Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:16.000]  Welcome to the vodcast. I don't know how many Americans are aware of it these days, but property, the right to own property and be secure in that property, was considered by the Founding Fathers to be an indispensable and inseparable element of personal liberty.
[00:16.000 --> 00:29.000]  Yet today, millions of Americans are actively participating in destroying the property rights of their fellow Americans and feeling good and righteous about doing it.
[00:29.000 --> 00:37.000]  How long can America remain a land in which we enjoy the right of property with so many Americans working against your property rights every day?
[00:37.000 --> 01:02.000]  Let's start with this. Today's presentation is going to be longer than my usual vodcast, but it's also going to be chock full of information you've likely never heard before.
[01:02.000 --> 01:15.000]  America's Founding Fathers believed that liberty and property were inexorably linked and equally valuable. The property was, quote, the guardian of every other right.
[01:15.000 --> 01:28.000]  And protection of property was, quote, critical to the enjoyment of individual liberty. Writing in The Federalist, Madison said, quote, government is instituted to protect property of every sort.
[01:29.000 --> 01:40.000]  John Locke, who's writing greatly influenced America's founding generation, made the point that the concept of property encompasses not only the objects that a person owns, but also the right to acquire them.
[01:40.000 --> 01:46.000]  In other words, your labor is your property and what your labor produces is also your property.
[01:46.000 --> 01:57.000]  Locke spoke of this often, but perhaps his most succinct statement on the importance of property is this, quote, all wealth is the product of labor.
[01:57.000 --> 02:02.000]  Jefferson also had much to say about the right of property in relationship to personal liberty.
[02:02.000 --> 02:19.000]  Here's Jefferson, quote, a right to property is founded in our natural wants in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy those wants and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings, close quote.
[02:19.000 --> 02:34.000]  Here are two John Adams quotes about property being a part of personal liberty, quote, property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty and property must be secure or liberty cannot exist.
[02:35.000 --> 02:58.000]  This reverence for the right of property by Enlightenment thinkers and America's founding generation was stated plainly by the United States Supreme Court in Butcher's Union Company v. Crescent City Company when it held that, quote, the property that every man has is his personal labor as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.
[02:58.000 --> 03:00.000]  What does inviolable mean?
[03:00.000 --> 03:17.000]  Here's how several dictionaries define it, secure from violation, impregnable to assault or trespass, invincible, incapable of being transgressed or dishonored, immune to attack, incapable of being tampered with.
[03:17.000 --> 03:27.000]  At this point, we know the right of property was considered an integral part of personal liberty by the founding fathers, and it has been held to be sacred and inviolable by the US Supreme Court.
[03:27.000 --> 03:30.000]  So let me ask you a question.
[03:30.000 --> 03:38.000]  If someone offers you $500 to dig a ditch, you agree to the offer and dig the ditch and upon completion the person hands you $500.
[03:38.000 --> 03:42.000]  How much of that $500 is your property?
[03:42.000 --> 03:44.000]  All of it, right?
[03:44.000 --> 03:48.000]  So who is entitled to take any of that property from you?
[03:48.000 --> 03:53.000]  Is the guy down the street entitled to take 400 of your 500?
[03:53.000 --> 03:58.000]  How about 300, 150, 20?
[03:58.000 --> 04:05.000]  What amount of that $500 of your property is someone entitled to take from you without your consent?
[04:05.000 --> 04:09.000]  I ask because the money you earn at work is your property.
[04:09.000 --> 04:18.000]  In fact, the law in most states is that every hour you work, the money you earn is your property, your property merely being in the possession of the company until payday.
[04:18.000 --> 04:29.000]  In other words, if we use $10 an hour for simplicity, at the end of your eight hour day, you own property in the amount of $80, which is merely in the custody of the company until payday.
[04:29.000 --> 04:38.000]  Would it be legal for the company to give someone else some or all of your property simply because the company is in temporary possession of it?
[04:38.000 --> 04:40.000]  Of course not.
[04:40.000 --> 04:45.000]  So how do they legally justify giving the government some of your property?
[04:45.000 --> 04:49.000]  Simple. You give them permission.
[04:49.000 --> 05:03.000]  In case you missed a previous presentation on which I give examples of the mechanisms Congress uses to ensure you can't discern what US tax law really says, let's start with a clip from that presentation to bring you up to speed.
[05:03.000 --> 05:10.000]  You've seen the command to withhold a 3402, but the definitions are found in section 3401.
[05:10.000 --> 05:17.000]  The most significant definition, the one that is pivotal, is 3401c employee.
[05:17.000 --> 05:20.000]  After all, the withholding is done on the earnings of the employee, right?
[05:20.000 --> 05:24.000]  Here's the definition of employee for the purpose of payroll withholding.
[05:24.000 --> 05:36.000]  The term employee includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a state, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
[05:36.000 --> 05:38.000]  Let's break that down.
[05:38.000 --> 05:45.000]  First, and most obviously, there is no language there that could even remotely embrace hundreds of millions of private sector workers.
[05:45.000 --> 05:54.000]  So, since there is no such language in the statute, what do the liars say when they want to con you into believing it means you, a person in the private sector?
[05:54.000 --> 05:59.000]  They will say that it means all those government folks and everyone in the private sector.
[05:59.000 --> 06:00.000]  But is that true?
[06:00.000 --> 06:03.000]  No, for two ironclad, non-refutable reasons.
[06:03.000 --> 06:05.000]  First, law doesn't work that way.
[06:05.000 --> 06:13.000]  You can't read a statute that lists a group of people to whom the law applies and then say it magically applies to an entire class never mentioned in the statute.
[06:13.000 --> 06:17.000]  Second, the statute itself bars additional classes from being added.
[06:17.000 --> 06:19.000]  Let's look at the relevant part again.
[06:19.000 --> 06:25.000]  You'll note that the statute uses the word includes just before it starts enumerating to whom it applies.
[06:25.000 --> 06:26.000]  Why is that significant?
[06:26.000 --> 06:31.000]  It's significant because the tax code provides a very specific definition of includes.
[06:31.000 --> 06:35.000]  That definition is found in 7701C and reads,
[06:45.000 --> 06:47.000]  That's interesting phraseology.
[06:47.000 --> 06:51.000]  Some people have to read that quite a few times to grasp what it means while others get it right away.
[06:51.000 --> 06:57.000]  The most important words in the definition are things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
[06:57.000 --> 06:59.000]  From where do we get that meaning?
[06:59.000 --> 07:02.000]  Well, from the words Congress employed in the definition, of course.
[07:02.000 --> 07:09.000]  Before we go further, it's important for you to understand what the United States Supreme Court has said about statutorily provided definitions.
[07:09.000 --> 07:11.000]  In Mies v. Keene, the court said,
[07:22.000 --> 07:25.000]  What Webster says it means is irrelevant and inapplicable.
[07:25.000 --> 07:27.000]  In Kalani v. Franklin, the court said,
[07:34.000 --> 07:43.000]  What about the person who insisted his personal opinion of the meaning should control and that whatever meaning he believes to be correct is how a statute should be interpreted?
[07:43.000 --> 07:46.000]  Here is the court speaking again in Mies v. Keene.
[07:51.000 --> 07:56.000]  Not as it might be read by a layman or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.
[07:56.000 --> 08:00.000]  In other words, it doesn't matter what someone speaking for a company says it means.
[08:00.000 --> 08:05.000]  The only legal meaning is that by which the exact language Congress employed.
[08:05.000 --> 08:07.000]  Now, let's get back to includes.
[08:07.000 --> 08:12.000]  Here is another definition of it from a tax regulation with the same meaning just simplified.
[08:13.000 --> 08:15.000]  27 CFR 72.11 states,
[08:22.000 --> 08:30.000]  So both these definitions of includes tell us is that the enumerated list of items appearing after the word includes establishes a class or grouping.
[08:30.000 --> 08:34.000]  And things within that class cannot be excluded even if not enumerated.
[08:34.000 --> 08:36.000]  Let's look at a quick illustrative example.
[08:36.000 --> 08:40.000]  Let's say a statute defines the meaning of food for a particular law.
[08:40.000 --> 08:46.000]  The definition reads as the term food when used in this chapter includes grapes, strawberries, peaches, plums, apples, and pears.
[08:46.000 --> 08:51.000]  What is the class being defined by the enumerated items appearing after the word includes?
[08:51.000 --> 08:52.000]  A fruit, right?
[08:52.000 --> 08:59.000]  So for the purpose of that chapter, you can see the term food is defined to a much narrower boundary than when used in common speech.
[08:59.000 --> 09:04.000]  Now, based on what we've learned about includes, would that law also embrace pineapples?
[09:04.000 --> 09:06.000]  How about apricots, kiwis, cantaloupes?
[09:06.000 --> 09:13.000]  Sure, all of them, because though not mentioned in the statute, they are within the class established by the items enumerated.
[09:13.000 --> 09:14.000]  How about steak?
[09:14.000 --> 09:15.000]  How about eggs?
[09:15.000 --> 09:16.000]  Wheat?
[09:16.000 --> 09:17.000]  Nope.
[09:17.000 --> 09:22.000]  While they are food as used in common speech, they are not food as defined by Congress for use in that chapter.
[09:22.000 --> 09:23.000]  Got it?
[09:23.000 --> 09:24.000]  Good.
[09:24.000 --> 09:27.000]  Now that we understand includes, let's look at employee again.
[09:27.000 --> 09:33.000]  But before we do, I have to tell you that the term state within the definition does not mean states of the union,
[09:33.000 --> 09:37.000]  but rather federal states like Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and so forth.
[09:37.000 --> 09:43.000]  I'd show you where that is in the law, but if we have to explore every tangential issue, this would be one very long video.
[09:43.000 --> 09:46.000]  And all of that information is in income tax shattering the mess.
[09:46.000 --> 09:48.000]  So on to employee.
[09:48.000 --> 09:54.000]  Employee includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a state or a political subdivision thereof,
[09:54.000 --> 10:00.000]  or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
[10:00.000 --> 10:02.000]  What is the class being defined?
[10:02.000 --> 10:12.000]  If you said people who work for any of the various government agencies or instrumentalities that are under the direct authority of Congress, you just nailed it.
[10:12.000 --> 10:17.000]  Accordingly, there is no legal way to read the statute to embrace anyone in the private sector at all.
[10:17.000 --> 10:18.000]  Period.
[10:18.000 --> 10:25.000]  How is that for an eye opener, especially if you work for a private company that's been stealing a portion of your property each payday?
[10:25.000 --> 10:34.000]  As you can see, if you work in the private sector, you're not the person defined by Congress as an employee for the purpose of payroll withholding.
[10:34.000 --> 10:40.000]  Knowing what you now know, let's go a step further to reinforce how Congress plays this game.
[10:40.000 --> 10:44.000]  Withholding is done upon your wages.
[10:44.000 --> 10:46.000]  We all know what wages are, right?
[10:46.000 --> 10:52.000]  But wait, did Congress also redefine the meaning of wages?
[10:52.000 --> 10:53.000]  You bet they did.
[10:53.000 --> 11:01.000]  You can find the statutory definition of wages for the purpose of payroll withholding at 26 U.S.C. section 3401A, which reads,
[11:01.000 --> 11:09.000]  quote, For the purpose of this chapter, the term wages means all remuneration for services performed by an employee.
[11:09.000 --> 11:10.000]  Close quote.
[11:10.000 --> 11:20.000]  You already know how Congress defined employee, so wages as defined for the purpose of payroll withholding has nothing to do with the pay of private sector workers.
[11:20.000 --> 11:22.000]  Let me tell you a true story.
[11:22.000 --> 11:25.000]  Many, many years ago, I was assisting a client.
[11:25.000 --> 11:32.000]  He told the company, most specifically the owner, that he didn't want payroll withholding to take place from his paycheck anymore.
[11:32.000 --> 11:38.000]  The owner told Tom to go talk to the lady in payroll who had been doing payroll for the company for more than 20 years.
[11:38.000 --> 11:43.000]  So Tom went in and talked to her, and she said, Oh, no, no, no, no, it's the law.
[11:43.000 --> 11:44.000]  I've got to do it.
[11:44.000 --> 11:45.000]  So Tom called me.
[11:45.000 --> 11:50.000]  This is many, many years ago, and he asked me to get on a call with the payroll woman and Tom.
[11:50.000 --> 11:51.000]  So I did.
[11:51.000 --> 11:55.000]  The three of us conference called and we started amiable.
[11:55.000 --> 11:59.000]  We started talking about, you know, the weather, how are you, things like that.
[11:59.000 --> 12:09.000]  And I noticed as we were going through the social part of the call, the payroll woman said about three times, I have to withhold from Tom because it's the law.
[12:09.000 --> 12:16.000]  So after the third time she said that, I told her, I'm really glad to hear that you keep saying that, that it's the law,
[12:16.000 --> 12:23.000]  because then that indicates to me that you know the law and that's great because that'll really speed this this call up.
[12:23.000 --> 12:27.000]  So do me a favor and let me know you cite for me the law.
[12:27.000 --> 12:31.000]  Give me the citation so that I can look it up and we can read it together.
[12:31.000 --> 12:35.000]  She said, cite the law.
[12:35.000 --> 12:39.000]  I said, yeah, I'm sure it's entitled 26, but exactly what section or subsection are we talking about?
[12:39.000 --> 12:43.000]  Oh, I don't know that.
[12:43.000 --> 12:44.000]  I said, it's OK.
[12:44.000 --> 12:45.000]  I said, it's OK.
[12:45.000 --> 12:46.000]  I've been doing this a very long time.
[12:46.000 --> 12:55.000]  If you can just quote some of the law to me, I'll recognize it immediately and I'll tell you what the citation is and we can look at it together.
[12:55.000 --> 12:57.000]  Quoted to you?
[12:57.000 --> 12:59.000]  I can't do that.
[12:59.000 --> 13:01.000]  Again, I said, it's OK.
[13:01.000 --> 13:02.000]  I've been doing this a long time.
[13:02.000 --> 13:04.000]  I know where it is.
[13:04.000 --> 13:06.000]  I asked her if she had a computer and she said yes.
[13:06.000 --> 13:08.000]  I said, OK, let's look at it together.
[13:08.000 --> 13:13.000]  And I took her to 3401C, the definition of employee.
[13:13.000 --> 13:16.000]  And I said, would you mind reading that out loud for me?
[13:16.000 --> 13:17.000]  And she did.
[13:17.000 --> 13:21.000]  And when she was done reading it, I said, so help me out here.
[13:21.000 --> 13:23.000]  I said, read it again to yourself quietly.
[13:23.000 --> 13:36.000]  And then I'd like you to tell me if no matter how you mangled, bent or twisted the words of that definition, you could make it apply to Tom, who works for a private company in the private sector.
[13:36.000 --> 13:37.000]  Go ahead.
[13:37.000 --> 13:39.000]  There was a pause.
[13:39.000 --> 13:46.000]  And then she said, I don't want to talk to you about the law anymore.
[13:46.000 --> 13:48.000]  In that case, it worked out as it should.
[13:48.000 --> 13:59.000]  The owner of the firm agreed that if the person who'd been handling the company's payroll for more than 20 years couldn't point to a law that required withholding from Tom, then the company needed to stop withholding from him.
[13:59.000 --> 14:09.000]  Before I go on, let me encourage you to take a moment to subscribe to the channel, hit the like button and remind you to share the hell out of this video.
[14:09.000 --> 14:14.000]  Nowhere in the tax code is a company permitted to withhold without a signed W-4.
[14:14.000 --> 14:19.000]  To be valid, the W-4 has to be signed under penalty of perjury.
[14:19.000 --> 14:30.000]  In fact, on the form W-4, step five entitled sign here literally says under penalty of perjury, I declare blah, blah, blah, blah.
[14:30.000 --> 14:32.000]  Let me ask you another question.
[14:32.000 --> 14:37.000]  Who is the only person that can sign a W-4 under penalty of perjury?
[14:37.000 --> 14:42.000]  Who is the only person that can decide if signing the form would be perjurious?
[14:42.000 --> 14:43.000]  You, right?
[14:43.000 --> 14:45.000]  Think about this.
[14:45.000 --> 14:53.000]  If payroll withholding was mandatory upon everyone who has a job and gets a paycheck, you wouldn't need to sign a form authorizing the company to withhold.
[14:53.000 --> 14:55.000]  The money would just be taken.
[14:55.000 --> 15:01.000]  We just came through a time when a federal mandate required certain people to get injected with a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.
[15:01.000 --> 15:09.000]  No one covered by that mandate needed to sign a form authorizing the employer to force the worker to get vaccinated.
[15:09.000 --> 15:13.000]  No form was required because it was mandatory.
[15:13.000 --> 15:19.000]  Likewise, if payroll withholding was mandatory, you wouldn't need to sign a form authorizing the company to do it.
[15:19.000 --> 15:25.000]  They would just withhold at single zero unless you signed a form indicating you were entitled to exemptions.
[15:25.000 --> 15:34.000]  The legal reality is a company can't withhold at all, not even a penny, without a signed W-4 from you.
[15:34.000 --> 15:42.000]  People don't understand what I'm about to share with you because Americans don't know anything about law, even the basics everyone should know.
[15:42.000 --> 15:50.000]  When a person signs and submits a form W-4, he or she is not merely representing that the particulars on the form are accurate.
[15:50.000 --> 15:59.000]  I always teach that as the preeminent rule of real estate is location, location, location, the preeminent rule of law is context, context, context.
[15:59.000 --> 16:01.000]  Let's quickly discuss context.
[16:01.000 --> 16:11.000]  Every single form created by the Treasury Department for the purpose of the income tax is exclusively for those upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[16:11.000 --> 16:12.000]  Think of it this way.
[16:12.000 --> 16:20.000]  If you owned a shoe repair business, what authority would NASA have to create forms for your shoe repair business?
[16:20.000 --> 16:22.000]  That, of course, is none.
[16:22.000 --> 16:26.000]  The same applies to people upon whom Congress has not imposed the income tax.
[16:26.000 --> 16:31.000]  The Treasury Department has no authority to create forms for those people.
[16:31.000 --> 16:37.000]  Treasury can only create income tax forms for those upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[16:37.000 --> 16:47.000]  Since Treasury has no authority to create forms for anyone other than taxpayers, all of its forms are for people upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[16:47.000 --> 17:00.000]  Accordingly, when you sign a W-4 or any other income tax form, the legal context is you have determined that you are a person upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[17:01.000 --> 17:14.000]  In other words, your signature, under penalty of perjury, establishes that you have determined yourself to be a person upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax, and therefore you are required to complete the form.
[17:14.000 --> 17:16.000]  Now, let's go a bit further.
[17:16.000 --> 17:26.000]  The chapter of the tax code that discusses payroll withholding is Chapter 24, entitled, Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages.
[17:27.000 --> 17:37.000]  What you likely don't know is that phrase, Collection of Income Tax at Source, is seen repeatedly throughout the tax code and always means the same thing.
[17:37.000 --> 17:44.000]  Collecting federal income tax owed on U.S. source income belonging to a foreign person.
[17:44.000 --> 17:50.000]  Chapter 24 is specifically addressing the U.S. source income earned by foreign persons in the employ of various government agencies.
[17:50.000 --> 17:55.000]  Having not seen the law with your own eyes, that may be hard for you to accept.
[17:55.000 --> 17:59.000]  It is, nevertheless, legally factual.
[17:59.000 --> 18:01.000]  Let's wrap this all together.
[18:01.000 --> 18:07.000]  Signing the form conveys that you have determined the entity paying you is a government agency under federal authority.
[18:07.000 --> 18:10.000]  That you work for that government agency.
[18:10.000 --> 18:15.000]  That you are a foreign person being paid U.S. source income.
[18:15.000 --> 18:19.000]  And as such, you are a person upon whom Congress has imposed the income tax.
[18:19.000 --> 18:23.000]  Up until this presentation, you didn't know any of this.
[18:23.000 --> 18:27.000]  And that's exactly how the government likes you, uninformed.
[18:27.000 --> 18:30.000]  Because it can't run the scam on informed people.
[18:30.000 --> 18:36.000]  All of this, and much, much more, is laid out with crystal clarity in income tax shattering the miss.
[18:36.000 --> 18:47.000]  If you'd like to skip the rest of this presentation and purchase income tax shattering the miss right now, just go to drreality.news and I'll put the link down in the show notes.
[18:47.000 --> 18:51.000]  What happens if you point out this legal reality to a company?
[18:51.000 --> 18:56.000]  In the majority of cases, they will dismiss what you say without even looking into it.
[18:56.000 --> 19:00.000]  Why? Because the company has no idea what the law says.
[19:00.000 --> 19:08.000]  An equally uninformed accountant or attorney told them they have to withhold from every worker, so that's what they believe.
[19:08.000 --> 19:16.000]  What did we learn in 2020, 2021, and 2022 about blindly believing what experts say?
[19:16.000 --> 19:26.000]  Imagine being afraid to do the right and legal thing in a country supposedly dedicated to freedom and the rule of law.
[19:26.000 --> 19:36.000]  What happens to your liberty when a company extorts you into committing perjury, extorts you into having your property stolen as a condition of earning a living?
[19:36.000 --> 19:43.000]  I say extort because they are committing two crimes, extortion and subordination of perjury.
[19:43.000 --> 19:51.000]  Here is the definition of extortion, the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
[19:51.000 --> 20:00.000]  If your employer threatens you with no longer being able to work there and earn a living in order to get you to agree to surrender your money, that's extortion.
[20:00.000 --> 20:07.000]  You'll note that in the law it is no less extortion simply because the extorted money goes to someone other than the person committing the extortion.
[20:08.000 --> 20:13.000]  Here is how FindLaw.com defines subordination of perjury.
[20:13.000 --> 20:20.000]  Subordination of perjury is a legal name for inducing someone else to lie under oath.
[20:20.000 --> 20:24.000]  Inducing someone else to lie under oath.
[20:24.000 --> 20:27.000]  What does induce mean?
[20:27.000 --> 20:31.000]  Black's Law Dictionary defines inducement as, quote,
[20:31.000 --> 20:38.000]  The act or process of enticing or persuading another person to take a certain course of action.
[20:38.000 --> 20:48.000]  If someone tells you you can keep the job and continue earning a living, only if you sign a W-4, that constitutes both enticement and persuasion.
[20:48.000 --> 20:56.000]  So we can see that if the company induces you to sign a form you've told them would be perjurious for you to sign, it's subordination of perjury.
[20:56.000 --> 20:59.000]  I'm going to come back to the perjury element in a moment.
[20:59.000 --> 21:08.000]  Why doesn't the company just accept that absent a worker signing a form W-4, the company has no legal authority to engage in payroll withholding?
[21:08.000 --> 21:18.000]  Because in order to control the company's decision, their accountant or attorney will direct them to 26 U.S.C. 3403 which states,
[21:18.000 --> 21:25.000]  The employer shall be liable for the payment of tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter.
[21:25.000 --> 21:32.000]  Note that the employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be withheld.
[21:32.000 --> 21:35.000]  Let's find out how much you've learned so far.
[21:35.000 --> 21:43.000]  If you're not the person defined as an employee for the purpose of payroll withholding, is the company required to withhold from you?
[21:43.000 --> 21:45.000]  Of course not.
[21:45.000 --> 21:52.000]  If you're not the person defined as an employee for the purpose of payroll withholding, can the company be the defined employer?
[21:52.000 --> 21:54.000]  Of course not.
[21:54.000 --> 21:59.000]  What act done by the worker lays a requirement upon the company to withhold?
[21:59.000 --> 22:04.000]  If you said, signing a W-4, you got it exactly right.
[22:04.000 --> 22:11.000]  If you declined to sign a form W-4, does a private sector company have any authority to take your property from you and give it to the government?
[22:12.000 --> 22:13.000]  No.
[22:13.000 --> 22:26.000]  Some companies will argue that the IRS's online withholding compliance questions and answers page states that absent of W-4, the company is to withhold at single zero.
[22:26.000 --> 22:30.000]  That's what I refer to as the arrogance of ignorance.
[22:30.000 --> 22:34.000]  They don't know what they're talking about, but they're damn sure they're right.
[22:34.000 --> 22:40.000]  When you look at the IRS's online page, we need to keep the legal context in mind.
[22:40.000 --> 22:51.000]  The page is for employees and employers, as defined in Chapter 24, not private sector companies or government entities in the 50 states of the union.
[22:51.000 --> 23:01.000]  While being completely ignorant of what the law actually says, they adopt a pretentious and arrogant attitude about merely doing what someone told them to do.
[23:01.000 --> 23:09.000]  Setting aside the contextual issue for a moment, the section on which they rely from the online page doesn't even say what they say it says.
[23:09.000 --> 23:23.000]  It says this, quote, until the employee furnishes a new form W-4, the employer must withhold from the employee as from a single person with no adjustments to withholding.
[23:23.000 --> 23:29.000]  Did you catch that? Until the employee furnishes a new form W-4.
[23:29.000 --> 23:35.000]  In other words, this is clearly speaking of a person who previously signed a W-4 but doesn't want to sign another one.
[23:35.000 --> 23:48.000]  And of course, the legal context of the IRS's web page statement is the person being paid is working for a government entity under federal jurisdiction and is a foreign person whose pay constitutes US source income.
[23:48.000 --> 23:59.000]  The IRS's web page statement has nothing to do with a private sector worker who knows a W-4 doesn't apply to him or her and therefore declines to furnish a W-4 at all.
[23:59.000 --> 24:14.000]  I should also mention that the definition of employee does not embrace those working for state, county, or city entities within a state of the union because those entities are not under federal authority as the definition of 3401C requires.
[24:14.000 --> 24:19.000]  Also, there is nothing legal or controlling about an IRS web page.
[24:19.000 --> 24:29.000]  The IRS states and has always stated that no one can rely on what the IRS refers to as its publications, which includes web pages.
[24:29.000 --> 24:34.000]  The IRS is crystal clear that people must only follow the law.
[24:34.000 --> 24:43.000]  Don't believe me? Call the IRS helpline and ask them whether you're required to follow a publication if the law says something different than the publication.
[24:43.000 --> 24:50.000]  They will tell you that you must follow the law and that you may not rely on any IRS publication.
[24:50.000 --> 24:55.000]  So, how does a company protect itself from 3403?
[24:55.000 --> 25:03.000]  Simple. If the IRS asks why withholding wasn't done, all the company need do is inform the IRS that the worker declined to provide a signed W-4.
[25:03.000 --> 25:09.000]  While an IRS web page may use misleading language, the law itself is crystal clear.
[25:10.000 --> 25:15.000]  The federal courts have ruled that in matters of tax law, regulations control.
[25:15.000 --> 25:19.000]  If you are working in the private sector or for a state or local agency in any of the 50 states,
[25:19.000 --> 25:28.000]  there is no regulation in existence that permits anyone to withhold anything from your paycheck in the absence of a signed W-4.
[25:28.000 --> 25:38.000]  In other words, 3403 is applicable only when the statutorily defined employer is required to withhold, and we know when that is.
[25:38.000 --> 25:45.000]  The proper response to an IRS inquiry is to point out that the company is not an employer, as defined at 3401D,
[25:45.000 --> 25:53.000]  and ask the IRS to provide a regulation stating the company is required to withhold in the absence of a worker providing a W-4.
[25:53.000 --> 25:59.000]  The company will never hear from the IRS again on that matter. How do I know that?
[25:59.000 --> 26:04.000]  I know that because for 15 years I was a consultant to individuals and businesses who know the truth about the income tax
[26:04.000 --> 26:08.000]  and wanted to ensure they made the transition properly and safely.
[26:08.000 --> 26:14.000]  During those years, my clients did exactly as we just discussed and never heard back from the IRS.
[26:14.000 --> 26:24.000]  The service roars like a lion when you're ignorant of what the law says, but falls silent when you stick the actual law in their faces.
[26:24.000 --> 26:31.000]  Is there a simple solution to the staggering ignorance of payroll employees, HR staff, and company accountants and attorneys?
[26:31.000 --> 26:39.000]  There is. First, it goes without saying that the problem wouldn't even exist if Americans were committed to truth and had integrity.
[26:39.000 --> 26:46.000]  Sadly, I see little evidence such the case. But there is a legal approach that will end it overnight.
[26:46.000 --> 26:52.000]  We need just a few district attorneys to prosecute a company employee for subordination of perjury.
[26:52.000 --> 26:59.000]  It won't be hard. Company employees will admit they told the victim he or she could not work there without a signed W-4,
[27:00.000 --> 27:06.000]  which in legal reality means they told the person he or she could not work there without committing perjury.
[27:06.000 --> 27:10.000]  That admission provides the elements of the crime needed to prosecute.
[27:10.000 --> 27:17.000]  Of course, you have to tell the person at the company instructing you to sign the form that you would be committing perjury to do so,
[27:17.000 --> 27:25.000]  because the payroll clerk or HR person would not be suborning perjury if you never told them signing it would be perjurious.
[27:25.000 --> 27:30.000]  Not many Americans know that Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was planned.
[27:30.000 --> 27:35.000]  It was a contrived event in order to be able to make a particular argument in court at her trial.
[27:35.000 --> 27:41.000]  Setting up contrived events to press a legal argument in court is commonplace for advocacy groups.
[27:41.000 --> 27:47.000]  The difference between Parks and this situation is Parks was making the argument as the defendant.
[27:47.000 --> 27:50.000]  In other words, it was a foregone conclusion she was going to trial.
[27:50.000 --> 27:55.000]  In our scenario, we need several right-minded district attorneys to work with us
[27:55.000 --> 27:59.000]  and file criminal charges for subordination of perjury against both the company
[27:59.000 --> 28:04.000]  and the individuals at the business who issued the extortionate ultimatum.
[28:04.000 --> 28:12.000]  All America needs is a couple of HR employees convicted of the felony of suborning perjury for demanding workers sign a W-4.
[28:12.000 --> 28:16.000]  That news would travel through the HR community like wildfire,
[28:16.000 --> 28:23.000]  and no one in HR or accounting departments would ever again demand a worker sign a W-4 as a condition of working there.
[28:23.000 --> 28:32.000]  I should mention that the gross misunderstanding about and misapplication of the Form W-9 is just as egregious as it is with the W-4.
[28:32.000 --> 28:36.000]  I'll put a link to a presentation on that subject in the notes.
[28:36.000 --> 28:42.000]  I found there are truth seekers and there are those who are more than willing to turn their backs on the truth.
[28:42.000 --> 28:49.000]  You can't reach the people who turn their backs on the truth except by punishing them for rejecting the facts and violating the law.
[28:49.000 --> 28:52.000]  That's what the district attorney approach is all about.
[28:52.000 --> 29:00.000]  If you're a truth seeker and a lover of justice, you'll be thrilled to know everything we've talked about today and much, much more
[29:00.000 --> 29:04.000]  is laid out in an easy-to-understand manner in income tax shattering the mess.
[29:04.000 --> 29:11.000]  There are also two handbooks to assist you in communicating what the law really says to your boss or company.
[29:11.000 --> 29:17.000]  Not everyone is articulate or confident or feels well enough versed in the subject to convey it to others.
[29:17.000 --> 29:22.000]  The handbooks were written specifically for you to give the appropriate person out of business.
[29:22.000 --> 29:28.000]  One is the Business Guide to Payroll Withholding, which is directly relevant to what we've been discussing today.
[29:28.000 --> 29:34.000]  The other is the Business Handbook for Form W-9, 1099, and U.S. Person,
[29:35.000 --> 29:40.000]  which is for people who own their own businesses and are often asked to sign a Form W-9,
[29:40.000 --> 29:44.000]  which has absolutely nothing to do with you earning your own domestic income.
[29:44.000 --> 29:49.000]  To be clear, neither handbook is a substitute for reading income tax shattering the mess.
[29:49.000 --> 29:58.000]  Income tax shattering the mess gives you a complete understanding of what income tax law really says and the confidence to act on it, if you so choose.
[29:58.000 --> 30:01.000]  In contrast, the handbooks are not meant for you.
[30:01.000 --> 30:08.000]  They are meant for you to give to others in order to help you communicate the facts and the law to those with whom you'd be addressing the subject.
[30:08.000 --> 30:10.000]  There is one other use for the handbooks.
[30:10.000 --> 30:19.000]  Because they cost less than income tax shattering the mess, a lot of people buy the handbooks and give them to other truth seekers to get them interested in the subject.
[30:19.000 --> 30:25.000]  You can get income tax shattering the mess at drreality.news.
[30:25.000 --> 30:27.000]  The link is down in the show notes.
[30:27.000 --> 30:29.000]  While you're there, take a look at body science.
[30:29.000 --> 30:37.000]  There is a commonality between law and physiology in that both use language with which the public is often unfamiliar.
[30:37.000 --> 30:44.000]  And sadly, just as with the law, the unique language of science can be used to obfuscate and confuse.
[30:44.000 --> 30:49.000]  Body science details the exact and specific reasons with a long list of particulars.
[30:49.000 --> 30:55.000]  The American people are the most ill society in all of human history.
[30:55.000 --> 30:57.000]  Think about that.
[30:57.000 --> 31:04.000]  With all of America's science and technological prowess, instead of being the healthiest people on the planet, Americans are the sickest.
[31:04.000 --> 31:08.000]  Do you think that's just happenstance?
[31:08.000 --> 31:10.000]  It's not.
[31:10.000 --> 31:15.000]  If you'd like to find out the truth about America's decline into being the most diseased people in history,
[31:15.000 --> 31:21.000]  and how to turn that around for you and the people you love, you only need to read one book, Body Science.
[31:21.000 --> 31:25.000]  Also, by purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Mist and or Body Science,
[31:25.000 --> 31:29.000]  you help me to continue to be here for you with these thought-provoking presentations.
[31:29.000 --> 31:33.000]  Please share this vodcast and thanks for being here.
[31:33.000 --> 31:35.000]  Take care.