UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 

JASON HOMMEL CASE NO. 03-15170

Appellant/Petitioner

 

vs.

 

SQUAW VALLEY SKI CORPORATION; HANS BURKHART; RON WELTON; JIM BRADY

Appellee/Respondent

 

APPELLANT’S STATEMENT SETTING FORTH THE REASONS WHY ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD BE HEARD IN THIS CASE

 

 

FRAP 34 (a) 1-3 says oral arguments will be heard unless… and it lists three conditions or local rules. If any one judge on the panel of three wishes to hear me and question me, and believes that the decisional process will be aided by oral argument, oral arguments will proceed. These three conditions are as follows:

  1. "the appeal is frivolous;"

    2. Although my case was dismissed at the District court level, they did not say the case was frivolous. The District court took over four and a half months (from July 11, 2002 to November 21, 2002) to write a six-page "findings and recommendations to dismiss". That the District court spent so much time attempting to justify dismissing my case shows it is certainly not frivolous. Further, the substance of the "findings and recommendations to dismiss" was irrelevant to my case, as stated in my objections. I further expect that the Ninth Circuit will not say my appeal is frivolous, and thus, oral argument should be heard.

  2. "the dispositive issue or set of issues has been recently authoritatively decided;"

    3. Certainly, similar cases have been decided, but not authoritatively. All prior rulings that might sound similar to my case are either irrelevant, or contain misstatements of fact, or contain tortured and strained justifications, as stated both in my complaint and in my objections to the findings and recommendations to dismiss. Further, and most importantly, my objections have not been refuted by the District Court. They simply said that they disagreed with my objections. In the procedures set forth in the instructions for my appeal, it was clear that it is not enough to simply say "I disagree with the court's decision," but I had to provide clear reasons for my appeal. If I have to provide reasons for my argument, so too, must the courts provide a reason for their rulings, especially if they wish to decide things "authoritatively." The District court did not provide any reasons for their ruling to dismiss my case.

  3. "the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument."

While I do believe I presented the facts of the case and legal arguments clearly in my original complaint and my brief, I also believe the decisional process would, indeed, be significantly aided by oral argument because of the seriousness of the case, the religious issues in the case, and the ramifications of a ruling in this case, as I will outline below.

1. This case should proceed and oral arguments should begin because Squaw Valley Ski Corp. has never, thus far, been required to answer the complaint at the District level, nor have they disputed the allegations contained within the complaint that they engaged in willful and intentional religious discrimination as is clearly against the law as set forth under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. Squaw Valley should have a chance to defend themselves at least once before the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling against them.

2. The recent court rulings as quoted in the findings and recommendations of the District Court are twisted and tortured and strain the utmost at reason, clearly ignoring the laws at issue in the case, and seem to indicate that the courts are really struggling to invent reasons to rule against cases involving people without social security numbers who are attempting to work. This, then, seems to indicate that the courts either have an unexplainable religious bias, or perhaps that they misunderstand the fundamental issues of the case, or perhaps that they fear that somehow the system would be in danger of collapse if a free man is allowed to be free. Therefore, I will state the essential issues of this case, as follows.

3. This case is not about income taxes. A person can pay income taxes without having a social security number; the IRS will accept returns (and the accompanying checks) that do not contain social security numbers. This case is about the social security number, and whether or not it is mandatory to have one to work and earn a living, and whether or not a person can still exercise religious freedom in the United States without being subject to economic sanctions, which is equivalent to the use of force.

    1. Some people have noted that without a social security number, it would be difficult for the IRS to track me to see whether or not I pay income taxes. But the incompetence of the IRS, or how difficult it might be for the IRS to track a person without a social security number, does not provide any justification for attempting to force me to take an action that would require me to abandon my religious beliefs and freedom as a Christian to not worship false gods and idols such as the Social Security system.
    2. The Social Security Administration has repeatedly stated the following in numerous letters over the years: "A person does not need to have a social security number to live or work in the United States." And I can provide the copies of many such letters. So, why would the courts contradict such a statement and rule contrary to it?

4. This Case indeed calls into question the validity of the system. The way the court rules on this case has several important ramifications regarding the validity of the system, which should be heard, since it may affect the judgement of the court of the Ninth Circuit. The dismissal ruling of the District court, does indeed call into question the validity of both the law and the system.

    1. Social security participation and wage withholding is voluntary--as declared in law, and it is voluntary for a reason. It is a contract. All contracts must be voluntary, or they are null and void. If a person is forced to sign a contract, that contract is invalid. If the court allows the use of force such as economic sanctions to be used to compel a person into signing up for social security, then such use of force would invalidate all existing social security contracts, and thus, call into question the validity of the entire system. Conscientious objectors (people) without social security numbers must be allowed to work in order to prove that the system is voluntary and valid. If the courts ultimately rule that I cannot work without a social security number, such a court ruling would prove that all social security withholding contracts are invalid due to the use of force.
    2. My objection to the use of the social security number is that I believe that using it is participation in false worship and idolatry. In contrast to other religious objectors, I, personally, do not believe the social security number is the "mark of the beast" of Revelation 13. Why not? Because I also believe the social security number is voluntary. However, an essential feature of the "mark of the beast" of Revelation 13 is that it is "forced" upon all mankind--through the use of economic sanctions; without it no man can buy or sell.

Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Frighteningly, I have been subject to those economic sanctions, since Squaw Valley Ski Corp. will not let me work without the number. If the social security number is, indeed, forced upon people, and if people cannot work or bank without it, that is frighteningly clear proof that it is the mark of the beast. This would mean that all who have accepted it are damned and condemned to the fires of hell as indicated is the consequence in Revelation 14 for any man who takes the mark as follows.

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

I believe I will ultimately win my case because to uphold the District Court's dismissal would require a Christian judge (who has a social security number) to damn himself to hellfire. And if I win my case which would uphold the right to work without a Social Security number, it will ultimately prove that the Social Security number in use in the United States is not the "unforgivable sin" of the "mark of the beast," but rather, it is (at worst) merely false worship (as I believe), which is a more common, and a forgivable sin. Any man who takes the mark of the beast is damned without reprieve, as is indicated in Rev 14:9, quoted above.

Some Christian prophecy teachers try to reason that the social security number (or even a biochip implant) cannot be the mark of the beast because the mark of the beast is a system of worship, as indicated in Revelation 14:9 as quoted above. The point they try to make is that they think the worship of taking and using the mark must be done voluntarily and as a clearly thought out choice, and so, they reason that no true Christian could be deceived into taking the mark of the beast. Unfortunately, they are wrong, Revelation 19 is clear that those who received the mark of the beast were deceived.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

People can, indeed, be threatened and forced into false worship, see Daniel 3, as all who refused to worship King Nebuchadnezzar's golden idol were cast into the firey furnace. Furthermore, I do believe that social security is a system of worship, which is my reason to object to it. Like those three brave men in Daniel's day, even if I am threatened with death, I will not use a social security number.

As I stated earlier, I am speculating that perhaps a religious bias has been working against my case and similar cases. Perhaps a Christian judge who has a social security number, who knows the Bible states, "As you judge, so you will be judged," is cringing at ruling in favor of plaintiffs who claim that the social security number is the mark of the beast, because doing so would condemn the judge. But in contrast to the other cases, I make no such claim. In fact, it is the court rulings that are forcing people to take the social security number that are making it become the mark of the beast. If the courts wish to make a judgement that means the social security number is not the mark of the beast, they should rule in my favor.

C. Other courts have ruled regarding the two reporting laws (26 USC Sec. 6724 : "No penalty shall be imposed [to the employer] under this part with respect to any failure [to obtain a SSN from an employee] if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect." And Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 301.6109-1(c):) which are at the center of this case--saying that such laws need not be followed because it would be an "undue burden." This is not only ridiculous and utterly contrary to what the laws actually require (IE filing a simple statement with the IRS), but such a ruling is also radical and dangerous because it would mean that businesses do not need to obey or follow the instructions contained in the laws in the Federal Code whenever it causes an "undue burden" on business!

Thus, I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that the court will recognize that if it rules against allowing my case to proceed and upholds the District court's dismissal, that such a ruling would:

  1. invalidate the entire existing system of social security voluntary withholding contracts through allowing the use of the force of economic sanctions to obtain such contracts,
  2. prove that the social security number is the mark of the beast, thus damning social security participants to hell, and
  3. invalidate and nullify the entire Federal Code whenever its requirements cause an "undue burden" on businesses.

Allowing a free man to be free does not threaten any systems in a free nation of free people.

Attempting to force a free man into worshiping a false idol under threat of economic sanctions is a sure path to hell.

5. In the event that any of the honorable judges of the Ninth Circuit have any questions regarding my appeal, in the event that anything is not clearly set out in my complaint, my objections, or brief, or this statement, I should be present to be able to orally answer any such questions and make any necessary clarifications.

6-02-2003

________________ __________________________

DATE SIGNATURE (Jason Hommel)

12641 Anvil Road

Grass Valley, CA 95945

ADDRESS