MEMO ON SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER [6]

When you review Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment v. Margaret M. Heckler, 613 F. Supp. 558 and the subsequent appellate proceedings, you'll be entertained to know that as early as the late seventies, government employees, not to mention private citizens, were surrendering out the social security program. The Congress wrote a statute to force them in, claiming an interest in the public welfare, but the government lost. Hundreds of thousands of public employees during the mid 1980s successfully liberated themselves out of this fraudulent scheme.

Social security is a government benefit administered by the United States within its territories. It began with FDR's "New Deal," the political platform upon which he was elected to office only a few years after the stock market crash of 1929. In true form of government creating a need for itself, FDR and his banker cronies from Great Britain engineered the crash of '29 and you'll find this proved adequately in the Appendix to the Congressional Record of 1940.

"It was told to me by a heavyweight American financier before the crash came

that the crash was coming, that it would be permitted to run to the danger point,

and that when the danger point was passed it would be reversed by measures

carefully prepared in advance to meet the situation.",

Appendix to the Congressional Record, 1940

After the Social Security Act of 1935, the governors of each state of the union were extorted into participating in this scheme under threat of an enormous tax imposed by the United States. Their submission allowed them to defer this burden onto the citizens as we see it in operation today, that was the "Deal." They may withdraw at any time but they'd lose their subscription to monopoly money. Federal Reserve Notes.

I have a letter from my congressman which admits that he can find no law requiring anyone to either use or apply for a social security number as a condition of contract in America. It took me seven months to get this confession and he even lied to me on one occasion, but recanted when he learned that I knew better. Part 301.6109-l(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations states that if someone is going to pay you money, then he must ask you for a social security number. If you refuse, he is required by regulation to tell you that you must give him one and that it's required by law. Obviously, it's not required by law but he is required to tell you that. In other words, the regulation requires him to lie. After you refuse to disclose a number for the second time, his next obligation is to attach an affidavit to any statements he's required to file using your number stating that he's fulfilled his requirement to ask you for a social security number.

In other words, when it comes to disclosing a social security number, no one, absolutely no one, can require you to do it just so he can meet his own filing requirements. Please review Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344. The social security tax is a mandatory tax placed only on the receipt of wages. If you're not earning wages, you have no social security tax liability.

I have held three jobs in the past four years without having to submit any social security number or sign any federal forms and without paying one federal income tax on my pay. I currently have a checking account, insurance, three drivers licenses, a passport, one credit card, various telephone services, mail service, and an apartment lease, all with no social security number. I've never had to file a lawsuit to enforce my right to contract without a social security number.

A client recently brought a case to me where the IRS wanted to penalize him thousands of dollars for several tax returns in which he claimed his children as dependents while they had no social security numbers. They still have no numbers and I encouraged him to keep it that way and educate his children about this fraud. This is what we found:

Prior to August 20^th, 1996, Section 6109(e) of the Code required disclosure of social security numbers for dependents claimed on tax returns; however, it was repealed on August 20^th, 1996 (Pub. L. 104-188, Title I, § 1615(a)(2)(A), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1853)

Prior to December 19, 1989, there was a $5 penalty for failing to supply the TIN of a dependent claimed on a tax return. This appeared under Section 6676(e) until it was repealed on December 19^th, 1989:

"Penalty for failure to supply TIN of dependent

If any person required under section 6109(e) to include the TIN of any dependent on his return fails to include such number on such return (or includes an incorrect number), such person shall, unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, pay a penalty of $5 for each such failure."

Repealed. Pub. L. 101-239, Title VII, § 7711(b)(l), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2393

The Problems Resolution Officer is having a fit because she's going to have to abate the penalties because there's no law to enforce them!

Here is the current statute relating to deductions for dependents having no SSN: 26 USC § 151

"(e) Identifying information required

No exemption shall be allowed under this section with respect to any individual unless the TIN of such individual is included on the return claiming the exemption."

As of January 6^th, 1997, there was no monetary penalty for not using an SSN for your children when claiming them as dependents on a tax return. The penalty statute of $5 was repealed in December of 1989 and the "6109 (e) requirement" was repealed in August of 1996. In essence, the time between 1989 and 1996 in which the "requirement" was a statute, was not enforceable because the penalty statute was not in force. It seems now that the only "penalty" is not being able to claim your children as dependents. I would encourage everyone doing this to refuse to get your children a number just to claim them, as it would be equivalent to selling them to the government, or putting a price on their heads. There's a good chance you shouldn't be signing a Form W-4 or filing a tax return anyway.