Home Page: http://i9deception.net

March 20, 2013

I can only point out the facts as I see them, it is up to you the reader to verify the facts I present and come to your own conclusions, and act accordingly.

The Attorney Generals authority under IRCA and the I-9 form begins with agriculture & remains with agriculture. Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981) "Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation" Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981) "All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large.. It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority"

The Attorney General’s authority to “authorize employment” originated in The Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act Amendments of 1974 (Hereafter FLCRA) and all such authority remains limited to agricultural employment only within the D.C. and the territorial island states exclusively. F.L.C.R.A. Amendments of 1974 Public Law 93-518 / 88 Stat 1652 7 USC 2044 Sec 7. Section 5(b) is amended by- (5) striking all after the word “utilized” in paragraph (6) and inserting in lieu thereof the following; “with knowledge, the services of any person, who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or who has not been authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment,” Sec 11. (a) Section 6 is amended by - (3) adding to the end thereof the following paragraphs; “(f) refrain from recruiting, employing, or utilizing with knowledge, the services of any person, who is an alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or who has not been authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment; The Attorney General’s authority was and is strictly limited to Mexican aliens authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment with a farm labor contractor within the District of Columbia. Nowhere has Congress ever expanded his authority to authorize employment beyond the hiring of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers employed in seasonal agricultural services, Nor has his authority been expanded beyond the limits of farm labor contracting for the purpose of employer sanctions under IRCA to include any other occupation whatsoever.

The FLCRA became the MSPA 29 CFR 500.0(a) The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) , hereinafter referred to as MSPA or the Act, repeals and replaces the farm labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963, as amended, hereinafter referred to as FLCRA or the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act.

The IRCA was created out of §106 of the Migrant and Seasonal agricultural worker Protection Act (hereafter MSPA), Congress in 1986 removed §106 from the MSPA and renamed it the Immigrations Reform and Control Act of 1986 (hereafter IRCA) the IRCA was removed but never separated from the MSPA to which it is still connected. (The MSPA and the IRCA are by presumption one and the same.)

29 CFR 500.0 (b) These regulations include provisions necessitated by the Immigration Reform and Control Act's (IRCA) amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IRCA amended MSPA to remove section 106 thereof prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. Matters concerning certificate actions or the assessment of civil money penalties, for a violation of section 106 of MSPA which occurred prior to June 1, 1987, continue through final administrative determination as stated in Sec. 500.147. Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act – 1983 (M.S.P.A.) Public Law 97-470 / 96 Stat. 2583 Title I – Farm Labor Contractors. Sec. 106 (a) No farm labor contractor shall recruit, hire, employ, or use, with knowledge , the services of any individual who is an alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or who has not been authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment. (b) a farm labor contractor shall be considered to have complied with subsection (a) if the farm labor contractor demonstrates that the farm labor contractor relied in good faith on documentation prescribed by the Secretary, and the farm labor contractor had no reason to believe the individual was an alien referred to in subsection (a). 29 CFR §500.58 prohibition against recruiting, hiring, employing, or using an alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment. it is a violation of the Act for a farm labor contractor to recruit, hire, employ, or use, with knowledge, the service of any individual who is an alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or who has not been authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment. see also 29 USC – 1982 edition section 1816.

Page 1 of 23

There is a strong presumption that enforcement of the IRCA is enforcement of the MSPA and that any and all employers /businesses that compel its workers / employees to fill out and sign I-9 form are equally liable for the entirety of the Migrant and Seasonal agricultural workers Protection Act and must therefore obey all of its provisions without exception. As you can clearly read the prohibitions on hiring aliens was placed on the farm labor contractor exclusively, and the Attorney General is limited to authorizing employment of those aliens who would reasonably be hired by a farm labor contractor. (That is clearly limited by the code to the

migrant and seasonal agricultural worker.)

The first identification of an “employer” and “worker” is found in the Migratory Workers Agreement of 1948 Between Mexico and the United States. 62 Stat. 3887; The term “worker” refers to a Mexican national who is an agricultural worker. (this term is synonymous with employee, but is

still used in reference to the migrant and seasonal agricultural worker.)

The term “employer” refers to the owner or operator of an agricultural property in the United States or an association of such. It is obvious from the above that the first and primary qualification of an “employer” is the ownership of operation on an agricultural property in the United States. (AKA District of Columbia) By a strong presumption this act established the absolute standard which still applies to the IRCA employer sanctions, the I-9 form and E-verify, that being before any sanctions may be applied to any employer under IRCA there must be first established the ownership and or operation of an agricultural property located within the United States, AKA District of Columbia. Your own books and documents are also very clear as to the true identity of an “employer” and these books and documents can be relied upon. Handbook for Employers Part 5, at page 37 (above): Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), it is unlawful for an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements . This provision applies to those agricultural associations, agricultural employers, and farm labor contractors who recruit persons for a fee, and those who refer persons or provide documents or information about persons to employers in return for a fee . This limited class of recruiters and referrers for a fee must complete Form I-9 when a person they refer is hired . Form I-9 must be fully completed within three business days of the date employment begins, or, in the case of an individual hired for fewer than three business days, at the time employment begins. o Limited class means exactly that, the I-9 form and e-verify are limited to the specific class of agricultural employers listed. o The title of the “Handbook for Employers, M274” is intentionally misleading where the true, correct and honest title is ‘Handbook for Agricultural Employers’ with an honest title there would be no misunderstandings. For you government attorneys who are unfamiliar with the word honest: 1. a: free from fraud or deception: LEGITIMATE, TRUTHFUL, 4. marked by integrity. The new I-9 form under General Instructions continues to clearly identify the employer. By a strong presumption “all employers” means all employers within the limited class of agricultural associations, agricultural employers, and farm labor contractors and no other. http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

The employer is referenced as a limited class of recruiters and referrers for a fee and the term “all employers” means all employers within the limited class of agricultural entities specifically named, (see the clear wording of 8 CFR 274a below) those being the agricultural association, agricultural employer and the farm labor contractor. Immigrations Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649 (Act of November 29, 1990), SEC. 521: if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States’. (amendment to the IRCA) 8 USC §1324a: if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section. (this is the section used

to charge business with IRCA violations, see OCAHO document on page 10 (ICE Castles Daycare Too) , this lays out the DHS presumption that every business brought before OCAHO is an one of the agricultural entities named above, where the attorneys for the company fail to enter evidence rebutting the intentional sophist and misleading presumption of DHS.) 8 CFR §274a: all references to recruiters and referrers for a fee are limited to a person or entity who is either an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Pub. L. 97–470 (29 U.S.C. 1802)) maxims: “The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.” “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.” “The appointment or designation of one is the exclusion of another; and that expressed makes that which is implied cease.” “Coupling words together shows that they ought to be understood in the same sense.” “The meaning of words is the spirit of the law.” “From the words of the law there must be no departure.” “A twisting of language is unworthy of a judge.” “Law arises out of fact; that is, its application must be to facts.” SEE THE PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT ON THE I-9 INSTRUCTION PAGE. “Submission of the information required in this form is voluntary.

However, an individual may not begin employment unless this form is completed, since employers are subject to civil or criminal penalties is they do not comply with the Immigrations Reform and Control Act of 1986”. th Voluntary: Intentional, and without coercion. Blacks Law Dictionary, 5 ed, page 1412. By a strong presumption not a single I-9 form has been signed intentionally or without coercion. See the example below where the three bolded terms are replaced with their dictionary definitions.

Page 3 of 23

BY A STRONG PRESUMPTION THE CORRECT READING IS AS FOLLOWS Submission of the information required in this form is Intentional, and

without coercion. However, an migrant and seasonal agricultural worker employed in seasonal agricultural services may not begin employment unless this form is completed, since agricultural associations, agricultural employers and farm labor contractors are subject to civil or criminal penalties is they do not comply with the Immigrations Reform and Control Act of 1986. By a strong presumption the I-9 form is voluntary only to the migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, all others not qualified are committing a criminal act by entering data on said form and by signing it.

If you will notice in the definitions above, specifically the “Immigrations Act of 1990, 8 USC §1324a, and 8 CFR 274a” each of them references the definitions in title 29 USC §1802. Please look closely at #(2) (below) the key words here are “owns or operates” remember the Migratory Workers Agreement of 1948 Between Mexico and the United States. 62 Stat. 3887; The term “employer” refers to the owner or operator of an agricultural property in the United States or an association of such.

The second detail is it names the precise, and explicitly identifies the activities that an IRCA qualified employer must be involved in or performing before being identified as an employer subject to employer sanctions under IRCA. These activities are the hallmark of an IRCA qualified agricultural employer. 29 USC Sec. 1802 (1) The term "agricultural association" means any nonprofit or cooperative association of farmers, growers, or ranchers, incorporated or qualified under applicable State law, which recruits, solicits, hires, employs, furnishes, or transports any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker 29 USC Sec. 1802 (2) The term "agricultural employer" means any person who owns or operates a farm, ranch, processing establishment, cannery, gin, packing shed or nursery, or who produces or conditions seed and who either recruits, solicits, hires, employs, furnishes, or transports any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker How many of the company’s that hostile ICE and HSI GOON SQUADS have raided were actually and provably involved in performing any of the activities listed here? And did any of those idiot judges that signed any of ICE’s search warrants actually check for any truth in the affidavits prior to issuing the warrants? Because by presumption the judges are involved in rendering criminal assistance in aiding and abetting ICE’s criminal activities. 29 USC Sec. 1802 (6) The term "farm labor contracting activity" means recruiting, soliciting, hiring, employing, furnishing, or transporting any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. (7) The term "farm labor contractor" means any person, other than an agricultural employer, an agricultural association, or an employee of an agricultural employer or agricultural association, who, for any money or other valuable consideration paid or promised to be paid, performs any farm labor contracting activity. Did the DHS hostile GOON SQUADS bother to verify that each of the raided employers actually were involved in performing the listed activities? “who either recruits, solicits, hires, employs, furnishes, or transports any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker” or did DHS conveniently leave it out of their affidavits and reports? Obviously the judges that signed the search warrants and the OCAHO courts never got wind of the truth that DHS withheld. It is crucial to understand the term “fee” as it is used in the definitions above. Public Law 88-582 September 7, 1964 Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 SEC. 3(c) The term "fee" includes any money or other valuable consideration paid or promised to be paid to a person for services as a farm labor contractor. [Emphasis added.]

Notice the definition for “farm labor contractor” is identical with the definition of the term “fee”. 8 USC 1324a “to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States” BECOMES “to hire, or to recruit or refer for money paid to a migrant farm worker or agricultural employer for services as a farm labor contractor, hired for employment in the United States.”

Here are some case cites that dictate that DOJ and DHS must follow and abide by the definitions of Congress. Ayuda, Inc. v. Meese, 687 F.Supp. 650 666 (D.D.C.1988). “Obviously the first place to look for legislative intent is the words of the statute. There is a powerful presumption that Congress means what it says – and that Congressional intent is expressed by the plain meaning of the language used. …Hence when crafting IRCA, Congress chose its words with care.” Jenkins v. INS, 108 F.3d 195, (9th Cir.1997) We prefer to "presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." In re Transcon Lines,58 F.3d 1432, 1437 (9th Cir.1995), quoting Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain,503 U.S. 249, 253, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1016, 134 L.Ed.2d 96 (1996).

The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language (TERMS) he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar.” United Sates v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95. Grimsley v. So. Carolina Law Enforcement Div. We are guided by rules of statutory construction and conclude the legislature did not intend for the Retirement Act to apply to this controversy. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. Sloan v. Hardee, 371 S.C. 495, 498, 640 S.E.2d 457, 459 (2007). "As such, a court must abide by the plain meaning of the words of a statute. When interpreting the plain meaning of a statute, courts should not resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation." State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 587, 713 S.E.2d 621, 622 (2011) (internal citations omitted). But "[w]here the statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning." Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000). "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945) ; Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the contrary." [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)] "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. If agency Regulations extends beyond the clear intent of Congress (i.e. Congressional Statute as passed by Congress), then it is not considered to be a permissible construction of the statute by that agency. By a strong presumption DOJ and DHS have unlawfully expanding the definition of "employer and “employee”" and therefore such an interpretive agency regulation is void ab initio and ineffective.

Subject: LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS 73 Am Jur 2d § 146 Operation of legislative definitions, generally Research References West’s Key Number Digest, Statutes 223.1 The lawmaking body’s own construction of its language, by means of definitions of the term employed, should be followed in the interpretation of the act or section to which it relates and is intended to apply.1 By the same token, the courts should not enlarge statutory definitions so as to include a situation or a condition which it might be assumed the legislature would have covered by an enlarged definition if its existence had been contemplated.2 A statutory definition supersedes the common-law,3 colloquial,4 commonly accepted, dictionary or judicial definition.5 In this regard, where statute itself contains a definition of a word used therein, the definition controls, however contrary to the ordinary meaning of the word it may be, 6 and the term may not be given the meaning in which it is employed in another statute, although the two may be in pari material. 7 Where the legislature has defined words which are employed in a statute, its definitions are binding on the courts since the legislature has the right to give such signification as it deems proper to any word or phrase used by the statute, irrespective of the relationship of the definition to other terms. 8 Furthermore, where a word that already has a definite, fixed, and unambiguous meaning is redefined in a statute, the definition must be taken literally by the courts. 9 1 Curle v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 4th 1057, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 751, 16 P.3d 166 (2001); State v. Olsen, 618 N.WE.2d 346 (Iowa 2000); Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Parklawn Manner, Inc., 41 Ohio St. 2d 47, 70 Ohio Op. 2d 148, 322 N.E.2d 642 (1975); Devers v. Scranton City, 308 Pa. 13, 161 A. 540, 85 A.L.R. 692 (1932). 2 Lenox Realty Co. v. Hackett, 122 Conn. 143, 187 A. 895, 107 A.L.R. 1306 (1936); Robertson v. Western Baptist Hosp., 267 S.W.2d 395 (Ky. 1954). 3 Rayonier, Inc. v. Polson, 400 F.2d 909 (9th cir. 1968); 1137 18th Street Associates, Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia, 769 A.2d 155 (D.C. 2001). 4 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 65 S. Ct. 335, 89 L. Ed. 414 (1945). 5 Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S. Ct. 2597, 147 L. Ed. 2d 743 (2000); Driscoll v. General Nutrition Corp., 252 Conn. 215, 752 A.2d 1p069 (2000); Erlandson v. Genesee County Employees’ Retirement Com’n, 337 Mich. 195, 59 N.W.2d 389 (1953); Appeal of Clayton-Marcus Co., Inc., 286 N.C. 215, 210 S.E.2d 199 (1974); Minnix v. State, 1955 OK CR 37, 282 P.2d 772 (Okla. Crim. App. 1955). 6 Appeal of Clayton-Marcus Co., Inc., 286 N.C. 215, 210 S.E.2d 199 (1974). The general Assembly’s own construction of its language as provided by definitions, controls in the application of a statute, and such definition will be given great weight against any claim that application of the statutory definition defeats the general purpose of the statute. Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Parklawn Manner, Inc., 41 Ohio St. 2d 47, 70 Ohio Op. 2d 148, 322 N.E.2d 642 (1975). 7 Davison v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 186 Ga. 663, 198 S.E. 738, 118 A.L.R. 1363 (1938). 8 People v. Dugan, 91 Misc. 2d 239, 397 N.Y.S.2d 878 (County Ct. 1977). 9 Young v. O’Keefe, 246 Iowa 1182, 69 N.W.2d 534 (1955); State v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Or. 438, 123 P. 40 (1912).

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITIONS RULE, SO JUST WHERE DID DOJ GET THE IDEA OR AUTHORITY THAT THEY COULD OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITIONS AND INTENT BY APPLYING A GENERAL MEANING TO THE WORD “EMPLOYER” AND BEGIN ASSAULTING AND TERRORIZING EVERY COMPANY THAT HIRES INDIVIDUALS TO DO A JOB?

Page 5 of 23

Does DOJ, DHS, ICE, and HSI use terrorist tactics on American business? I say YES by the book. Definitions of Terrorism: there is a strong presumption that the DOJ, DHS, ICE and HSI use the exact terrorist tactics as defined in these definitions against American businesses and working men and women. 1. A system of government that seeks to rule by intimidation. Funk and Wagnall’s New Practical Standard Dictionary (1946) . 2. The systematic used of terror esp. as a means of coercion. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-509-6, p. 1218] 3. 28 CFR 0.85 FBI, General Functions : Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. [E-verify, and the I-9 raids by ICE and HSI] 4. 6 U.S.C. 101(16): Terrorism (16) The term “terrorism” means any activity that— (B) appears to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; [E-verify, employer sanctions, RAIDS, and the I-9 form] 5. Paper terrorism is a neologism to refer to the use of false liens, frivolous lawsuits, bogus letters of credit, and other legal documents lacking sound factual basis as a method of harassment, especially against government officials the American People. o there is a strong presumption that DOJ’s I-9 form is in fact the epitome of paper terrorism in its most insidious form perpetrated upon the American public, business and the working man, . that DOJ uses to intimidate and coerce the civilian population, and every segment thereof, in furtherance of DOJ’s (undisclosed) political and social objectives, as a method of harassment especially against the American people. o By a strong presumption the I-9 form and e-verify are forms of governmental terrorism & tyranny one by paper the other electronic.

QUESTION? HOW DOES DOJ and DHS ACCOUNT FOR THE HOSTILE AGENCY TERRORIST ATTACKS PERFORMED EACH YEAR ON AMERICAN COMPANIES, HERE IS A SMALL SAMPLING OF SOME OF DHS”S MORE RECENT NONAGRICULTURAL VICTIMS. (1) This is an action arising under the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006), in which the United States is the complainant and Ketchikan Drywall Services, Inc. (KDS or Ketchikan) is the respondent. (2) A complaint in one count was filed against the respondent New China Buffet Restaurant (New China) on October 28, 2009 by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE or the government). The complaint reflects that the government issued a Notice of Intent to Fine to New China on July 27, 2009, and the respondent thereafter made a timely request for hearing. (3) This is an action pursuant to the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006), in which the United States is the complainant and Pegasus Restaurant, Inc. (Pegasus or the company) is the respondent. (4) This is an action pursuant to the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006), in which the United States is the complainant and Alyn Industries, Inc., d/b/a Electronic Source Co. (Alyn or the company) is the respondent. (5) On November 7, 1991, United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, hereafter called Complainant or I.N.S., filed a Complaint Regarding Unlawful Employment with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. The violations of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 by Respondent Noel Plastering and Stucco, Inc.1 (6) This is an action arising under the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006), in which the United States is the complainant and Snack Attack Deli, Inc. d/b/a Subway Restaurant # 3718 (Snack Attack) is the respondent. (7) The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (Nov. 6, 1986), at section 101, enacted section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, (INA or the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, introducing an enforcement program designed to implement the employer sanctions provisions prohibiting the unlawful employment of aliens a complaint against Koamerican Trading Corp... BY A STRONG PRESUMPTION NOT A SINGLE COMPANY HERE IS LIABLE UNDER THE IRCA, NOT ONE IS AN AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYER, NOT ONE HIRES MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS AS REQUIRED BY THE DEFINITIONS, AND NOT ONE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AKA THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. THEY ARE ALL LOCATED WITHIN THE SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION OF A UNION STATE AND OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS LOCAL AGENCIES DOJ, DHS, ICE, & HSI.

DO ANY OF THE BUSINESSES THAT DHS AGENTS HAVE ATTACKED AB INITIO PERFORM ANY OF THE LISTED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, AND IF SO WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? HOW MANY OF THE BUSINESSES THAT DHS ROB’s AND PILLAGE’s IN YOUR OCAHO COURT SYSTEM ON A YEARLY BASSES ARE ACTUALLY AND PROVABLY INVOLVED IN ANY OF THESE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES?. By a strong presumption every American company in their attempt to please DOJ are in fact committing subornation of perjury by their demand of forcing their employees to make a false claim of being an H-2A migrant or seasonal agricultural worker in the RAW and SAW programs on the I-9 form, the very act of signing an I-9 form presupposes that the signor is a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker performing the specific jobs identified at 29 USC 1802(10)(A) “when employed on a farm or ranch performing field work related to planting, cultivating, or harvesting operations; or (ii) when employed in canning, packing, ginning, seed conditioning or related research, or processing operations, and transported, or caused to be transported, to or from the place of employment by means of a day-haul operation.”

Each definition above 29 USC 1802 (1)(2) and (6) clearly identifies the “employee”, as a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker, and below at #(10)(A) you will see that the employee is also restricted to specific activities that they must be performing before they can reasonably be expected to fill out and sign an I-9 form. 29 USC Sec. 1802 (8)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term "migrant agricultural worker" means an individual who is employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature, and who is required to be absent overnight from his permanent place of residence 29 USC Sec. 1802 (10)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term "seasonal agricultural worker" means an individual who is employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature and is not required to be absent overnight from his permanent place of residence - (i) when employed on a farm or ranch performing field work related to planting, cultivating, or harvesting operations; or (ii) when employed in canning, packing, ginning, seed conditioning or related research, or processing operations, and transported, or caused to be transported, to or from the place of employment by means of a day-haul operation

HOW MANY OF THE BUSINESS THAT DHS RAPED LAST YEAR HIRED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS TO ENGAGE IN THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES LISTED ABOVE? HOW MANY POLICE OFFICERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PERSONNEL, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, AIRLINE CREWS, HOSPITAL WORKERS, OFFICE WORKERS, AND THE PEOPLE IN MINING AND MANUFACTURING ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO SIGN I-9’S YET NONE PERFORM ANY OF THE TASKS LISTED? And again the I-9 form was clearly identified and defined in the pre 1994 CFR’s at Title 29 CFR §502.2 THERE IS A STRONG PRESUMPTION THAT THE BELOW REGULATIONS STATE THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE I-9 FORM, AND IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE I-9 CANNOT BE EXPANDED BEYOND ITS STATED PURPOSE. 29 CFR 502.2 Definitions pertaining solely to a reportable worker employed in seasonal agricultural services. (i) Form I-9 is an INS Form, Employment Eligibility Verification (EEV), which reflects the requirements established under section 274A(9)(b) of INA requiring employers to examine documents which establish the identity and employment eligibility of individuals hired since November 6, 1986. The EEV information must be recorded on an INS Form I-9 and be made available for inspection by INS and/or DOL representatives 29 CFR 502.1 Purpose and scope. (d) Any person who hires any worker must complete the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (INS Form I-9). Any resident alien who is identified with an Alien Registration Number (''A'' number) in either the A90000000 or A090000000 series on the I-9 Form (including any replenishment agricultural worker, who is identified by an INS Alien Registration Number beginning with either A94 or A094 and followed by any six digits within the specific range of 399501 to 500000) and who is employed in seasonal agricultural services, is an employee subject to this part (termed ''reportable worker''). Employers cannot reliably determine whether such an employee is a special agricultural worker since employees cannot be required to document such status to anyone other than INS (see 8 CFR 274a.2 (b)(v) (NOTE: There is a strong presumption that absent the A-numbers in the proper sequence’s above, the I-9 form is incomplete, fraudulent and perjured.) By a strong presumption most American workers working in non agricultural employment do not have or have not been issued such “A number” nor are they qualified to posses such number. 29 CFR 502.10 Requirements for reporting and employing a reportable worker in seasonal agricultural services. Effective beginning October 1, 1988, any person employing a reportable worker in seasonal agricultural services shall do the following: (a) Identify reportable worker(s). (1) When completing the I-9 at the time of hiring (or reviewing a State Employment Service certificate), identify any reportable worker subject to these regulations. A reportable worker is identified as a worker with an INS Alien Registration Number in either the A90000000 or A090000000 series employed in seasonal agricultural services

Page 7 of 23

29 CFR 502.12 Reporting to the Federal Government. (b) A report must be filed with respect to any reportable worker (worker having an INS Alien Registration Number (''A Number'') in either the A90000000 or A090000000 series) who has employed in seasonal agricultural services for one or more work-days at any time during the quarter reported. The Alien Registration Number is furnished by the resident alien when the Form I-9 is completed at the time of hiring (or by a State Employment Service Agency on the certification of employment eligibility verification furnished the employer when referring an employee for agricultural employment. (By a strong presumption the goal of the I-9 is appearently to turn every American into a reportable worker through FRAUD, ) By a strong presumption the Department of Labor form WH-530 (OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1215-0037) is the proper form for the purposes of IRCA, the I-9 being a fraudulent substitute. There is a strong presumption that the I-9 is a fraudulent duplication in violation of the paperwork reduction Act. (Form WH-530 instructions)

There is a strong presumption that the signing of an I-9 form is equal to OBTAINING H-2A EMPLOYMENT. By a strong presumption an I-9 form places the signor into the SAW and RAW programs with all applicable laws applying. By a strong presumption the DOD, GSA, and NASA require contractors and subcontractors to register with E-verify as agricultural employers where none by presumption have entered into any contract for the purposes of agriculture. Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2007-013, Employment Eligibility Verification, AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Final rule. OMB has directed all Federal departments and agencies to use E-Verify on their newly-hired [by presumption all new hires in the federal system are required to work under the cloud of H-2A as a RAW and a SAW.] AFL-CIO v. Kahn, 618 F.2d at 794. If a contractor chooses to do business with the Federal Government, then the Federal Government can, and routinely does, impose contract performance requirements. Where, as with this rule, such requirements are imposed through contract terms included in contracts, a contractor's agreement to abide by those terms of the agreement is not ``involuntary.'…[by a strong presumption the federal government must apply the law as it is written, abiding by the definitions of Congress they do not have carte blanch to use any definition or even a common definition, as such the E-verify system can be applied only to agricultural contractors and subcontractors.] The correct details are available in DOJ’s own documents, and by a strong presumption DOJ and its staff already know this!! And I believe that the acts DOJ has committed against American business and workers is nothing less that criminal and terrorism on a national scale having been committed with knowledge, intent and forethought. BY PRESUMPTION In full criminal conspiracy with each and every state government and labor union, in these united states of America.

WHAT IS THE TRUTH BEHIND THE I-9 IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT LIST A, B, AND C.

The so called list of acceptable identification documents which are commonly referred to as Lists A, B, and C documents first appeared in 1976 a full ten (10) years before the IRCA, the application of the identification documents again only apply to the Mexican migrant and seasonal agricultural worker who is working for a farm labor contractor. Federal Register, Vol. 41 No 126 Tuesday, June 29, 1976 26820 Federal Regulations, Part 40 – Farm Labor Contractors Registration Sec, 40.51(p) A farm labor contractor shall refrain from recruiting, employing, or utilizing with knowledge, the services of any person, who is an alien not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or who has not been authorized by the Attorney General to accept employment, and must evidence an affirmative showing of a bona fide inquiry of each prospective employee’s status as a United States citizen or as a person lawfully authorized to work in the United States, Such affirmative showing will be deemed to be met by written documentation that reliance in good faith was based on any of the following; (1) Acceptable evidence of United States citizenship- (i) birth certificate, (II) certificate of citizenship, (iii) Certificate of naturalization, (iv) U.S. Identification card…, (v) Passport…, (vi) consular report of birth.

You have no authority to demand I apply for and or posses any such document, there is no law mandating such application or possession, there is no penalty for failure to apply for or posses said documents, Businesses have included on their job applications this statement or some other similar statements “are you authorized to work in the United States” few in any really know what this statement means. I believe most workers have been silenced by the sense of overwhelming powerlessness in the face of government and corporate power and greed along with the need to feed their families they remain silent in their ever growing anger not knowing where to turn as their rights are stripped away. The truth is that this statement is critically misunderstood and its translation has not been available to the public, the correct meaning and translation by presumption is as follows. “ARE YOU LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA” yet most businesses who have this statement on their job applications are not hiring H-2A migrant and seasonal agricultural workers to labor in their factories, their schools, or on their construction sites, nor are they hiring workers to work in or for the District of Columbia, the conclusion is that the statement is a FRAUD upon all working people in the country.

Page 9 of 23

THE ABOVE ACTION IS LISTED AS AN 8 USC §1324a PROCEEDING, BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Employer sanctions are applicable only to the limited class of agricultural employers listed at 8 USC 1324a and 8 CFR 274a and no one else without exception. You will not find any mention of employer sanctions applicable to any other industry in the U.S. codes. Proceeding: In a general sense, the form and manner of conducting juridical business before a court or judicial officer. Regular and orderly progress in form of law, including all possible steps in an action from its commencement to the execution of judgment. Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed, page 1083.

8 USC §1324a: if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section. The government allegation is stating that “Ice Castles Daycare Too” is one of the limited class of agricultural persons or entities as listed above, and defined in title 29. And the court is proceeding as though the allegations were in fact true as alleged. (an unrebutted allegation stands as truth.) (suggested internet search term: unrebutted allegations.) 8 CFR §274a: all references to recruiters and referrers for a fee are limited to a person or entity who is either an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Pub. L. 97–470 (29 U.S.C. 1802))

So how does a day care business violate the agricultural provisions above for which it is not liable? It is neither a person, entity or an employer under IRCA, nor are any of its employees or workers, qualified or identifiable as H2A agricultural employees for the purposes of the IRCA, e-verify or the I-9 form. It is just a game of fear and intimidation, lies and threats or whatever else will work to separate Ice Castles from their bank account by a monstrous criminal and predatory organization licensed by government to Rape, Rob and Pillage America with a vengeance that makes the Sicilian Mafia look like cute little innocent choir boys. 29 USC Sec. 1802 (2) The term "agricultural employer" means any person who owns or operates a farm, ranch, processing establishment, cannery, gin, packing shed or nursery, or who produces or conditions seed and who either recruits, solicits, hires, employs, furnishes, or transports any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker. for Ice castles to qualify as an employer under IRCA they would have to be performing at lest one the above activities as DHS claim in their PROCEEDINGS, but are these really the activities of a Day Care Center as ICE claims? 29 USC Sec. 1802 (10)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term "seasonal agricultural worker" means an individual who is employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature and is not required to be absent overnight from his permanent place of residence - (i) when employed on a farm or ranch performing field work related to planting, cultivating, or harvesting operations; or (ii) when employed in canning, packing, ginning, seed conditioning or related research, or processing operations, and transported, or caused to be transported, to or from the place of employment by means of a day-haul operation. ICE claims in their proceedings document that Ice Castles hired 74 employees to work in their Day care without an I-9 form, which of the jobs identified above as ICE claims are common jobs they might have been performing within that day Care Center? An unrefuted claim must be accepted as true? This appears to be the magic bullet DOJ and DHS use to get around the requirements of proof or evidence to establish the truth of its case against Ice castles. As long as the claim remains unrefuted by the attorneys the evidence and the facts are unnecessary!! o refute: verb (used with object), 1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge. 2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

Some questions one might ask? 1.

Did Ice castles attorney silently acquiesce to the charges Without raising any objection or filing an affidavit? An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce did the attorney knowingly refuse to file an affidavit, or did he even know how to? Did the attorney file any evidence in Ice Castles defense, or did he leave them defenseless and without recourse? o Affidavits are testimony that set out facts. WHERE IS YOUR AFFIDAVIT??

2.

Did Ice castles commit a crime? if so where is the evidence, there is only an unsupported allegation which Ice castles apparently did not contest or rebut. Do the ICE and HSI agents know what the law is, how could they if they have never read it for themselves nor received any degree training, they are by presumption acting on unsupported assumptions without any direct intelligence of the laws content. Cops think they know what the law is “In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand. and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. Mark Twain” I believe that says it all.

3.

What criteria or qualification was used by DHS and ICE to identify ICE Castles Day Care as an employer under IRCA? Did ICE witness any of the children harvesting crops? Was there any agricultural equipment located on the premises as a dead giveaway? If not than how was the determination made and who made the determination? And why did the ICE Castles attorney submit without a fight to the agricultural label placed upon his client?

4.

Did Ice castles give their consent to be prosecuted? You decide! Do NOT PLEA I Do Not Consent - Michael Badnarik, where is the consent? I Don't Consent -- I Waive All Benefits! Lew Rockwell on withdrawing consent from the government Slavery by Consent Pt.1 NO CONSENT = NO RULE What is consent?!

Page 11 of 23

5.

Did Ice Castles challenge the courts jurisdiction? Jurisdiction. Does the court you are in have it? By presumption the OCAHO court has no jurisdiction outside D.C. Did ICE Castles challenge DHS and ICE authority and jurisdiction to operate within Texas?

6.

Did Ice castles file an affidavit rebutting the 1324a and 274a presumptions of their alleged agricultural business, and that they hired 74 H2A classified migrant or seasonal agricultural workers to labor in their day care? If so what were they harvesting? Were they engaged in and performing the prescribed agricultural labor as identified at title 29 §1802, since the government made the allegation than they are responsible for providing the proof, the evidence to back up the truthfulness of their allegation, where is it?.

7.

Did Ice castles demand proof of identity of the Complainant “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” entered onto the record, Where are the all definitions of “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” in the federal codes, and the specific definition for the complainant and second, identifying all aspects of its creation, including a detailed map of its current location. Assuming you know who it is, is a mistake, you must know for certain with documented proof in the record, and you may be surprised by the disclosure. The courts always demand identification from the defendants, but where is the identification of the complainant?

8.

In this case who is the “true party in interest”? Where is this party identified with particularity in the record? Did the attorney make any attempt to discover the identity of the True party in interest?

9.

Bill of Rights, Amendment X, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. NO POWERS WERE DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING EITHER AGRICULTURE OR LABOR WITHIN THE STATES.

Here are several screen shots that show some truth is even found on the E-verify web site. http://www.ice.gov/doclib/image/pdf/73-028.pdf

This is the authority listed for IMAGE self assessment questionnaire program, which again identifies the agricultural limits as its authority.

Adjudicator's Field Manual Agricultural Workers H-2A

Here the status of H-2A applies to every ALIEN, agricultural worker, by presumption to sign an I-9 form is to claim H2A status as an alien seeking to perform agricultural labor, so how many law enforcement officers, emergency workers, doctors, nurses, teachers and construction workers in Washington state have filed fraudulent I-9 forms under penalty of perjury identifying themselves as seeking to perform H2A agricultural labor?

There is a strong presumption that the signing of an I-9 form is equal to SEEKING TO PERFORM H-2A AGRICULTURAL LABOR. By a strong presumption an I-9 form places the signor into the SAW and RAW programs with all applicable laws applying. (a) The SAW Program . The Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) provisions are contained in section 210 of the Act. This section of law provided a means for certain agricultural workers to attain temporary residence then later automatic adjustment to permanent residence. (b) The Replacement Agricultural Worker Program . Section 210A of the Act, the Replenishment Agricultural Worker (RAW) program, was added by the 1986 IRCA. According to section 210A(a)(1) of the Act, the RAW program was to be effective from FY90 through the end of FY93. The program was enacted as a means of providing additional seasonal agricultural workers to U.S. agricultural employers to alleviate possible shortages of workers for perishable crops. The program allowed the government to replenish the supply of farm workers by providing foreign workers with legal resident status if the Secretaries of Agriculture and Labor determined that a shortage of such workers existed. In the three year s during which the program was in place, however, a shortage of agricultural workers was never found to exist. Therefore, no immigration benefits were ever granted through the RAW program. As Congress gave no indication that it would extend the RAW program beyond the statutory expiration date, INS removed the regulations implementing the RAW program on May 10, 1994.

Page 13 of 23

I-9 central Home identifies the “agricultural recruiters and referrers for a fee”

Complete & Correct identifies the “employer/agricultural recruiters-and referrers-for-a-fee”

WHO NEEDS TO USE FORM I-9? Identifies the “agricultural recruiters and referrers for a fee” LOOK CLOSELY AT THE NOTE IN RED. WHEN WAS THIS NOTE ATTACHED, IT IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. SO MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL YOU DO KNOW THE TRUTH, AND BY A STRONG PRESUMPTION YOU ARE A CRIMINAL PERVERTING THE LAW FOR YOUR OWN PRIVATE GAIN, but note it is enclosed in parentheses, which means “any writing enclosed in parentheses is not part of the document” WHY?? What is DOJ attempting to hide?

By a strong presumption “electronic verification” is nothing less than wire fraud. Wire fraud: Wire fraud crimes refer broadly to any fraudulent or deceitful scheme to secure money or property, committed or aided through the use of interstate "wires" -- meaning television, radio, telephone, or computer modem. Almost all instances of wire fraud are considered federal crimes, due to their potential interstate effects.

18 U.S.C. 1343—Elements of Wire Fraud

Page 15 of 23

NOTICE the deception below, the agricultural employer has been expanded to include the term “Company” where does the limited class of agricultural employers suddenly include pizza shops or multinational corporations? The law that is the IRCA limits the I-9 to agricultural while the DOJ is expanding the definition hoping no one will catch on.

Getting Started

The only U.S. company, corporation or business entity required to complete Form I-9 is limited to the agricultural associations, agricultural employers and farm labor contractors. DOJ is without authority for expanding the definition, believing that no one is paying attention. http://www.ice.gov/image/faqs.htm

Here IMAGE references section 274A of the INA requiring “Employers” (agricultural associations, agricultural employers, and farm labor contractors) to verify their migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. http://www.ice.gov/image/faqs.htm

Here is the clue to 274A, here we come full circle back to 1324a of title 8 which is agricultural. Remember ICE Castles Day Care Too? This is where DHS is proceeding under 1324a claiming ICE castles is agricultural. http://library.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/CrossReferenceActtoUSC.pdf

Unlawful employment is limited to agriculture, and employer sanctions has no application to any other industry except agriculture, and that is limited to the district of Columbia.

Page 17 of 23

Compare the underlined section of the federal register below with * CFR §274a 8 CFR §274a: all references to recruiters and referrers for a fee are limited to a person or entity who is either an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Pub. L. 97–470 (29 U.S.C. 1802)) 8 USC §1324a: if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section. I-9 form: (@ section 2 of the old form) (and general instructions of the new form) "for the purpose of completing this form , the term "employer" means all employers, including those recruiters and referrers for a fee who are agricultural associations, agricultural employers or farm labor contractors. Here we have three term or phrases all with the exact same meaning recruiters and referrers for a fee. person or entity employer. All three above must be read as agricultural associations, agricultural employers or farm labor contractors. ALL means all within this limited agricultural class. It is crucial to understand the term “fee” as it is used in the definitions above and for the purposes of the IRCA / MSPA. Public Law 88-582 September 7, 1964 Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 SEC. 3(c) The term "fee" includes any money or other valuable consideration paid or promised to be paid to a person for services as a farm labor contractor. [Emphasis added.]

http://international.cua.edu/res/docs/immigrationbasics/i-9/2009-10-07-FR-Final-nomatchrecsindfinal.pdf

NOTICE DOJ’s CLEAR AND INTENTIONAL DECEPTION AND MISINFORMATION BELOW. 1.0 INTRODUCTION

M-574, E-Verify User Manual for Federal Contractors | May 2011 (page 4 of 101) Please note the misinformation and disinformation “the term “employer” means any U.S. company, corporation or business entity that is required to complete Form I-9,…” Mr. Attorney General would it not be much simpler just to tell the truth and identify the employers for who they really are, these are general and misleading terms for the person or entity that you are using, when the true and exact terms identifying the limited class of employers is “agricultural association, agricultural employer,” and farm labor contractor” so just how hard is it for a man trained as an attorney to tell the truth, OR IS THIS THE TRAINING YOU RECEIVED FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, TO KEEP THE PEOPLE OFF BALANCE, DISINFORMED AND MISINFORMED FOR BETTER AND MORE EFFECTIVE MANIPULATION AND CONTROL? NOTE: there is a strong presumption that the U.S. government agencies et al, and of course the media, use Disinformation and Misinformation in their documents, CODES, booklets, pamphlets, newspapers, web sites, etc, etc, communications of all kinds that is uses to communicate with the American people, the I-9, E-verify, the Handbook for Employers, and issues of U.S. citizenship are of no exception. The U.S. must be held accountable for its past performances. Once a liar always a liar, once a thief always a thief. Very little of what governments communicates is in the realm of truth unless it serves to benefit the government but never for the benefit of the American people. The following statement by one John Maynard sums it up and should be applied when reading any information supplied by the Department of Homeland Security, E-verify, USCIS, ICE, HSI, etc, etc, whither in paper form, on the internet, or televised. o

Disinformation or misinformation: the art of provided information in a form that has a certain amount of truth in the statement to make it a plausible answer to a question or a possible solution to the topic at hand.

o

Yet, if employed correctly will lead the person to believe the opposite of what is correct, in other words, come to the wrong conclusions.

o

Once the conclusion is stated in the wrong context of the information, it will continue to progress down the wrong path leading the person(s) astray. however, you can still see a thread of the truth that was stated, which keeps you [away from] or leads you away from the real truth.

o

You are eventually so far off base with your conclusions, that you yourself have lost sight of the truth, and are ready to believe anything that is stated on the subject, right or wrong.

Here is a statement by one Paul John Hansen that says it best. “I believe that most all US written law is constitutional, but most all of that same law is misapplied upon jurisdictions where it has no force and effect of law and the bar association has perfected a system of keeping the people from knowing its true application”.

Page 19 of 23

What is the I-9 form? Besides paper terrorism! Adhesion Contract: A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.[I-9] http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract The term 'contract of adhesion' signifies a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it. But to reject it, it means I cannot exercise my right to work, if I accept it I submit to your hostile control of my labor, DOJ’s I-9 has Mafia & RICO written all over it. http://members.cox.net/terracereform/AdhesionContracts.htm Unilateral Contract: A contract in which only one party makes an express promise, or undertakes a performance without first securing a reciprocal agreement from the other party. ◦

In a unilateral, or one-sided, contract, one party, known as the offeror, makes a promise in exchange for an act (or abstention from acting) by another party, known as the offeree. If the offeree acts on the offeror's promise, the offeror is legally obligated to fulfill the contract, but an offeree cannot be forced to act (or not act), because no return promise has been made to the offeror. After an offeree has performed, only one enforceable promise exists, that of the offeror. [I-9 signatory]

RCW 9A.60.030 OBTAINING A SIGNATURE BY DECEPTION AN DURESS. (1) A PERSON IS GUILTY OF OBTAINING A SIGNATURE BY DECEPTION OR DURESS IF BY DECEPTION OR DURESS AND WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD OR DEPRIVE HE CAUSES ANOTHER PERSON TO SIGN OR EXECUTE A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT (2) OBTAINING A SIGNATURE BY DECEPTION OR DURESS IS A CLASS C FELONY. There is a strong presumption that all signatures on I-9 forms within Washington state have been obtained under deception and duress without exception. This is by presumption the trap DOJ uses on the working man to create a liability. UCC SEC 3-401. SIGNATURES: “(1) NO PERSON IS LIABLE ON AN INSTRUMENT UNLESS HIS SIGNATURE APPEARS THEREON.” And this in the crime being forced on all employers. 18 USC 1622 SUBORNATION OF PERJURY: WHOEVER PROCURES ANOTHER TO COMMIT ANY PERJURY IS GUILTY OF SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, AND SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $2,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR BOTH. 18 USC 1621 PERJURY GENERALLY. “(2) IN ANY DECLARATION, CERTIFICATE, CERTIFICATION OR STATEMENT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY AS PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 1746 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, WILLFULLY SUBSCRIBES AS TRUE ANY MATERIAL MATTER WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE; IS GUILTY OF PERJURY AND SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY LAW, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $2,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH. THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE WHETHER THE STATEMENT OR SUBSCRIPTION IS MADE WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES.

The i-9 form and E-verify are evidence of a governmental taking of property without due process. 1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. Defines labor as property, and the most sacred kind of property. "Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..." Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 "Under that provision no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment..."

o

But not under e-verify and the I-9 form, if we let government get away with this we and our children will be enslaved in the full sense of the term.

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people.*946 The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.” [City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 (1922)] ( Our right to work is NOT derived from the United States Congress but from God, we need not ask your permission to engage in any labor or work of our choosing.) There is a strong presumption that a job applicant cannot be REQUIRED to surrender a GOD- given unalienable right. technically, one cannot even "volunteer" to give up unalienable rights. the writers of the U.S. Constitution specifically used the word unalienable to MANDATE that government not impair or deprive one of GOD-given rights. (which also means I cannot be forced to surrender my GOD given right to labor, and to receive the full proceeds of my labor.)

There is a strong presumption that the DOJ is beginning to reassert slavery through its E-verify program and the I-9 form as a means of controlling the American population.

E-verify, and the I-9 form is instituting a new and improved form of national slavery that will hold in bondage all people, all races, all creeds, all nationalities, there will be no escape, it will be total and brutal, it will make the black slavery of the south look like a cake walk in comparison, Who among you is willing to sentence your children to a life of slavery by silent acquiescence?.or are your football games, beer, and other form of entertainment more important to you than your children’s future? Make your choice or your T.V. will make it for you. ser·vi·tude 1 : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life 2 : a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another From the above definition, you can see that servitude, or slavery, encompasses not only surrendering control of one’s body and time to another, but it also involves the right of use and beneficial enjoyment of one’s property as well. Servitude is a condition where we have been involuntarily deprived of liberty. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, on page 1388 defines slavery as follows: slavery: The condition of a slave; that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. (Or did it? Mr. Attorney General by presumption you and your cohorts through the IRCA have resurrected American slavery with a vengeance capturing absolute dictatorial power by I-9 over the life, fortune, and liberty of the American working class.) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896): Slavery implies involuntary servitude—a state of bondage; the ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property, and services. [as in E-verify] slave: A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. [E-verify] One who is under the power of a master, [DOJ] and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. (Again Mr. Attorney General you and your cohorts have resurrected that condition of slavery in America by I-9 form, if I cannot work without your permission than my labor belongs to you, I will not sign your I-9 and as a result you have disposed and deprived me of my industry and my labor leaving me unable to do anything, have anything or acquire anything, you have trashed Article IV of the Articles of Confederation for all Americans.) Notice that the key to being a slave is the absence of property rights, and the most sacred kind of property is one’s labor, as confirmed in the supreme Court case of Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 1883. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, confirmed the foundation of our political system is the ownership and complete control over one’s property when he said the following: "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36 "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440 "He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Bancroft, 1788. ME 19:41 The U.S. supreme Court agreed with the view that sovereignty of the Citizen over his property (including his labor and the wages resulting from his labor) is the foundation of all liberty: “For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1885) Hodges v. U.S., 203 U.S. 1, 27 S.Ct. 6 (U.S. 1906) These views were explicitly referred to and reaffirmed in the recent case of Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207, 49 L. ed. 726, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429. One who is shut up by superior or overpowering force, constantly present and threatening, from earning his living in a lawful way of his own choosing, is as much in a condition of involuntary servitude as if he were forcibly held in a condition of peonage. In each case his will is enslaved, because illegally subjected, by a combination that he cannot resist, to the will of others in respect of matters which a freeman is entitled to control in such way as to him seems best. I can find nothing within the Constitution, or any of the delegated powers granted by the states that allows for Congress or the Attorney General to assume the authority to dictate who can and cannot work within the American Union, that in the 10th Amendment is reserved to the

Page 21 of 23

people of the states which has never been surrendered, we have the absolute right and liberty to contract for labor with whoever we please without your third party interference. The U.S. Constitution is accepted as a grant of authority to the government from the people and any authority not granted is retained by We the people. Adkins v Children's Hospital, 261 US 525, 559. The Bill of Rights specifically enumerates areas forbidden to the federal government; they are reserved and secured for the people. A tax upon any right secured by the Bill of Rights would require relinquishing control of that right to the government. We the people do not relinquish control of our livelihood nor are we aware of any such action in the past. Acquiescence in loss of fundamental rights will not be presumed. Ohio Bell v. Public Utilities Commission, 301 U.S. 292. Harper v Virginia, 383 US 663, 670. Surely the right to vote in the Harper case is no more precious or fundamental than putting food on the table and a roof over your family. The $1.50 optional poll tax forbidden by the Harper court pales when compared with the criminally enforced mandatory burden on pursuing a livelihood. "The mere chilling of a constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618. If conditions can be imposed on constitutional rights, all constitutional rights can be conditioned out of existence. There is a strong presumption that no American has knowingly or intentionally sacrificed any rights, privileges, or immunities under the non-repealed Articles of Confederation, Nov. 17, 1777, for just due process and equal protection rights.

By presumption some criminal actions currently used by DOJ increasing its control mechanism, separating the people from their right to work and provide for themselves, exercising its comply or starve protocol for NWO implementation. Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. Under the Common Law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer. Most jurisdictions have statutes governing extortion that broaden the common-law definition. Under such statutes, any person who takes money or property from another by means of illegal compulsion may be guilty of the offense. When used in this sense, extortion is synonymous with blackmail, which is extortion by a private person. In addition, under some statutes a corporation may be liable for extortion. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion Embezzlement: The fraudulent conversion of another's property by a person who is in a position of trust, such as an agent or employee. [or employer] Embezzlement is distinguished from swindling in that swindling involves wrongfully obtaining property by a false pretense, such as a lie or trick, at the time the property is transferred, which induces the victim to transfer to the wrongdoer title to the property. http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/embezzlement Larceny: Felonious stealing, taking and carrying, leading, riding, or driving away another’s personal property, with intent to convey it or to deprive owner thereof. The unlawful taking and carrying away of property of another with intent to appropriate it to inconsistent with latter’s rights U.S. v. Johnson, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 433 F.2d 1160, 1163. The essential elements of a “larceny” are an actual or constructive taking away of the goods or property of another without the consent and against the will of the owner and with a felonious intent. People V Goodchild. Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed, page 792. Larceny by I-9 form. Fraud: An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right Restraint of trade is a very old legal concept relating to the right of individuals to do business, or pursue a trade or profession, freely, without restraint. The I-9 and E-verify are used to place an effective restraint of trade on all business and individuals throughout America. By a strong presumption one need only ask permission to use property is when that property is owned or controlled by another, one obviously need not ask permission to use that which he himself owns or controls, with this in mind under IRCA the United States has since 1986 fraudulently claimed full ownership and authority over every mans labor in this Union of states, including the authority to dictate what liabilities we will endure by our signatures.

Getting to know the UCC Read this There is by presumption no extraterritorial authority to impose the IRCA within the States of the Union.

Morrison v. Nat’l Aust. Bank, “When a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none.” In Morrison v. National Australia Bank, the Supreme Court held that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies "in all cases." Other sources that may be of value. Must See the YouTube video “Rampant injustice” & 'District Of Corruption' the Movie: Culture of Corruption 'Metastasizing' During Obama Admin. (released Oct 26, 2012) Based on the New York Times Best Selling Book The Corruption Chronicles, move news clip. & YouTube clip Silent Acquiescence Gives Rise To Consent Part 1 Silence Implies Consent

I would like to direct your attention to several sources of information and education that may be helpful. Before it is news: Great source of news that is hidden & unreported by the big media conglomerates. Paycheck Piracy: One of the best internet sources of legal information (Subscribe to the free e-letter [email protected]) (free archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy)

Zoxpro: mental photography, a method of high speed learning Trivium Education:

By :mark: sunde

Page 23 of 23