FOOTNOTE
[19] This is why the late “United States” Circuit Judge Richard Posner could make statements like those referenced above in Footnote 3 with impunity: He was not a judicial officer of the government established by the Constitution.
FOOTNOTE
[20] “Ubicunque est injuria, ibi damnum sequitur. Wherever there is a wrong, there damage follows.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 2166.
FOOTNOTE
[21] “Nemo damnum facit, nisi qui id fecit quod facere jus non habet. No one is considered as doing damage, unless he who is doing what he has no right to do.” Id. at 2146.
“Nemo est supra leges. No one is above the law.” Id. at 2147.
FOOTNOTE
[22] “Income” means gains or profits, not“what comes in,” and in law all three words are synonymous and interchangeable; e.g.: [S]ubject only to such exemptions and deductions as are hereinafter allowed, the net income of a taxable person shall include gains, profits, and income derived from . . . Gould v. Gould,245 U.S. 151, 152-153 (1917), quoting 38 Stat. 114, 166, ch. 16, October 3, 1913.
When one exchanges his life-diminishing labor for money he makes no profit or gain; it is an even exchange. Government allows people to act on the false belief that whatever “comes in” is income and preys on their general ignorance of the true import of the word.
FOOTNOTE
[23] Congress say that a citizen of the United States (resident of the District of Columbia) who employs another citizen of the United States (resident of the District of Columbia) must request of said person (citizen of the United States) an identifying number; to wit (Bold and underline emphasis added in all citations in this Footnote 23.):
Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement or other document with respect to another person shall request from such other person, and shall include in any return, statement, or other document, such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person. 26 U.S.C. § 6109(a)(3).
Internal Revenue regulations—which are written by non-governmental, non-officer of the United States, private-sector businessman Secretary of the Treasury (no congressional statutory requirement to take an oath of office), and whom no one but a resident of the District of Columbia has a legal duty to follow—provides the procedure for an employer who does not know, after having requested it, a new worker’s Social Security Account Number (“SSAN”) (i.e., the new worker did not volunteer one); to wit (Bold and underline and emphasis added.):
If the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person…such person must request the other person’s number. The request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. 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 (c), such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service so stating. A person required to file a taxpayer identifying number shall correct any errors in such filing when such person’s attention has been drawn to them.” 26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1(c).
Congress prescribe the alleged penalty for an employer who first fails to obtain from a new worker a SSAN and thereafter fails to sign and send an affidavit to the IRS:
In the case of a failure by any person to comply with a specified information reporting requirement on or before the time prescribed therefor, such person shall pay a penalty of $50 for each such failure. . . . 26 U.S.C. § 6723.
Wherefore, the total alleged potential liability to an employer for failure as aforesaid, if discovered by IRS, is $50 per new worker per Tax Year.