Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

IRS agent writes Brad Barnhill about SS#

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Dan wrote: Hello Brad. As an IRS employee who is also a person of faith, I m interested in knowing, briefly, why you object to Social Security numbers on
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 27 8:14 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      Dan wrote:

       

      Hello Brad. As an IRS employee who is also a person of faith, I'm interested in knowing, briefly, why you object to Social Security numbers on religious grounds. Thanks. Dan

       

      Dan,

       

      I am blind copying you on this note to protect your identity. I want the folks on this list to understand that I am not interested in "outing" you or engaging with you in mortal combat. You are not the enemy. With no offense intended, I do refer to folks such as yourself as minions of the beast. It is my intention that you understand my lawful position and that you come to respect it. After all, we both live in this nation and we are both entitled to our beliefs.

       

      There is a really good article on this subject posted at http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm While there are portions of the

      article with which I disagree, the article is very instructive as to the origins of the law--the law of man and of Our Creator.

       

      First, you have to understand the genesis of the social security system. The first Act of CONgress that attempted to impose a "mandatory" retirement system was the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935. This act made it absolutely mandatory for railroad workers to participate in this system.

       

      The act was struck down by the Supremes in RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R.

      CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)

       

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=295&invol=330

       

      While only obiter dicta, the Supremes stated: "In final analysis, the petitioners' sole reliance is the thesis that efficiency depends upon morale, and morale in turn upon assurance of security for the worker's old age. Thus pensions are sought to be related to efficiency of transportation, and brought within the commerce power. In supporting the act the petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as 'old age security,' 'assurance of old age security,' 'improvement of employee morale and efficiency through providing definite assurance of old age security,' 'assurance of old age support,' 'mind at ease,' and 'fear of old age dependency.' These expressions are frequently connected with assertions that the removal of the fear of old age dependency will tend to create a better morale throughout the ranks of employees. The theory is that one who has an assurance against future dependency will do his

      work more cheerfully, and therefore more efficiently. The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is in any just sense a regulation of interstate transportation. If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. The answer of the petitioners is that not all such means of promoting contentment have such a close relation to interstate commerce as pensions. This is in truth no answer, for we must deal with the principle involved and not the means adopted. If contentment of the employee were an object for the attainment of which the regulatory power could be exerted, the courts could not question the wisdom of methods adopted for its advancement."

       

      So it is clear that CONgress has no authority to compel the people to participate in that program, and it was rewritten such that it was voluntary. You did not have to participate unless you made application to participate.

       

      Later that year, CONgress enacted the Social Security Act of 1935. If you look at the Railroad Retirement Act (currently codified in Chapter 22 of Subtitle C or Title 26, the IRC):

      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_C_20_22.html

       

      Read Chapter 22 very carefully and then read Chapter 21: the Federal Insurance Contributions Act:

      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_C_20_21.html

       

      Notice that there is no language that requires anyone to participate. Now, we know that Social

      Security is not "insurance" it is a benefit program that exists at the whim of CONgress. See FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=363&inv\ ol=603

       

      What CONgress giveth, CONgress can taketh away. The only reason that CONgress will never

      actually repeal social welfare programs is that this is the "third rail" and anyone that touches it will be electrocuted.

       

      The application for a social security number is governed by the provisions of 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i). Notice that only aliens applying for permanent residency are required to make

      application for a number (sub paragraph I). All others (citizens) must make application if they want to be eligible to receive direct payments from federal funds. I contend that there is no requirement for me to request these direct payments, and so there is no requirement for me to make application for a number. So if I am not required to make application for it, then why is my ability to "buy and sell" so encumbered? Every time I turn around, someone is asking me to provide the number by either showing it in my right hand (as though providing identification), or in my forehead (as though reciting from memory). Revelation, Chapter 13, verses 16 and 17 come to fruition.

       

      However, the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, is limited in territorial application to the federal territories exclusive of the states of the Union party to the Constitution for the United States of America . For proof, see 42 USC 433(a):

      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000433----000-.htm\ l

       

      "The President is authorized (subject to the succeeding provisions of this section) to enter into agreements establishing totalization arrangements between the social security system established by this subchapter and the social security system of any foreign country, for the purposes of establishing entitlement to and the amount of old-age, survivors, disability, or derivative benefits based on a combination of an individual’s periods of coverage under the social security system established by this subchapter and the social security system of such foreign country."

       

      Now, we know that there are actually three definitions of the term " United States ." See HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/\

      324/652.html

       

      Because we know that the President cannot directly enter into international agreements, except with the advice and consent of the Senate with respect to treaties, and that a treaty is the only way to bind the states, the "agreement" can only be operative over that territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of CONgress, see BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258

      U.S. 298 (1922)

       

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=258&invol=298

       

      I have probably made note of the fact that I believe that I would have to defile 5 of the Ten Commandments in order to participate. I will not belabor that point here, you can look at other

      posts on this forum to see my analysis of that. Essentially, I have to depend upon Divine Providence for my sustenance, and it is my belief that were I to look to government for my sustenance, that I would be placing a false god before My Creator. Because I have no right, title or interest in the "contributions" that I make, I would eventually be stealing from your children. Because the property is not mine, even if I never actually receive it, I am coveting it. I would have to bear false witness upon the application to state that I am a person who either wants the benefits or is required to make application. And my folks taught me better than that.

       

      You can look at the requirement for reporting in IRC 6041:

      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00006041----000-.htm\ l

       

      In subsection (a), they are required to supply my name, my address and the amount of the payment. There is no requirement within 6041 a taxpayer ID number to be placed on the form. I have had IRC 6041A cited to me, but there are no operative regulations that implement IRC 6041A, and the statute itself requires regulations to be promulgated.

       

      You can also look at the "request" provision of 26 CFR 301.6109-1(c):

      http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01apr20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr\

      _2005/aprqtr/26cfr301.6109-1.htm

       

      "If the person making the return, statement, or other document 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 document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c), such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating."

       

      Isn't it interesting that the request should state the number is required to be furnished under the authority of law if the other person is one that is described in subsection (b), all of whom are foreign persons? Also, if the payor requests the number and none is given, all that is required is for the person reporting the income to make an affidavit that says they asked for the number.

       

      So, perhaps you can show me the requirement for me to participate in National Socialism. I don't see one. I never made application for the number. (How many of you can say that under penalty of perjury?) I have no personal knowledge of anyone making such an application in my name. (Can you say that about yourself? Who applied for the SSN in your name? Do you even know?) As a matter of law, I cannot be compelled to participate in an agreement made by my parents when I was a minor child. So, as far as I am concerned, I never had a number. That's my story and I am sticking to it.

       

      Finally, please read BOWEN v. ROY , 476 U.S. 693 (1986)

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=476&invol=693

       

      Roy wanted direct payments payable in federal funds for his child. The position of the Department

      of Health and Human Services was that in order to receive the benefit payments, they had to make application for a number. "There is no claim that there is any attempt by Congress to discriminate invidiously or any covert suppression of particular religious beliefs." That was Roy 's error. I do not make such an error. It is clear to me as a matter of law that I am not required to participate in socialist insecurity. To force me to participate against my will constitutes an invidious and covert act by the government to establish the civil religion of socialism in derogation of my own faith. CONgress has erected the civil religion of socialism in contravention of the First Amendment. CONgress wants me to worship the false god of government so that I can get government benefits. For me to do so abrogates my faith.

       

      My position is completely consistent with my faith and with the laws enacted by CONgress.

       

      You can join Brad’s group here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PersonalOdyssey/

      Or by sending an email here: PersonalOdyssey-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      There is much to be learned from his archives. Only Brad can post to the group.

       

      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

      www.legal-research-video.com
      www.legalbears.com
      www.irslienthumper.com
      www.irs-armory.com

      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.