I - 9 question

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

charlesc

New Member
how much should i charge my new employer for filling out an I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification?

i'm not a U.S. citizen, but i am a citizen of the republic of texas, now.

a state citizen and a U.S. citizen is not SYNONYMOUS.

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,..." "One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States".
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

i'm thinking $500 u.s. dollars for the employers request for their affirmative defense?

i'm not a lawyer, yet.

i have been offered a job, so if they refuse to continue to employ me, i plan to sue in small claims court for breach of promise and money damages.

what do you all, think?


FYI, what the government cant do directly it cant do by proxy (the Employer), Go Figure
 
Last edited:
Why exactly do you think you can charge the company for filling out a legally-required document?

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
 
It is required by law that all employees, regardless of their citizenship, complete an I-9 form. It doesn't matter what you consider your citizenship to be; it doesn't matter where you were born, in what country, state, or jurisdiction. Texas, Montana, Rhode Island, France, Turkey, Iran, Papua New Guinea, it's all the same. In order to be employed, you complete an I-9. Your employer is prohibited by law from employing you if you refuse.

Your employer will not pay you one penny for completing a mandatory form. You will get laughed out of court if you try to sue. I don't know offhand if small claims courts in Texas can fine you for filing a frivilous lawsuit but if they can, they likely will.
 
You can file a lawsuit against anyone for any perceived slight or tort.

You're right, you're no lawyer.

That said, such a lawsuit as you propose would never be successful.

You're raising a potential constitutional question.

It's a ridiculous question, nevertheless, a constitutional question.

You can sue your potential employer, your mother, your dentist, even the POTUS. In the instant matter at hand, you'll lose. Texas small claims courts can't resolve constitutional disputes.

Therefore, the court will rule on the merits. After a chuckle or two, a stern admonishment, some non-lawyer, elected, justice of the peace will dismiss your case with prejudice.

You can sue for $5,000, even the statutory maximum of $10,000; you'll lose. Your claim is akin to suing an employer for "forcing " you to complete a W4 for the IRS.

Thinking like this, you'll never get into law school, let alone graduate from one and eventually gain bar admission!
 
cbg said:
It is required by law that all employees, regardless of their citizenship, complete an I-9 form. Your employer is prohibited by law from employing you if you refuse.

Your employer will not pay you one penny for completing a mandatory form. You will get laughed out of court if you try to sue. I don't know offhand if small claims courts in Texas can fine you for filing a frivilous lawsuit but if they can, they likely will.
Click to expand...

americans have a right to contract w/o government interference per;

"Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property - partaking of the nature of each - is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property."
Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

"...The term [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest by legislative action..."
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)

actually, the law requires employers, and not employee fill out an I - 9.

the governmennt cant make any man or woman fillout its forms w/o a warrant, for free. (the 4 th, 5 th and 13th amendments of the US constitution). - no forced work w/o pay, NO slavery in americia. Remember what the government cant do directly it cant do by proxy (the Employer),

its never been illegal to hire u.s. citizens or state citizens, remember the people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? the burden is on the government to prove illegal activity.

thats why i can charge $500 for filling out the companies affirmative defense, the I - 9.

Title 8 tries to shift that burden to employees. thats odd why do that?

its my understanding, if an employer makes a good faith effort to get their affrmative defense (the I-9) they should be fine. and its unnecessary to fire an employee for not providing the I-9 information.

if you think i work for the government, I quit.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind, too, that the employer has no legal obligation to hire you; that an offer is not a contract; and that employment in Texas is considered to be at-will, meaning that the employer can release you from employment for any reason not specifically prohibited by law. Just because it's "not illegal" to hire you doesn't mean it's mandatory.

Even if I accept your premise that the government cannot force you to fill out a form for free, the employer can. And they can rescind the offer of employment if you refuse.
 
cbg said:
Keep in mind, too, that the employer has no legal obligation to hire you; that an offer is not a contract; and that employment in Texas is considered to be at-will, meaning that the employer can release you from employment for any reason not specifically prohibited by law. Just because it's "not illegal" to hire you doesn't mean it's mandatory.

Even if I accept your premise that the government cannot force you to fill out a form for free, the employer can. And they can rescind the offer of employment if you refuse.
Click to expand...

i left my previous job because they offered to hire me before they requested me to fill out the I-9 and W-4.

Generally, it is possible to pursue a breach-of-contract claim where a job offer is extended and later withdrawn, particularly where the individual has quit his or her job in reliance upon the offer.

i am talking money damages to find a new job for better or equal pay, in this tough ecomony.

remember, i'm not asked to fill out company forms, but federal and state forms. again, the fed and state cant require me to fill out their forms directly. (per 4,5 and 13 amendments)

also i am not refusing to fill out the I-9, i just want to get payed for it. ( i mean its my information/property, Right? )

FYI, my resume is copy written, WOW
 
Last edited:
I want an island of my own in the South Pacific, but I'm not likely to get that any time soon either.

Seriously Charles - the company will likely laugh at you first, and then fire you if you refuse to fill out the form for free.

Legally.
 
Proserpina said:
I want an island of my own in the South Pacific, but I'm not likely to get that any time soon either.

Seriously Charles - the company will likely laugh at you first, and then fire you if you refuse to fill out the form for free.

Legally.
Click to expand...

Do you think they will be laughing in small claims court? - sounds like a slam dunk

Generally, it is possible to pursue a breach-of-contract claim where a job offer is extended and later withdrawn, particularly where the individual has quit his or her job in reliance upon the offer.

if you dont know your Rights, O'well. - just because it aint be done before, dont mean nothin.
 
Last edited:
Small claims?

You have no claim, period.

And even if you did, small claims would not be the correct venue.
 
Proserpina said:
Small claims?

You have no claim, period.

And even if you did, small claims would not be the correct venue.
Click to expand...

stated again, a breach-of-contract claim where a job offer is extended and later withdrawn, particularly where the individual has quit his or her job in reliance upon the offer is a valid claim. i am not saying the company cant fire me, but just pay me for the damages to my career for lost time and money, thats all.

your right, federal court would be better, but a jury trial can cost a company more money. its my understanding, one should be judgement proof to do this

-----------------

1. In Small Claims Court, you must represent yourself. No lawyers allowed on either side, (Plaintiff or Defendant).

2. You normally cannot sue for pain and suffering, only actual out of pocket expenses.

3. You need to figure out how much your actual damages are. You may not get the exact amount you sue for, unless you have all of your paperwork in order (receipts, photos, witnesses).

thanks for your input.
 
Last edited:
You have no claim.

You can argue back and forth as much as you like, but it doesn't change reality.

Of course if you DID have a claim, you'd have no problem getting an attorney to take your case.
 
Pro, I don't know about you, but I'm not wasting any more time on this ejit. It's not as if he didn't know that any employer would be requiring him to fill out the I-9 and W-4 - for free - so he can't claim detrimental reliance. He's going to get his *** handed to him in court by the judge; you know it, I know it, AJ knows it, and anyone else who reads this and has two licks of common sense knows it. I don't volunteer here to waste my time on idiocy like this.

C'mon, love, I'll pour you a chardonnay.
 
Proserpina said:
You have no claim.

You can argue back and forth as much as you like, but it doesn't change reality.

Of course if you DID have a claim, you'd have no problem getting an attorney to take your case.
Click to expand...


Proserpina, are you making a legal determination for Me? (its not for you to decide if i have a claim)

people change reality, all the time, its called consensus reality. (like Federal Reserve Notes)

i dont use an attorney, I'm Sui Juris
 
cbg said:
Pro, I don't know about you, but I'm not wasting any more time on this ejit. It's not as if he didn't know that any employer would be requiring him to fill out the I-9 and W-4 - for free - so he can't claim detrimental reliance. He's going to get his *** handed to him in court by the judge; you know it, I know it, AJ knows it, and anyone else who reads this and has two licks of common sense knows it. I don't volunteer here to waste my time on idiocy like this.

C'mon, love, I'll pour you a chardonnay.
Click to expand...



That sounds like a wonderful plan!

(I really would almost pay to see this guy in court....oh, to be a fly on that wall!)
 
Proserpina said:
That sounds like a wonderful plan!

(I really would almost pay to see this guy in court....oh, to be a fly on that wall!)
Click to expand...

The Supreme decision below states that:


"...The term [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest by legislative action..."
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)

So please tell me how the federal government can order an employer to fire a state citizen for not filling out an I-9 in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

i am waiting for your answer.
 
Last edited:
cbg said:
Goodnight, Charles. Don't let the door hit you in the behind on the way out.
Click to expand...

The Supreme decision below states that:


"...The term [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest by legislative action..."
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)

So please tell me how the federal government can order an employer (a creature of the State) to fire a state citizen for not filling out an I-9 in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

you too, I am waiting for your answer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top