Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1.Social Security Numbers can only be issued to federal "employees" for use only in the performance of
their official duties. See 20 CFR 422.104.
2.The Social Security Number is the property of the government and not you. Therefore, it can't be "yours"
unless you are a public officer on official business. See 20 CFR 422.103(d).
3.The SSN is issued to the federal "public officer" and not to the man, and then only while he is an agent of
the federal government.
4.Anyone who uses a Social Security Number who is NOT a federal employee acting on official
commercial, government business is guilty of impersonating a federal "employee", which is a crime. See
18 U.S.C. 912.
5.You can only use it in connection with a "public purpose", and not a private purpose. It is illegal and a
crime to use or abuse the SSN for a private or personal use. This is called embezzlement or conversion,
and it is a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 641 and 18 U.S.C. 654.
6.Everything connected to the SSN becomes "public property" because the SSN can only be used in
connection with a "public office" or federal employment.
7.The private man was never issued an SSN if he is not acting as a federal "employee". Therefore, he can
honestly answer "NO" in response to the question of whether he was ever issued an SSN if he is not acting
as a federal "employee" or agent.
taken from
USC Title 15 Chapter 1 Section 17 clearly states: "The labor of a
human being is not a commodity or article of commerce."
IRS-ACS Correspondence
PO Box 24017- Stop 76202
Fresno, CA 93776
Attn: Susan Meredith, Operations Manager, Collection
IDENTIFICATION: Bradford Smith, SSN: xxx-xx-xx, non-federally
connected worker SUBJECT: Internal Revenue Service Notice of Levy
Form 668-W(c) PURPOSE: Request for written authority to garnish
wages, including: 1) Form 668-B Levy 2) Judgment abstract from
a court of competent jurisdiction 3) Form 2159 Payroll Deduction
Agreement 4) Letter 3164 Notice 5) Form 12175
ENCLOSURES:
1. Treasury Financial Manual, Part 3, Chapter 4 of Title 1, 4075Levy for Unpaid Tax Liability, March 2000 edition.
2. Internal Revenue Manual 5.14.10- Administrative garnishment via
private employers, state government agencies, etc. (IRM 5.14.10.2
dated 09-30-2004),
http://www.supremelaw.org/irm/part5/ch14s10.htm (This section is
Dear Susan,
BIG Corporation received a "notice" of levy; Form 668-W(c),
dated April 03, 2004 from the Fresno, CA office of the
Internal Revenue Service.
Please be advised that Bradford Smith does not consent
to an administrative levy, i.e., garnishment of salary,
wages or other remuneration due from Big Corporation. In
the event BIG surrenders sums due the private sector worker
as remuneration for services rendered, the private sector
worker reserves the right to pursue appropriate civil
and criminal remedies. Therefore, BIG must secure written
verification from the Internal Revenue Service officer or
agent responsible for issuing the notice of levy that the
Internal Revenue Service will defend BIG, pay litigation
expenses and compensate BIG for whatever damages are awarded
in the event that the private sector worker prevails.
Please note that the IRS officer responsible for the notice
of levy did not send BIG a Form 2159 Payroll Deduction
Agreement. The private sector worker has not received, nor
has BIG received, the necessary Letter 3164 notice. BIG has
not received a completed Form 12175, nor has BIG received
a properly executed Form 668 B Levy. Therefore, the naked
"notice" of levy has no lawful effect and BIG has no lawful
duty to enforce it. Please reference exhibits attached to
this notice to verify the requirement for authorization
and procedural documents listed in this paragraph.
The naked notice of levy was fraudulently issued under the
federal Administrative Offset Program, a/k/a Treasury Offset
Program, and BIG Corporation simply isn't authorized to
participate. Only state and federal legislative, judicial and
administrative agencies may participate. See 31 U.S.C. 3711
for particulars. Per 31 U.S.C. 3711(b)(1), even government
disbursement officers are required to ignore the procedure
no damage award can undo the fact that the arbitrary taking
that was subject to the right of procedural due process has
already occurred. [***571] "This Court has not ... embraced
the general proposition that a wrong may be done if it can
be undone." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. Truth # 2. For this Arthur-Edward: Lee / arthur-edward is with this
Knowledge and Conviction that the Commercial Token / Resulting Trust ARTHUR E. LEE / ARTHUR
EDWARD LEE is by the Manufacturing and with the B ERTHING on the STATE OF WASHINGTON
Campus on 3/30/1932 as a Commercial Token / Resulting Trust and arthur-edward / Arthur-Edward: Lee is
without Knowledge of any Evidence to the Contrary and is with this Conviction that no such Evidence
exists.
. 645, 647.
[***HR9] [***HR10] This is no new principle of constitutional
law. The right to a prior hearing has long been recognized
by this Court under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments.
Although the Court has held that due process tolerates
variances in the form of a hearing "appropriate to the
nature of the case," Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.,
339 U.S. 306, 313, and "depending upon the importance of
the interests involved and the nature of the subsequent
proceedings [if any]," Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371,
378, the Court has traditionally insisted that, whatever its
form, opportunity for that hearing must be provided before
the deprivation at issue takes effect. E. g., Bell v. Burson,
402 U.S. 535, 542; Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433,
437; Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254; Armstrong v. Manzo,
380 U.S., at 551; Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.,
supra, at 313; Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312
U.S. 126, 152-153; United States v. Illinois Central R. Co.,
291 U.S. 457, 463; Londoner v. City & County of Denver,
210 U.S. 373, 385-386. See In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544,
550-551. "That the hearing required by due process is subject
to waiver, and is not fixed in form does not affect its root
requirement that an individual be given an opportunity for
a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property
interest, except for extraordinary situations where some
valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies
postponing the hearing until after the event." Boddie
v. Connecticut, supra, at 378-379 (emphasis in original).
The Supreme Court of Florida wrote one of the better
analytical summaries of U.S. Supreme Court decisions
concerning procedural due process secured by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment clauses in Ray Lien Construction,
Inc. v. Jack M. Wainwrite, (1977) 346 S.2d 1029: