Saturday, December 19, 2009

Born Into Slavery 3 of 4

Continued from Part 2


We, the People of the State of Illinois…” (Ill. Const. Preamble)

"Person" or "persons" as well as all words referring to or importing persons, may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate as well as individuals.” (5 ILCS 70/1.05)

"State," when applied to different parts of the United States, may be construed to include the District of Columbia and the several territories, and the words "United States" may be construed to include the said district and territories.” (5 ILCS 70/1.14)

The above definitions are the default definitions for “person” and “state” for all statutory language appearing in the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS). This means that unless otherwise defined in the statute, a “person” “may” be a corporation, and a “state” “may be” the District of Columbia. And so it seems that by default, Illinois prefers to regard itself as having territorial status only, where subjugating itself to federal jurisdiction would now be the norm, as opposed to the exception.

“The Congress shall have power: To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;” (U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17)

“All that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States.” (4 U.S.C. 71)


“No person, except those expressly exempted by Section 6‑102, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this State unless such person has a valid license or permit,” (625 ILCS 5/6‑101)

Definition of “State” as pertaining to the Illinois Vehicle Code:

“A state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or a province of the Dominion of Canada.” (625 ILCS 5/1‑195)

Do U.S. citizens have a right to travel? Well, Illinois, like other states, regulates this “right” as a privilege, and one must obtain a license to drive via the Secretary of State if he wishes to drive hassle-free on the roadways within the State’s borders. This regulation of the individual is plenty, but by requiring applicants for a driver’s license to divulge their SSN’s, the State coercively opens the door for federal jurisdiction over the applicant by way of linking the SSN to the State’s driver’s license. The individual’s state driver’s license, an instrument which should be privity to the state and the individual, now becomes evidence in any potential SSA hearings, for whatever cause, related to the said SSN tied to the individual and the driver’s license; and the SSA has the right to the private information it contains.

Every application shall state the legal name, social security number, zip code, date of birth, sex, and residence address of the applicant; briefly describe the applicant; state whether the applicant has theretofore been licensed as a driver, and, if so, when and by what state or country, and whether any such license has ever been cancelled, suspended, revoked or refused, and, if so, the date and reason for such cancellation, suspension, revocation or refusal; shall include an affirmation by the applicant that all information set forth is true and correct; and shall bear the applicant's signature. The application form may also require the statement of such additional relevant information as the Secretary of State shall deem necessary to determine the applicant's competency and eligibility.” (625 ILCS 5/6‑106)

“For the purpose of any hearing, investigation, or other proceeding authorized or directed under this subchapter, or relative to any other matter within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction hereunder, the Commissioner of Social Security shall have power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence that relates to any matter under investigation or in question before the Commissioner of Social Security.” (42 U.S.C. 405 (d))

Notice how the SSN is second only to the legal name of the applicant in information priority. Also, as can be seen, the driver’s license application is the source of a wealth of information, all made available to the SSA for the mere act of the State unwarrantably requiring disclosure of the SSN. It should be noted here, that the process for obtaining a State identification card is the same as for a driver’s license. But all is not bad, supposedly, as the State allows for an exemption from the driver’s license application the SSN, if an individual does not have an SSN for “bona fide” religious reasons. Of course these religious reasons, which by the nature are private matters, are to be judged upon by the Secretary as legitimate or not, and the Illinois legislature still feels inclined to use a federal number on their form, rather it be a SSN or otherwise.

“The Secretary of State may in his discretion substitute a federal tax number in lieu of a social security number, or he may instead assign an additional distinctive number in lieu thereof, where an applicant is prohibited by bona fide religious convictions from applying or is exempt from applying for a social security number. The Secretary of State shall, however, determine which religious orders or sects have such bona fide religious convictions.” (625 ILCS 5/6‑106)

Though religion is a belief system practiced by an individual, it is his private business, and no concern of the State’s unless state laws are being broken via the practice of it. And of course the burden of proof of any ill will must be for the State to prove. But this is not the case, and the Sate only recognizes openly professed religious sects in the form of state incorporation. Unincorporated religious sects will not receive the blessing of the Secretary of State as “bona fide,” and thus the SSN requirement for receipt of a driver’s license will not be waived.

“Any church, congregation or society formed for the purposes of religious worship, may become incorporated … and may adopt a corporate name; and upon the filing of the affidavit, as hereinafter provided, it shall be and remain a body politic and corporate, by the name so adopted.” (805 ILCS 110/35)


Within the State of Illinois, all conceivable professions are regulated and require a license for their hassle free undertaking. Illinois has one hundred and five legislative acts, in the ‘Professions and Occupations’ Chapter of the ILCS, which either explicit require applicants to have a SSN, or implicitly require it by requiring applicants for licensure to complete application forms which request a SSN along with other personal information of the applicant. Accountants, Real Estate Agents, Doctors, Dentists, Pharmacists, Nurses, Hair Stylists, Cosmetologists, Dieticians, Veterinarians, Geologists, Engineers, Electricians, and et cetera ad nauseam, all qualify as regulated professions by The State of Illinois; who will not allow its citizens to live, unless they pledge allegiance to the federal government in the form of acquiring a SSN, an act which is not mandatory by the federal government, but of course encouraged and shamefully obliged by the State of Illinois, and many of its sister states.

A vital profession, of which the Illinois General Assembly does not have jurisdiction over, is the legal profession. Attorneys, though they execute the laws of the state in a courtroom setting, and should properly fall under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government, in Illinois they are regulated by the judiciary (with the sole exception of the Attorney General, who falls under the executive branch of government). If one wanted to strive and become an attorney, and change some of the State’s legislation to exclude odious references to SSN requirements for professional license requirements, he would need to acquire for himself a license to practice law in the State from the Illinois Supreme Court. But this is probably the most difficult license of all to obtain. To be an attorney, one has to substantial complete higher education, as a precedent to enrollment in a program of official legal studies, which costs the individual a considerable amount more of his already precious time.

“Every applicant seeking admission to the bar on examination shall meet the following educational requirements: Each applicant shall have graduated from a four-year high school or other preparatory school whose graduates are admitted on diploma to the freshman class of any college or university having admission requirements equivalent to those of the University of Illinois, or shall have become otherwise eligible for admission to such freshman class; and shall have satisfactorily completed at least 90 semester hours of acceptable college work, while in actual attendance at one or more colleges or universities approved by the Board of Admissions to the Bar….. After the completion of both the preliminary and college work above set forth in paragraph (a) of this rule, each applicant shall have pursued a course of law studies and fulfilled the requirements for and received a first degree in law from a law school approved by the American Bar Association.” (Ill. S. Ct. Rule 703)

Of course these law schools and higher education courses are not free, and without access to employment opportunities, one without a SSN cannot afford to attend the universities. The State of Illinois has higher education assistance programs in the form of grants and loans, but these are pale in comparison to the size and scope of the federal equivalent; mostly because a large amount of the tax base leaves the State and enters the coffers of the federal government via an income tax, as previously mentioned. Illinois’ most significant higher education assistance program is its Monetary Award Program (MAP), a need-based grant award for scholastically advanced students seeking higher education opportunities. But to obtain this state-based award, one still needs a SSN; for to be eligible, the Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC) needs to verify that family income is consistent with eligibility requirements. The vehicle chosen for this verification is none other than a federal form, which of course requires the SSN for its operability.

“In order to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42, a student must … file with the Secretary, as part of the original financial aid application process, a certification, which need not be notarized, but which shall include … such student’s social security number,” (20 U.S.C. 1091 (a)(4)(B))

“…an applicant is eligible for a Monetary Award Program Plus grant under this Section if the Commission finds that the applicant meets all of the following qualifications: … He or she is from a family that had an adjusted gross income, listed on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, … “ (110 ILCS 947/39)

In fact, all of Illinois financial loans and awards work to supplement those offered by the federal government, and thus there is no independence, and no immunization from the SSN.

“To further the purposes of this Act, the Commission is authorized to originate loans for educational purposes, to students enrolled at higher education institutions. The Commission may establish borrower eligibility requirements for Commission originated loans.” (110 ILCS 947/100)

Here’s how it is so bluntly explained to student applicants for financial assistance:

“The first step in applying for both federal and state need-based assistance is the completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).” (‘Financial Aid Process,’ ISAC)

Even if one somehow manages to circumvent the above obstacles, and manage to meet the educational requirements listed above, as pertaining to the license to practice law, the Illinois Supreme Court Rules go on to state that in addition to the requirements outlined above, applicants for law degrees must then pass the Illinois Bar exam. One potentially being the smartest jurist in the State is of no consequence: if the educational requirements are not met, he will not be able to sit for this exam, and can only practice law under the pain of arrest. It is lawyers across the country, and in this State of Illinois that are writing state sovereignty stripping, and federal government acquisition laws. It certainly appears that the education received by practicing attorneys in this State of Illinois is one which serves interests contrary to the well-being of the State.

Former Illinois Supreme Court Justice James Heiple, in his dissenting opinion of the adopted rule listed above, assessed the situation as follows:

“The American Bar Association is a voluntary association of dues paying lawyers (currently $225 per annum) that exists for the benefit of its members. No lawyer is required to belong. Most do not. It clothes its parochial existence with an overlay of public activities and pronouncements designed to convince the general public that it is interested in the general welfare. That its primary focus is the benefit of its members, however, is beyond question. That the American Bar Association is a trade association warrants neither commendation nor condemnation. As a trade association engaging in improving the status of lawyers and lobbying Congress and the State legislatures, it is on a par with any other trade association. It is decidedly not, however, an arm of the State of Illinois nor of this court.” (Ill. S. Ct. Rule 703, Justice Heiple, dissenting)

With both the courts and legislative acting contrary to the best interest of the State, what recourse or outlet is available to a dissenting citizen? On an aside, Justice Heiple was later impeached for judicial misconduct.


The State of Illinois, in its benevolence, and “Parens Patriae” type affection for its people, has decreed that any of its able-bodied citizens who are willing to work will be able to do just that. So much so, that it has declared unemployment as a public health hazard, and as such, has implemented a perpetual statewide compulsory unemployment insurance program designed to smooth out the unemployment spikes which normally occur in the business cycle. Below is how the State of Illinois so egregiously stated its public policy regarding the matter:

“As a guide to the interpretation and application of this Act the public policy of the State is declared as follows: Economic insecurity due to involuntary unemployment has become a serious menace to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people of the State of Illinois. Involuntary unemployment is, therefore, a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. Poverty, distress and suffering have prevailed throughout the State because funds have not been accumulated in times of plentiful opportunities for employment for the support of unemployed workers and their families during periods of unemployment, and the taxpayers have been unfairly burdened with the cost of supporting able‑bodied workers who are unable to secure employment. Farmers and rural communities particularly are unjustly burdened with increased taxation for the support of industrial workers at the very time when agricultural incomes are reduced by lack of purchasing power in the urban markets. It is the considered judgment of the General Assembly that in order to lessen the menace to the health, safety and morals of the people of Illinois, and to encourage stabilization of employment, compulsory unemployment insurance upon a statewide scale providing for the setting aside of reserves during periods of employment to be used to pay benefits during periods of unemployment, is necessary.” (820 ILCS 405/100)

In general, the program requires employers doing business within the State to pay 2.7% of the total “wages” paid to its “employees,” upon which funds are available to unemployed individuals who file “claims” against said funds. Of course compulsory anything is a bad idea, but this is exacerbated when the State sells its sovereignty, by placing its citizens in the dragnet of the federal government because it is unable to fund a program it deems is necessary for the very health and survival of the State. As seemingly the case always is, the federal government is more than willing to provide funds, of which the lion’s share are acquired from state’s citizens in the way of federal income taxes, but with strings in the form of mandates attached. These mandates have the direct function of influencing legislation at the state level, while also obtaining private information on the citizens by way of the SSN’s usage.

The federal unemployment insurance program is ancillary to Social Security, and it makes use of the SSN for its administration.

“The Secretary of Labor shall from time to time certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each State which has an unemployment compensation law approved by the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, such amounts as the Secretary of Labor determines to be necessary for the proper and efficient administration of such law…” (42 U.S.C. 502 (a))

“The State agency charged with the administration of the State law … shall disclose, upon request and on a reimbursable basis, to officers and employees of the Department of Agriculture and to officers or employees of any State food stamp agency any of the following information contained in the records of such State agency— (i) wage information, (ii) whether an individual is receiving, has received, or has made application for, unemployment compensation, and the amount of any such compensation being received (or to be received) by such individual,” (42 U.S.C. 503 (d))

And of course, by wage information it is meant:

“the term “wage information” means information regarding wages paid to an individual, the social security account number of such individual, and the name, address, State, and the Federal employer identification number of the employer paying such wages to such individual; and the term “claim information” means information regarding whether an individual is receiving, has received, or has made application for, unemployment compensation, the amount of any such compensation being received (or to be received by such individual), and the individual’s current (or most recent) home address.” (42 U.S.C. 503 (h)(3))

Upon the bidding of the federal government, the State of Illinois promptly enacted the appropriate legislation in support of these mandates in exchange for the federal unemployment insurance grant monies.

In the administration of this Act, the Director shall cooperate, to the fullest extent consistent with the provisions of this Act, with the United States Secretary of Labor, or other appropriate Federal agency, with respect to the provisions of the Federal Social Security Act that relate to unemployment compensation, the Wagner‑Peyser Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and the Federal‑State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970;” (820 ILCS 405/1706)

“Each employing unit shall keep such true and accurate records with respect to services performed for it as may be required by the rules and regulations of the Director promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this Act. Such records together with such other books and documents as may be necessary to verify the entries in such records shall be open to inspection by the Director or his authorized representative at any reasonable time and as often as may be necessary.” (820 ILCS 405/1800)


But the employers (“employing units”) of the State of Illinois are not really “employers” as defined by the legislation, and this is because they do not have any “employees” as defined by the legislation. In fact, only the rarest of individuals fit the aforementioned definitions. So though the State of Illinois has implemented a compulsory unemployment insurance program, for all intents and purposes it is a voluntary program. But through the ignorance of common law employers and their employees, as well as federal and state government trickery, the lion’s share of the workforce for the State of Illinois is enrolled into this federally run program.

Very ingeniously, the laws have a provision for which employers otherwise not covered can voluntarily enroll in the unemployment insurance program. “You should never trouble trouble, until trouble troubles you” is an old saying, and ignorantly volunteering to engage in acts detrimental to one’s own best self-interest is one sure way to trouble trouble.

“An employing unit not otherwise subject to this Act, which files with the Director its written election to become an employer for not less than two calendar years, shall, with the written approval of the election by the Director, become an employer to the same extent as all other employers, as of the date stated in the approval, and shall cease to be subject to this Act as of January 1 of any calendar year subsequent to such two calendar years, only if prior to February 1 of that year it has filed with the Director a written notice to that effect. The Director shall approve any election so filed if he finds that the employment record of the applicant has not been or is not likely to be such as will unduly threaten the full payment of benefits when due under this Act.” (820 ILCS 405/302)

The above is how employers enroll themselves in this draconian program, and they enroll newly hired employees into it as well by making them sign the infamous IRS Form W-4 entitled ‘Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.’ Of course this form requires the SSN of the “employee,” and is used to enroll the employee into the State’s unemployment insurance program, and for the accounting in the State and federal government’s “wage information” sharing racket centered on said program (Note that IRS Form W-2 is used to actually track the “wages” paid, and the SSA, IRS, and State and local taxing authorities is privy to this form detailing private information of the employer and employee.) The completed form is surrendered to the Director for the Illinois Department of Employment Security, who in turn submits the well received “employee” information to the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor (who of course shares the information with other federal and usurped underlying state agencies, including the IRS as proxy for the U.S. Treasury Department).

“…each employer in Illinois … shall file with the Department a report in accordance with rules adopted by the Department … providing the following information concerning each newly hired employee: the employee's name, address, and social security number, and the employer's name, address, Federal Employer Identification Number assigned under Section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and such other information as may be required by federal law or regulation…” (820 ILCS 405/1801.1)

“Each report required under this subsection shall be made on an Internal Revenue Service Form W‑4 or, at the option of the employer, an equivalent form, and may be transmitted by first class mail, by telefax, magnetically, or electronically.” (supra)

But as is commonplace, statutory language is often different than that of the common vernacular of the land.

As used in this Section, "newly hired employee" means an individual who is an employee within the meaning of Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,”

“…for the purposes of this Section only, the term "employer" has the meaning given by Section 3401(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986…” (supra)

Here, a shrewd examining will notice that the State of Illinois defers defining the terms in its own legislation to the federal government for its interpretation of them. And the federal government has interpreted the deferred as follows:

“For purposes of this chapter, 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. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.” (26 U.S.C. 3401 (c))

“For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person…” (26 U.S.C. 3401 (d))

The above definitions unravel even further, but enough is shown sufficiently here to conclude that most salaried common law employees are not public officials, or officers of corporations. And if they are not employees, then they can have no employers, as defined in the IRC, and consequentially the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. As was determined earlier, most employers operating hassle free in the State of Illinois are enjoying such privilege because they own, and have shared their SSN with state authorities. These employers, however, falsely believe that their employees must share their SSN information as well via IRS Form W-4. If an individual without a SSN were to seek employment with such employers, he’d likely be turned away unnecessarily.

Continue to Part 4

1 comment:

Blogger said...

I've just installed iStripper, so I can have the sexiest virtual strippers on my desktop.