Opting out of "Social Security"

[John/az2]

In my searches I stumbled upon this. And as it has been a re-occuring topic of discussion I thought I would pass it along.

I'll post the article here, but you may want to click to the original page for the many other links you'll find there.
http://www.noneusa.org/resign.html

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So You Want to Get Rid of Your Social Security Number.

Before we answer this question, we have a question for you. If you did not want a Social Security number, why did you apply for one? Maybe your parents enumerated you when you were a child, so they could claim you as a deduction on their 1040 Form. Perhaps you thought you needed one in order to work. Or maybe you wanted to receive the benefits associated with the number. Whatever the reasons for obtaining the number, it now appears you no longer want it. Your reason for not wanting the number, might be religious, personal or even financial. Before making any decision we suggest you read "Dulocracy in America."

There are several organizations and individuals on the World Wide Web with information on how to Unvolunteer from Social Security, or Revoke a Social Security Number. Other sites deal with issues associated with the Social Security System and taxation. You can find these sites by using your favorite Search Engine. Do they work? You'll need to research the information they provide and then decide for yourself.

Before using any program, there are several things to remember. First: The Social Security Administration does not change, void or cancel social security numbers. Once generated the number remains active for years. However, some numbers have been dormant for years, because of non-use. Second: There are no vested rights to benefits in the Social Security Scheme. Price v. Flemming, 280 F.2d 956 (1960). See also: Hatter v. United States (1995). Congress included in the original act, and has since retained a claim expressly reserving to it the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the act. See: Flemming v. Nester, 363 U.S. 603 (1960). Third: The majority of people who pay social security taxes (FICA, etc.) believe this money is placed into a trust fund and is earmarked for their retirement. However, this is not the case. "The proceeds of both taxes are paid into the Treasury like the internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way." See: Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).

So how can you get rid of your SSN?" The easiest way is --- "DON'T USE IT." Try living without the number and the benefits associated with the number for a year or two. Open a checking account without the number or try getting hired without a Social Security number. After this probationary period, you may want to return the Social Security Card to the Social Security Administration. See: Peister v. Department of Human Resources. However, just because you have decided not to receive the benefits associated with the number, you may still have to pay "your fair share" or perhaps even more, for those people who choose to rely on government for their support from the cradle to the grave. See: Welfare Enumeration and Suretyship Under the Social Security Act.

Since we do not know your motivation in seeking such a cause of action, we suggest you read, study and pray, before you attempt to use any program. There are to many people who have jumped off the benefits cliff, without first checking how far it was to the bottom. Reminds us of that man who jumped off a ten story building. As he was falling, people on each floor kept hearing him say, "so far so good." So far, so good.

Remember there are many programs out there, claiming to have the "magic-bullet" which will take you out of the so-called system. We believe none are any more effective than simply walking away from it.

Everyday we receive e-mail from people who ask us, "why would anyone choose not to be enumerated and risk the lost of benefits from the government? Why? Sometimes we wonder ourselves. But they still ask why? Well, it's like a man we once knew in El Paso. One day he just took all his clothes off and jumped into a mess of cactus. When we asked him the same question -- Why? He said it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Unlike the man from El Paso, who thought it was a good idea at the time, the following article should answer this question.

THE HARDEST JOB IN AMERICA IS BEING NON-ENUMERATED

by R. Kenneth Potter

The concern today regarding the current social security program and increasing demands placed upon individuals to disclose their Social Security number seems to be drawing a great deal of attention with the public at large. As to the program, the concerns range from the management of funds to meet future needs and the present crisis of the programs’ bankruptcy, to allowing Uncle Sam to invest some of the social security trust fund in the stock market, all the way to the philosophical conflict between enforced socialism and freedom to choose in America. Some policy-makers and pundits want to change the way the program is managed, thinking this will solve the trust fund’s financial problems. Others think it should be kept as it is because charity for today’s needy is so desperately needed.

However, much of the discussion of the Social Security mess you hear in the media and read in public policy manuals fails to see the real underlining crisis.

The day’s crisis is spiritual and moral.

The fundamental problem lies in the people’s inability or unwillingness to manage their personal lives. They have abandoned individual and moral responsibilities for themselves and their posterity, handing them to the secular caretaker state.

This is a rebellion against God and His law which has worked to transform the nation from an inspired constitutional democracy in republican form into a socialistic oligarchy.

Most people assume the Social Security number is compulsory-required by law and necessary to survive in modern society.

But this is not the case-never has been. According to the Social Security Administration’s own statistics, there are more than 15 million Americans who do not have or use the number.

They should be relieved to know that while they may never receive federal benefits, they avoid being subject to a remarkable obligation.

When first introduced in November 1936, Social Security numbers were assigned only to individuals who were effectively connected with a trade or business in interstate commerce or to anyone receiving federal unemployment compensation benefits. During the 1930’s, the federal government, acting under a mandate from the people, acquired massive debt to finance Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation which included the original Social Security Act.

By 1938, the national debt had grown to such proportions that the entire nation was bankrupt. This was reflected in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of that year, Erie v. Tompkins. In 1939, to refinance the debt annually and avoid default, Congress rewrote social legislation, repealed Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act, and allowed for the issuance of another type of Social Security Account number. This new number would be issued to individuals willing to pledge their future performance as surety against the national debt in exchange for the promise of cradle-to-grave protection.

While compelled to pay the federal debt, Americans who’ve applied to be a member of the system have no vested, contractual rights to benefits. The terms of the agreement between the people and the government are in the hands of Congress, which can alter the conditions at whim.

I am one of the millions of Americans who do not associate themselves with the Social Security program or its numbers.

I choose to be personally responsible for myself and my family, putting my trust in God Almighty for my temporal and spiritual needs. I am acting on the freedom to decide how to be charitable to my neighbor, and accept the rewards or condemnation of God for my decision. Involuntary charity or servitude is contrary to the Constitution as well as God’s law.

Social Security is a voluntary program which cannot be forced upon any individual without his express consent or written application.

Yes, a man can be forced to contribute to this program. But that’s because he’s remained in line to receive its financial benefits.

The right to live outside the federal welfare state is long recognized and protected as a right of personal privacy.

The drafters of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the most valued by civilized man. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon an individual’s privacy must be deemed a violation of constitutional principles, according to Olmstead vs. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928).

Non-enumerated American citizens across the nation put their faith, their day-to-day livelihoods and freedoms on the line as they live out their conviction that Social Security is contrary to God’s will.

Some are persecuted. Others must overcome troubles in banking, business and dealing with civil authorities because they have no number to provide. They are admirable examples of people defying a surveillance system which marks people so comprehensively that most cannot buy or sell without the mark of the number.

Those of us who are freedom-loving and God-fearing will continue to speak out in defense of every man’s right to choose.
[/quote]



------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

 

[anand]

Thanks for a very interesting and informative post John.
Anand.

 

[John/az2]

Digging deeper, I found this to be quite interesting.

I believe those who anticipate legal entanglements will find this to be some good advice.
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/reliance.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(Last update: September 1, 1999)
RELIANCE UPON GOVERNMENTAL REPRESENTATIONS

Those who are interested in the federal income tax issue and act upon their beliefs occasionally get into trouble, typically by being indicted for some tax crime. Of course when they are required to put forward a defense, they must not only have the ability to testify but they also need to be prepared to offer documentary evidence which supports their beliefs. However too often when I enter the picture, I find that many people simply have not documented everything upon which they relied. Frequently, these people have not kept the most important documents they studied and relied upon, which thus requires work in locating those particular items. This short memo explains how important it is to keep the books, documents, cases and other "reliance" materials you have studied, especially if that material constitutes an admission made by the government.

I have represented numerous parties who believed that compliance with the federal income tax laws is voluntary. Why do these people have such beliefs? The basis for those beliefs is not the rantings of some lunatic but the government itself. There are a few cases which make statements that compliance is voluntary, and there are published documents from the Internal Revenue Service which declare the same thing. However, I am surprised by the utter lack of concern by those who might and eventually do fall within the crosshairs of some government prosecutor. I always interview my client to learn what his particular beliefs are and sometimes my client claims the "voluntary" belief. Do you know how saddening it is to have my client then show to me a single page document which he obtained at some patriot pep rally that contains a couple of quotes from other sources that assert that compliance with the tax laws is voluntary? Do you really think that a typical American jury will give much credence to such a document? From experience, I know that any document which you want to rely upon must have the appearance of being a copy of an actual government document. Quotes contained in some newsletter or book from government publications are simply no substitute for the actual government publications themselves. Why don't you do yourself a favor and obtain the actual government documents which contain the statements of importance to you? The legal reason for doing so is explained in the following portion of a trial brief that I use:

A criminal defendant may offer evidence during trial regarding certain statements and representations made by government if those statements relate to his intent and understanding of the law, and many of such statements may qualify as admissions made by the government; see United States v. Van Griffin, 874 F.2d 634, 638 (9th Cir. 1989)(government manuals admissible as party admissions under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)); and United States v. GAF Corp., 928 F.2d 1253 (2nd Cir. 1991). In Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 284 U.S. 370, 52 S.Ct. 183 (1932), it was held that a party could rely upon the representations made by a government agency, and in Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41, 71 S.Ct. 553 (1951), the Court held that such reliance could constitute a defense to actions taken by the government. These decisions are buttressed by others such as Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423, 79 S.Ct. 1257 (1959), Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 85 S.Ct. 476 (1965), United States v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475, 487, 87 S.Ct. 574 (1967), and United States v. Penn. Industrial Chemical Corp., 411 U.S. 655, 674, 93 S.Ct. 1804, 1816 (1973). In Penn. Industrial, supra, a company being criminally prosecuted for water pollution sought to assert a defense of reliance upon certain applicable agency regulations, but the trial court precluded the admission of that evidence. In reversing, the Supreme Court held that this reliance did constitute a defense and that the agency representations, the subject regulations, should be given as jury instructions.

The federal appellate courts do recognize the "reliance" defense. One of the earliest cases granting verdict for a defendant on this ground was United States v. Mancuso, 139 F.2d 90, 92 (3rd Cir. 1943). Here, the defendant filed suit to enjoin being drafted and the district court erroneously granted an injunction. Mancuso later used the injunction order as justification for refusing induction. His conviction for refusing enlistment was vacated because of his reliance upon the erroneous order. See also United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1987).

Other courts have addressed this issue. In United States v. Tallmadge, 829 F.2d 767, 775 (9th Cir. 1987), the defendant was being prosecuted for possessing firearms after conviction for a felony. In defense, Tallmadge demonstrated that a licensed arms dealer, held to be a government agent, represented to him that it was lawful for him to acquire firearms. Because Tallmadge relied upon the word of this government agent, that court held that it would violate due process to convict him:

The prosecution and conviction of Tallmadge for the receipt and possession of firearms, after he was misled by the government agent who sold him the weapons into believing that his conduct would not be contrary to federal law, violated due process.
In United States v. Clegg, 846 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1988), the defendant was charged with arms smuggling in Pakistan and sought to defend himself with the factual defense that high government officials approved his activities; that court held such to be a valid defense. In United States v. Heller, 830 F.2d 150, 154 (11th Cir. 1987), the defendant, a lawyer, was convicted of tax crimes and sought to defend on the basis that his accounting methods conformed with the dictates of a tax court decision. In reversing the convictions, that court held that a jury instruction covering the substance of the tax court decision upon which Heller had relied should have been given. In United States v. Hedges, 912 F.2d 1397 (11th Cir. 1990), the defendant had acted upon the advice given to him by a Standards of Conduct officer regarding a conflict of interest matter. Hedges was prosecuted for conflicts violations, defended himself with the factual argument that he had relied upon the advice of the Standards officer, and tendered a corresponding requested jury instruction which was not given. On appeal, the court acknowledged the validity of this defense and held it was error to refuse the giving of a jury instruction on this point. In United States v. Brady, 710 F.Supp. 290 (D.Colo. 1989), a defendant charged with illegal possession of firearms ("coyote getters") was acquitted when he showed that he directly relied upon the word of a state judge. The most recent case on this issue, United States v. Levin, 973 F.2d 463 (6th Cir. 1992), was one where the trial court dismissed an indictment because of reliance upon a government representation.
Several state courts also acknowledge this defense. In Schiff v. People, 111 Colo. 333, 141 P.2d 892 (1943), the defendant had received stolen property and informed the police about such, who instructed him to simply retain possession; his conviction for possessing stolen property was reversed. In People v. Markowitz, 18 N.Y.2d 953, 223 N.E.2d 572 (1966), a defendant who was told by certain public officials that he did not need a license to sell merchandise at Yankee Stadium had his conviction vacated through use of this defense. In State v. Ragland, 4 Conn. Cir. 424, 233 A.2d 698 (1967), a defendant's conviction for driving without a license was vacated based upon the fact that he drove the car on the occasion in question at the order of police officers. In Connelly v. State, 181 Ga.App. 261, 351 S.E.2d 702 (1987), a defendant who had relied upon a misleading driver's license form had his conviction for driving offenses reversed. In State v. Chiles, 569 So.2d 45 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1990), a pawn shop owner who relied upon the practices of the local sheriff's office had her conviction for failure to abide by record keeping laws reversed. See also Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 617 N.E.2d 609, 616-620 (Mass. 1993), and State v. McKown, 475 N.W.2d 63, 68 (Minn. 1991). The refined essence of these cases is that a criminal defendant does have available to him the defense of reliance upon representations made to him by government officials, whether judges or executive department officers and agents.

Please keep whatever materials you have relied upon. If you have relied upon cases quoted from some book, go get copies of those cases at the law library so that you can assert the defense of reliance upon the word of judges. If you have relied upon a quote of something else which is allegedly derived from a government publication, get that document.
[/quote]

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com