social security
Gandalf
I heard a rumor that there may be a way to opt out of social security.
That is, there is an option to sign off on social security and stop paying
social security taxes. Does anyone know if this is true and where I can
get more info.
Mark Rigotti
The only way I know of is to become a minister of a recognized
church and then the local church heirarchy usually controls that decision
for you as a part of your vows. (ie. most say to pay into it.)
Rgs,
Mark
Paul Maffia
ajba...@oakland.edu (Gandalf) writes:
>I heard a rumor that there may be a way to opt out of social security.
>That is, there is an option to sign off on social security and stop paying
>social security taxes. Does anyone know if this is true and where I can
>get more info.
Yes, become a practising member of an Amish community or similar religious
group. Second method is to stop earning money and become a homeless
street person. Move to a foreign country and become a citizen there. Oh,
there are a couple of State Governments, whose employees are not under SS.
Otherwise the answer should be as plain as the nose on your face. there is
no way to legally opt out of the system. Despite any claim to the contrary
made by the source of your rumor.
--
Paul M.
SPAMMERS who send unsolicited ads of any kind to me have assumed the
position of client. My minimum charge to any client is $2,500.00. The sum
will be billed and if unpaid will be put into collection at your expense.
Gwailo
Patrick Goupell wrote:
> The voluntary nature of the Social Security program is evidenced by the decision
> of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v.
> Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935), wherein the court ruled
> that Congress did not have authority to create a mandatory benefits program and
> cannot compel U.S. Citizens to participate in any benefits program:
>
> "The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in
> any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems
> endless. Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food,
> housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with
> equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain
> and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate
> interstrate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things?
> Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the
> social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of
> commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie
> outside the orbit of congressional power."
>
> Getting most employers to learn the truth can be difficult though.
> --
> Later,
>
> Patrick
Wrong. Re validity of social security act, see CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO.,
301 U.S. 495 (1937). By the way, Alton RR. Co was a last ditch effort of the
anti-new deal reactionaries on the court. Its continuing validity is *very*
doubtful, in the light of the court's comments in Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining
Co., 428 US 1 (1976)
> It is by now well established that legislative Acts adjusting the burdens and
> benefits of economic life come to the Court with a presumption of
> constitutionality, and that the burden is on one complaining of a due process
> violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and
> irrational way.
> See, e. g., Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963); Williamson v. Lee Optical
> Co., 348 U.S. 483, 487-488 (1955). And this Court long ago upheld against due
> process attack the competence of Congress to allocate the interlocking economic
> rights and duties of employers and employees upon workmen's compensation
> principles analogous to those enacted here, regardless of contravening
> arrangements between employer and employee. New York Central R. Co. v. White,
> 243 U.S. 188
> (1917); see also Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. v. Schubert, 224 U.S. 603 (1912).
Anyone who thinks that the Alton RR case (decided before social security and
involving a question of length of service tacking on re-employment) makes social
security invalid is still living in a 1935-vintage dream world.
'Gwailo
Intnat Tax
The rumor is wrong.
Alan Cathcart
International Tax Solutions
Comments on tax topics are not intended to be relied upon as professional
advice. Taxpayers should always consult their professional tax advisors
for definitive guidance.
LQuest
intn...@aol.com (Intnat Tax) wrote:
Alan, you are probably correct in fact if not in law. But since we're all
pretending that tax related law in America is ever likely to mean what it
says, let's just indulge that fantasy a bit further and urge you to tell us
WHY the "rumor is wrong". You sound so certain. Exactly what is the source
of your certainty? IOW who told you "the rumor is wrong" and why did you
choose to believe them?
--Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The conduct of our Nation's affairs always demands that public
servants discharge their duties under the Constitution and laws
of this Republic with fairness and a proper spirit of subservience
to the people whom they are sworn to serve. Public servants
cannot be arbitrarily selective in their treatment of citizens,
dispensing equity to those who please them and withholding it
from those who do not. Respect for the law can only be fostered
if citizens believe that those responsible for implementing
and enforcing the law are themselves acting in conformity with
the law." - William F. Downes, United States District Judge
Carol Ward v. United States
79 AFTR2d Par. 97-964 No. 95-WY-810-WD (2 Jun 1997)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Kalasz
yes you can opt out of social security but per an irs publication( i can
rember which one right now it should be the one about social security) if you
work for a religous organization or you are a member of a religous group that
is against public insurance or one that has you taking a vow of poverty then
you can opt out the proccess of opting out is generally considered permenant
In article <19970831221...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, intn...@aol.com
(Intnat Tax) wrote:
>The rumor is wrong.
>Alan Cathcart
>International Tax Solutions
>
>Comments on tax topics are not intended to be relied upon as professional
>advice. Taxpayers should always consult their professional tax advisors
>for definitive guidance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have an Anti-Spam / Before and after my email address remove them to
send me e-mail
Homepage Http://www.flash.net/~dkalasz
Aquaria page Http://www.flash.net/~dkalasz/aquaria.html
Timothy I. McCrory
Gandalf wrote:
>
> I heard a rumor that there may be a way to opt out of social security.
> That is, there is an option to sign off on social security and stop paying
> social security taxes. Does anyone know if this is true and where I can
> get more info.
Go here and then read about the person fired by Taco Bell and who got
his job back without providing a SSN.
http://www.ime.net/none/index.html
Most Americans are not citizens of the United States per the 14th
Amendment. They were not born "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" nor
have they applied for naturalization. They are instead non-citizen
nationals of the United States (8 USC ยง 1101(a)(22)(B)) and for purpose
of the federal income tax known as nonresident aliens (IRS Publication
519). The SSN applies to "individuals" (5 USC ยง 552a(a)(2) and does not
apply to the nonresident alien.
26 CFR ยง 301.6109-1 Identifying numbers.
(a) In general-(1) Social security numbers and employer identification
numbers. There are two types of taxpayer identifying numbers: social
security numbers and employer identification numbers. Social security
numbers take the form 000-00-0000, while employer identification numbers
take the form 00-0000000. Social security numbers identify individual
persons and estates of decedents, while employer identification numbers
identify corporations, partnerships, nonprofit associations, trusts, and
similar nonindividual persons. Both types of taxpayer identifying
numbers are used by individuals who are employers or who are engaged in
trade or business as sole proprietors, as required by returns,
statements or other documents and their related
instructions. Such documents often require an individual's own social
security number in
connection with his individual taxes, and his employer identification
number in connection with his business taxes.
much snipped
(g) Nonresident alien exclusion. This section shall not apply to
nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, foreign partnerships, or
foreign private foundations that do not have income effectively
connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United
States and do not have an office or place of business or a fiscal or
paying agent in the United States. The exclusion in this paragraph does
not apply to nonresident aliens treated as residents under section 6013
(g) or (h).
Americans' rights are protected under the Constitution and the tax code
was written to be constitutional but Americans have been mislead as to
their proper identity. The goernment does everything by fraud.
--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory
Web Site - Kay County Patriots
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Intnat Tax
It should be obvious that Mr, McCrory's post is nonsense.
LQuest
intn...@aol.com (Intnat Tax) wrote:
>It should be obvious that Mr, McCrory's post is nonsense.
>Alan Cathcart
>International Tax Solutions
>
Alan, aside from the obvious fact that your chosen profession relies on public
confusion about taxes for its existence, you indulge your obvious arrogance by
adding insult to injury when you spew gratuitous assertions. Please
substanciate your claims otherwise shut the fuck up.
--Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to
make laws in the first place." --Frederic Bastiat
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gwailo
Timothy McCrory doesn't like having his posts called "nonsense". Are they?
> > It should be obvious that Mr, McCrory's post is nonsense.
> > Alan Cathcart International Tax Solutions
> >
> I thought your wrote that you were not going to respond to us protestors
> of the "illegal tax" known as the income tax anymore. What's the matter,
> don't you believe in keeping your word?
>
> It is quite possible that Americans that don't have a clue would think
> that my post is nonsense. However, with a lot of study anybody could
> grow to understand the truth. For instance, the term "United States" has
> been declared by the U.S. Supreme Court to have 3 different meanings,
> probably a fact that escapes most Americans.
>
> United States.
> This term has several meanings. It may be merely the name of a
> sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns
> in family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty
> of United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states
> which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v.
> Evatt, U.S.Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
If you had read the case, you'd realize that it disproves your theory. It held
that when the Phillipines was a territorial possession of the US, Ohio could
not tax imports from the Phillipines that were in Ohio. So much for the notion
that Congress has no jurisdiction over Ohio.
> The Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District
> of Columbia and other federal territory, i.e., forts, magazines,
> dock-yards, etc., and Congress has jurisdiction, although somewhat
> limited, in federal states such as Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands,
> etc
And has *subject matter* jurisdiction over all 50 states as to Article I Sec. 8
powers, such as taxing, currency, commerce and the like.
> . The Government of the United States', which was created by the
> Constitution, authority (legislative jurisdiction) is extremely limited
> by the Constitution in the "several States" of the Union. If you will
> look at the definitions in the IRC of the term "United States" you will
> not find the term "several States" within those definitions.
You will find that the United States "in a geographic sense includes only the
States and the District of Columbia." 7701(a)(9). You will also find instances
where tax rules apply to US territorial possessions, to the territorial waters
and seabed, and to outer space.
> However, if
> you scan through the United States Code for the term "several States"
> you will find it in numerous statutes. It is the constitutional term
> used in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution for the
> United States of America for the Union of States. Whenever laws are
> written to include the "several States" of the Union the term is almost
> always (sometimes it states the 50 States of the United States) used.
> Notice the extreme difference between the way the following statutes
> were written.
"several States" can be defined to include DC and territories, too. 2 USC 1602
(lobbying laws). This alone wrecks your argument. In 40 USC 484 (surplus
property), "State" means the "several States", DC, territories, etc. Point is
that utter consistency is unlikely in a library of laws as big as the US Code
written by so many different people over 200 years. It's the job of the courts
to deal with any inconsistencies. Furthermore:
I CHALLENGE you to come up with one US court case in this century that has
*held* that, as you put it in the earlier post:
> Most Americans are not citizens of the United States per the 14th
> Amendment. They were not born "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" nor
> have they applied for naturalization. They are instead non-citizen
> nationals of the United States
If you can't, then you should accept that your interpretation of the 14th
Amendment and of the tax code is *wrong*. Please, no badmouthing me or the
judges (after all, we're discussing law.) It is not enough for an
interpretation of law to be plausible or literal -- it must be an
interpretation that the judges accept in enforcing the law. The views you
maintain are so far from acceptance that judges fine people for frivolously
wasting court time when presenting them.
> 20 USC Sec. 901 01/24/94 -HEAD-
> Sec. 901. Definitions
>
> -STATUTE-
> For the purposes of this chapter, the term -
> (4) ''United States'', when used in a geographical sense, means
> the several States of the United States of America, the District
> of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal
> Zone, and the possessions of the United States (excluding the
> Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and Midway Islands).
Very appropriate in a 1959 law that applies to teachers at overseas Defense
Department installations.
> Tax code : 26 USC 7701 (9) "United States"
>
> The
> term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
> includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
> (10) State
> The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District
> of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
> provisions of this title.
>
> A close reading of the definition of "United States" in the IRC shows
> that it only includes the District of Columbia and by including other
> States within the meaning of the term other federal states are brought
> within its inclusion, i.e., Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, but not
> the "several States".
Sorry. Int'l tax is right. This is nonsense -- because you're reading "includes
only the states and DC, and "includes DC" to mean "includes only DC". This
interpretation is "without merit", see Cox v. CIR in the 10th Circuit last
year:
" Mr. Cox asserts federal law does not apply to him because he is not a
taxpayer, but a state citizen. All citizens of the United States are liable
for
income taxes and every person born in the United States is a citizen of the
United States. See 26 C.F.R. section(s) 1.1-1(b)(c); cf. Lonsdale v. United
States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990)(rejecting argument that
individual who is a citizen of a state is not a person under Internal Revenue
Code as "completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous"). This
argument is without merit."
> And by the same understanding of the term "United States" the 14th
> Amendment created a subject-class citizen of the United States who was
> naturalized or born subject to the (legislative) jurisdiction thereof.
> Most Americans were not naturalized nor were they born subject to the
> (legislative) jurisdiction of the United States. You need to study the
> principles behind the law of legislative jurisdiction. But then most of
> this is beyond you as you are as most Americans, stupid and ignorant
> with every intention of staying that way. You don't have a clue.
I hope that inexperienced people aren't misled into thinking that these tax
protest arguments have any validity at all. They don't. Paranoia, self-interest
and a little learning in the law combine in an alluring message: "taxes are a
big, dark conspiracy and you've really no obligation to pay them." Sorry folks,
that ain't the way the world works. Taxes are necessary evils, as old as
civilization, and all we can do is try to blunt their pain and get some value
for what we pay.
'Gwailo
Ted Frank
In article <340AFA...@mail.idt.net>,
Timothy I. McCrory <tim_m...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>For instance, the term "United States" has
>been declared by the U.S. Supreme Court to have 3 different meanings,
So what? The statute defines what "United States" means with respect to
the statute, and it contradicts your claim.
>If you will
>look at the definitions in the IRC of the term "United States" you will
>not find the term "several States" within those definitions.
So what?
>26 USC 7701
> (9) United States
> The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
> includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
> (10) State
> The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District
> of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
> provisions of this title.
You left out the definition of "include," which demonstrates that you are
lying.
>A close reading of the definition of "United States" in the IRC shows
>that it only includes the District of Columbia and by including other
False. Look up the definition of "include", and then look up the cases
on Joseph Adams' web page, and then get back to us.
--
m...@radix.net
http://www.radix.net/~moe
Save Tinky Winky
Timothy I. McCrory
Intnat Tax wrote:
>
> It should be obvious that Mr, McCrory's post is nonsense.
> Alan Cathcart
> International Tax Solutions
>
> advice. Taxpayers should always consult their professional tax advisors
> for definitive guidance.
I thought your wrote that you were not going to respond to us protestors
of the "illegal tax" known as the income tax anymore. What's the matter,
don't you believe in keeping your word?
It is quite possible that Americans that don't have a clue would think
that my post is nonsense. However, with a lot of study anybody could
grow to understand the truth. For instance, the term "United States" has
been declared by the U.S. Supreme Court to have 3 different meanings,
probably a fact that escapes most Americans.
United States.
This term has several meanings. It may be merely the name of a
sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns
in family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty
of United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states
which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v.
Evatt, U.S.Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.
The Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District
of Columbia and other federal territory, i.e., forts, magazines,
dock-yards, etc., and Congress has jurisdiction, although somewhat
limited, in federal states such as Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands,
etc. The Government of the United States', which was created by the
Constitution, authority (legislative jurisdiction) is extremely limited
by the Constitution in the "several States" of the Union. If you will
look at the definitions in the IRC of the term "United States" you will
not find the term "several States" within those definitions. However, if
you scan through the United States Code for the term "several States"
you will find it in numerous statutes. It is the constitutional term
used in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution for the
United States of America for the Union of States. Whenever laws are
written to include the "several States" of the Union the term is almost
always (sometimes it states the 50 States of the United States) used.
Notice the extreme difference between the way the following statutes
were written.
20 USC Sec. 901
01/24/94
-HEAD-
Sec. 901. Definitions
-STATUTE-
For the purposes of this chapter, the term -
(4) ''United States'', when used in a geographical sense, means
the several States of the United States of America, the District
of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal
Zone, and the possessions of the United States (excluding the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and Midway Islands).
26 USC 7701
(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District
of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
provisions of this title.
A close reading of the definition of "United States" in the IRC shows
that it only includes the District of Columbia and by including other
States within the meaning of the term other federal states are brought
within its inclusion, i.e., Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, but not
the "several States".
And by the same understanding of the term "United States" the 14th
Amendment created a subject-class citizen of the United States who was
naturalized or born subject to the (legislative) jurisdiction thereof.
Most Americans were not naturalized nor were they born subject to the
(legislative) jurisdiction of the United States. You need to study the
principles behind the law of legislative jurisdiction. But then most of
this is beyond you as you are as most Americans, stupid and ignorant
with every intention of staying that way. You don't have a clue.
Timothy I. McCrory
The following is the authority delegated to the Secretary of the
Treasury for the District of Criminals tax scheme. Why don't you all
show me where any delegated authority can be found for collecting taxes
within the several States or where the IRC 7621 authority can be found
which created revenue districts in the several States.
STATE:
The term is sometimes applied also to governmental
agencies authorized by state, such as municipal corporations. Any
state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession
subject to the legislative authority of the United States. Uniform
Probate Code, 1-201(40).
5 USC 5517
-EXEC-
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10407
Ex. Ord. No. 10407, Nov. 7, 1952, 17 F.R. 10132, which related to
regulations governing agreements concerning withholding of state or
territorial income taxes, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11968, Jan.
31, 1977, 42 F.R. 6787, formerly set out as a note under section
5520 of this title.
5 USC ยง 5520
-EXEC-
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11833
Ex. Ord. No. 11833, Jan. 13, 1975, 40 F.R. 2673, which related to
the withholding of city income or employment taxes by Federal
agencies, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11863, June 12, 1975, 40 F.R.
25413, formerly set out as a note under this section.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11863
Ex. Ord. No. 11863, June 12, 1975, 40 F.R. 25431, which related
to the withholding of city income or employment taxes by Federal
agencies, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11968, Jan. 31, 1977, 42 F.R.
6787, formerly set out as a note under this section.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11968
Ex. Ord. No. 11968, Jan. 31, 1977, 42 F.R. 6787, which related to
the withholding of District of Columbia, State and city income or
employment taxes, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11997, June 22, 1977,
42 F.R. 31759, set out as a note below.
EX. ORD. NO. 11997. WITHHOLDING OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, STATE,
CITY AND COUNTY INCOME OR EMPLOYMENT TAXES
Ex. Ord. No. 11997, June 22, 1977, 42 F.R. 31759, provided:
By virtue of the authority vested in me by Sections 5516, 5517
and 5520 of Title 5 of the United States Code, and Section 301 of
Title 3 of the United States Code, and as President of the United
States of America, in order to authorize the Secretary of the
Treasury to provide for the withholding of county income or
employment taxes as authorized by Section 5520 of Title 5 of the
United States Code as amended by Section 408 of Public Law 95-30,
as well as to provide for the withholding of District of Columbia,
State and city income or employment taxes, it is hereby ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Whenever the Secretary of the Treasury enters into an
agreement pursuant to Sections 5516, 5517 or 5520 of Title 5 of the
United States Code, with the District of Columbia, a State, a city
or a county, as the case may be, with regard to the withholding, by
an agency of the United States, hereinafter referred to as an
agency, of income or employment taxes from the pay of Federal
employees or members of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall ensure that each agreement is consistent with those
sections and regulations, including this Order, issued thereunder.
Sec. 2. Each agreement shall provide (a) when tax withholding
shall begin, (b) that the head of an agency may rely on the
withholding certificate of an employee or a member of the Armed
Forces in withholding taxes, (c) that the method for calculating
the amount to be withheld for District of Columbia, State, city or
county income or employment taxes shall produce approximately the
tax required to be withheld by the District of Columbia or State
law; or city or county ordinance, whichever is applicable, and (d)
that procedures for the withholding, filing of returns, and payment
of the withheld taxes to the District of Columbia, a State, a city
or a county shall conform to the usual fiscal practices of
agencies. Any agreement affecting members of the Armed Forces
shall also provide that the head of an agency may rely on the
certificate of legal residence of a member of the Armed Forces in
determining his or her residence for tax withholding purposes. No
agreement shall require the collection by an agency of delinquent
tax liabilities of an employee or a member of the Armed Forces.
Sec. 3. The head of each agency shall designate, or provide for
the designation of, the officers or employees whose duty it shall
be to withhold taxes, file required returns, and direct payment of
the taxes withheld, in accordance with this Order, any regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and the new applicable
agreement.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe
additional regulations to implement Sections 5516, 5517 and 5520 of
Title 5 of the United States Code, and this Order.
Sec. 5. Executive Order No. 11968 of January 31, 1977, is hereby
revoked. However, all actions heretofore taken by the President or
his delegates in respect of the matters affected by this Order and
in force at the time of the issuance of this Order, including any
regulations prescribed or approved by the President or his
delegates in respect of such matters and any existing agreements
approved by his delegates, shall, except as they may be
inconsistent with the provisions of this Order, remain in effect
until amended, modified, or revoked pursuant to the authority
conferred by this Order, unless sooner terminated by operation of
law. Jimmy Carter.
Timothy I. McCrory
Ted Frank wrote:
>
> In article <340AFA...@mail.idt.net>,
> Timothy I. McCrory <tim_m...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >For instance, the term "United States" has
> >been declared by the U.S. Supreme Court to have 3 different meanings,
>
> So what? The statute defines what "United States" means with respect to
> the statute, and it contradicts your claim.
>
> >If you will
> >look at the definitions in the IRC of the term "United States" you will
> >not find the term "several States" within those definitions.
>
> So what?
>
> >26 USC 7701
> > (9) United States
> > The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
> > includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
> > (10) State
> > The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District
> > of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
> > provisions of this title.
>
> You left out the definition of "include," which demonstrates that you are
> lying.
>
> >A close reading of the definition of "United States" in the IRC shows
> >that it only includes the District of Columbia and by including other
>
> False. Look up the definition of "include", and then look up the cases
> on Joseph Adams' web page, and then get back to us.
>
> --
> m...@radix.net
> http://www.radix.net/~moe
> Save Tinky Winky
Is "Tinky Winky" a part of your anatomy?
I've posted this before but perhaps you missed it. You need to learn
about statutory construction so perhaps this will help a little.
Ejusdem generis.
Of the same kind, class, or nature. In the construction of
laws, wills, and other instruments, the "ejusdem generis rule" is,
that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or
things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general
words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be
held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind
or class as those specifically mentioned. U. S. v. LaBrecque,
D.C.N.J., 419 F.Supp. 430, 432. The rule, however, does not
necessarily require that the general provision be limited in its
scope to the identical things specifically named. Nor does it
apply when the context manifests a contrary intention.
Under "ejusdem generis" canon of statutory construction, where
general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of
things, the general words will be construed as applying only to
things of the same general class as those enumerated. Campbell v.
Board of Dental Examiners, 53 Cal.App.3d 283, 125 Cal.Rptr. 694,
696.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain
designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others.
Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325. This doctrine
decrees that where law expressly describes particular situation to
which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that
what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
Kevin McC v. Mary A, 123 Misc.2d 148, 473 N.Y.S.2d 116, 118.
K
You will please note that the constitutional term for the 50 Union
States of the United States of America, i.e., "several States", is
missing from the definitions in IRC 7701 of "State" and "United States".
Light Shadows
Phil Marti wrote:
>
> In article <5u9qcd$fo1$2...@news2.acs.oakland.edu>, ajba...@oakland.edu
> (Gandalf) writes:
>
> >I heard a rumor that there may be a way to opt out of social security.
> >That is, there is an option to sign off on social security and stop paying
> >social security taxes. Does anyone know if this is true and where I can
> >get more info.
>
> inquiry. Remember what your mother told you: if it sounds too good to be
> true, it is.
>
> Phil Marti
It was my mother who signed me up for social security in the first
place.
L. Shadows
Paul Maffia
Dr...@aol.com (Andrew Lazarus) writes:
>Ha, ha. When not parading as an expert on statutory construction, the
>Patriots make contributions to string theory and neurosurgery.
>Or they copy something they don't understand out of a book.
>Phrases like, "As used here, State includes the District of Columbia"
>can not POSSIBLY be a restrictive includes, because in that case every
>occurence of the general "State" in the text could be replaced by
>"District of Columbia".
>I know you like to show off your legal Latin, but the fact that a
>single item in an includes can not be enumerative was well understood
>in the Talmud, probably before the Christian Era.
Only one problem with your last paragraph Andy. You refer them to the
Talmud. You forget, that these boobs are anti-semitic in the worst
possible sense of the word. In their bigotry they are worse than Hitler.
Thank God (the very God they mock with their avowed but heretical
Christianity) they do not possess that particular historical screwball's
power.
Dusty
On 1 Sep 1997 15:08:36 -0400, m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) wrote:
Nothing worth repeating.
Ted, what have your been smoking? Old bananna peals??? Get a life!
And learn to respond properly in a newsgroup, "so what" does NOT start
a debate, rather it sounds like a 3 y/o starting an argument. Really,
Ted, be a little more adult and use your head for more than a hat
rack.
------------------------------------------------------
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power
of society but the people themselves. If we think of
them as not enlightened to exercise their control
with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take
it from them, but to inform them. When people are well
informed, they can be trusted with their own government."
-Thomas Jefferson
Timothy I. McCrory
Paul Maffia wrote:
>
> Dr...@aol.com (Andrew Lazarus) writes:
>
> >Ha, ha. When not parading as an expert on statutory construction, the
> >Patriots make contributions to string theory and neurosurgery.
>
> >Or they copy something they don't understand out of a book.
>
> >Phrases like, "As used here, State includes the District of Columbia"
> >can not POSSIBLY be a restrictive includes, because in that case every
> >occurence of the general "State" in the text could be replaced by
> >"District of Columbia".
The District of Columbia is a federal State such as Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, Guam, and a few others. The ejusdem generis rule states that
the example represents the class. The "several States" such as Oklahoma,
Kansas, etc., are in a whole different class than the previous mentioned
States.
>
> >I know you like to show off your legal Latin, but the fact that a
> >single item in an includes can not be enumerative was well understood
> >in the Talmud, probably before the Christian Era.
>
> Only one problem with your last paragraph Andy. You refer them to the
> Talmud. You forget, that these boobs are anti-semitic in the worst
> possible sense of the word. In their bigotry they are worse than Hitler.
> Thank God (the very God they mock with their avowed but heretical
> Christianity) they do not possess that particular historical screwball's
> power.
Excuse me. You have apparently not browsed through my site in the least.
You will not and never will find anything there which is purposively
anti-semitic. Jesus Christ, our Lord and King, was descended through the
tribe of Judah (King David and Solomon). To hate the Jewish race would
be to hate him which would be rather, or totally, stupid. Such
statements as you have made above show your stupidity and, that what you
claim to dislike in others, intolerance. Such ignorant Americans, not a
clue in the world.
Gideon
Paul Maffia wrote:
>
> Dr...@aol.com (Andrew Lazarus) writes:
>
> >Ha, ha. When not parading as an expert on statutory construction, the
> >Patriots make contributions to string theory and neurosurgery.
>
> >Or they copy something they don't understand out of a book.
>
> >Phrases like, "As used here, State includes the District of Columbia"
> >can not POSSIBLY be a restrictive includes, because in that case every
> >occurence of the general "State" in the text could be replaced by
> >"District of Columbia".
>
> >I know you like to show off your legal Latin, but the fact that a
> >single item in an includes can not be enumerative was well understood
> >in the Talmud, probably before the Christian Era.
>
> Only one problem with your last paragraph Andy. You refer them to the
> Talmud. You forget, that these boobs are anti-semitic in the worst
> possible sense of the word. In their bigotry they are worse than Hitler.
> Thank God (the very God they mock with their avowed but heretical
> Christianity) they do not possess that particular historical screwball's
> power.
Maffia, your idiocy never ceases to amaze me. Lumping sovereigns
together with neo-nazis is in the worst form of bigotry. You are truly
the most stupid man on this NG including spammers.
--
For replies, kindly remove the words (-nospam) from my e-mail adress.
The struggle for freedom is like an volcano...
truculently calm for years, then 'thar she blows'!
Gideon
Jenn e fir wrote:
>
> >Ted, what have your been smoking? Old bananna peals??? Get a life!
> >And learn to respond properly in a newsgroup, "so what" does NOT start
> >a debate, rather it sounds like a 3 y/o starting an argument. Really,
> >Ted, be a little more adult and use your head for more than a hat
> >rack.
>
> >Ted, what have your been smoking? Old bananna peals??? Get a life!
> >And learn to respond properly in a newsgroup, "so what" does NOT start
> >a debate, rather it sounds like a 3 y/o starting an argument. Really,
> >Ted, be a little more adult and use your head for more than a hat
> >rack.
>
> banana peels he's been smokin'. OK! Let the debate begin.
>
> j. bridgman
And you Jenny, learn the first rule of Newsgroup etiquette. Never fault
language or diction. Rule #2: Add something substantitive to the debate.
TantraDancer
It is clear in the law that social security is a voluntary system.
Unfortunately, it is not clear in the law how to get out of it as far as
I can tell in my admitedly limited research on this subject. I have seen
many system to get out, but remain unconvinced that they work. Of
course, since I am a nontaxpayer under the law as I have studied it for
many years anyway, I do not use a social security number anyway and
therefore do not voluntarily pay anything into the account that once
existed in the name on the alleged birth certificate my parents used to
get me in. If I had to fight it, I think I would go on the basis that I
was signed up as a minor and not of legal age, hence there is no
consent...something like that...voiding the contract, et., etc.
Start by studyig the law...learn how to use a law library and don't
expect easy simplistic answers from anyone you read here , including me.
After you understand the legal issues, you can find an approach you
believe in and can therefore defend if need be. Don't do anything
without a proper understanding first. If necessary, consult legal
professionals with an understanding in this issue (note, they are rare,
most attorneys accept the system as dogn=ma, but some don't and know the
truth).
Above address for spam only. respond by post here, or to:
--
Libera Lex (libe...@rocketmail.com)
"liberum omnibus rebus favorabilior est"
Under the American Flag of Peace
Title 4 USC 1
......................................................................
LEGAL NOTICE ----- LEGAL NOTICE----LEGAL NOTICE ---- LEGAL NOTICE !!!!
......................................................................
BY POSTING EMAIL TO MY ADDRESS YOU HEREBY AGREE
TO BE BOUND BY THESE CONDITIONS:
Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email WILL
be charged a $100 proof-reading fee, payable with in ten (10)
days of date recieved or read, whichever comes first.
Do NOT send me unsolicited junk email!
CONSIDER THIS AN OFFICIAL LEGAL NOTICE:
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B),
a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone
fax machine. Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment. Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation
of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual
monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
YOU FURTHER AGREE: Jurisdiction shall be in the county and state of
my residence and agree further to pay All cost in any collection action.