code section, in part, from the Code of Fed Regs re: Identifying numbers.

26 CFR 301.6109-1 - Identifying numbers.

(a) In general
(1) Taxpayer identifying numbers

(c) Requirement to furnish another's number.

"When the person [payor] making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number [ SSN, TIN, EIN] of the other person [payee], and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c) [ payor asks the payee for a number], such person [payor] must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating."


Yup, it's that simple.

[ths61]

Ok, looked over the court document, and something seems askew. Forget all the mumbo jumbo Federal Zone, and whatever else I don't understand, here's my confusion; If a Fed Judge ordered a permanent injunction about 10 yrs ago against that dude, that dude's website and that dude's materials he's selling - why are those links still activated and working? If there's a permanent injunction why is he allowed to still sell his products? The court would have ordered the web host to shut it down, yes? Also, did you see where the Plaintiff (the feds) wanted the Court to dismiss the Defendant's Right to a Jury Trial - and the court said ok? The Court denied the Citizen his Right to a Trial by Jury? Say it ain't so Joe. There's no way the Fed's would allow a Citizen to ignore a 'permanent injunction' for 10 yrs. Was it appealed and he won?

I found a very verbose feedback on the Family Guardian site that indicated he didn't own the website, but it didn't mention any repeals, just said the "pseudojudged's" judgements were illegal. It also had a link to what they called lying press release about the judgement that linked to a dead link on a government website. I could not find any other news on the case, but there is a long page about what they did after the suit and said the suit helped them update their documents and webpages. They also produced a new document guide covering avoiding pitfall arguments during trails and hearings.

I also noticed the PDF of the judgement appears to be truncated at then end.

http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxe...ing-060615.htm

Here is another PDF where the feds are asking the court to shut everything down, stop him directly and indirectly from doing business or talking about it:

http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxe...1-20050502.pdf

Searching the case number I found the following document and have included the judgement section. Looks like the FEDs want his customer list. They are not shutting down his website, just censoring it.

U.S. versus Hanesn

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

https://casetext.com/case/us-v-hansen-48

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant, individually, and doing business as or through any other entity, and other persons in active concert or participation with him, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly:
(1) Organizing, promoting, advertising, marketing, or selling (or assisting therein) any tax shelter, plan or arrangement that advises or encourages customers to attempt to violate the internal revenue laws or unlawfully evade the assessment or collection of their federal tax liabilities;
(2) Making false or fraudulent statements about the securing of any tax benefit by the reason of participating in any plan or arrangement, including the false statements that only federal workers are subject to the Internal Revenue Code, workers need not submit accurate W-4 forms, and that United States citizens are not liable for federal income taxes.
(3) Encouraging, instructing, advising, and assisting others to violate the tax laws, including the evasion of assessment and payment of taxes;
(4) Engaging in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6700, i.e., making or furnishing, in connection with the organization or sale of a shelter, plan, or arrangement, a statement the Defendant knows or has reason to know to be false or fraudulent as to any material matter under the federal tax laws;
(5) Engaging in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6701, i.e., preparing or assisting others in the preparation of any tax forms or other documents to be used in connection with any material matter arising under the internal revenue laws and which the Defendant knows (or has reason to believe) will (if so used) result in the understatement of tax liability; and
(6) Engaging in any conduct that interferes with the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws, including encouraging and assisting customers in disrupting or delaying IRS examination of their tax liabilities. [¶] . . . a permanent injunction is entered against the Defendant under IRC §§ 6700, 6701, 7408, and 7402 as stated above. . . .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED under 26 U.S.C. § 7402 that:
a. Within 21 days of the date this Order is stamped "Filed," Defendant shall produce to the United States all records in his possession, custody, or control or to which he has access that identify the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and social security numbers (or employer identification numbers) of persons or entities who purchased any of Defendant's products.
b. Within 21 days of the date this Order is stamped "Filed," Defendant must place this Order, in its entirety, on his websites www.famguardian.org and www.sedm.org.
c. Within 21 days of the date this Order is stamped "Filed," Defendant shall provide a copy of this Order to his current and former customers for which he has contact information.

[adventurous1]

I found a very verbose feedback on the Family Guardian site that indicated he didn't own the website, but it didn't mention any repeals, just said the "pseudojudged's" judgements were illegal. It also had a link to what they called lying press release about the judgement that linked to a dead link on a government website. I could not find any other news on the case, but there is a long page about what they did after the suit and said the suit helped them update their documents and webpages. They also produced a new document guide covering avoiding pitfall arguments during trails and hearings.

I also noticed the PDF of the judgement appears to be truncated at then end.

http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxe...ing-060615.htm

Here is another PDF where the feds are asking the court to shut everything down, stop him directly and indirectly from doing business or talking about it:

http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxe...1-20050502.pdf

Searching the case number I found the following document and have included the judgement section. Looks like the FEDs want his customer list. They are not shutting down his website, just censoring it.[/B]

Clicked on the website link.....WHOA daddy, 'verbose' is an understatement. lol I'll need to read that in chunks. But, the Complaint is interesting by itself. It seems Hanson's assessment is correct. Gov't attorney Shoemaker only offers opinion(s) and fails to enter one shred of factual evidence besides the correct spelling of a website. Shoemaker lists many thing but never provides facts, just opinions. It would be the same if Shoemaker said, Hanson attempted to kill someone - Shoemaker would have to have some factual evidence. Unless of course, you're with the gov't, then we just believe what you say is true.

As stated earlier, the order itself is from almost a decade ago, and the site is still working (and no Order was posted). The Feds DO NOT 'normally' allow Citizens to not follow thru with their Court Orders - especially not 10 yrs. So, I may be missing something. What I found very disturbing in the ORDER, is that it mentions that the Judge denied the Defendant his Right to a trial by Jury. That's telling. There's probably a reason for that; and the reason may be this from a few years ago;

A Louisiana Federal Jury found Attorney Tommy Cryer NOT GUILTY of 2 counts of willful failure to file an income tax return. Tommy had not filed a 1040 Confession Form (misnamed by the IRS as a “Return”) because he understood and believed that the law does not require Tommy to pay income taxes on his labor. Cryer ’s instant victory over the IRS is another serious blow to the IRS’ facade of invincibility and exposes the Wizard of Oz nature of the IRS. Cryer's web site is www.liefreezone.com.

Not sure what this attorney's full story is /was but whatever he presented to the jury, they believed him.

[taxfree4]

First, thank you for your past military service.

No Sir you cannot opt out of taxes on your retirement pay (lol) - even if you wanted to because they use your Tax ID. That's the entire key. Once a worker provides a payor a TAX ID #, said worker is a TAXPAYER as it pertains to compensation from that particular payor. When the worker declines to provide a payor with a TAX ID #, the payor simply states so on an affidavit on the transmittal document. (It's the penalty of perjury clause that the payor signs for everyone anyway ). Then the Citizen is working and is not a Taxpayer (one word as defined by Congress) and is not subject to title 26 USC or 26 CFR (tax codes/ statutes).

btw, here's the code section, in part, from the Code of Fed Regs re: Identifying numbers.

26 CFR 301.6109-1 - Identifying numbers.

(a) In general
(1) Taxpayer identifying numbers

(c) Requirement to furnish another's number.

"When the person [payor] making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number [ SSN, TIN, EIN] of the other person [payee], and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c) [ payor asks the payee for a number], such person [payor] must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating."


Yup, it's that simple.

At the end of this regulation is the following:


[T.D. 7306, 39 FR 9946, Mar. 15, 1974]

That is a Treasury Decision, Treasury Decisions do not have the force and effect of law, just like interpretive and procedural regs. If the regulation cites the statute then, and only then, is it a legislative reg and has the force and effect of law, thereby, can be cited, and relied upon, as the power to act, inside or outside of a court.

[ths61]

Here is another document stating he failed to comply with the previous court order posted above and is in contempt of court and seeking fines ($50,000), penalties and incarceration:

http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxe...orContempt.pdf

He has a great quote from another court case:

"... Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means... would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. ..."

[adventurous1]

At the end of this regulation is the following:


[T.D. 7306, 39 FR 9946, Mar. 15, 1974]

That is a Treasury Decision, Treasury Decisions do not have the force and effect of law, just like interpretive and procedural regs. If the regulation cites the statute then, and only then, is it a legislative reg and has the force and effect of law, thereby, can be cited, and relied upon, as the power to act, inside or outside of a court.

Yes, that is correct as well.

[adventurous1]

Here is another document stating he failed to comply with the previous court order posted above and is in contempt of court and seeking fines ($50,000), penalties and incarceration:

http://famguardian.org/subjects/Taxe...orContempt.pdf

He has a great quote from another court case:

"... Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means... would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. ..."

Yes, excellent quote. Ok, this Hansen must be doing something correct - because the date of this Fed Doc is 2007. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why he's not in jail for contempt AND the websites are still operating. Which, as a former high school teacher with a voracious appetite to learn, I now makes me want to start reading this Hansen's web info.

What I'm able to glean from the Fed Docs is that this is a major scare tactic. Believe he's never made an appearance(?)' - w/o a Citizen making an appearance, a court's paperwork / determination is pretty much useless. He claims; the court has denied him his Right to enter his evidence into the Record; that they keep stating he's a 'taxpayer' w/o first proving it; etc., etc. The other damning fact is that in the previous ORDER it reads that the judge DENIED the defendant his Right to a jury trial. Again, this looks like a monstrous scare tactic, and this Hanson dude, isn't buying it. All of his objections seems to be logical reasons for the Order to be overturned upon appeal. Did I just use 'logic' and 'gov't worker' in the same sentence? lol

[ths61]

Yes, excellent quote. Ok, this Hansen must be doing something correct - because the date of this Fed Doc is 2007. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why he's not in jail for contempt AND the websites are still operating. Which, as a former high school teacher with a voracious appetite to learn, I now makes me want to start reading this Hansen's web info.

What I'm able to glean from the Fed Docs is that this is a major scare tactic. Believe he's never made an appearance(?)' - w/o a Citizen making an appearance, a court's paperwork / determination is pretty much useless. He claims; the court has denied him his Right to enter his evidence into the Record; that they keep stating he's a 'taxpayer' w/o first proving it; etc., etc. The other damning fact is that in the previous ORDER it reads that the judge DENIED the defendant his Right to a jury trial. Again, this looks like a monstrous scare tactic, and this Hanson dude, isn't buying it. All of his objections seems to be logical reasons for the Order to be overturned upon appeal. Did I just use 'logic' and 'gov't worker' in the same sentence? lol

Yep, what I gleaned from the judgements is that they were more on procedural issues (he didn't play by their deposition rules) versus specific tax law infractions. The result was an intimidation response versus identifying specific law infractions. His requests for specifics were all denied.

I was not able to find any following docs pertaining to the punitive requests to the court using the case number. The audit trail appears to have gone cold there. I did find other defendant's documents that included his case number.

They were probably avoiding adding his data into record for fear it would be used by others as an establish a president.

He has posted the audio recordings of some of his telephone meetings. I listened to some briefly and he seemed to be quite detailed and cautious about the negotiation of the discovery phase. The Feds took some liberties that he was seeking redactions before signing. In short, the Fed docs were putting words in his mouth that were not his, nor his opinions or beliefs.

[taxfree4]

Jury trials are dangerous, in a sense, because one of the ploys of the Prosecution is at pretrial or during trial they will file a "Motion in Limine" which the judge always rubber stamps for the government. That essentially shuts down the defendants case since it entails ANY evidence being introduced that MAY confuse the jury. Obviously, that won't work for the Prosecution during a bench trial so a jury trial isn't always the most ideal situation. BTW, the way you know a defendant has made an "appearance", and I haven't read any paperwork, is if in the body of the case documents his name appears in ALL CAPS, he's appeared, if he plead he appeared.

[adventurous1]

Jury trials are dangerous, in a sense, because one of the ploys of the Prosecution is at pretrial or during trial they will file a "Motion in Limine" which the judge always rubber stamps for the government. That essentially shuts down the defendants case since it entails ANY evidence being introduced that MAY confuse the jury. Obviously, that won't work for the Prosecution during a bench trial so a jury trial isn't always the most ideal situation. BTW, the way you know a defendant has made an "appearance", and I haven't read any paperwork, is if in the body of the case documents his name appears in ALL CAPS, he's appeared, if he plead he appeared.

Yes and no. Generally (not to be confused with a 'general appearance') the words 'special appearance' is written on the top page of the answer and/or any motion by the defendant. And, if the man /woman is present in Court in front of the judge, the man /woman's first words would be ".......by Special Appearance".