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

XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX, Illi­nois
[62226]

Fri­day, March 28, 2008

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

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

Mr. XXXXXXX,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Employee
For pur­poses of this chap­ter, the term “employee” includes an offi­cer, employee, or elected offi­cial of the United States, a State, or any polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion thereof, or the Dis­trict of Colum­bia, or any agency or instru­men­tal­ity of any one or more of the fore­go­ing. The term “employee” also includes an offi­cer of a corporation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TITLE 26 > Sub­ti­tle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701

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

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

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

When the term “employee” is being defined as “…includes an offi­cer, employee, or elected offi­cial of the United States, a State, or any polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion thereof, or the Dis­trict of Colum­bia, or any agency or instru­men­tal­ity of any one or more of the fore­go­ing. The term “employee” also includes an offi­cer of a cor­po­ra­tion.”, the term is men­tion­ing those work­ing in var­i­ous capac­i­ties for gov­ern­men­tal enti­ties. Since pri­vate sec­tor work­ers are not men­tioned in the def­i­n­i­tion, the word “includes” should not be deemed to embrace such work­ers, because they are not within the mean­ing of the term being defined, which is “employ­ees” who work for gov­ern­men­tal enti­ties.
“Includes” can also be rede­fined to read, “The term “includes” shall not be deemed to imply other things not within the mean­ing of the term being defined.”

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

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

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

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

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

Sin­cerely,

Mark McCoy
Pri­vate Coun­sel and Rep­re­sen­ta­tive for Ms. XXXXXXX

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

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

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

      
COMPLAINT

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

referred to as XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, states as follows:

COUNT I
(CONVERSION AGAINST DEFENDANT, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX)

   For Count I against the Defen­dant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX,

Plain­tiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, states as follows:

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

   Cor­po­ra­tion autho­rized to do busi­ness in the State of

   Missouri.

   2.   That the Defen­dant did con­tract with the Plain­tiff for

   her labor, where she per­formed her duties for the Defendant

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

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

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

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

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

   or any ten­der­ing of tax with­hold­ing forms.

   4.   That the Defen­dant had no law­ful author­ity or

   per­mis­sion from the Plain­tiff to with­hold any amount from

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

   pur­suant to a col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment with the

   Inter­na­tional Broth­er­hood of Elec­tri­cal Work­ers Local X.

   6.   That the Defen­dant was indebted to the Plain­tiff for

   $952.71 as com­pen­sa­tion for her labor.

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

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

   as com­pen­sa­tion for her labor per­formed per para­graph 1.

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

   com­pen­sa­tion, by the Defen­dant with­hold­ing said amount

   against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

   9.   That the Defen­dant alluded to com­ply­ing with a law

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

   law­ful author­ity for depriv­ing the Plain­tiff of her full

   com­pen­sa­tion when faced with a demand by the Plain­tiff for

   such spe­cific law­ful duty.

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

   con­tract­ing for her labor, that he   would be with­hold­ing any

   amount from Plaintiff’s com­pen­sa­tion in order to com­ply with

   any law­ful authority.

   11.   That the Plain­tiff made repeated demands to the

   Defen­dant for the $275.71 bal­ance owed to her.

   12.   That the Defen­dant com­mit­ted the tort of conversion

   when he inten­tion­ally and pur­pose­fully with­held $275.94 from

   the Plaintiff’s just com­pen­sa­tion for her labor, and

   retained said amount for his own use.

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

   the afore­men­tioned acts by the Defen­dant, the Plaintiff,

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

   just com­pen­sa­tion and fruits of her labor.

   WHEREFORE, Plain­tiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, prays judgement

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

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

of suit.      

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

   For Count II against the Defen­dant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX,

Plain­tiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, states as follows:

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

   Cor­po­ra­tion autho­rized to do busi­ness in the State of

   Missouri.

   2.   That the Defen­dant did con­tract with the Plain­tiff for

   her labor, where she per­formed her duties for the Defendant

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

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

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

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

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

   or any ten­der­ing of tax with­hold­ing forms.

   4.   That the Defen­dant had no law­ful author­ity or

   per­mis­sion from the Plain­tiff to with­hold any amount from

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

   pur­suant to a col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment with the

   Inter­na­tional Broth­er­hood of Elec­tri­cal Work­ers Local X.

   6.   That the Defen­dant was indebted to the Plain­tiff for

   $952.71 as com­pen­sa­tion for her labor.

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

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

   as com­pen­sa­tion for her labor per­formed per para­graph 1.

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

   com­pen­sa­tion by the Defen­dant with­hold­ing said amount

   against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

   9.   That the Defen­dant alluded to com­ply­ing with a law

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

   law­ful author­ity for depriv­ing the Plain­tiff of her full

   com­pen­sa­tion when faced with a demand by the Plain­tiff for

   such spe­cific law­ful duty.

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

   con­tract­ing for her labor, that he   would be with­hold­ing any

   amount from Plaintiff’s com­pen­sa­tion in order to com­ply with

   any law­ful authority.

   11.   That the Plain­tiff made repeated demands to the

   Defen­dant for the $275.71 bal­ance owed to her.

   12.   That the Defen­dant com­mit­ted the tort of conversion

   when he inten­tion­ally and pur­pose­fully with­held $275.94 from

   the Plaintiff’s just com­pen­sa­tion for her labor, and

   retained said amount for his own use.

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

   the afore­men­tioned acts by the Defen­dant, the Plaintiff,

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

   just com­pen­sa­tion and fruits of her labor.

   WHEREFORE, Plain­tiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, prays judgement

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

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

of suit.      

COUNT III
(CONVERSION AGAINST DEFENDANT, XXXXX XXXXXXXX)

   For Count I against the Defen­dant, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX,

Plain­tiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, states as follows:

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

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

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

   2.   That the Defen­dant did con­tract with the Plain­tiff for

   her labor, where she per­formed her duties for the Defendant

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

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

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

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

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

   or any ten­der­ing of tax with­hold­ing forms.

   4.   That the Defen­dant had no law­ful author­ity or

   per­mis­sion from the Plain­tiff to with­hold any amount from

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

   pur­suant to a col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment with the

   Inter­na­tional Broth­er­hood of Elec­tri­cal Work­ers Local X.

   6.   That the Defen­dant was indebted to the Plain­tiff for

   $952.71 as com­pen­sa­tion for her labor.

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

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

   as com­pen­sa­tion for her labor per­formed per para­graph 1.

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

   com­pen­sa­tion by the Defen­dant with­hold­ing said amount

   against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

   9.   That the Defen­dant alluded to com­ply­ing with a law

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

   law­ful author­ity for depriv­ing the Plain­tiff of her full

   com­pen­sa­tion when faced with a demand by the Plain­tiff for

   such spe­cific law­ful authority.

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

   con­tract­ing for her labor, that he   would be with­hold­ing any

   amount from Plaintiff’s com­pen­sa­tion in order to com­ply with

   any law­ful authority.

   11.   That the Plain­tiff made repeated demands to the

   Defen­dant for the $275.71 bal­ance owed to her.

   12.   That the Defen­dant com­mit­ted the tort of conversion

   when he inten­tion­ally and pur­pose­fully with­held $275.94 from

   the Plaintiff’s just com­pen­sa­tion for her labor, and

   retained said amount for his own use.

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

   the afore­men­tioned acts by the Defen­dant, the Plaintiff,

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

   just com­pen­sa­tion and fruits of her labor.

   WHEREFORE, Plain­tiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, prays judgement

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

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

of suit.      

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

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

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

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

        act­ing in the course of such employment.

   2.   That the Defen­dant did con­tract with the Plain­tiff for

   her labor, where she per­formed her duties for the Defendant

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

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

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

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

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

   or any ten­der­ing of tax with­hold­ing forms.

   4.   That the Defen­dant had no law­ful author­ity or

   per­mis­sion from the Plain­tiff to with­hold any amount from

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

   pur­suant to a col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing agree­ment with the

   Inter­na­tional Broth­er­hood of Elec­tri­cal Work­ers Local X.

   6.   That the Defen­dant was indebted to the Plain­tiff for

   $952.71 as com­pen­sa­tion for her labor.

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

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

   as com­pen­sa­tion for her labor per­formed per para­graph 1.

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

   com­pen­sa­tion by the Defen­dant with­hold­ing said amount

   against the wishes of the Plaintiff.

   9.   That the Defen­dant alluded to com­ply­ing with a law

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

   law­ful author­ity for depriv­ing the Plain­tiff of her full

   com­pen­sa­tion when faced with a demand by the Plain­tiff for

   such spe­cific law­ful duty.

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

   con­tract­ing for her labor, that he   would be with­hold­ing any

   amount from Plaintiff’s com­pen­sa­tion in order to com­ply with

   any law­ful authority.

   11.   That the Plain­tiff made repeated demands to the

   Defen­dant for the $275.71 bal­ance owed to her.

   12.   That the Defen­dant com­mit­ted the tort of conversion

   when he inten­tion­ally and pur­pose­fully with­held $275.94 from

   the Plaintiff’s just com­pen­sa­tion for her labor, and

   retained said amount for his own use.

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

   the afore­men­tioned acts by the Defen­dant, the Plaintiff,

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

   just com­pen­sa­tion and fruits of her labor.

   WHEREFORE, Plain­tiff, XXXXX X. XXXXX, prays judgement

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

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

of suit.      
      

                  Respect­fully Sub­mit­ted,
                                             
                  XXXXX X. XXXXX, Plaintiff

XXXXX X. XXXXX
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX         
XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX 62226