NoSSN - UPDATES:

October 3, 2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Tax Freedom 101 Report
*Updates* - *News* - *Information*
The Constitutional Revival Movement's News Source
- October 3, 2000 -
This weekly HTML formatted e-newsletter contains:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UPDATES:
* The Rush is On: Stopping the Federal Child Support Enforcement Law
- A Tax Freedom 101 Commentary Included - *** Very Important ***
* Test Your Knowledge with: The Constitutional Quiz Question of the Week!

NEWS:
* Heroic Home-schoolers Shun Tax Subsidies

INFORMATION:
* IRS Reluctant to Prosecute Well-Prepared Patriots

Dear Netizen: Do you find the material in The Tax Freedom 101 Report interesting, useful, educational, and enjoyable? You do? Great! Then why don't you recommend this newsletter to a friend or two. They don't have to be a crazed liberty-lovin "radical" like you and me - even raging communists enjoy reading our newsletter! Spread the word... the forward button is just a click away...

Subscription and advertising information for The Tax Freedom 101 Report is contained at the end of this on-line report. If you received this ezine in text format and would like to view it in HTML with all visible links visit the archive site:

http://www.nossn.com/tf101

e-gold

UPDATES:
* The Rush is On: Stopping the Federal Child Support Enforcement Law
Cheryl Myers - Posted: 09.28.00 (Edited for Publication by Sierra Times.com)

42 USC 666 (a)(13), also known as the Federal Child Support Enforcement law, calls for the mandatory disclosure of your Social Security Number in order for any person to obtain any licenses: (eg. drivers, hunting, fishing, marriage, professional, business and occupational). This law becomes effective, Oct. 1, 2000.

This will apply to All citizens young-old, parents or not. My 14yr. old son will be required to give his SSN for a hunting license, long before giving it to any employer. My 70yr. old grandmother must provide it for her drivers license.

The purpose behind the mass collection of the SSN's I'm told, is to catch "dead beat" parents. However, once the various licensing agencies have collected your SSN, they then store it in their data bases for future reference? When I asked what future reference? I was told that I or my
son had the "potential" of becoming one of these individuals. If you refuse to provide the number, you will be denied the license.

What this law is in essence telling us is that we are all "potential" criminals until we come into the licensing agencies and have our SSN cleared of any wrongdoing. Don't be fooled by this back door attempt to register you or your possessions (eg. guns).

In a recent Tacoma News Tribune newspaper article (9-16-00), the Dept. of Licensing stated that they have been collecting the SSN's on a voluntary basis for 12 yrs. This is true insomuch as while they were busy collecting these numbers on a "voluntary" basis they were in direct violation of the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 section 7 (a) (1) which states the following:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. (2) the provisions of paragraph (1)of this subsection shall not apply with respect to (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or (B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of and individual. (b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requires an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.

As you can read for yourself, there is no excuse for the licensing agencies failing to inform us of our rights. The state of Washington has never had a law, until recently, that has ever required the disclosure of the SSN to obtain these licenses. The state Dept. of Licensing and other licensing agencies have been illegally collecting these numbers. It is not our job as private citizens to research what the laws are pertaining to the disclosure of the SSN. The government agents are all trained with our tax dollars to know what their jobs and our rights are. Please note that you have a legal right to go the Dept. of Licensing and demand that your SSN be removed from their database prior to Oct. 1, 2000.

No matter how good the intentions, this law is a direct violation of our constitutional rights. Calls are expected to increase to federal lawmakers of citizens tell them this is a gross abuse of power and furthermore, they don't need to retain the SSN's of law abiding citizens. [end article]

<< Tax Freedom 101 Comments >>: In the August 1st edition of The Tax Freedom 101 Report we ran an *Information* piece called: "The Child Support Act of 1998 - An Analysis of Section 666". You need to read this article carefully. Surprisingly or not, this law does NOT apply to citizens residing in any one of the 50 states of the Union. Also, surprisingly or not, this law in itself is NOT in "direct violation of our constitutional rights" as the author above in the cited article contends. Although this law appears compulsory for citizens, it certainly is not - as written, and still won't be as of two (2) days ago. It is your job as a Citizen (capital "C") to assert your rights in the face of ill-trained government bureaucrats who have been charged to uphold and obey the law. If we don't ignore these administrative laws craftily placed and promulgated to make the Citizen "believe" he has a requirement or duty, then these bureaucratic bastards will continue to build upon their ignorance and arrogant statures forcing everyone down the cattle chute of slavery and bondage.

Excerpt from the article>> ...But did § 666 really create any such requirement of the states? The answer to this is, NO! The Congressional Research Service admits this:

"The term 'State' in 26 US. Code 3121(e) specifically includes only the named US. Territories and possessions of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and America Samoa.

This rationale of the Congressional Research Service is equally true in the case of the pertinent sections of Title 42 USC in which the Code imposes said "requirement" only upon the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.1 Upon examining these sections of the USC, it is clear that none of the 50 states are included amongst the "states" upon which this requirement is imposed. Indeed, it couldn't, because the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits such a requirement upon the sovereign state.2...[End Excerpt] To read the full article: click here.

* Test Your Knowledge with: The Constitutional Quiz Question of the Week!

This week's question: What great public Act passed under the Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution) and was the basis of national growth and unity?

The answer will be provided next Monday in the TAX FREEDOM 101 Discussion Forum at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TAXFREEDOM101

Attention Employers and Employees, and Self-Employed - or - Those Working for Wages!
Discover why America's workforce is converting to the many advantages of non-covered employee contracting!
No SSN, No W2's, No 1099's, no more 941's and Payroll Preparation and Administration!
To learn more about non-covered employee contracting click here.

NEWS:
* Heroic Home-schoolers Shun Tax Subsidies
Parents will vote against the measure, saying taking the government's money would hold them to the government's rules.
By Ethan Rarick - TIMES STAFF WRITER

If California voters approve the school voucher initiative on the November ballot, Valorie Rice might eventually be able to haul in more than $12,000 a year from the government.

She plans to vote no.

The money would come in the form of three vouchers -- each worth at least $4,000 -- for Rice's children. The Concord woman already home-schools the oldest, kindergartner Corwin, and she and her husband plan the same for his two siblings.

Along with thousands of other California parents who choose to educate their children at home, the Rices could probably take advantage of the proposed voucher program, which will be on the ballot as Proposition 38. But the Rices don't want the money.

"If you take government money, there are always strings attached," Valorie Rice said Friday as Corwin colored some artwork a few feet away in his dining room-classroom.

It's a sentiment common among California's home-schooling parents, even though many are political conservatives who probably share a good chunk of the ideological spectrum with the initiative's backers.

Under California law, many home-schooling parents are technically running tiny private schools, so they could receive the voucher money. But for many such families, the whole point of home-schooling is independence. They want to stay away from the government, not invite it into their homes by cashing its checks.

"What we're feeling in a nutshell is that if you start to take money from the state, then you are going to open yourself up to all the regulations from the state," said Jill Pettigrew, who teaches her one school-age child at home and also serves as media chair for the California Home School Network. "We're doing fine without the money."

Prop. 38 would create the country's first broad-based statewide voucher program. After a four-year phase-in period, each of California's 6.5 million schoolchildren would be eligible for a yearly chit worth at least $4,000 in private-school tuition.

For both sides, the debate has centered around familiar forms of private education. Supporters say poor kids would finally be able to attend local parochial schools. Detractors argue that taxpayers would subsidize rich families whose kids already drive BMWs to tony prep schools.

Neither side says much about youngsters for whom the kitchen table doubles as a desk, perhaps because there are far fewer of them, and because most people don't think of them as being enrolled in either a public or a private school.

But most of them are. So that their children are not found to be truants and hauled down to the neighborhood school, many parents essentially declare their house to be a private school, as the Rices plan to do once Corwin is old enough to run afoul of mandatory attendance laws. In other cases, home-school students are officially enrolled in a so-called
"independent-study school," a private institution that has no campus and tells the students to study at home under their parents.

Either way, by jumping through a few bureaucratic hoops, in-home schools could be approved to receive vouchers. In effect, parents might then charge themselves $4,000 tuition and cash the check from the state. Even if they paid tuition to an independent-study school, they could save any money left over from the voucher for college costs.

Philip Troutt, executive director of the Christian Home Educators Association of California, estimates that 120,000 to 150,000 youngsters are being home-schooled under conditions that might bring them under the voucher program. Critics call it a dangerous loophole.

"Under this initiative, any parent with a kid gets to declare themselves a voucher-redeeming school," said Kevin Gordon, executive director of the California Association of School Business Officials, which opposes the ballot measure.

Aside from parents who already teach their own children, and thus incur legitimate educational expenses, some Prop. 38 critics worry that unscrupulous people might claim to be home-schooling merely to cash a $4,000 check every year. Cathy Duffy, who home-schooled her own children and also ran a small, privately funded voucher program in Los Angeles starting in 1998, has seen how low some people will sink.

Duffy inherited the remnants of an earlier voucher program that listed more than 400 kids as clients. But when she started checking, she found that more than a quarter of those cases did not involve a child enrolled in a legitimate private school. In some cases, there was no child at all; somebody had just fabricated a youngster's existence to get the money.

"I'm very aware of the kinds of fraud that schools and parents will try when you have money at stake," Duffy said. "Anything you can think of, somebody will try if you've got that much money at stake. If you've got six kids times $4,000 a kid -- good grief."

Prop. 38 backers say they should hardly be held responsible for the fact that some people are crooks. Scam artists, whether parents or not, ought to be prosecuted, but voters should not be asked to reject a good idea just because somebody might try to game the system, supporters say.

As for legitimate home-schoolers, initiative supporters insist that if home-schooling parents want to go through the same process as regular private schools, they should be able to get the money.

"Our answer is, that's great," said Brian Bennett, a former private-school principal now working for the voucher campaign. "So long as it's a legitimate educational expense, that's an area of choice that we would support."

But Bennett predicted it wouldn't happen very often, and home-schooling parents seem to agree.

Some home-schooled children wouldn't even qualify. Some families refuse to fill out the forms and home-school in a legal netherworld in which the youngsters are actually truants. Others affiliate with public schools as independent-study students.

Even in the rest of the cases, home-schooling parents who want the vouchers would have to be willing to meet a few regulations.

Students would be required to take the same standardized test as their counterparts in public schools, for example, and the school, which might simply be the parents' household, would have to file a financial disclosure form. Many say the red tape would be too thick.

"I don't think many (home-schoolers) would want to" take the vouchers, even if voters pass the initiative, said Sharon House, a Southern California mother of four who home-schooled all her children and who is also involved with the California Home School Network.

Home-schoolers also worry that the specter of private households cashing large annual checks from the state would simply invite new regulation from the Legislature. Prop. 38 supporters argue the initiative makes it harder for lawmakers to pass new rules, but few in the home-schooling community seem reassured.

"My personal opinion is that vouchers will not truly provide educational choice, but will open the door to further regulation of private schools and home schools," said Kate Jimenez, president of the board of trustees for the California Home School Network, which hasn't taken an official position on Prop. 38 but which clearly is wary of the idea.

The Rices share those worries. They opted to keep their kids at home partly because they believe the public schools embody a different set of values from their own.

"When children get expelled from school for praying, something's wrong,"said Valorie Rice, a woman who mentions her faith often and cites Deuteronomy as a basis for choosing home-schooling. "The responsibility for education has been given to the parents by God."

To take taxpayer money, she said, would make her accountable to the taxpayers.

"And I believe that's the way it should be," she said. "If you're using government money, you should be held accountable. And I don't want to be accountable to them." [End Story]

If you are a home schooler you need to learn about N H E R I - The National Home Education Research Institute! The Mission of the National Home Education Research Institute is three-fold: 1.) Produce high-quality statistics, research, and technical reports on home education. 2.)Serve as a clearinghouse of research for home educators, researchers, and policy makers. and 3.)Educate the public concerning the findings of all research on home education.

Learn the Three Maxims for Tax Freedom!
Are you living in a glass house with your pants down? You may be if you have not discovered
the fundamentals of protecting your wealth, property and privacy! Follow these three maxims
and you are most assuredly guaranteed to be one who passes wealth on to your heirs instead
of having it stolen and eroded by taxes. Learn the three simple rules for Tax Freedom here.

INFORMATION:
* IRS Reluctant to Prosecute Well-Prepared Patriots
The following article was written by William Huff, Sr., editor of "Reasonable Action", the members-only newsletter of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship.

[Begin Article]

IRS Reluctant to Prosecute Well-Prepared Patriots

"If there is anything to be learned by discussing these matters, it ought to be for all of us to realize that we have much more to learn. Liberty will never be owned by an ignorant and lazy people. Its benefits can last only as long as it is bequeathed to a generation that has been properly prepared to receive it. The tree of liberty can only be nurtured with the right stuff.

"Unemployment taxes (the only taxes pertaining "income" or "wages" that most Americans have ever paid) are withheld and paid by the employer according to voluntary agreements (W-4's) between "covered employees" and "employers" who have applied for an Employer Identification Number (EIN). These are legal terms within the tax code and are property defined in the Code of Federal Regulations under Title 20 - "Employee benefits." Always remember: all legal terms must be defined.

"Our research indicates the following statements are all true:

* There is no Law requiring the withholding of subtitle "C" wage taxes from American citizens living and working within the States of the union.

* There is no law requiring any employer within the States of the union to apply for, use or have an EIN or a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

* There is no law requiring American citizens to apply for, use or have a Social Security Number (SSN).

* There is no law requiring an employer (with or without an EIN) to obtain a Social Security Number from a citizen applying to work for him within the States of the union.

"These assertions are adapted from our $10,000 Employer's Income Tax Challenge. You can write or call Save-A-Patriot for details on how we will offer that sum to your tax professional if he can prove we are wrong.

"It must he realized that the IRS has limited resources. They cannot afford to lose time and time again in the courts. Their strategy must be confined to attacking the weaklings of the herd, in much the same way as a hungry pack of wolves. Therefore, the intelligent patriot must confine his strategy to doing nothing that will make himself a likely target For "celebrity prosecution."

"We do not see the IRS winning in any open battlefield where the well-informed patriot has every opportunity to put on a proper defense.

"In our experience. the IRS is reluctant to go after anyone who has faithfully studied the written law; asserted his rights in accordance with the law; and knows enough about the federal rules of procedure. Since the best and brightest are not normally hired by the IRS, it is left with no choice but to pursue a strategy that will prevent their best "talent" from being exposed to public ridicule.

"The caveat: Don't do anything until you have researched, studied and leaned the law well enough to assert all your rights according to the law. Make all your own decisions, only after you are satisfied that you understand their lawful bases, implications and potential outcomes. Learn about other people's mistakes, so you can avoid them. Count the cost and avoid gurus with silver-bullet solutions that make no substantive reference to the Constitution or the tax laws - as written. Remember, the prize is liberty with responsibility under the rule of law. If you think this is about saving or making money, or even not paying lawful taxes you should be looking for loopholes. These are never the focus of the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship - we only address lawful and constitutional options!

"If this movement were only a matter of the proper application of the tax laws as written, and if the federal judiciary would apply the laws and the rules of the court according to their oaths of office, there would be no need for our organization and there would be no funding available for anything unconstitutional, ergo no remarkable problems of a governmental variety.

"Beyond that there are many erroneous, ill-informed and downright stupid arguments brought before the counts. These provide cannon fodder for the media and easy wins for the IRS. Sadly, as long as it is necessary for the IRS to face only unworthy opponents, they will probably continue to at least tacitly help the gurus who charge $7,500 or more for a pouch of magic beans and then never return phone calls.

"The IRS waits patiently for these guys to get plumped up, then harvests them. The media hypes their conviction and the proletariat realizes once again the futility of resistance. Just as there are probably millions of Americans who can't wait for Jim and Tammy to start another ministry, it seems there is an abundance of folks who have an almost dysfunctional need to get fleeced.

"Sound arguments by the best well-informed patriots normally don't reach the courts. They are too hot for the "talented" IRS attorneys. You'll find that the IRS doesn't want to discuss how miserably they've been doing lately when they have come up against a well-prepared patriot. Few Americans know it, but the IRS has already lost the longest tax trial in history where 17 defendants were acquitted of a 33-count indictment - not too shabby!

"If you want the rest of the puzzle pieces regarding tax laws, I suggest you acquire the Save-A-Patriot video seminar, "Just the Facts!!!" I predict the IRS will never go forward with any criminal cases (under section 7203 or the Internal Revenue Code) against a citizen who lives and works within the States of the union, if the agency feels certain the judge will allow the jury to view our entire video seminar. An affidavit of purchase, included with each copy, makes this video a material fact for introduction into a court of law should the buyer ever be accused based on future decisions made in good faith, related to the laws and facts presented in the video."

[End Article]

The 12 Hour Video Lecture on (6) Two Hour Tapes!
Just the Facts
Pick it up today for just $199 plus $11 shipping and handling!

Wishing you a tax-free day,
The Tax Freedom 101 Staff

www.taxfreedom101.com
The Accelerated Adult Home-Study Program
Home-The Questions-Audio/Video Clips-Plunder Protection-Liberty Works Radio-Sign Me Up !

Dear Netizen: Do you find the material in The Tax Freedom 101 Report interesting, useful, educational, or surprising? You do? Great! Then why don't you recommend this newsletter to a friend or two. They don't have to be a crazed liberty-lovin "radical" like you and me - even raging communists and everyone in between enjoys reading this newsletter! So spread the word... the forward button is just a click away...

$$$ Advertise Your Product or Service in The Tax Freedom 101 Report
Do you have a product or service available that our educated and faithful readership would be interested in knowing about? Many of our readers understand the intent of Article 1 Section 10 as written in the Constitution and are eager to do business and network with others who share they same understanding. To learn more about advertising in this weekly ezine visit: http://www.taxfreedom101.com/pages/advertising.htm

Past Issues: If you received this ezine in plain text format and would like to view it in HTML with all visible links visit the archive site:
http://www.nossn.com/tf101

Subscription info for: "The Tax Freedom 101 Report"
To subscribe to The Tax Freedom 101 Report click here or send an email to:
The-Tax-Freedom-101-Report-subscribe@egroups.com

CONLAW2.gif (11816 bytes)

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-- George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790

DISCLAIMER: The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. The primary purpose of this site is education. We do not advocate any specific course of action. What you do with this information and any course of action you decide to take, if any, is entirely your responsibility.

]