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

Eric, WhoRU makes my points on US Citizenship

Expand Messages
  • legalbear7
    Hi Group - I received the below in an email from one of my new members who has been listening to my archives on WTPRN. She raises some valid points so I
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Group -

      I received the below in an email from one of my new members who has
      been listening to my archives on WTPRN. She raises some valid points
      so I created a detailed response which I think might be of a general
      interest. Immediately below is her email with my response following
      below.

      Cheers,

      I'm Eric, WhoRU??

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

      Sir:

      First, I mean no disrespect in the following:

      My brother in law recommended your archives to me on We the People.
      After listening to some, I believe I have detected a flaw or
      something in your "winning" in Tax Court in 1970.

      You state more than once, that you have never had an SSN or drivers
      license. Since you admit to using more than one ID "label" for
      yourself, I wonder if you never had these items with one of your
      former "labels"?

      You have stated that "truth" is what would be in your best interest,
      and this makes it a bit difficult to "know" what is reality with you.

      BUT, most important: If, in reality, your physical entity never
      signed an SSN application, it is clear that, when you went to Tax
      Court, the record showed you had no SSN, SO the judge asked no
      further questions. IF you had had an SSN, I doubt the outcome would
      have been the same! As I see it, 99% of the rest of us, cannot do
      what you did BECAUSE we have an SSN which is likely to show up
      somewhere.

      Now, this is just a woman's point of view. BUT it makes me doubtful
      as to your touting or bragging about your success in Tax Court.

      'Til another time,

      W P.

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

      My response:

      Hi W P -

      I have found that people who have submitted themselves to the
      authority of the government are prone to find excuses to justify
      their continued submission because to step "out of the box" would
      expose them to possible severe repercussions, but of even more
      significance is the fact that they would have to admit that they had
      been wrong most of their life.

      What you are overlooking, is the fact that no one is born with a SS#
      or a birth certificate or a name - and the government is powerless to
      attach any individual to any of those items without the person's
      personal agreement. As I have explained many times during my
      presentations, I was abandoned shortly after my birth (apparently
      within a few hours at most), and taken in by a couple who raised me
      under the name and birth certificate of their own son who had died
      shortly after being born, apparently within a day or two of my own
      birth. I was raised as this "dead" boy by this couple and I believed
      I was he and that the man and woman who told me they were my parents
      actually were - but they were not, or so I was told by my "mom" after
      the funeral of my "dad" in 1964.

      Whereupon, after some considerable soul searching, I decided I did
      not want to be some "dead guy" so I divested myself of all of that ID
      and "moved into" the patriot community - that is - I learned how to
      rethink everything that I had ever been taught - I sorted out the
      facts that no person has any ability what-so-ever to have any
      personal knowledge as to when or where they were born or who their
      actual parents were or whether or not a BC was issued regarding their
      birth.

      Any person can do what I did - it makes no difference whether or not
      you personally applied for a SS# or not - if you stop using it and
      divest yourself of every other connection with that former ID, there
      is no way the government can ever connect you back to it - even if
      they have your fingerprints on file. This is true because of two
      things (1) FRAUD on the part of the government when the government
      taught you as a young child the lie that you were born into US
      citizenship and (2) their Thirteenth Amendment which prohibits
      involuntary servitude - which connects back to item (1) - FRAUD!

      You are mistaken as to what occurred in Tax Court in 1970 - the judge
      lost the case on my response to his first question: "Are you
      renouncing your citizenship?"; my response: "How can I renounce that
      which I never applied for?"

      That was actually the long and the short of it - the prosecutor had
      started his case against me with the critically important
      presumptional jurisdictional statement, "Citizens of the United
      States have an obligation to blah - blah - blah..."

      The very first issue in every litigation is jurisdiction -
      particularly and primarily, "political jurisdiction", which is most
      generally assumed by everyone as "everyone" is a citizen, or at least
      they believe they are, however that presumption is rebuttable, which
      I invoked by raising my objection to the prosecutor's stated
      jurisdictional presumption. When I challenged that presumption with
      my objection the case was effectively over as the burden of proof was
      on the government to establish that I was a citizen of the United
      States - which the judge tried to do with his first all important
      question, again, posed in a presumptive manner, "Are you renouncing
      your citizenship?" - he had no proof I was a citizen - no matter what
      he or the government might have in their files because there would be
      no way I could ever be shown to have intentionally, willingly,
      knowingly, being fully informed of the nature thereof, and thereafter
      volunteered into US citizenship, except by my freewill intentional
      claim thereof. The judge "hoped" that the indoctrination I had been
      subjected to all of my life would have conditioned me to accept that
      I was a US citizen by birth, which he knew was not true, and that I
      would not to be able to further pursue or support my objection.

      The critically important issue here is in understanding the voluntary
      nature of act of acquiring US citizenship - to be legally and
      lawfully effective this claim must be knowingly and intentionally
      done, not assumed to be attached automatically as a side issue
      or "adhesion" aspect secretly attached to the application for a SS#,
      where the applicant for such number has never been informed that he
      was born free and sovereign over his own person and that he had no
      obligation to apply for any such number or that US citizenship was an
      integral attachment to such application, but to the contrary, the
      applicant had been lied to during all of his earliest years by
      officers of the government (school teachers), who had a serious
      conflict of interest, with ongoing continuing reinforcement thereof
      by the various media and other subsequent government indoctrination.
      All. Adults purporting to teach innocent children have an inherent
      moral and legal obligation to teach such innocent children the truth
      in everything, and most especially in informing such children
      truthfully in regard to matters that relate to the child's individual
      personal sovereignty - it is known as "Fraud in the Inducement".

      In your opening paragraphs you bring up some very valid points - the
      thrust being am I telling the whole truth? Which brings up the
      question as to what it is that constitutes "the truth"?

      If a robber were to knock on your door and your husband were to
      answer and the robber were to point his gun at your husband and
      demand that your husband give the robber all of your husband's money,
      and you knew that your husband had a substantial amount of money in
      every one of the pockets of his suit, but instead of your husband
      pulling out hands full of money from every pocket and giving it all
      to the robber he, instead, reached into just one pocket and pulled
      out one single twenty dollar bill and proffered that single bill to
      the robber, and then the robber asked, "Is that all you have?", and
      your husband replied that the twenty was all he had, and then the
      robber turned and ran away and then, after your husband closed the
      door, would you accuse your husband of lying to the robber?

      The question here is, "Was the robber entitled to know how much money
      your husband had? The proper definition of "the truth" is, "Does the
      inquiring party have a right to ask and does the questioned person
      have an obligation to reveal?" It is important to pay attention to
      the words used - in every case - especially when dealing with the
      government.

      I make no secret of the fact that I was raised under a name attached
      to another person's ID - however that ID had never been created for
      me - it was never ever mine - it had been created for a boy that had
      died - and, although there was certainly no malicious or evil intent,
      it cannot be denied that such name had been fraudulently foisted upon
      me and that it was not in any true sense, mine! So, in answer to
      your question you need to understand the meaning of the words
      involved.

      First, I have never ever admitted to using more than one ID label for
      myself. The person who used the ID of the dead boy was not truly me
      as at that time I did not know who I was - I had been led to believe
      that I was someone other than who I actually was and I was not
      informed as to who I actually was - there can be no denial that I was
      never ever the boy I was representing myself to be, even though at
      the time I did believe that I was.

      If a couple had five daughters and then the wife had a sixth child
      that was a boy, and the couple, who had been expecting another girl,
      and were not preparr4ed to deal with a boy, decided that they would
      keep the gender of this boy a secret, and raise him as a girl - give
      him a girl's name, dress him in girls clothing, grow his hair long
      and put ribbons in it, tell all his sisters the baby was a girl,
      never ever allow any of the children to see the genitals of their
      siblings or their parents or any other person, and enrolled the boy
      in school as a girl, always dressed the boy as a girl, and if
      everyone in the community, all the school teachers and all other
      adults were all led to believe the boy was a girl - was the boy ever
      a girl?

      Was I ever that dead boy I was raised as - no matter what I was told
      and no matter what I believed?

      I, the real live person who calls himself "Eric WhoRU", have never
      ever had a SS#, a driver license or any other government issued
      papers. I have never ever filed a tax return or paid an income tax.
      The government has the resources to find out whatever they want about
      my past - I have never ever made it a secret - other than to refuse
      to ever tell anyone the name of the dead boy I was raised as, I have
      related this information many times, even to officers of the law.

      What you are failing to understand is the fact as to who we actually
      are when we are born - we are literally born free of any connection
      to any government - we are not born into any kind of citizenship, US
      or otherwise.

      If a pregnant woman were to give birth to her baby in a Boy Scout
      camp - would her baby then automatically be a Boy Scout? What if her
      baby was a girl? Could the Boy Scout High Council declare all babies
      born in any Boy Scout Camp were thereby, automatically Boy Scouts?
      Of course they could -men can and do write down all kinds of silly
      nonsense (the CONstitution os full of it), - the real question here
      is where could the Boy Scout High Council get any proper authority to
      make such a declaration and would anyone take it seriously?

      Where is there any real difference between the source of the
      authority of the Boy Scout High Council and the source of the
      authority of the government of the United States? Please don't
      suggest that the legitimizing source of government authority is
      through voting because as it cannot be denied that as no single
      individual voter has any individual authority to command another
      individual into servitude, therefore it is totally impossible for any
      such "voter" to imbue the government with any such authority!

      So then, who am I? Who are we when we are born? Part of the problem
      you ane most others are having is divesting yourseves of the
      indoctrination you all have been and are continuingly being subjected
      to on a daily basis. You need to do your best to put aside the
      fraudulent misconceptions the government wants you to accept as
      truths.

      Governments do not exist in nature; governments exist as artificial
      entities created by human intellect; The United States and all of its
      sub-political divisions are likewise artificial; as the United
      States is an artificial entity it is impossible for any real live
      flesh and blood human baby to be born in the United States - no
      person - not even one, has ever been born in the United States, and
      certainly no child has ever been born onto United States citizenship.

      In 1970 I was a very outspoken critic of the IRS - I gave hundreds of
      lectures to thousands of persons - in an internal memo the IRS
      declared me, by name, to be the most dangerous tax protestor in the
      entire Southwestern part of the United States - I had never ever
      filed a tax return - the IRS followed me around, interviewing people
      I did construction for - gathering as much information as it possibly
      could in order to put me in prison to shut me up - it was the IRS
      that made up the 1040 form that resulted in the 1970 Tax Court
      incident - none of that made any difference as the only issue of
      significance in court was/is political jurisdiction! In order for
      the IRS to nail me (or any other person), the IRS must prove I (or
      others), had willingly, knowingly, being fully informed of the
      facts, intentionally volunteered myself into US citizenship - this
      was the intention of the judge - as I wrote above, he lost the case
      on his first question - the only significant issue was establishing
      jurisdiction - political jurisdiction - had I volunteered into US
      citizenship - or could he just get me to admit I was a US citizen
      because of my fear of the government.

      Most persons would be afraid of being deported but before a person
      can be deported the person has to inform the government what country
      he came from - otherwise the US government cannot know where to send
      the deportee back to - I claim to have been born here, on the land
      claimed by the government of the United States to be under its
      jurisdiction - however just because I claim to have been born on this
      land, that claim does NOT morph. into a claim of my being under the
      political dominion of the US government.

      You claim that I am different that 99.99% of all other persons - that
      is true and also not true - my difference is in my willingness to
      stand up and object - not in anything else - every person in this
      country can make the same claim that I do and use the very same
      information - it makes no difference what anyone may have claimed in
      the past - all they need to do to get themself off the government's
      flypaper is to stop claiming to be a US citizen and stop acting like
      one by using the paperwork provided by the government!

      It is not that difficult to understand once a person sets aside the
      preconceived notions the person has been indoctrinated with by the US
      government - actually doing so may not be all that easy but the
      procedure is not all that complicated to understand - the primary
      obstacle is FEAR - and shame - people feel guilty in pulling away
      from the government - they have been programmed to feel this guilt,
      they do not want to admit that they have been lied to all of their
      lives nor do they want to accept that they have allowed themselves to
      be so throughly conned - this is a normal function of human nature -
      this is why the slave masters are being so successful and, I suspect,
      this is why you wrote to me as you did.

      If you take the time to understand the importance of Fundamental
      Basic Natural Principles you will then understand what you now view
      as convoluted Please understand that I beat the IRS in Tax Court some
      38 years ago - after I beat the IRS I then operated my own furniture
      manufacturing company for 22 years - my company had 70-80 employees -
      all of them paid income tax - but not me - my company followed all of
      the same tax rules as all other companies - except for me - because I
      am not a citizen of the United States those rulers did not apply to
      me and because I was born here, not an immigrant - my political
      exemption is founded on July 4, 1776, and is acknowledged in the
      Thirteenth Amendment, as can be the political status and exemption of
      every other person who understands the simplicity of what I have
      explained. .

      Cheers,

      I'm Eric, WhoRU??

      To join Eric's group send an email to: whoru-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    • Jake
      ...     The above pegged my BS-O-Meter - there is no prosecutor in the Tax Court, which is an administrative tribunal where you
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 9, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > You are mistaken as to what occurred in Tax Court in 1970 - the judge lost the case on my response to his first question: "Are you renouncing your citizenship? "; my response: "How can I renounce that which I never applied for?"
        >
        > That was actually the long and the short of it - the prosecutor had started his case against me with the critically important presumptional jurisdictional statement, "Citizens of the United States have an obligation to blah - blah - blah..."
         
        < long message snipped >
         
        The above pegged my "BS-O-Meter" - there is no "prosecutor" in the Tax Court, which is an administrative tribunal where you go if you file to go there - the Gov't. doesn't drag you into the TC & can't.  The TC is not a court of law, when you file there you give that tribunal jurisdiction & admit that you owe something - you're just arguing over how much.  And in order to file in the TC you'd have to use a SSN, or some taxpayer ID number as the system goes by TIN in numerical order, not by name, address, etc.  With no TIN of any kind there wouldn't be a tax record to argue about or even a way to file your administrative action.
         


         

      • Bernie Besherse
        Hello tips & all, All of the reasons that are given why the Social Security and other adhesion contracts do not apply are missing the most important legal
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello tips & all,

          All of the reasons that are given why the Social Security and other adhesion contracts do not apply are missing the most important legal point.

          All of the reasons show that the contracts are voidable, but not necessarily void. The contracts do apply and will apply and are legally enforceable until the correct legal steps are followed that will void the contracts. The difference between "void" and "voidable" is clearly expressed in Texas and Hawaii family law statutes regarding marriages that are entered into that are not according to law, and whether they are always and immediately void, or they may be voided by applying for a decree that the marriage is void. In the case of the Social Security and other adhesion contracts, they are merely voidable.

          Sincerely,
          Bernie Besherse, Trustee
        • gary
          If the Social Security contract is voidable, and if voidable means one can make some type of application and have the SSN that the SSA assigned to you no
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            If the Social Security "contract" is voidable, and if "voidable" means one
            can make some type of application and have the SSN that the SSA assigned to
            you no longer be associated with you, I would be very interested in knowing
            the procedure to do that.  Along with that procedure, it would be helpful to
            be able to see at least one case where it was accomplished.  After all, if
            there is a procedure to do it, it must certainly have been done many times
            and there should be many cases available.

            I have heard people say, and have seen many posts over the years that claim
            this can be done, but I have never seen one verifiable case.  If anyone can
            show such a case, I would appreciate it.
             
            Bear has asked that I state how much time I have spent looking for the one case where someone has had the SSN assigned to them by the SSA disassociated from that person and their SS "account" expunged from the SSA system at their request. 
             
            It would be difficult to estimate the total time as it was not all done at once.  It has been about 15 years since I heard this could allegedly be done and I have probably put in a few hours of searching each time I see it mentioned on a discussion forum.  The searching was a much more intense when I could still afford access to some of the legal databases where I was doing other research. If I had to guess, I would say at least 50 hours in total. 
             
            That may or may not be a lot of hours (or maybe that is a lot of hours and I am just not very good at it) over that many years, but if this could be done by merely following a procedure or making some type of application, one would think (from all the people on lists like this expressing their desire to do it) that there would be hundreds, if not thousands of such cases floating around to be easily found.
             
            In addition to searching for these alleged cases myself, every time someone says it can be done, I ask for a verifiable case and have never had anyone show such a case.  Keep in mind that the people I ask for a case have not stated that they have researched and found how someone SHOULD/COULD do it, or that it MIGHT work, they state it as an accomplished fact.  If it is so, let's see it.  My question remains to all the people on this list who have expressed a desire to be without the SSN assigned to their name, have any of you ever actually done it?
             
            I know a number of people who won't use the SSN assigned to them by the SSA,
            but an inquiry to the SSA will still show that number assigned to that
            person.

            Gary
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:52 PM
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re:Eric, WhoRU makes my points on US Citizenship

            Hello tips & all,

            All of the reasons that are given why the Social Security and other adhesion contracts do not apply are missing the most important legal point.

            All of the reasons show that the contracts are voidable, but not necessarily void. The contracts do apply and will apply and are legally enforceable until the correct legal steps are followed that will void the contracts. The difference between "void" and "voidable" is clearly expressed in Texas and Hawaii family law statutes regarding marriages that are entered into that are not according to law, and whether they are always and immediately void, or they may be voided by applying for a decree that the marriage is void. In the case of the Social Security and other adhesion contracts, they are merely voidable.

            Sincerely,
            Bernie Besherse, Trustee



            __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3597 (20081108) __________

            The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

            http://www.eset.com
          • mr.Bill Ashlock
            Dear Sir: I have gotten rid of a social number that had been assigned to me AND MUCH MORE. Contact LB Bork. After completing the process he has intricately
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 12, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Sir:

              I have gotten rid of a social number that had been
              "assigned" to me AND MUCH MORE.

              Contact LB Bork.

              After completing the process he has intricately
              developed, I am no longer in the system. To back this
              statement up, after completing the process, I removed
              the state issued plates on my car and put on my own
              private vanity plates. I dealt with a Illinois State
              Trooper and gave her my paperwork. She did not issue
              a ticket to me. (I had a busted fuel line on Hwy
              57?). At 2:00am downtown Milwaukee a radar detector
              in the car went off. ONE car was behind me, NO ONE
              ELSE AROUND. The detector quit beeping. I looked
              behind me to see the car heading for an exit ramp. I
              had been through Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri,
              Arkansas, Iowa and Kansas.

              This is just the START.

              LB is the most thorough, knowledgeable, and honorable
              person dealing with correcting one's position I have
              spoken to. Do with this what you will.

              Sarah Marie


              --- gary <gary2666@...> wrote:

              > If the Social Security "contract" is voidable, and
              > if "voidable" means one
              > can make some type of application and have the SSN
              > that the SSA assigned to
              > you no longer be associated with you, I would be
              > very interested in knowing
              > the procedure to do that. Along with that
              > procedure, it would be helpful to
              > be able to see at least one case where it was
              > accomplished. After all, if
              > there is a procedure to do it, it must certainly
              > have been done many times
              > and there should be many cases available.
            • JcP
              1.. Under the provisions set forth as a result of Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment v. Heckler, 613 F Supp 558 (D.C. Cal 1985), at page
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 12, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                1. Under the provisions set forth as a result of Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment v. Heckler, 613 F Supp 558 (D.C. Cal 1985), at page 575, “The Secretary of Health and Human Services is hereby ORDERED to accept the notifications of withdrawal properly tendered to her.”
                2. Process of removal from the Social Security Program pursuant to 20 CFR Chapter III, Section 404.1905.
                3. Treasury Regulation 301.6109-1(d) allows one to withdraw from this activity and states specifically:  “Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.” 

                  Paragraph (b) is for those persons desiring to file a statement or return or those persons who are (under paragraph (a) engaged in a trade or business within theUnited States .

                4. In further review of the Compilation of the Social Security Laws, 98th Congress, 2nd Session, Committee Print through 1984, pages 397 and 398 will fully detail the facts concerning the construction of the terms “State” and “United States” in subparagraphs (A) contained prima facia evidence that the Social Security Act of the 74th Congress, Session 1, August 14, 1935, as recorded in Chapter 531 of the United States Statutes as Large, was and is intended to operate “within the Federal United States ONLY” (per definition).

                5. The federal courts have ruled that private sector solicitors may not obtain social security numbers until they comport their solicitations to comply with disclosure requirements of the Privacy Act, including informing customers of the voluntary nature of such disclosure, the source of authority for requesting such disclosure, and possible uses to which disclosed numbers might be put.

                  Yeager v. Hackensack Water Co., 615 F.Supp.1087 (1985).
              • Frog Farmer
                ... Me too! ... There is more than one system . And more than one way to skin a cat, some more intricately developed than others. ... This is all true for me
                Message 7 of 10 , Nov 13, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Dear Sir:
                  >
                  > I have gotten rid of a social number that had been
                  > "assigned" to me AND MUCH MORE.

                  Me too!

                  > Contact LB Bork.

                  > After completing the process he has intricately
                  > developed, I am no longer in the system.

                  There is more than one "system". And more than one way to skin a cat,
                  some more intricately developed than others.

                  > To back this
                  > statement up, after completing the process, I removed
                  > the state issued plates on my car and put on my own
                  > private vanity plates. I dealt with a Illinois State
                  > Trooper and gave her my paperwork. She did not issue
                  > a ticket to me. (I had a busted fuel line on Hwy
                  > 57?). At 2:00am downtown Milwaukee a radar detector
                  > in the car went off. ONE car was behind me, NO ONE
                  > ELSE AROUND. The detector quit beeping. I looked
                  > behind me to see the car heading for an exit ramp. I
                  > had been through Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri,
                  > Arkansas, Iowa and Kansas.

                  This is all true for me as well, but I never equated it to having
                  anything to do with having any number. That issue never came up for me.
                  I do not see the link between the two propositions. What do they have
                  to do with each other?

                  > This is just the START.
                  >
                  > LB is the most thorough, knowledgeable, and honorable
                  > person dealing with correcting one's position I have
                  > spoken to. Do with this what you will.

                  "Dealing"? I wonder how LB is capable of determining anyone else's
                  "position" when most people are not capable of articulating their own.

                  And how does he prevent people from "uncorrecting" their positions,
                  since they never understood it before meeting LB? How do they proceed
                  after they leave LB's guidance? Most cases I've seen, "freed slaves"
                  often return to the slave quarters for food and shelter, after a very
                  short time, by making ink impressions on new pieces of paper offered to
                  them for that purpose.
                • gary
                  None of these has anything to do with an individual human withdrawing from the SS system by getting rid of the SSN assigned to them and having the SS account
                  Message 8 of 10 , Nov 13, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    None of these has anything to do with an individual human withdrawing from
                    the SS system by getting rid of the SSN assigned to them and having the SS
                    account with their name and that number expunged from the SSA.

                    These are about agreements between governments, state employees being
                    withdrawn from the social security PAYMENT system (they still have their
                    SSNs).

                    I don't see anything in 301.6109-1(d) that states anyone can withdraw from
                    SS. There is something that says an acceptance agent can terminate his
                    agreement, but that has nothing to do with an individual withdrawing from
                    SS.

                    Gary

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: JcP
                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 3:07 PM
                    Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Eric, WhoRU makes my points on US Citizenship


                    Under the provisions set forth as a result of Public Agencies Opposed to
                    Social Security Entrapment v. Heckler, 613 F Supp 558 (D.C. Cal 1985), at
                    page 575, "The Secretary of Health and Human Services is hereby ORDERED to
                    accept the notifications of withdrawal properly tendered to her."
                    Process of removal from the Social Security Program pursuant to 20 CFR
                    Chapter III, Section 404.1905.
                    Treasury Regulation 301.6109-1(d) allows one to withdraw from this activity
                    and states specifically: "Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish
                    to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall
                    nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish
                    such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section."
                  • dwissel
                    Think of SSN like LLoyd s of London. Someone applies for insurance in America to insure their hands cause they are a famous piano player. LLoyd;s writes the
                    Message 9 of 10 , Nov 14, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Think of SSN like LLoyd's of London. Someone applies for insurance in America to insure their hands cause they are a famous piano player. LLoyd;s writes the policy for the far away land called America. Now because the name was John Smith and there are too many John Smith's the company ASSIGNS a number. The number is ALWAYS stuck on the file folder and application. Let's say you cancel your insurance or simply haven't reached the "vested" amount to automatically guarantee a payout. Lloyd;'s says "Fine...cancelled....or fine...they stopped paying" But they keep the application, the name and number AND the file. How do they know you won't pay them again and want their services?

                      The bottom line is LLoyd's has the number in some far away file cabinet on a territory you care little about....kinda like SSA does on the island of the District of Criminals.



                      None of these has anything to do with an individual human withdrawing from
                      the SS system by getting rid of the SSN assigned to them and having the SS
                      account with their name and that number expunged from the SSA.

                      These are about agreements between governments, state employees being
                      withdrawn from the social security PAYMENT system (they still have their
                      SSNs).
                    • gary
                      The analogy is not quite accurate. When you contract with LLoyd s for the insurance they issue a policy (insurance contract) and a number is assigned to that
                      Message 10 of 10 , Nov 14, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The analogy is not quite accurate. When you contract with LLoyd's for the
                        insurance they issue a policy (insurance contract) and a number is assigned
                        to that POLICY, not your name. If you get another policy from them, it will
                        have a different policy number. When you stop paying LLoyd's, they will
                        terminate your policy and mark it "terminated for non-payment", if you
                        cancel, they will mark the file "cancelled by insured"? Yes, they will
                        probably keep it for their records but if you want the policy again, you
                        will have to make application for it and a new policy will be issued and a
                        new number will be assigned. You will not be allowed to just start up the
                        old policy with the old number.

                        The biggest difference is that with SS you cannot cancel it (that is what we
                        are discussing, can you cancel the SS contract and have a check on that
                        number say something like "cancelled by request"), the policy stays active
                        and in force at all times. You may choose not to apply for benefits, but
                        the SSA expects payments whenever you are paid unless payment to you is
                        exempt (such as state employees).

                        Gary

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: dwissel
                        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:51 AM
                        Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Eric, WhoRU makes my points on US Citizenship


                        Think of SSN like LLoyd's of London. Someone applies for insurance in
                        America to insure their hands cause they are a famous piano player. LLoyd;s
                        writes the policy for the far away land called America. Now because the name
                        was John Smith and there are too many John Smith's the company ASSIGNS a
                        number. The number is ALWAYS stuck on the file folder and application. Let's
                        say you cancel your insurance or simply haven't reached the "vested" amount
                        to automatically guarantee a payout. Lloyd;'s says "Fine...cancelled....or
                        fine...they stopped paying" But they keep the application, the name and
                        number AND the file. How do they know you won't pay them again and want
                        their services?

                        The bottom line is LLoyd's has the number in some far away file cabinet on a
                        territory you care little about....kinda like SSA does on the island of the
                        District of Criminals.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.