tunnel rat posted on February 19, 2010 09:18

Is should come as no surprise that the guy that flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin yesterday was a frustrated American software engineer.  Middle-aged and white, Joe Stack fit the profile of those that have targeted for purging by the outsourcing regime. 


""Violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer," the author wrote toward the end of a tirade against the IRS posted at 9:12 a.m. on a Web site registered to Mr. Stack. He described himself as a contract software engineer."

- Wall Street Journal

I'd agree to agree with Ol' Joe on that one, especially after seeing this garbage:

Looking for a job? Well, if you're an "arrogant American," you had better search elsewhere.

An information technology staffing firm based in Rolling Meadows, Ill., posted an advertisement for a technical writer that warned that an "arrogant American" would not flourish in the position.

"Exelon is looking to provide these proposals to Chinese businesses, so someone who is respectful and understands Chinese culture is preferred. An arrogant American will not work well in this role," the listing read.

The ad, posted by Viva USA, an information technology consulting firm, has since been removed. Varuna Singh, the company's development manager, told FoxNews.com it received the language from its client, Exelon Nuclear Partners, and the wording somehow got past a "junior recruiter" who posted the advertisement on CareerBuilder.com.

I made a few calls to Viva USA, the notorious bodyshop that was stupid enough to reveal their internal agenda of discriminating against Americans in our own country, and had talked to some collaborator named "Chris" from HR.  The company's LinkedIn page looks like it is another slumdog kennel, full of venal jackals that have been destroying the careers of people like Joe Stack for years.  I can't wait for the day when another frustrated techie freaks and goes after a place like Viva USA, with its discriminating Desi douchebags like Varuna Singh, their "Business Development Manager":

Varuna Singh

Why do these slumdogs always have to wear sunglasses?  We know this bitch Varuna Singh is part of a criminal enterprise, but why does she have to dress up like a gangsta'?

Rest In Piece, Joe.

Posted in:   Tags: , ,

Comments (5) -

United States Rodney
February 19. 2010 19:31

Check Viva-IT.com.

Select People and then FAQs.  All questions are for people coming into the US.  Samples: "How do I extend my work visa inside the US?  What documents are needed to apply for my Green card?"
Is it safe to assume they don't hire Americans?

On their home page, under About Viva, check the third item; it's their "minority designations".  These include "Minority/Disadvantage/Female Business Enterprise", plus the US Small Business Administration's 8(a)BD and certified as a Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB).
I presume this also means they qualify for SBA loans at very reduced interest rates.

Why do we Americans put up with this crap?  What can we do to counter it?
Seriously, what can we do?

Separately, check out Adversity.net, right side under Current News, fifth item down is Fast 50 IT firms listed in Washington Technology magazine.  It has a great explanation of various set-aside programs.

no site

United States James
February 19. 2010 21:33

Pilot of plane getting support.


no site

United States Proamerica
February 20. 2010 00:14

Hey Indiots. Pay attention!

no site

United States James
February 20. 2010 15:14

Are you required to have withholding taken out? Surprise! You're not an "employee" under Federal withholding laws unless you are: 1) an officer of a corporation, or 2) work for the Federal government. And as the law clearly states, only employees are required to have withholding taken out.


This statement of my status with regard to “wage withholding” does hereby put you on legal and constructive notice that under the laws of the United States, including Federal laws, I am not a person who is subject to wage withholding.

Wage withholding in the United States is defined in TITLE 26, Subtitle C, CHAPTER 24—COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES.

That chapter defines only two very narrow classes of people who are subject to wage withholding – government employees, and officers of corporations. All other natural persons who do not fall into those two categories are not subject to Federal wage withholding under any law.

Chapter 24 also defines only a very narrow class of entities who are required to withhold wages from the pay of their workers – namely only those entities who “employ” employees included in the two very narrowly defined classes of people mentioned above.

Under the definitions set forth in Chapter 24, it is impossible for any private sector “employee” to be subject to any form of wage withholding unless 1) he or she is a government worker, 2) he or she is an officer of a corporation, or 3) he or she voluntarily requests it. Only those narrow classes of people who are defined as “employees”under Chapter 24 can be required by law to have money withheld from their pay. There is no other Federal law that subjects anyone outside of the two narrowly defined classes in Chapter 24 to any form of wage withholding whatsoever.

This is clearly defined and demonstrated in the law itself as follows:

The definitions in Chapter 24. It is especially important to note that the terms “wages”, “employee”, and “employer” are defined narrowly and specifically only in relation to each other and not in the common broad sense. In other words, the wage withholding chapter (Chapter 24) of the Internal Revenue Code creates extremely narrow definitions of the three above terms. For example, the term “wages” does not mean money paid to anyone for work performed in the broad sense of that term, but rather it only means money paid to the certain class of people defined as “employees”. When we then look at the definition of “employee” we find that it is restricted to two types of people only: government workers and officers of corporations. This will be explained more fully below.

Internal Revenue Code

Section 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—


(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.

(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.”

From these definitions you can clearly see that the term “employee” includes only people who work for the government, or who are officers of corporations and not any other type of person. Keep this restricted definition of the word “employee” in mind as you read the rest of this document.

Likewise from the definitions in Chapter 24 you can see that the term “employer” means only those entities who have “employees” as defined by 3401(c). In order for anyone to be an “employer”, by the definition spelled out at 3401(d) above, they must by definition have a 3401(c) “employee” working for them.

Contrary to popular perception, as the law above shows, not everyone who works is an “employee”. In fact almost all people are not employees – only government workers and officers of corporations are.

You will also note that the definition of “wages” is defined only as payment of money by an “employer” to an “employee”. Since both “employer” and “employee” are very narrowly defined in 3401(c) and 3401(d) respectively, then obviously the term “wages” defined at 3401(a) does not mean any money paid to anyone for working for someone else. The 3401(a) definition of wages means only money paid to government workers or officers of corporations since those are the only two classes of people defined as “employees” at 3401(c).

Therefore, wage withholding is not required in any manner whatsoever from most private sector employees, but rather is required only on the very narrow class of people defined as employees at 3041(c). If a person is not a 3401(c) “employee” then he or she cannot possibly be a person who is legally subjected to wage withholding. This is also defined in the Code of Federal Regulations:

Section 31.3401(c),1(c) defines a group of individuals who are employees that are not subject to the IRS. "Generally, physicians, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, contractors, subcontractors, stenographers, auctioneers, and others who follow an independent trade business or profession, in which they offer their services to the public are not employees."

In a moment we will see that the only legal requirement for withholding is imposed upon 3401(d) “employers” withholding 3401(a) “wages” from the pay of 3401(c) “employees. There is no other legal requirement for withholding on any other classes of people.

The actual legal requirement for withholding is imposed at Section 3042 “Income tax collected at source” as follows:

§ 3402. Income tax collected at source

“(a)  Requirement of withholding
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every *employer* making payment of *wages* shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary.”

You will note that the only legally imposed withholding required is for *employers* making payment of *wages*. It doesn’t say that all money paid to anyone for work is subject to withholding but rather only payment of wages made by employers is subject to withholding.

Since as Section 3401(a) states, wages are defined only as remuneration paid for services performed by an *employee* for his *employer*, the requirement of withholding at 3401(a) only applies to entities paying someone who works for the government or who is an officer of a corporation. No other type of entity is legally required to withhold taxes from the pay of their workers.

Since, as defined by 3401(d), the term “employer” can only be someone who pays an “employee”, obviously not all entities paying workers are legally required to withhold from their worker’s pay. It is only when someone works for someone else “as an employee of such a person” that withholding is legally required.

It should be obvious from the law itself that Federal wage withholding laws only apply to two types of people: government workers and officers of corporations. All other private sector employees are not subject to wage withholding in any manner whatsoever.

There is no other provision in any other Federal law or Code of Federal Regulations that requires wage withholding from the pay of private sector employees. All wage withholding laws are included in Title 26, Chapter 24. This chapter represents the entirety of Federal wage withholding requirements.


Because I am not a 3401(c) “employee” performing a service for a 3401(d) “employer” and because any remuneration paid to me is not 3401(a) “wages”, I am hereby putting you on legal and constructive notice that I am not a person who is subject to Federal wage withholding. I do not wish to voluntarily have any taxes deducted or withheld from my pay nor are you required to do so by law.

Furthermore, neither the Internal Revenue Service, nor any other Federal Agency has any legal authority to “instruct” you to *disregard the law*. The IRS and all other Federal Agencies are bound and constrained to follow the law just as citizens and other natural persons are. Because it is illegal in the United States to take property without due process of law (meaning a hearing), any administrative “withholding order” issued to you by the IRS or any other Federal agency other than a court of law has no force of law and you are under no obligation to comply with any such illegal orders. Under the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States, property can only be taken after a court order has been issued by a court of law.

Your signature below is not legally binding but merely acknowledges and confirms that you have read and understand this Legal Notice.

Received By


<Insert your name here>

Print Name______________________



no site

United States James
February 20. 2010 16:33

Important Internal Revenue Code Sections & Cases

6065 - Says that any correspondence they send to you must have a verified signature (not a rubber stamp signature). This says it must be SIGNED under penalty of perjury (must be notarized and verified).

Section 6110 - States that IRS MUST provide you with documents showing their authority to request anything from you if YOU REQUEST PROOF.

Section 6203 - If IRS makes any assessment, a record MUST be filed with the Secretarty of the Treasury.

Section 6331, 6231 - ONLY implementing regulations that apply to these sections in CFR apply to ATF taxes.

Section 7214 - Offenses by Officers (Among other things, makes it a crime for 2 or more persons to demand a sum that is more than authorized by law).

Section 6702 - Frivolous penalties.

Section 6767 - Crimes by gov't agents & employees.

Internal Revenue Manual Section 546 section 19b2 - the civil penalty for noncompliance may be imposed ONLY by the filing of the suit naming the taxpayer as defendant. (No levy without court hearing).

IRS Publication 609 - Anytime the IRS sends a notice, they must evidence statues AND regulatons for authority. AND it must have a verified signature on it, or the document will be invalid. (This includes the letter they send you). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1920 ( Eisner v. McCumber ) that 'income' has the same meaning in every taxing act of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act. 'Income' is profit or gains from corporate activities or the sale or conversion of assets.

All determination documents MUST be in the IRS office (Commerce Clearing House & The Internal Revenue Manual state this).

Section 7804(b) - remedies for being sued.

Bivens action - Federal Lawsuit alleging agent abuse.

When responding to a UNITED STATES (Federal) 'Tax Court' document, assesment, or schedule, DEMAND that the case be transfered to the appelate division of the IRS on the grounds that this taxpayer has been denied due process and has a substantial claim under the new Taxpayer's Bill of Rights against the agent, the IRS, and the agent's spouse (if any), plus other causes of cation that have not been determined as of the present date.

Section 242.12 Official IRS Tax Audit Guide: "(1) An individual taxpayer may refuse to exhibit his books and records for examination on the grounds that compelling him to do so might violate his right against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment and constitute an illegal search and seizure under the 4th Amendment."

Form 1157 - Travel Expenses to be paid by IRS for going to audit or summons.

Grant of Immunity from Criminal Prosecutions: 18 USC 6004

Title 5 Section 556(d): "Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order ahs the burden of proof".

Section 702: "A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or agrieved by agency action withing the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof".

Sections 1-706: Administrative Law
"Income within the meanings of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gains'... and in such connection 'gain' means profit..."

-Stapler v U.S.; 21 F. Supp 737; 739

no site

Pingbacks and trackbacks (3)+

Comments are closed

- Vineet Nayar, CEO, HCL Technologies

Recent Posts

Slumdog Comment Generator

Not Sure How To Respond?
Use the Slumdog Comment Generator!


«  November 2019  »
View posts in large calendar

Month List

The thoughts expressed on this blog may or may not be the author's own and are protected by the 1st Amendment. Any attempt to reveal his identity by contacting a slumdog hack at Google, or a corrupt Desi sys-admin at his ISP will be dealt with promptly and severely. Civil and criminal penalties may apply if one is found to have used private information in an attempt to get the author fired at the Hindu-only I.T. ghetto he currently works at. In addition, any Desi who attempts to burn the author's house down because they are enraged over his writing will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This isn't India.

© Copyright 2019 Life of an I.T. Grunt

View My Stats