Social Security "Law"

[weishaupt1776]

Here is the code section regarding the so******t insecurity act,

For stuff regarding not being required to disclose their number by compulsion, etc . . . Check out

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...0_7_20_II.html

Especially 405 & 408

particulary 408a8

I'm still researching this so any input is much appreciated

I have a few issues regarding the request for a social security number. Had I known the full and complete disclosure of the problems that were involved in having this number, I never would have obtained it. For instance, my mother died and left me an annuity IRA, now I am claiming this as the beneficiary. I sent the form in to this company. For the slot for me to fill in it says Tax Id# or my "social security #. I put in my UCC file number, and wrote in "non-taxpayer". This money is not "wages" nor is it "income". If this company won't give me this money because I won't furnish the wretched social security number, then what is my recourse? The last thing I need right now is the IRS coming after me for "capital gains" booty for their coffers. Another issue is when I called the police or asked them to check something out, they won't do anything even on a routing call, unless you furnish them with a social security number!!!! Refusing services because of that!!! Wasn't it a good thing that I wasn't being assaulted and possibly murdered at that time for them to deny services. I think every police department in this country should be sued for this, compelling someone to provide this number for service. Everyone is so intimidated by government, so brainwashed I guess they just do like the herd and give it. Any comments or success stories would be appreciated!!!

[rushpat]

I've seen something stating that no gov't agency shall require this number unless it is involved in SS or tax matters. Someone once said this was later extended to private companies, but I never found the real quote for this.

Does anyone know?

[weishaupt1776]

I haven't checked these out- so treat them with respect and only in the mannor to keep your eyes open should you happen to run across them.* But I do know that Christian Science have gone to court and won- I do not know if these are part of that artificial entity.

** - Callahan v. Woods 1981 religious objection to requirement that a minor must obtain a social security number to receive federal benefits. -

Callahan v. Woods 1984 again Callahan objected to a requirement that he get a social security number for his minor daughter. -

Yeager v. Hackensack 1985 case based on constitutional and Privacy Act objections to a New Jersey independent water company requirement for SSN.
**
- Leahy v. District of Columbia 1987 religious objection to the required use of social security number.
*
*- Greidinger v. Davis 1993 objection to requirement to divulge a SSN as a condition to vote.

also You should also be aware of these forms- I do not suggest that you use them but only for your knowledge they have made provisions for- withdrawals.* Create your own, pick and choose your battles.* If only I knew of a christain science practictioner, I'd ask where they bank. or at least attend services to get more info.* You could also- withdraw- then once established default them.* I would be cautious if you are ordain on the internet- while they have won this battle to be recognized, you'll bring up a new issue if you are ordained then file form 4361, it could declare it fraud etc....

521 Request for withdrawal of application

4361Application for Exemption From Self-Employment Tax for Use by Ministers, Members of Religious Orders and Christian Science Practitioners

Form 4029 Application for Exemption From Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits

as for not being a tax payer-
I am not stating that I am not a “tax payer”, as such, as it is known that the People do pay taxes, when required by some taxable activity but, I am not liable for some unproved, unverified allege “debt” when devoid of any specified taxable activity, nor am I found within the jurisdiction of the federal government, (whom can act only upon the states of the union of which this flesh and blood man is not) nor is it near where the lives, works or plays.

Also I did read, that once given a number it is never recycled nor destroyed.

If you write to the SSA, they will send you a form letter full of misdirection - this was my response long before I joined lawwork, I would do this a lot differently now- like kill all the codes I used,if you use any part of this strip it of the codes, right now I leave them in for your learning enjoyment- remove all codes and support it with superior court decisions, constitution and common law.

Fist Paragraph: “This is in response to your correspondence about the Social Security program. People cannot voluntarily end their participation in the program. The payment of Social Security taxes is mandatory, regardless of the citizenship or place of residence of either the employer or the employee. Unless specifically exempt by law, everyone working in the United States is required to pay Social Security taxes.”

This letter is not in response to my letter nor did I send correspondence about the SS program.* I requested to correct a status change.
Nor did I request to end my participation in the program, whether I could or couldn’t, at that point was immaterial.* I requested to correct an incorrect status change.*
If payment is mandatory as Charles (Mr. Mullen) claims, please show me the law.* Charles has not proven one thing.* My authority for requesting this and information in this and my previous letter comes directly from the Supreme Court of the United States, created under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court stated in “Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, that “Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority.”**
In addition, the Solicitor General of the United States argued to the Court in that case, “Those dealing with an officer or agent of the United States must be held to have had notice of the limitations upon his authority.”**
If there is an exemption by law, how does Charles know whether I do or do not not fall under this heading?* What if I am exempt by law?* Prove the claim or refrain from making such statements.* I will not take the risk that Charles is telling the truth, especially when it’s not signed under penalty of perjury.
As Charles has brought up this statement about people not able to voluntary end their participation and that SS is mandatory, I direct your department to the fact that all taxes have to be assessed by the Secretary, payable by stamp or return.* Are SS taxes assessed by return or paid by stamp?* It is, in fact, neither.* It is ripped out of the hands of hard working people without consent, Due Process. promise or compensation which places this SS Administration in the category of an illegal pyramid system payable by extortion.
The following are listing of Court Decisions and Statutes:

“Liability for taxation must clearly appear.”* Higley v. C.I.R., 69 F. 2d 160 at 162-163
US 26 Sect 6201: Assessment of authority; 6201(a): The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquires, determinations, and assessments of all taxes.....* There is no exclusionary statement- therefore it applies to all taxes!
6201(a)(1) Taxes shown on return
6201(a)(2) Unpaid taxes paid by stamp
US 26 Sect. 6511:* Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title.
U.S. v. Lee, 102 S. Ct. 1051 (1982):* Relying upon both the First Amendment and 26 U.S. 1402(g), which provides an exemption, the district court held the statutes requiring the claimant to pay Social Security taxes to be unconstitutional: SSR 82-44c: SECTION 210 (42 U.S.C. 410) EMPLOYMENT :20 CFR 404.1004(a): SSR 82-44c
EXCLUSIONS FROM SELF-EMPLOYMENT -- SERVICES EXEMPTED ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS -- WAIVER OF BENEFITS:* SSR 83-2a: SECTION 202(v) (42 U.S.C. 402(v)):* 20 CFR 404.305(a) and 404.1075:* SSR 83-2a
The claimant was granted an exemption from the payment of Social Security self-employment taxes under the provisions in section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC).
Section 202(v) of the Act provides that --
"Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, in the case of any individual who files a waiver pursuant to section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and is granted a tax exemption thereunder, no benefits or other payments shall be payable under this title to him, no payments shall be made on his behalf under part A of title XVIII, and no benefits or other payments under this title shall be payable on the basis of his wages and self-employment income to any other person, after the filing of such waiver; except that, if thereafter such individual's tax exemption under such section 1402(g) ceases to be effective, such waiver shall cease to be applicable in the case of benefits and other payments under this title and part A of title XVIII to the extent based on his self-employment income for and after the first taxable year in which such tax exemption ceases to be effective and on his wages for and after the calendar year (if any) which begins in or with the beginning of such taxable year."
Section 1402(g)(1) of the IRC provides, in part, that --
"Any individual may file an application . . . for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect . . . and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect . . . by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by . . .
(B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis on his wages and self-employment income. . . ."
Section 1402(g)(3)(B) of the IRC provides that the tax exemption on religious grounds shall end after the time the individual ceases to be a member of a properly recognized tax exempt religious sect, or when he ceases to be an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect, or at the time the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) finds that the sect of which the individual is a member ceases to meet the requirements of section 1402(g)(1)(C) or section 1402(g)(1)(D).
Section 1402(g)(1)(C) of the IRC provides that the Secretary of HHS determines whether such sect has the established teachings referred to in the first sentence of section 1402(g)(1).
Section 1402(g)(1)(D) of the IRC provides that the Secretary of HHS determines whether it is the practice of the sect for members to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living.
Charles’ statement that everyone is required to pay and yet he makes no mention of waivers:
The federal law allows the SSN requirement to be waived for "good cause." There is no definition included in the Act for "good cause." And more importantly, there is absolutely NO PENALTY imposed on anyone for refusing to provide the "required" [requested] SSN.

[weishaupt1776]

Form 4029:* Application for Exemption from Self-Employment Tax, Claim for Refund and Waiver of Benefits: The form, which is in total compliance with section 202(v) of the Act and section 1402(g) (formerly 1402(h)) of the IRC, clearly sets forth the requirements for eligibility for the tax exemption.
Furthermore; There is no requirement to supply or obtain a Social Security number (SSN) to anyone for any reason. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has consistently stated as follows:
The SS Act does not require a person to have a SSN to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one.* This would suggest it is voluntary.* Paying into this system therefore can not be mandatory.
The SSA only says that if someone works without a SSN the agency cannot correctly credit the person's account for the period in which they work without a number.
If a person decided they do not need or want an SSN, they may request that SSA delete the record of their SSN application. Since the SSA policy states that in special situations, SSA will delete the "application information from the SSN record," the agency should honor all such requests.
What law makes it mandatory to pay SS Tax?

Second paragraph; “Similarly, people cannot withdraw the Social Security taxes that they have already paid. Social Security taxes paid by employees and employers are not placed in individual accounts but are pooled to pay benefits to eligible workers and their families. Benefits are paid only on the basis of a voluntary application.”
Please show me where I requested to withdraw SS taxes already paid.* I did not request any of the taxes I have already paid.* I requested a correction, a change of status.* Does Charles has difficulty understanding English?*
What Charles has indicated is that everyone pays SS tax, even though there is no law, but only those that voluntary apply for a SSN get benefits.* But if one does not apply for a SSN how is the tax applied towards a specific number?* I find this inconsistent and therefore a complete lie as no law has been established making it mandatory for one to pay SS tax.* If there is please notify me of the Statute.
Even though I have enclosed a completed Certificate of Foreign Status, Substitute W-8 as per John Lyons, (Assistant Commissioner International of Foreign Operations, Office of the Director of Foreign Operations in Washington, DC), indicated was needed in order to officially change the incorrect status on SS-5 from “U. S. Citizen” to “Other”, meaning “American Citizen.” if this department is unwilling to change my status to other to reflect my correct American Citizenship status, this will establish to being subjugated into slavery of which is involuntary servitude and Unconstitutional.** Therefore,what law prevents me form voluntarily withdrawing from the program all together based on SSA-521, and then reapplying for a new number with a correct other status? Or signing a waiver?* OR going exempt under the law? OR requesting that my number be deleted?

Further more, I never volunteered into this system, I thought that was plain, in the letter.* The Hospital, I assume, without my consent, while I was a minor, set this up.* Therefore my Volunteered assumption is incorrect, I never volunteered.* And as Charles is stating that I did volunteered- PROVE IT! Therefore, I request a copy of the original application under the Freedom of information act.
Further, why can one not end the voluntary participation?* Please show me the legal requirements, especially in light that Charles said it was a voluntary participation.* Voluntary is define as:
acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation
implies freedom and spontaneity of choice or action without external compulsion
proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
unconstrained by interference
having power of free choice
self-determining
I also want to point out that several people have already won court cases objecting on religious grounds to State requirements for a SSN as a condition:

Leahy v. District of Columbia: Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, (now a U.S. Supreme Court Justice), wrote the Court's opinion upholding John C. Leahy's religious objection to providing his social security number in order to get a driver's license.
Five plaintiffs sued the City of Los Angeles, on religious objection grounds, objecting to the State's requirement that driver's license applicants must provide a social security number as a condition to getting a license. They won the case in the State Superior Court. A similar case is pending in Alabama on appeal
Social Security Number Court Cases
Callahan v. Woods 1981; religious objection to requirement that a minor must obtain a social security number to receive federal benefits.
Callahan v. Woods 1984; objected to a requirement that he get a social security number for his minor daughter.
Yeager v. Hackensack 1985; case based on constitutional and Privacy Act objections to a New Jersey independent water company requirement for SSN.
Leahy v. District of Columbia 1987; religious objection to the required use of social security number.
Greidinger v. Davis 1993; objection to requirement to divulge a SSN as a condition to vote.

I want to point out that I too have very strong religious convictions against using the social security number, even more so when it reflects an incorrect status, or when Federal servants of the people refusing to adhere to proper procedures.* Change my status to Other!

Third paragraph: “The Social Security Administration (SSA) is required by law (at section 205 of the Social Security Act) to maintain records of workers' earnings and to establish any other records necessary to carry out our responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Because many people have the same name, or change their name, a reliable and permanent system was needed to distinguish one individual from another in our records. The Social Security account number system was established to meet that need.”

What does this have to do with my request of changing my status to ‘Other’ or the fact that this agency is negligent and liable for maintaining correct information and refusing to fulfill the duty of this administration in correcting or specifically responding to the charge that members of this office are not doing their diligence in maintaining correct information?*
This means absolutely nothing to me and has nothing to do with my request or about this administration absolute failure and derelict of duty to fulfill the obligations and duty concerning me.* Trickery: lots of words, probably correct and yet has nothing to do with my request of changing my statues to ‘Other’, thus signifying nothing.

[weishaupt1776]

Fourth Paragraph: “The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security system, as established by the Social Security Act, and mandatory individual participation. We will not respond further to your correspondence about voluntary participation in the SS program or the withdrawal of Social Security taxes.”

First Charles stated, the payment is mandatory, then he says it’s a voluntary application, now you have it at a mandatory individual participation.* I beg to differ, you can’t have it as a voluntary mandatory participation.* Even the IRS came up with a better fabrication with their voluntary compliance, most believe that to be true.* I can not see anyway that you are telling the truth especially in light of the fact that there is no Supreme Court decision actually cited.* It would be like me saying that the Supreme Court has decided that ol’ Chunky is a child molester.* That statement is just as valid as Charles Statement of which I claim both statements are invalid.* There is no mandatory participation by Charles own words, this is a voluntary application to participate of which I have never volunteered.*

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated two very specific and significant things about the Social Security TAX:
First, that it is a valid income tax and nothing more:* It’s a voluntary system, only if it were mandatory would it be classified as Unconstitutional.
Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619
Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 US 548, both decided May 24, 1937).

Second, there is NO CONTRACT to pay any benefits.
Fleming v. Nester, 363 US 603 (1960);
Richardson v. Belcher, 404 US 78 (1971);
Weinberger v. Niesenfield, 420 US 636 (1974).
Such perceived benefits are not benefits at all, but are welfare programs called Social Security and come out of the general budget, NOT from a Social Security Trust Fund. The TAX collected by the means of Social Security goes directly into the general treasury fund.* Which makes Social Security a fraudulent SCAM by the government to extort moneys from each of us for revenue under the cover and color of law.* Social Security is also a Ponzi scheme.

Evidence can be found in the Social Security do***entation booklet, SSA Publication No. 0510006, on Page 3 of "How the Social Security Works": Revenues collected from today's workers flow into one end of the pipeline and come out the other end in the form of benefits for TODAY'S BENEFICIARIES."*
That is the scheme used by Charles Ponzi in 1919, for which he was convicted, served a long jail term and was deported.
The SSN is a means to change the citizenship to that of a privilege (incorporated) citizen subject to the rules and regulations of Congress under the COMMERCE CLAUSE (private contract law) to raise revenue by fraud - the nondisclosure of material facts in such contract.
I never challenged the Constitutionality of the SSA as it is constitutional as a Voluntary program.* What court decision is Charles referring to?* Charles is consistence in his misrepresentation, misdirection and not responding to the issue.* As there is no mention of the Case and unless it is mention, I will have to assume it is a feeble attempt at misdirection and willful falsification on the information.* Another attempt to claim he has responded and in fact has not.* In the future, correspondence with me, Charles is directed to list any Supreme Court decision he may make reference to or he is to refrain from doing so.
Is it the policy of this administration to do it’s own thing and disregard laws passed by congress?* Or is that just Charles policy?*

Expatriation Act of 1868 (I would not use now- Clydes Declaration of Status is supreior- but what did I know way back then)* (Approved, July 27, 1868), An Act concerning the Rights of Citizens:*

“the right of expatriation [including expatriation from the District of Columbia or ‘U.S. Inc.’, the corporation] is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,“
and decreed that “any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.“
Be advised that I am not expatriating from “United States” the country, but simply the municipal corporation located in District of Columbia and federal territories only.
Carrington, Political Questions: The Judicial Check on the Executive, 42 Va.L.Rev. 175 (1956).; 9 Pet. 692, 34 U.S. 692, 699, 9 L. Ed. 276.
15 Stat. 223-224 (1868), R.S. § 1999, 8 U.S.C. § 800 (1940).
Although designed to apply especially to the rights of immigrants to shed their foreign nationalities, that Act of Congress “is also broad enough to cover, and does cover, the corresponding natural and inherent right of American citizens to expatriate themselves.“ Savorgnan v United States, 1950, 338 U.S. 491, 498 note 11, 70 S. Ct. 292, 296, 94 L. Ed. 287.
The Supreme Court has held that the Citizenship Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940 “are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed“ Id., 338 U.S. at pages 498-499, 70 S. Ct. at page 296.* That same light, I think, illuminates 22 U.S.C.A. § 211a and 8 U.S.C.A. § 1185.”* Walter Briehl v John Foster Dulles, 284 F2d 561, 583 (1957).
l am not asking about voluntary participation in the Social security Program nor the withdrawal of SS taxes CHANGE MY STATUS TO OTHER.* Charles denial of this right is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamentals principles of this Government and you can be held liable and accountable.

Final paragraph; “The Internal Revenue Service has jurisdiction over the issue of liability for Social Security taxes; the Immigration and Naturalization Service has jurisdiction over the issue of citizenship. If you have questions about either of those subjects, you should contact one of those Agencies.”

As the Jurisdiction, as Charles have stated, is the IRS, that would be US 26 or US 27, US 27 is ATF and in US 26 all taxes are to be assessed or payable by stamp.
Therefore I require you to inform me of the amount of SS taxes that have been applied to my SSN.
If my status is not changed to that of “Other” and I will request a refund based on no assessment made by the Secretary and this will be an overpayment, refundable under the laws.
Therefore;* I do not need to contact the IRS as there is no law concerning income (corporate profit as defined by the Supreme Court) taxes that applies to me.* Therefore no requirement to ever contact them again for any reason based on my SSN according to what Charles stated. Nor have I seen any law that makes me liable for SS taxes as it is a voluntary system just like all income taxes.
Nor am I a foreigner, I am a native Oregonian, A citizen of America.* Does Chuck (Charles) deny this?* Look at my SS record, does Chuck officially deny this?

As Chuck never answered even so much as one of the questions, QUESTIONS AND INTERROGATORIES,* all my responses are as duly noted and are correct.* Chuck has therefore admitted to Construction FRAUD as stated in the letter.* I do not wish to go to court and make this a Public battle unless I have to, and the courts have favored the dismissal of SSN.* Nor do I wish to sue or claim my past payments.* All I want is for someone in this administration to do their duty by correcting my status from US Citizen to ‘Other’ and then tell me that it has been done.* Furthermore; there are religious groups who have removed their SSN therefore Chuck is discriminating against me on the basic of Religious Freedom.* Chuck and or others will be held personally liable for this act of Treason.*
---
This needs a lot of cleaning up if one were to use this today- this would include Sovereign today- I did not know the term then. *But if you write them and know their standard response, you could head them

Around seven years ago, when I moved to where I am at now, I went to the electric co-op to get the juice turned on.

The first word's out of their mouth was... what's your SSN number for the account?

I said... I aint' got one!

They said that in order for me to have the juice I would have to pre-pay a deposit for juice and would get the deposit back after one year of service.

That's when the lights went on, for me. After one year I called em' up and said that they could just apply the deposit on their next bill, and they said nope and that I would now have to await another year of service, ect.

Then I happen to notice the receipt the nice lady at the desk had provided me only showed that I deposited $6, when infact I had deposited $65.

So, when I next invoice came I "accepted it for value" and mailed it in.

Man it wasn't two days and a nervous response came from their office recognizing the $65 deposit.

I followed up with a note... thank you for the new receipt!

Now:

They say that as a co-op business that I am a member/owner of this co/op.

Now I thinking that if I am a co-owner I want my benefit, and especially after almost seven years of service I want my deposit back!

[KaosTheory]

Originally Posted by wargames102

So, when I next invoice came I "accepted it for value" and mailed it in.

Man it wasn't two days and a nervous response came from their office recognizing the $65 deposit.

I followed up with a note... thank you for the new receipt!

Now:

They say that as a co-op business that I am a member/owner of this co/op.

Now I thinking that if I am a co-owner I want my benefit, and especially after almost seven years of service I want my deposit back!

I'm not clear on why the "AFV" letter made them react like they did. Could you elaborate?

KT

I applied to a company to be a marketing executive for them, as I believe they are a fair company, have a great product and I could really be happy representing them as well as making money (not income). I faxed in my application to them. My application included the "Right to Refuse to Disclose" SSN do***ent, that I had notarized, and also contained my UCC initial filing number. A representative called me back and said Sorry, it's our company's requirement, they are in Connecticut, I am in Michigan. I added in my faxed letter that I had obtained employement previously by just providing proof, that I was born here in USA, birth certificate, etc, a picture id. They are rejecting my participation in their business on this alone. How an SSN be a company requirement, does the IRS own the company? I know the answer. They are in fear of the IRS!!! Anyone let me know the proper response to their Legal Dept. so I can proceed to make a living. I have a religious exemption affidavit that has been notarized regarding this very thing. Thanks!!!!!!

[weishaupt1776]

go to 26 CFR
Scroll to end of page 88 begin of pg. 89

• 
  If the person making the return, statement, or other
  do***ent does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other
  person, and such other person is one that is described in paragraph
  (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), or (vii) of this section, such person must
  request the other person's number. The request should state that the
  identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law.
  When the person making the return, statement, or other do***ent does not
  know the number of the other person, and has complied
  
  [[Page 89]]
  
  with the request provision of this paragraph (c), such person must sign
  an affidavit on the transmittal do***ent forwarding such returns,
  statements, or other do***ents to the Internal Revenue Service, so
  stating.

So prepare a boiler plate affidavit for them.

Check 26 USC 6109 also

In the future, simply state that you do not have a social security number.

You are not lying, because the card ssays that it is property on the SSA.

Are you or is your name you were born w/ property of the SSA?

Although it feels like it, it's not true

Go to nossn.com