So you think you're an Employee working for an Employer. A letter I wrote for one of my clients to their so-called "Employer".

XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX, Illinois
[62226]

Friday, March 28, 2008

Mr. XXXXX XXXXX
XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX
Earth City, MO 63045

Re: Demand for full compensation and release of unlawfully withheld monies under color of law.

Mr. XXXXXXX,

Ms. XXXXXXX is in receipt of payroll check (Check Number 9521) dated 12/17/2007 for the sum of $676.77 as compensation for Ms. XXXXXXX’s labor, occurring between the dates of XX/XX/2007 through XX/XX/07. I am writing to inform you that the amount reflected on the check as “Net Pay” is incorrect and deficient to the tune of $275.94, which is reflected on the stub of said check under “Taxes”, of which you had no lawful authority to withhold, and still persisted in doing so against Ms. XXXXXXX’s express permission.

I formally demand you to release the withheld monies and return them to Ms. XXXXXXX within 10 (ten) days of your receipt of this letter, to satisfy your obligation to compensate her in full, per your agreement, in her performing labor at your request in exchange for a dollar amount established by your collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW. Failure to comply with this lawful demand will result in your depriving Ms. XXXXXXX of her property by way of the tort of conversion; breaching your contract to compensate Ms. XXXXXXX in full; and intentionally causing undue stress and hardship to Ms. XXXXXXX and her family, recourse for which will be sought through the civil courts.

A number of attempts have been made to reach an agreement in this matter, among which include conversations with your attorney, Carl XXXXXX. Mr. XXXXX was provided with an 18 page fax from me which included a memorandum of law: “Requirements of Employers With Respect to Social Security Numbers”. Mr. XXXXXX never responded to the communiqué’ and refused to return a number of subsequent phone calls from me.

To date, I have not been provided with any legal authority by you or your attorney, both of you which are vocal and capricious with parroting conventional wisdom which reflects ignorant and ill-informed perceptions about the true applicability of the tax code to workers in the private sector exchanging their labor for compensation. I have made every possible attempt to inform all parties involved that there can be no withholding upon a worker without a lawful imposition of a tax (of which none has been shown to exist) or a worker’s permission to submit to withholding by tendering a signed W-4 (of which none has been tendered). Absent such lawful authority or voluntary submission, there can be no withholding.

In your letter dated Nov. 13, 2007, you presume to act under authority of 26CFR31.6011(b)–1(iv) in requiring Ms. XXXXXXX to provide a “Social Security account number”. I have reviewed the regulations and have found no such citation as you referenced within the code. I believe the text you are quoting is from 26CFR31.6011 (b) -2 (b)(iv), which contains similar verbiage as that you quoted. If you read the above referenced citation, you will see that the words “Social Security account number” appear nowhere within the text of that cite. The code only mentions “account numbers”. If you read the beginning of the citation, you will see that it pertains only to “…employment for wages subject to the taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act or which are subject to the withholding of income tax from wages under section 3402…”. Would you please explain under what authority or expertise you claim to define Ms. XXXXXXX’s tax liability or interpret the code as it applies to Ms. XXXXXXX’s status? Can you also provide proof that Ms. XXXXXXX’s earnings from you constitute “wages”, as defined within the code, and MPG is such an “employer” and Ms. XXXXXXX an “employee” under same code?

I also find it difficult to reconcile your apparent hypocrisy in stating that you are abiding by the law, when on Feb. 28, 2007,  Ms. XXXXXXX received a check in the amount $355.58 (number 8808) where taxes were withheld against Ms. XXXXXXX’s wishes, and in violation of the exemption documentation Ms. XXXXXXX tendered. Upon making your payroll department aware of their error, Ms. XXXXXXX was re-issued a corrected check (number 2443) in the amount of $385.04, in which no monies were withheld. It would appear that you either do not know, and apply, the law as well as you purport, as evidenced by your payroll inconsistencies, or are summarily disregarding the law in this latest instance for whatever purpose seems fit to suit your fancy. Regardless, since you issued a complete check, absent withholding, in the beginning of the year, I would expect you to likewise issue the remainder of Ms. XXXXXXX’s pay for the latest check as well.

You are making a presumptive leap to defining Ms. XXXXXXX as an employee and yourself as an employer. My whole point is that the law does not identify, nor apply to, private sector workers. The code has always applied to government workers or others performing “services” in areas under federal jurisdiction, and not to the 50 states. The law has been consistently misapplied. As long as workers continue to claim to be employees and submit to paying “the tax”, the government is more than happy to take their money.

On the other hand, Ms. XXXXXXX chose not to misidentify herself, and instead, apply the law, as written. There is no penalty for not submitting to withholding if the law never applies to Ms. XXXXXXX to begin with. The law most definitely applies to employees and employers of the United States. However, the law takes explicit measures to re-define some terms for use in the law which contradict the every day “Webster” meaning. For example:
Withholding only applies to “Wages”. “Wages” are only earned by “Employees”. The terms “Wages” and “Employee” have a special meaning for the purposes of the law, to wit:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3401
§ 3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—

So we see that “wages” are paid for services performed by an employee. An employee is defined as:

(c) Employee
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.

Ms. XXXXXXX is not an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia. These are all federal governmental positions under federal jurisdiction. For this to apply to Ms. XXXXXXX, XXX would have to be a part of the federal government or a political extension of it. More word trickery is used to define an “Employer” as you see below:

(d) Employer
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, except that—
(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and
(2) in the case of a person paying wages on behalf of a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, the term “employer” (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means such person.

Lawmakers use the word “Employee” as the basis for defining an “Employer”. If an “Employee” only works for a federal entity, then employers must only be federal entities. To illustrate further, the terms “United States” and “State” don’t mean what one may think. They too have a specific meaning under this chapter:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 21 > Subchapter C > § 3121
§ 3121. Definitions
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

“States”, for the purposes of this chapter apply only to federal territories and possessions. It does not mention the “several states”. XXXX’s office is located in Missouri, not one of the above locations.

(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

Now we see “United States” means everything mentioned in “State” except for the District of Columbia. Again, XXXX is not located in the “United States” as it applies to this law. To illustrate further, the code even goes on to define an “American Employer”. Sounds like XXXX may be an “American Employer”. Think again. Remember the definition of “State” and “United States”:

(h) American employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “American employer” means an employer which is—
(1) the United States or any instrumentality thereof,
(2) an individual who is a resident of the United States,
(3) a partnership, if two-thirds or more of the partners are residents of the United States,
(4) a trust, if all of the trustees are residents of the United States, or
(5) a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any State.

In other words, it means an employer which is the United States (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa) or an instrumentality thereof.

An individual who is a resident of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

A partnership, two-thirds or more of the partners are residents of The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

A trust, if all the trustees are residents of The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

A corporation organized under the laws of The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa or of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

In case you are wondering about the use of “includes” to mean the things listed along with the 50 states or employees meaning those things listed along with you and I, one can’t assume that things not mentioned in the law are included unless they are specifically mentioned. In other words, absent a reference to the 50 states or several states, you should not assume that such are included in the terms defined. When used in law, “includes” and “including” have been held generally be terms of “limited expansion”.  The law even addresses the use of “includes” and “including:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

It has to make you wonder why they would even have to address these words, but they use them specially when writing law. If you read the definition closely, it will read like this:

“The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things that that mean the same thing as the term being defined.”

When the term “employee” is being defined as “…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.”, the term is mentioning those working in various capacities for governmental entities. Since private sector workers are not mentioned in the definition, the word “includes” should not be deemed to embrace such workers, because they are not within the meaning of the term being defined, which is “employees” who work for governmental entities.
“Includes” can also be redefined to read, “The term “includes” shall not be deemed to imply other things not within the meaning of the term being defined.”

It is not the burden of the person to prove that the law doesn’t apply to them. The burden is upon the government to show that the law does apply to the person. When reading the actual law, as I have outlined above, there is NO tax imposed, nor duty to withhold, upon Ms. XXXXXXX’s compensation unless done by inference and applying colloquial interpretation to the law.

I would ask that you read the definitions carefully and provide me with the applicable code and regulation that requires Ms. XXXXXXX to submit to withholding or to have XXXX withhold Ms. XXXXXXX’s pay against her will. A W-4 can not be mandatory since it requires Ms. XXXXXXX/s signature. Since Ms. XXXXXXX’s signature is being requested she therefore has the prerogative to decline providing it. Ms. XXXXXXX can not be compelled to sign something against her will. And if the W-4 is necessary for withholding to occur, then absent Ms. XXXXXXX’s submission of a signed W-4, there can be no withholding.

I can respect someone acting according to the law. I can even accept someone applying the law, as they have come to read and understand it, even if that reading and understanding is misperceived. At least, in both situations, there is room for debate and communication in both sides making an argument for their interpretation of the law. However, I cannot accept, nor respect, someone who acts under color of law; who cites snippets of code out of context; and who hides behind colloquial interpretations and disjointed conventional wisdom of what they may have heard or have been told by others no more knowledgeable or informed than themselves. Since you appear to care not about what the law actually says, I have to believe you are hiding behind the law to unjustly deprive Ms. XXXXXXX of her full compensation because you are reluctant or afraid to go against the din of the ignorant cheering you on to remain ignorant like them and curry favor with the status quo.

I would appreciate, and respect, an articulate and logical application of the law, as you understand it through your own reading and research. Absent any evidence that you have applied yourself in reconciling this matter civilly, justly, and lawfully, I will remain resolute and unwavering in demanding Ms. XXXXXXX’s property be returned. Ms. XXXXXXX responded honorably in providing her labor at your request, in exchange for just compensation. I would expect you respond honorably in remitting Ms. XXXXXXX’s property to her in full.

   In closing, I will expect to see the balance of the earnings owed to Ms. XXXXXXX through unlawful confiscation returned within the time specified above. This letter constitutes final demand for payment in full of all said monies. Failure to respond with a remittance of the full amount of monies withheld will precipitate redress through the civil legal process. I await your response.

Sincerely,

Mark McCoy
Private Counsel and Representative for Ms. XXXXXXX

=============================================================================================

MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT
TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
(City of St. Louis)

XXXXX X. XXXXX            )
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX         )
XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX 62226   )
                  )
         Plaintiff,           )
                  )
vs.                  )   Cause No.
                  )
XXX                  )
and Mr. XXXXXXX                        )
XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX   )
Earth City, Mo 63045              )
                  )
         Defendant(s).   )

      
COMPLAINT

   COMES NOW the Plaintiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, and for her causes of action against the defendant, XXX, hereinafter

referred to as XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, states as follows:

COUNT I
(CONVERSION AGAINST DEFENDANT, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX)

   For Count I against the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX,

Plaintiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, states as follows:

   1.   That the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, is a Missouri

   Corporation authorized to do business in the State of

   Missouri.

   2.   That the Defendant did contract with the Plaintiff for

   her labor, where she performed her duties for the Defendant

   on the following dates, and for the number of hours listed:
 
      A.   Sept. 27, 2007, for six hours.

      B.   Oct. 6, 2007, for six hours.

      C.   Oct. 11, 2007, for six hours.

      D.   Oct. 19, 2007, for six hours.
   
      E.   Nov. 2, 2007, for eight hours.

   3.   That the Defendant did contract with the Plaintiff for
   
   her labor, absent any disclosure of a social security number

   or any tendering of tax withholding forms.

   4.   That the Defendant had no lawful authority or

   permission from the Plaintiff to withhold any amount from

   the Plaintiff’s just compensation.
                     
   5.   That the agreed upon rate of pay per hour was $28.97,

   pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the

   International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local X.

   6.   That the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff for

   $952.71 as compensation for her labor.

   7.   That the Defendant did issue a payroll check in the

   amount of $676.77 on Dec. 31, 2007, to the Plaintiff,

   as compensation for her labor performed per paragraph 1.

   8.   That the Plaintiff was denied $275.94 of her just

   compensation, by the Defendant withholding said amount

   against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

   9.   That the Defendant alluded to complying with a law

   requiring him to withhold a portion of the Plaintiff’s
         
   compensation as justification, but failed to fully cite any

   lawful authority for depriving the Plaintiff of her full

   compensation when faced with a demand by the Plaintiff for

   such specific lawful duty.

   10.   That the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff, upon

   contracting for her labor, that he   would be withholding any

   amount from Plaintiff’s compensation in order to comply with

   any lawful authority.

   11.   That the Plaintiff made repeated demands to the

   Defendant for the $275.71 balance owed to her.

   12.   That the Defendant committed the tort of conversion

   when he intentionally and purposefully withheld $275.94 from

   the Plaintiff’s just compensation for her labor, and

   retained said amount for his own use.

   13.   That as a direct and proximate result of one or more of

   the aforementioned acts by the Defendant, the Plaintiff,

   XXXXX X. XXXXX, was deprived of the use and enjoyment of her

   just compensation and fruits of her labor.

   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, prays judgement

against the defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, for a sum of $275.94 in

compensatory damages, plus $1000 in punitive damages, plus costs

of suit.      

COUNT II
(BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX)

   For Count II against the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX,

Plaintiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, states as follows:

   1.   That the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, is a Missouri

   Corporation authorized to do business in the State of

   Missouri.

   2.   That the Defendant did contract with the Plaintiff for

   her labor, where she performed her duties for the Defendant

   on the following dates, and for the number of hours listed:
 
      A.   Sept. 27, 2007, for six hours.

      B.   Oct. 6, 2007, for six hours.

      C.   Oct. 11, 2007, for six hours.

      D.   Oct. 19, 2007, for six hours.
   
      E.   Nov. 2, 2007, for eight hours.

   3.   That the Defendant did contract with the Plaintiff for
   
   her labor, absent any disclosure of a social security number

   or any tendering of tax withholding forms.

   4.   That the Defendant had no lawful authority or

   permission from the Plaintiff to withhold any amount from

   the Plaintiff’s just compensation.
                     
   5.   That the agreed upon rate of pay per hour was $28.97,

   pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the

   International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local X.

   6.   That the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff for

   $952.71 as compensation for her labor.

   7.   That the Defendant did issue a payroll check in the

   amount of $676.77 on Dec. 17, 2007, to the Plaintiff,

   as compensation for her labor performed per paragraph 1.

   8.   That the Plaintiff was denied $275.94 of her just

   compensation by the Defendant withholding said amount

   against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

   9.   That the Defendant alluded to complying with a law

   requiring him to withhold a portion of the Plaintiff’s
         
   compensation as justification, but failed to fully cite any

   lawful authority for depriving the Plaintiff of her full

   compensation when faced with a demand by the Plaintiff for

   such specific lawful duty.

   10.   That the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff, upon

   contracting for her labor, that he   would be withholding any

   amount from Plaintiff’s compensation in order to comply with

   any lawful authority.

   11.   That the Plaintiff made repeated demands to the

   Defendant for the $275.71 balance owed to her.

   12.   That the Defendant committed the tort of conversion

   when he intentionally and purposefully withheld $275.94 from

   the Plaintiff’s just compensation for her labor, and

   retained said amount for his own use.

   13.   That as a direct and proximate result of one or more of

   the aforementioned acts by the Defendant, the Plaintiff,

   XXXXX X. XXXXX, was deprived of the use and enjoyment of her

   just compensation and fruits of her labor.

   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, prays judgement

against the defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXX, for a sum of $275.94 in

compensatory damages, plus $1000 in punitive damages, plus costs

of suit.      

COUNT III
(CONVERSION AGAINST DEFENDANT, XXXXX XXXXXXXX)

   For Count I against the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX,

Plaintiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, states as follows:

   1.   That at all relevant times herein, the Defendant, XXXXX

   XXXXXXXXX, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of

   XXX, and was acting in the course of such employment.

   2.   That the Defendant did contract with the Plaintiff for

   her labor, where she performed her duties for the Defendant

   on the following dates, and for the number of hours listed:
 
      A.   Sept. 27, 2007, for six hours.

      B.   Oct. 6, 2007, for six hours.

      C.   Oct. 11, 2007, for six hours.

      D.   Oct. 19, 2007, for six hours.
   
      E.   Nov. 2, 2007, for eight hours.

   3.   That the Defendant did contract with the Plaintiff for
   
   her labor, absent any disclosure of a social security number

   or any tendering of tax withholding forms.

   4.   That the Defendant had no lawful authority or

   permission from the Plaintiff to withhold any amount from

   the Plaintiff’s just compensation.
                     
   5.   That the agreed upon rate of pay per hour was $28.97,

   pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the

   International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local X.

   6.   That the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff for

   $952.71 as compensation for her labor.

   7.   That the Defendant did issue a payroll check in the

   amount of $676.77 on Dec. 17, 2007, to the Plaintiff,

   as compensation for her labor performed per paragraph 1.

   8.   That the Plaintiff was denied $275.94 of her just

   compensation by the Defendant withholding said amount

   against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

   9.   That the Defendant alluded to complying with a law

   requiring him to withhold a portion of the Plaintiff’s
         
   compensation as justification, but failed to fully cite any

   lawful authority for depriving the Plaintiff of her full

   compensation when faced with a demand by the Plaintiff for

   such specific lawful authority.

   10.   That the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff, upon

   contracting for her labor, that he   would be withholding any

   amount from Plaintiff’s compensation in order to comply with

   any lawful authority.

   11.   That the Plaintiff made repeated demands to the

   Defendant for the $275.71 balance owed to her.

   12.   That the Defendant committed the tort of conversion

   when he intentionally and purposefully withheld $275.94 from

   the Plaintiff’s just compensation for her labor, and

   retained said amount for his own use.

   13.   That as a direct and proximate result of one or more of

   the aforementioned acts by the Defendant, the Plaintiff,

   XXXXX X. XXXXX, was deprived of the use and enjoyment of her

   just compensation and fruits of her labor.

   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, prays judgement

against the defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, for a sum of $275.94 in

compensatory damages, plus $1000 in punitive damages, plus costs

of suit.      

COUNT IV
(BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT,XXXXX XXXXXXXXX)

   For Count II against the Defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXX X

XXXXX, states as follows:
            
   1.   That at all relevant times herein, the Defendant, XXXXX

        XXXXXXXXX, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of XXX, and was

        acting in the course of such employment.

   2.   That the Defendant did contract with the Plaintiff for

   her labor, where she performed her duties for the Defendant

   on the following dates, and for the number of hours listed:
 
      A.   Sept. 27, 2007, for six hours.

      B.   Oct. 6, 2007, for six hours.

      C.   Oct. 11, 2007, for six hours.

      D.   Oct. 19, 2007, for six hours.
   
      E.   Nov. 2, 2007, for eight hours.

   3.   That the Defendant did contract with the Plaintiff for
   
   her labor, absent any disclosure of a social security number

   or any tendering of tax withholding forms.

   4.   That the Defendant had no lawful authority or

   permission from the Plaintiff to withhold any amount from

   the Plaintiff’s just compensation.
                     
   5.   That the agreed upon rate of pay per hour was $28.97,

   pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the

   International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local X.

   6.   That the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff for

   $952.71 as compensation for her labor.

   7.   That the Defendant did issue a payroll check in the

   amount of $676.77 on Dec. 17, 2007, to the Plaintiff,

   as compensation for her labor performed per paragraph 1.

   8.   That the Plaintiff was denied $275.94 of her just

   compensation by the Defendant withholding said amount

   against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

   9.   That the Defendant alluded to complying with a law

   requiring him to withhold a portion of the Plaintiff’s
         
   compensation as justification, but failed to fully cite any

   lawful authority for depriving the Plaintiff of her full

   compensation when faced with a demand by the Plaintiff for

   such specific lawful duty.

   10.   That the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff, upon

   contracting for her labor, that he   would be withholding any

   amount from Plaintiff’s compensation in order to comply with

   any lawful authority.

   11.   That the Plaintiff made repeated demands to the

   Defendant for the $275.71 balance owed to her.

   12.   That the Defendant committed the tort of conversion

   when he intentionally and purposefully withheld $275.94 from

   the Plaintiff’s just compensation for her labor, and

   retained said amount for his own use.

   13.   That as a direct and proximate result of one or more of

   the aforementioned acts by the Defendant, the Plaintiff,

   XXXXX X. XXXXX, was deprived of the use and enjoyment of her

   just compensation and fruits of her labor.

   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, prays judgement

against the defendant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, for a sum of $275.94 in

compensatory damages, plus $1000 in punitive damages, plus costs

of suit.      
      

                  Respectfully Submitted,
                                             
                  XXXXX X. XXXXX, Plaintiff

XXXXX X. XXXXX
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX         
XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX 62226

Advertisements

One thought on “So you think you're an Employee working for an Employer. A letter I wrote for one of my clients to their so-called "Employer".

  1. danastone says:

    Dear Mark,
    I have sent letters almost identical to the Heads of Payroll of the companies I have worked for, to no avail, of course. When worked for Bluegreen, the IRS intervened and stated BG was correct in witholding, and for garnishing my pay for @ $80,000 w/i a 2 year span.
    When I catch a breather from my fight with MO Dept. of Rev., I plan on taking on the IRS and Bluegreen for Fraud and RICO.
    However, in all the intense study i have done, I now believe I am at fault, in part for offering a social security number to begin with. I did it because I was told I could not work for the company without giving it. I gave it, believing I could “educate” the company as to why it was not required of me (later, after they found they couldn’t get on without me). It is the offering of that ssn that enslaves us.
    What I believe we need to do is get hired by companies, then refuse to give our ssn, of course we will then get fired. At that point we can sue the company and establish case law that the ssn is not mandatory. If I make it through my present situation, that will be the next step I will take.
    I noticed your client is a Missourian, too. If you have any thoughts or experience that may help me, all will be received with heartfelt gratitude, and investigated thoroughly!
    Blessings and Great Joy!
    dana

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: