SECRETS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

---

Information on Social Security

---

Misconceptions About Social Security

Misconceptions abound regarding a Social Security card and number. Like a driver’s license, its intended use was simple and direct. A Social Security number supposedly represents your private account to hold paid-in benefits for your old age. It was essentially a coerced savings program initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and was heralded at the time as a product of enlightened social conscience.

Today, the Social Security system is broke, benefits provide a subhuman existence, and when it’s time for you to retire, there will not be enough people paying in to foot the bill. So much for enlightenment.

You’ve probably noticed that everyone wants your Social Security number these days. Schools, lenders, banks; everyone seems to want it. Why? Because it’s an easy way for individuals and the government to identify and keep track of you. It’s one number you’re supposedly stuck with your whole life.

Most people believe that the law requires you to have a Social Security number to work in the United States. As we shall later see, this isn’t true. Nevertheless, the Privacy Act of 1974 requires that the SSN be provided for certain purposes.

You must give your Social Security Number to the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration. You are supposedly required to give your employer your Social Security Number in order for your employer to prepare the necessary tax records for the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration.

In a nutshell, the law says that no federal, state, or local government agency may deny you any right, benefit, or privilege for refusing to provide your Social Security number, unless there is a law or regulation on the books adapted prior to 1975 that specifically authorizes the demand for the number.

Your employer by law cannot divulge your Social Security Number to anyone. In fact, the IRS cannot divulge your Social Security Number to anyone. The only thing that the IRS can verify is if the Social Security Number you are using is valid. The IRS cannot divulge any other information about you.

You are not required to give your Social Security Number to anyone else, including creditors, hospitals, doctors, credit bureaus, or any other private firm that wants to keep track of you.

If you have to give an identification number, you should use a CPN number (Credit Privacy Number), which you may acquire as outlined on this website. This identification number can be used to set up your new Credit File and for other purposes. This identification number (CPN) is for you alone.

If you want to try to secure a new Social Security number, it’s possible. Unfortunately, it’s a lot more difficult and time-consuming than getting a Credit Privacy Number (CPN).

---

The Social Security Act

Generally, dictionaries describe “nexus” as “a connection, tie, or link between individuals of a group; or members of a series.” TGs (Territorial Gangsters) use the term to imply that someone is their slave in some respect. For example, a mail-order company operates from a certain state. The TGs of that state claim that the company has to pay sales taxes on sales made within that state – they have “nexus” in respect of those transactions.

Generally, the company doesn’t have to pay sales taxes on sales made to other states. However, under certain circumstances, the TGs claim that they have “nexus” even on sales made to some other states, for example, if the company has some kind of office or representative in those other states.

The main thing to understand is that when they say they have “nexus” over you, it means they regard you as their slave in some respect. The main purpose of the Social Security system is to turn people into slaves.

The Social Security Act is a monstrous lie. It was created and devised and intended unjustly, fraudulently, and maliciously to deprive the individual of his/her birthright, good name, and character, and to legally steal his wealth.

Some people claim that the Social Security Act was a plot to rid the individual sovereign of his absolute rights, and further, that the underlying purpose was to render the individual subject to, and the object of, the tax laws and other related contractual obligations.

The Social Security number is recognized by other nations and is prima facie evidence that:

1. The numbered citizen is a card-carrying and practicing member of socialism.
2. He has voluntarily waived his absolute right to:
   • a) Personal Security
   • b) Personal Liberty
   • c) Personal Property
3. He can now qualify and expect to receive protection, security, old-age benefits, minimum wages, food stamps, and welfare benefits from the government financed by the society at large.
4. He is now under public policy for the good of the whole and is allowed to keep only according to his needs after all his claims and deductions.
5. He is a “taxpayer” within the scope of the I.R. Code.
6. Some of his constitutional protection (Bill of Rights) no longer applies.
7. He has denounced his sovereign status of a “free person” and is administered through a regional district.
8. He is a taxpayer and a collector of his own tax and can be labeled a tax cheater, a tax protester, and a tax evader if he does not file.
9. He subjects himself to the United States Congress and can be charged criminally for willful failure to file.
10. He has rejected the natural laws or common law, and he has exchanged his blessings of liberty for a mess of pottage. The organic laws of contract are now in force to compel him to abide by his hidden agreements, imposed by his participation in the Social Security system.

---

Excerpts from Social Security Laws, 98th Congress, 2nd Session

“To provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old age benefits, and by enabling the several states to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a social security board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.”
74th Cong., Sess. I, Ch. 531 (H.R. 7260) Pub. Law No. 271.

“When used in this Act, the term ‘person’ means an individual, a trust, or estate, a partnership, or a corporation.”
49 Stat. 620, 647 (1935).

Relevant Case Law and Legal References

“The term ‘Taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal tax.”
26 U.S.C. 7701(a) (14).

“The tax imposed by section 3101 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages.”
Title 26, I.R.C. Sec. 3102.

---

“Employment: For purposes of this chapter, the term ’employment’ means any service for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence.”
Title 26, I.R.C. Sec. 3121.

---

Additional Excerpts from Title 18, U.S.C., and Social Security Case Law

“The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”
18 U.S.C. Sec. 3231. Rule 54.

“Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined.”
18 U.S.C. Sec. 7, Rule 54.

“Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax.”
26 U.S.C. Sec. 7203.

“To sustain a conviction, the defendant must have been a person required to make a return, and his failure to make the return must have been willful.”
United States v. McCormick, 67 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1933, NY).

“Conviction under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7203 is obtained on proving that defendant knew of the requirement to file return and willfully failed to do so.”
U.S. v. Klein, 438 F.Supp. 485 (S.D.N.Y.) (1977).

“Willfully means no more than voluntarily; it means an act done with bad purpose, without justifiable excuse, without regard for believing act is lawful, or conduct marked by careless disregard whether or not one has right so to act. Congress did not intend that a person by reason of bona fide misunderstanding of his duties should become criminal by his mere failure to measure up to prescribed standard of conduct.”
U.S. v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 78 L.Ed. 381, 65 S.Ct. 223 (1933).

“Willful requirement with respect to willful failure to file return means an act both intentional and reprehensible, attended by knowledge of legal obligation and purpose to prevent the government from getting that which is lawfully required.”
U.S. v. Vitiello, 363 F.2d, 22 ALR 3d 1161 (3d Cir. 1966, NJ).

“Willfully generally connotes voluntary, intentional violation of known duties.”
U.S. v. McCorkle, 511 F.2d 482 (7th Cir. 1975, Ill.).

“Privilege against self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file federal tax return, but privilege can be claimed against specific disclosure sought on return.”
U.S. v. Garner, 424 U.S. 648, 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976).

“Bad faith or evil intent and want of justification in view of all financial circumstances of taxpayer are necessary elements of willfulness in criminal tax case.”
U.S. v. Swanson, 509 F.2d 1205 (8th Cir. 1975, Iowa).

“Element of willfulness involves a specific wrongful intent, namely, actual knowledge of existence of legal obligation and intent to evade that obligation.”
U.S. v. Thompson, 230 F.Supp. 530, 338 F.2d 997 (D.C.Conn. 1964).

“Defendant’s conduct is not willful if he acts through negligence, inadvertence or mistake, or due to his good faith misunderstanding of requirements of law.”
U.S. v. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1972, Pa.).

---

Legal Context and Summary of Cases

In all the above-named cases, the evidence before the court included the following elements:

1. The person was a taxpayer.
2. The person was a numbered individual.
3. The person fell under the definition of “person” within the I.R. Code.
4. The person was a defendant.
5. The person was chargeable under tax law.
6. There was a viable “nexus.”
7. The person was obliged to perform under a prescribed standard of conduct.
8. The person had a legal obligation.
9. The common law of contracts applied.

The Terms of Social Security and Human Rights: A Detailed Examination

---

The terms, “people,” or “human being” are not to be found in the Internal Revenue Code, and it fails to properly identify who is required to file. It cannot be found because it is not there. Partaking in the Social Security Act merely identifies one as a person “who is receiving benefits and therefore must meet the burden.”

Under the ancient concept of Lord Mansfield’s maxim, “that no man shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another,” in the eyes of the court, that individual ought to pay the income tax. The common law of quasi-contract (as if a contract) is now in full force and effect.

“THE SIGNATURE OF A PERSON IS THE PROOF OF HIS CONSENT THAT BINDS HIM UNDER THE LAW OF CONTRACT.”

Nexus is defined as a connection, tie, or link between individuals of a group. The signature of each person, given voluntarily, binds the U.S. citizenry together into a lifelong socialized contract with the government.

The “law” cannot be invoked when a citizen is not numbered, receives no benefits, and does not enrich himself at the expense of another. Without the law, the court cannot offer a remedy. When a court cannot offer a remedy, the court lacks jurisdiction.

Under the Social Security Act, the citizen is in a state of voluntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional (13th Amendment), but voluntary servitude is constitutional (for every positive action, there is a negative reaction). One has the absolute right to enter into a contract and bind himself to specific performance, submitting himself to the law of contracts and to the laws of the contract.

Within the U.S., and any place subject to its jurisdiction, no one can force a citizen into a state of involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of a crime whereas the party shall have been duly convicted (13th Amendment).

No one can force a citizen into a contractual agreement. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of the government do not have that power. A tax judge will always remind a litigant that there are no constitutional protections (i.e., right of free speech, privacy) in a tax court (when under contractual obligations). But no judge can order a citizen to participate in the Social Security system.

The system is 100% voluntary, and whoever joins the system also volunteers into paying the income tax. The following case law describes a valid, constitutionally valid tax return:

• “Taxpayer’s Internal Revenue Service 1040 forms containing only asterisks denoting constitutional objections constituted ‘returns’ as a matter of law under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7203.”
  U.S. v. Kimball, CR-86-0017 (1990).

• “A sentence compelling a citizen to join under the ‘Social Security Act’ is not a remedy. It would be an act of judicial abuse as a court lacks the authority to do so. Such judicial indiscretion is appealable. Compelling a person to obtain a Social Security number is also invalid. Litigation will only be allowed if the accused had a Social Security number prior to the investigation and litigation.”

---

Fraud in Contracts

Where a person has been induced by fraud to make a contract, several alternatives are open to him:

1. Treat the contract as valid and sue in tort for the fraud.
2. Rescind the contract by proceedings in equity.
3. Wait until sued upon the contract and set the fraud up as a defense.

“When the fraud is discovered, the plaintiff must put the other party on notice of the fraud, as it applies to his case, and if he benefits from the fraud, no recovery can be had.”
American Law and Procedure, Vol. I, “Contract.”

When the party himself rescinds or repudiates the contract, he merely gives notice by that action to the other party to the contract that he does not propose to be bound by the contract. This he may do by his own action and he needs not turn to the courts.

When, however, a court of equity grants rescission or cancellation, it wipes out the instrument, and renders it as though it did not exist; in effect, it tears up the paper and destroys it.

A bill in equity to obtain a rescission is not like an action at law brought on the footing of a rescission previously completed; the foundation of the bill is that the rescission is not complete, and that the plaintiff asks the aid of the court to make it so (annot. 95 ALR 1001).

---

Voluntary Nature of Social Security Participation

Neither an agent of the government, nor a judge, nor a legislative officer, nor an executive officer, can cancel participation in the Social Security Act of any citizen. Nor is there a provision within the code that permits and/or does not permit a citizen to withdraw from the system. These provisions are lacking because participation in the system is a voluntary contract decided by the individual.

All citizens who have rescinded their Social Security numbers by resorting to common law proceedings (i.e., by the mere filing of a document of asseveration recorded in the county courthouse) will most likely not be recognized by a court that proceeds in equity.

But if the word fraud is implied, he can wait until sued upon and set the fraud up as a defense. If the relief asked is in equity, then he who seeks equity must do equity (be given equity).

---

Legal Maxims

The remedy that exists within the law must come from equity (Equity: That part of law which administers and adjusts common-law rights where the courts of common law have no machinery).

The following legal maxims are relevant to the above issues:

• “He who affirms must prove.”
• “If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.”
• “The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms.”

by Frederick Mann (editor)