First International Conference on Free Energy

CC: haspden@iee.org, pgb@padrak.com,john1@nidlink.com, kbala@elknet.net,brucelc@ihug.co.nz, science@pobox.com,brown@particlepower.com, brucelc@ihug.co.nz,sft@imaginet.fr, coolwar@aol.com,rdcook@bellsouth.net, jdecker@keelynet.com,rgeroge@hooked.net, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com,sales@flexigloss.com,

ANNOUNCING: The First International Conference on Free Energy (CoFE) to be held at the Department of State, Washington, DC as part of the Secretary of State "Open Forum", April 29, 30 with all day workshops on May 1st, 1999. Preregistration for security requirements: birthdate and SS# for US citizens, passport number for foreign attendees. CALL 800-777-8747 (301-595-7999) for official discounted hotel and travel arrangements (only 75 rooms have been set aside which will go fast). Speaker list attached. Sponsors are solicited at any level (see attached). All day Video Room and Exhibit Room featured. Demonstration of Devices include: Les Adam's peroxide helicopter model; Perrault's radiant energy device; Chip Ransford's transmutation demo; maybe Paul Brown's nuclear battery; Gravity driven motor; Griggs pump?; and of course, Paul Pantone's GEET motors. Speaker list is attached. Audience will average 3-500 and the auditorium can hold 800. The State Dept. itself will, by conservative estimates from other similar events, supply at least 200 people. DOE and NASA are receiving broadcast email messages for the event as well. Two congressmen on the Hill who are physicists (Ehlers and Holt) will be invited. We hope to have a press conference in the press room. The day before CoFE (Wed.) is the DOE meeting day with invited speakers presenting to them privately. We will have a Proceedings, videos, and a simultaneous netcasting on the internet. A lot of non-profit organizations and ambassadors will be attending since they are here in DC and they all want whatever we have to offer them for third world countries. The Washington Post will probably do an article for us since this is the first CoFE of its kind in DC. I have received more than one phone call asking for a definition of free energy! This will be a breakthrough educational effort to burst the energy conservatism dominating our nation's capital. No admission charge except to cover catering costs. Hope everyone who is interested in the facts will be able to attend. See website for updates: http://www.erols.com/iri


Subject: [svpvril] Re: First International Conference on Free Energy
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 07:07:19 -0600
From: Dale Pond
Reply-To: svpvril@egroups.com
Organization: Delta Spectrum Research
To: Thomas Valone

CC: duca@msw.it, haspden@iee.org,pgb@padrak.com, john1@nidlink.com,kbala@elknet.net, brucelc@ihug.co.nz,science@pobox.com, brown@particlepower.com,sft@imaginet.fr, coolwar@aol.com,rdcook@bellsouth.net, jdecker@keelynet.com,rgeroge@hooked.net, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com,sales@flexigloss.com,

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for extending your invitation to attend the First International Conference on Free Energy. I think this is a good move and is important to us all where the educational part comes in. The government in Washington, DC has been and is still out of touch with reality concerning a great number of things. This conference appears to be part of a movement to bring an expanded awareness to Washington and those that operate within its jurisdictional confines. Thank you for going to all the trouble to put this wonderful opportunity together.

I would immensely like to join you in your educational efforts. You may not know this but I was born there and raised up just across the river in Arlington, Virginia. I would love any excuse to visit the old stomping grounds. And I may come but for one thing. In order to attend this conference one is required: "Preregistration for security requirements: birthdate and SS# for US citizens...". Did you know that it is illegal to use the SS# for identification purposes? If you didn't perhaps the government agent demanding it does not know either? If the government doesn't know this who should know it? A long time ago I made up my mind I would not participate in illegal activities nor associate with those who did. So my conviction towards being honest and law abiding would preclude me from attending this noteworthy event because I am being asked to aide and abet a violation of the law and waive my own rights.

If my own government does not respect my right to privacy and our own law is it going to respect my right to property (my own inventions)?

True, it is to my ultimate advantage to attend but it is also to my detriment so much law is being violated in order for those who are paranoid to feel comfortable. I do not wish to break any laws nor cause undue ill feeling over this. If someone there can review the law and the conference's procedures and find a way to establish an OPEN and SHARING environment instead of one based and operated in fear and distrust I would be more than delighted to attend. Otherwise I will have to decline on the grounds given herein. I am including below a short piece on the issue of Privacy Violation and the use of the Social Security number as identification. It is most enlightening. I trust that you will pass it around that this matter can be moved forward without further illegalities and violations of rights.

By the way, what interest does the Department of State have in so-called Free Energy? Do they have a statement of policy? Seems they are far more interested in protecting the privately owned oil, gas and nuclear business than promoting freedom in research that would do away with all the fun, profits and power.

Please keep me informed as to this conference and if there is a way to attend in Peace and Sharing. I would love to bring the Musical Dynasphere and share it's marvelous technology and beauty with everyone legitimately participating.

Warm regards,
Dale Pond

PRIVACY ACT LIMITATIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER USAGE

Since many people objected to extensive loss of privacy which accompanied the use of computers, Washington responded by passing The Privacy Act. It stated quite simply that: "It shall be unlawful ... to deny to any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number." Title 5 of United States Code Annotated 552(a) is known as The Privacy Act. Due to it, courts have ruled in part:

"Right of privacy is a personal right designed to protect persons from unwanted disclosure of personal information..." CNA Financial Corporation v. Local 743, D.C., Ill., 1981, 515 F. Supp.942, Ill.

The District Court in Delaware held that The Privacy Act:

"was enacted for (the) purpose of curtailing the expanding use of social security numbers ... and to eliminate the threat to individual privacy and confidentiality of information posed by common numerical identifiers." Doyle v. Wilson, D.C., Del., 1982, 529 G. Dupp. 1343.

In the strongly worded Guideline and Regulations for Maintenance of Privacy and Protection of Records on Individuals it is stated:

"(a) (1) It shall be unlawful ... To deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number."

Should a right, benefit or privilege be denied you when you decline to provide your social security number, you may file suit and are guaranteed to win a judgement of $1,000.00 plus costs and attorney's fees! This will be paid by the individual, business or government agency who wronged you. The Privacy act states:

"(A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000.00; and (B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court."

It is suggested that you take someone with you when you assert your rights under The Privacy Act. They will witness the incident and testify (if necessary) to the facts.

Courts have ruled that there are only two instances when social security numbers must be used. These are:

1) For tax matters.

2) To receive public assistance.

In any situation not listed above, when you refuse to give your social security number, simply present this document to any person who seems to need one. Invite them to make a copy. Point out the $1,000.00 penalty which is guaranteed upon showing that your rights were violated under this act. Point out that an individual may be personally required to pay the $1,000.00 if he/she is aware of the Privacy Act and refuses to follow it. In Doyle v. Wilson the court states:

"assuming that plaintiffs refusal to disclose his social security number was a clearly established right, where defendants could not as reasonable persons have been aware of that right and could not have recognized that any effort to compel disclosure of number or to deny plaintiff his refund violated federal law, damages against defendants were barred... " Doyle v. Wilson, D.C., Del., 1982, 529 F. Supp. 1343.

It is quite clear that the individuals must be able to show that they could not have been aware of the privacy act and could not have possibly realized that their actions were in violation of federal law in order to escape the $1,000.00 penalty.

Free Energy Responses to Pond's Letter Above

RIGHT ON!!!

I couldn't say it any better!

Thanks,

--------------------------------------------

Ha!

Great One, Dale!!!
You know, sometimes I just forget all those digits, and maybe I sometimes transpose a few digits...
The Concentration camps are already built, you know...
[Hi Guys!]...(For the email taps...)

--------------------------------------------

Your thoughts on Atlin are understood....from my experience of D.C. you would be lucky to get Atlin back to Oklahoma. "Preregistration for security requirements." this is the standard intelligence gathering approach...

All best


February 12, 1999
RE: First International Conference on Free Energy
Department of State, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Thomas Valone,

Thank you again for the invitation to bring my 14 years worth of research to Washington, DC and share it with the Department of State, NASA, Department of Energy and other assorted (and unspecified) federal and private agencies. In my earlier response to you I voiced concern about having my right to privacy violated by the requirement of submitting my private Social Security number and very private birthdate supposedly for "security" reasons. Whose security are we talking about? Have any of us committed a crime for which we are suspect? Is there a lawfully issued warrant requiring production of indentification documents?

Since I have never done anything to warrant suspicion from any of our public servants I feel somewhat offended by the notion I have to submit private information to allay their unfounded fears. I believe an unfounded fear is called paranoia. On the other hand, we have all seen in many forms and in many places and scenarios of federal government agents running amuck violating the natural rights of and bringing harm to innocent people and their property. Therefore I feel more than justified in asking for identification from these public servants that I may be assured my natural and civil rights will be respected and protected conforming to law by these same employees. Considering the violent and wanton history of certain federal government agencies and their agents in the past I do not think this is an unreasonable request. Do you?

Therefore, I submit the following Public Servant Questionaire to be addressed and answered by each public servant associated with this conference. The last we spoke you indicated you were working for the U.S. Patent Office. To show good faith, I would appreciate you filling out this questionaire and returning it to the Free Energy community. We can then all be assured (somewhat) of the good faith usually placed in our federal employees. Such a jesture on your part would encourage our other federal employees to do likewise.

I will post this request and your response(s) onto my web site as a Public Notice so that others may be fully informed and encouraged to attend your conference. http://www.svpvril.com/cofe.html

I await your soonest response.

Warm regards,
Dale Pond

PUBLIC SERVANT'S QUESTIONAIRE

Public Law 93-579 states in part: "The purpose of this Act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies... to permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by such agencies."

The following questions are based upon that act and are necessary in order that this individual may make a reasonable determination concerning divulgence of information to this agency.

1. Name of public servant (please print) .........................................

2. Residence ......................................................

City .................................. State ..................... Zip .................

3. Name of department, bureau, or agency by which public servant is employed: .........................................................

supervisor's name ...............................................

4. Department, bureau, or agency 's mailing address....................................

City .......................... State ..................... Zip .................

5. Did public servant furnish proof of identity? Yes/No ................

7. What was the nature of proof? ...........................................

6. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United States?

7. Does this public servant know what my natural rights are?

8. Will this public servant help protect my natural rights?

9. Does this public servant know the restrictions against government agents and the government in the ten Bill of Rights?

10. Can this public servant know there is no law or rule making which allows him to violate the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights?

11. Does this public servant know that when he violates 'law' he is liable in his personal and official capacity?

12. Does this public servant know that under Constitutionally guaranteed common law violators of my natural rights may be held liable for damages of my natural rights under the Laws of Nature's God and can be held accountable in the personal and/or official capacity?

13. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation or request for private information?

14. Will the public servant read aloud the portion of the law authorizing the request for private information?

15. Are the answers to the questions or requests for private information voluntary or mandatory?

16. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law/regulation, or are they being used as a discovery process?

17. What other uses may be made of this information?

18. What other agencies may have access to this information?

19. What will be the effect upon me if I should choose not to answer any part or all of these questions or requests for private information?

20. Name of person in government requesting that this investigation or request for private information be made...................................................

21. Is this investigation 'general' or is it 'special'?

22. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relative to this investigation or request for private information?

23. If so, the identity of such third parties................................................

24. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the requested information?

25. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this agency? If yes, which and how do I identify and obtain a copy of it?

26. Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which was supplied by another agency or government source?

27. If so, please deliver to me a copy of that information. I demand the documents be delivered within 10 days. The very existence of these documents may already be damaging my rights and privacy for which some one needs to be held accountable.

28. Will the public servant guarantee that the information in these files will not be used by any other department other than the one by whom he is employed? If not, why not?

If any request for information relating to me is received from any person or agency, you must advise me in writing before releasing such information. Failure to do so may subject you to possible civil or criminal action as provided by the act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC SERVANT'S DECLARATION

I (public servant's name here, please print) ............................ declare that the answers I have given to the foregoing questions are complete and correct in every particular.

X ____________________________ Date: ________/_________/_____________

Witness:________________________ Witness:__________________________

Threaded Responses 2/13/99

Subject: Re: First International Conference on Free Energy
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:22:00 -0600
From: Dale Pond
Organization: Delta Spectrum Research
To: Thomas Valone

CC: SVPvril Forum <svpvril@egroups.com>,Jim & Janet Meisinger ,Patrick Bailey ,Jerry Decker,Toby Grotz

Thomas Valone wrote:

> Dear Dale, I remember you as a level-headed, intelligent man with a great
< amount of information to share with us about Keely. Perhaps you might be
< interested in being a part of this event with an exhibit booth at the
< Conference on Free Energy, or even to lead a workshop (only two slots are
< left). Seeing that this will be a very historic occasion with many people
< in DC learning about free energy for the first time, perhaps you might be
< a little less militant about a simple number?

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the stereo-typical lock-step response. I am not militant as you well know - I do not even own a gun. (Washington does and they do not hesitate to use them.) To seek verification of who I deal with is a legal, simple and innocent prodecure. I am saddened to see you perceive a question of authority as a threat.

The use of the SS# is not a simple number - it has become an identification system - contrary to the law and original intent as Janet M. so appropriately pointed out in her response to you, shared with others. The denial of access to your meeting being predicated on the SS# is also in violation of the law. I am a law abiding citizen. Apparently you and the other organizers of this meeting are not. Why would I wish to participate in a gathering of outlaws who repeatedly show distain and disrepect for the law and me and my rights? How could I possibly feel comfortable or be safe in such a fear-filled environment? I do not cater to or associate with those who willing and intentionally violate the law.

It is the law that public servants identify themselves when asked. You were politely asked. Otherwise we are all subject to possible fraud and false presentment of authority. It is a shame you choose to ignore the law and willfully refuse to supply the legally requested information.

>
> 13. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which
> authorizes this investigation or request for private information?
>

I guess we got your answer. There isn't any so how could you furnish it?

<
> If you must know, armed
< security guards protect the State Dept. which now also has a new concrete
< barrier around the whole building thanks to our actions in Iraq. A couple
< of months ago, some guy ran past a guard in the White House and shot the
< second guard who subsequently died. Government offices attract those
<types sometimes. Most importantly, I understand that Clinton and Albright
<will be in the other auditorium down the hall from our conference during
<one of the two days. I have to supply a list of attendees with their SS#
<and birthdates so that the Dept. of State Security will issue an
<admission badge to each of them. It is not my rule but theirs.

It saddens me to see what I remember as a beautiful and gentle city become a barricaded steel and concrete armed camp of paranoia. Is every doorway a check point now? ("Your papers (SS# & BD), please!") When I as a child we used to swim in the many fountains scattered around the many beautiful parks. We visited the many public buildings and museums. (Is a "visitor's pass/permission/licence" required in all them too now?) Those days were a happy experience for me. No doubt just being there is unsafe and illegal now too. We used to fish in the Tidal Basin from time to time. Guess that is being denied to the people too? (With appropriate papers, i.e., "pass/license/permission" is it OK, right?) Maybe; sounds like the whole place has gone to hell......

Sorry to hear you are being "forced" to break the law so innocent people can attend your conference. The standard excuse for ignoring the law and violating people's rights is to scream "National Security made me do it" and it is for our own benefit. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Why would Washington do any different? Why should you be any different? That is the same excuse they use to steal patents right? The excuses given for the innocent to waive their rights are lame as others have pointed out.

I'm not the militant/terrorist in this scenario. I did not bomb Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, Waco, etc. What do I have to fear? Those who wage vicous war on law-abiding civilians (terrorism) are always afraid and live constantly in fear of the innocent. Has Washington become the leading terrorist organization in the world today? Should we take a boomb, plunder and body count? DP

< If you can't be a part of this great event for fear of your rights being violated,
<then sit at home and watch it on the Internet since we will also have pay-per-view
<simultaneous netcasting as well. It's your call. -Tom Valone

There is no doubt now my rights and the law have no meaning to you or the others organizing this conference. So I was right all along in bringing this issue up. My concerns were justified and have now been confirmed by you.

Besides all this if I attended it might be viewed as me condoning and supporting all this law breaking and disrespect. My involvement with the Free Energy movement goes back to 1983 and the initial meeting forming the International Tesla Society. I love the people associated with this movement and have myself contributed much in terms of education, support, ideas and patronage to many lay people, inventors and conferences. The integrity of the movement is of concern to me. It appears to be in jeopardy at this moment just when so much is about to bear fruition for so many. The integrity of the movement is a reflection of the thoughts and actions those involved in it. I first met you in 1986 at the Tesla Conference in Colorado Springs. I attended your lecture on monopolar motors which insightful information I treasure to this day. I ask you to reconsider your position, thoughts and actions.

Personally, I see little if any benefit whatsoever in waiving my rights and needlessly exposing my research so I can be subjected to further disrespect and be exposed to more lawlessness. I remember the hell Newman went through at the hands of the National Bureau of Standards, our fine employees. Is he coming? Maybe his story could teach us something. Nor do I see any benefit coming from parading (for free) my many years of research before outlaws, assorted and unspecified agents, liars, politicians, prostitutes and theives. I am expected to come there on my own money and time right? For whose benefit? I think this whole thing is backwards and upside down. Maybe when love and fellowship returns to Washington I can come. Let me know when the barriers put up by fear are torn down and respect for the innocent is again heard from our employees as they tend the doorways of our own buildings.

The future, of course, will bring us the "rest of this story" as it unfolds. I've always respected you Thomas. I'm sorry to see things as they are now. A bright and wonderful future is just a mind-change away....

--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond

Free Energy Responses

Mr. Valone,

Only in nazi, fascist or communist countries are people required to be identified by a numbers. Please explain to me how accepting a 'number' as identification makes me more credible or less a criminal? I thought only 'criminals' are numbered, correct? If you will do some homework, you will find that the social(ist) (in)security number was fraudulently foisted upon most of us long before we were old enough, by law, to contract. There are many books out now, by learned people, disclosing how the whole SS system is a ponzi scheme, based on non-disclosure fraud. There is no 'security account' in your name. It is just another graduated tax against the people to add to the other 2nd plank of the communist manifesto: "a strong and progressive income tax" to enslave the people. I'm sure our forefathers would be shocked at the low level of knowledge of supposed learned people in our country, today. And their willingness to buy into fascist/communist/and nazi ideals.

I don't know about you, but once I was notified of the SS# fraud and recognized the SS# fraud, which is crime, I wondered why would anyone want to particpate in these unAmerican crimes?

your message states:

>"armed security guards protect the State Dept. which now also has a new
>concrete barrier around the whole building thanks to our actions in Iraq."

Excuse me, it was not 'our actions in Iraq.' Most of us have been appalled at the stupidity and criminal aggression against other countries by a handful of degenerates in Washington, DC for decades. And we have protested their unAmerican and evil activities for decades. Do not include us in the 'our'. We don't buy it - although we may all have to pay for it!!!

>"A couple of months ago, some guy ran past a guard in the White House and
>shot the second guard who subsequently died. Government offices attract
>those types sometimes."

To quote one of our forefathers, "It is not rebels that make trouble, it is trouble which makes rebels." And certain degenerates in D.C. create so much trouble in the world it is mind-boggling!

>"Most importantly, I understand that Clinton and Albright
>will be in the other auditorium down the hall from our conference during
>one of the two days. I have to supply a list of attendees with their SS#
>and birthdates so that the Dept. of State Security will issue an
>admission badge to each of them. It is not my rule but theirs."

You know what? I would never uphold unAmerican rules. How does 'numbering' our American brothers and sisters give us/them any more credibility or make them 'more safe'? The reasoning behind that is not only ludicrous, it is most communist/fascist/nazi , indeed. We can certainly see the parallels to how the German people followed nazi rules in order to 'get along' until there was no rights or freedom - just nazi tyranny.

>If you can't be a part of this great event for fear of your rights being
>violated, then sit at home and watch it on the Internet since we will
>also have pay-per-view simultaneous netcasting as well. It's your call.
-Tom Valone

I would not pay to watch people who have forgotten the founding principles of America do anything. I know that our Creator, upon whose immutable laws this country is founded, will provide us a way to learn and know about outstanding inventions without having to acquiesce to unAmerican, evil, enslaving rules. I'd much prefer to attend the conference in Seattle. Sounds much more fun! And more American!!!

In support of a true American, Dale Pond, I am,

Janet Lee: Meisinger

First Assembly of People in Colorado Grand Jury

P.S. I have volunteered at many New Energy conference in Denver and Fort Collins. I'm glad we upheld American Laws and Freedoms here!!!

PPS to Dale: Please send this to your entire list. My server said it was too many addresses for me to mail. :( Janet

----------------------------------------------------------

Hi Dale et al!

This is being cc'd and bcc'd to a few folks because Dale has brought up an interesting point about this upcoming Free Energy Conference in Washington. That you have to give your SSN to get in. What an opportunity for mischeif. Dale has most of it posted at his website and it is enfolded in the email from the KeelyNet discussion list below;

http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/archive/00002637.htm

I wouldn't go that one if I won the bet and my way was paid. Just don't need that kind of weirdness and control in my life, not to mention the distinct possiblity of making yourself a target, depending on your involvement with alt sci.

Dale, feel free to use any of that you might want and thanks again for bringing it up, might save someone some serious headaches in the future.

Jerry Wayne Decker
http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

Responses of 2/14/99
Valone wrote: (2/14/99)

>Dale, If you believe the law is being broken by screening attendees by
>the ss# and birthdate, then call the State Dept. 202-647-0444 and let them
>know. Listen carefully to the recorded message in case you get it.

Hi Thomas,

I have no doubts whether my rights are bring violated. They are; and willfully at that. I'm including quotes from the law itself. These should help you see this whole affair is transcending friendship, common sense and the law. Please share it with your sponsors of the conference. It is my legal right to refuse to divulge my SS#. This conference or any of its sponsors, including the State Department, have no right to require I give it up. (Please excuse the necessary legalese.)

The Privacy Act states quite simply that: "It shall be unlawful ... to deny to any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number." Title 5 of United States Code Annotated 552(a) is known as The Privacy Act.

Due to it, courts have ruled in part:
"Right of privacy is a personal right designed to protect persons from unwanted disclosure of personal information..." CNA Financial Corporation v. Local 743, D.C., Ill., 1981, 515 F. Supp.942, Ill.

The District Court in Delaware held that The Privacy Act:
"was enacted for (the) purpose of curtailing the expanding use of social security numbers ... and to eliminate the threat to individual privacy and confidentiality of information posed by common numerical identifiers." Doyle v. Wilson, D.C., Del., 1982, 529 G. Dupp. 1343.

In the strongly worded Guideline and Regulations for Maintenance of Privacy and Protection of Records on Individuals it is stated:
"(a) (1) It shall be unlawful ... To deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number."

The Privacy act provides for damages:
"(A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000.00; and (B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court."

--------------------------------------

Below is the government's own web site on this issue. I suggest you review it and bring this to the attention of the State Department. Apparently they are not aware of the law either. Do they even care? Why do we pay them? (Ignorance of the law is no excuse and does not relieve anyone of possible penalities for damages.) For more details see their complete web site:

http://www.dfsc.dla.mil/main/foia/foia.htm


DEFENSE ENERGY SUPPORT CENTER (DESC)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) And Privacy Act

Welcome to the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Home page. We are located at the Defense Logistics Agency, Headquarters Complex, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 4729, Fort Belvoir, Va 22060. DESC's FOIA and Privacy Act Officer is Landis B. Webb. He can be reached at (703) 767-8601, by fax (703) 767-8745, or by email at lwebb@desc.dla.mil.

1. General Overview of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act
The FOIA, enacted in 1966, provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information. Federal agencies are required to disclose records upon receiving a written request for them, except for those records that are protected from disclosure by the nine exemptions and three exclusions of the FOIA. This right of access is enforceable in court. The FOIA, covers all records in the possession and control of federal executive branch agencies. The Privacy Act is another federal law regarding federal government records or information about individuals. The Privacy Act establishes certain controls over how the executive branch agencies of the federal government gather, maintain, and disseminate personal information. The Privacy Act also can be used to obtain access to information, but it pertains only to records that the federal government keeps about individual U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens. The Privacy Act, passed by Congress in 1974, establishes certain controls over what personal information is collected by the federal government and how it is used. The act guarantees three primary rights: (1) the right to see records about oneself, subject to the Privacy Act's exemptions; (2) the right to amend that record if it is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete; and (3) the right to sue the government for violations of the statute, including permitting others to see your records, unless specifically permitted by the act. The act also provides for certain limitations on agency information practices, such as requiring that information about an individual be collected from that individual to the greatest extent practicable; requiring agencies to ensure that their records are relevant, accurate, timely, and complete; and prohibiting agencies from maintaining information describing how an individual exercises his or her First Amendment rights unless the individual consents to it, a statute permits it, or it is within the scope of an authorized law enforcement investigation. [end quote]


>I organized this conference myself and accepted the offer of space at the
>State Dept. I believe it will help educate people in the DOS, DOE, and
>NASA who are all being invited by email BECAUSE it is within the State
>Dept. building.

No doubt your personal intentions are (probably) honorable. But ignorance of the law is no excuse. Education is primary and this correspondence with you is certainly educating a lot of people!!!

Please review this quote from the Privacy Act above. It says in part:
"The FOIA, enacted in 1966, provides that any person has the RIGHT TO REQUEST access to federal agency records or information. Federal agencies are REQUIRED to disclose records upon receiving a written request for them..." (emphasis added)

You and the State Department have not fullfilled my written request (PSQ) or honored the legal requirement to provide same (yet). When may we expect this to be completed?

I fully support your effort to educate the hordes of bureaucrats swarming all over this country eating us out of house and home. Free rent at the State Department must come at a price (there are no free lunches). If the price is not visible then it is hidden/occulted. What might that be?

>Email works wonders except when lengthy questionaires
>like yours are now being interpreted as originating from me! (Remy is now
>telling everyone that they have to fill out an unbelievably lengthy
>questionaire to get in.)

I'm sorry others have difficulty reading email. I am not responsible for other people's misinterpretations and actions. Is the government ignoring or otherwise misinterpreting my request for information? Is the pot calling the kettle black?

>Are you interested in helping the Free Energy movement?

What a ridiculous question, Thomas. Ha! Please go back and reread my earlier posts. I helped (in a major way to) make the Free Energy movement what it is today. If you haven't seen my web site then please do so. The site has had over 400,000 hits from about 60 different countries. Many, MANY complete copies of this comprehensive educational site have been downloaded in many different countries already. My books and videos have sold in the tens of thousands. The entire SVPvril web site is about Free Energy, free thinking and the FREEDOM to use and enjoy them both. All of my effort has been about education and the free distribution of reams of knowledge that one day the damages done by the bogus pseudo-government created and supported (mis)education system can be corrected - that we might, one day, find the illusive Free Energy (and other benefits) subject of your conference.

So, what is the Free Energy movement Thomas? It is the people making it happen. People are tired of being preyed upon as though they were a herd of cattle to be milked of their money, property, rights and very life blood, only to later be harvested and consumed by __________ (fill in the blank yourself). Why else would anyone number cattle/people so as to track them from cradle to grave? The Free Energy people seek FREEDOM from coercion, invasion of rights and the ughliness of a "system" that forces the use of polluting and deadly processes like oil, gas and nuclear death-traps. People do not like paying (by giving up their rights and property) for what is naturally theirs - freedom to associate at conferences, expression, life, liberty and pursuit of what they feel makes them happy.

In the end there is only one position and that is: We can not have Free Energy unless we have the FREEDOM to use and enjoy it. Otherwise it starts costing us.... it is no longer free.

If our own government (the world's champion of freedom) runs rough-shod over our rights how can there be freedom when freedom is defined as our free exercise of those rights?

This whole affair suggests much more scrutiny as to fundamental concerns. Without our rights we are nothing but owned peons subject to the whims of any bureaucrat and whatever motivates them (greed, power, attitude). A review of the Patent Secrecy Act reveals just one more example of the pseudo-government's war on private property and rights.

As a long-time acquaintance I ask please do not take anything I've written you as personal as none of it is meant to be an attack upon you or your person. We have all been duped and misled in our so-called up-bringing (training) and "education".

Somehow and somewhere this issue has touched some nerves and buttons. I have been receiving a lot of supportive email. So much unsolicited support comes as a pleasant surprise to me. Maybe there is hope America can regain her freedom if enough people care. You do care about our freedom don't you Thomas? Maybe this issue raised by your Conference is a blessing in disquise allowing us a deeper looksee into what the "Free" part of "Free Energy" is really all about. Why do we even pursue so-called Free Energy?

We are striving to be free in our expressions, our ownership of property, our rights to privacy and pursuit of happiness. Being forced (by artificially contrived lack of alternatives) to breathe deadly gases, live in poisonous emf fields, eat DNA destructive foods and patent medicines is not being free. It is being used as a source of income and power for the elite (whoever they are). Maybe these are the ones who consider themselves above the law and do not have to obey it?

A free thinking and aware people will not willingly choose to forego any of their rights, property and life if given the chance to understand the hidden costs in such things like "free rent" at the State Department. Like I said earlier: There ain't not such thing as a free lunch.

I concur with Jerry's eloquent presentation of this whole issue:

http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/archive/00002637.htm

I hope we can draw a close to this sordid matter. I would however like one of our over-paid employees in Washington to honor the law, their job and my legal and formal request for information concerning the requirement of furnishing private SS#, etc. as a prelude to attending this conference. There is so much curiosity stirred up over this I'm sure the answers to the Questionaire would be relished by those attending and those preferring not to attend. For some of these people's enlightening comments on this SS# thingie please see the recording web page:

Responses

more responses

--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond
State Department Acknowledges law, but....

Subject: CoFE

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:24:29 -0800
From: Thomas Valone
Organization: Integrity Research Institute
To: pgb@padrak.com
CC: dalepond@svpvril.com, reed@zenergy.com

Hi Pat,

Thanks for the summary email for CoFE. Due to Dale's quoting of the legal stuff, I check with another person at the State Dept. and he said Dale was right and furthermore, a driver's license or US passport number is okay for the admission badge. Perhaps a followup email to let people know will help. Is the INE mailing list available for a one-time use? We succeeded in getting the US Energy Association's mailing list which is very prestigious. Thanks again. -Tom Valone, President

Patrick Bailey wrote:


> Regarding the April International Free Energy Conference in WDC, per my previous email:
>
> a SSN is NOT required (thanks to Dale Pond!):
>
> Tom Valone says:
>
> and furthermore, a driver's license or US passport number is okay for the admission badge.
>
> Thanks Dale.
>
> Thanks Tom!

National ID (whatever the document) is still invasion of privacy

Subject: [Fwd:National ID Card Protest at Idaho Department of Fish & Game]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 04:36:37 -0600
From: Dale Pond
Organization: Delta Spectrum Research
To: Thomas Valone ,
Patrick Bailey

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the update Thomas about passport and driver license numbers (both computer linked to SS#). Maybe one day the message will sink in. The attached makes the point that a number is still a number and invasion of privacy is still invasion of privacy. Substituting one set of identification papers for another does not address the real issue. Handing over my private identification papers to those who ordinarily do not care about my person or rights is an oxymoron. Wish you luck - you are going to need it.

Warm regards,
Dale Pond
===================================================

Subject: [FP] National ID Card Protest at Idaho Department of Fish & Game
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:05:34 -0600
From: "ScanThisNews"
Reply-To: owner-scan@efga.org
To: "ScanThisNews Recipients List"

====================================================

SCAN THIS NEWS

2/16/99

Interestingly, at his most recent State of the Union Address President Clinton honored the icon of civil disobedience, Rosa Parks. Is it now time for all freedom loving Americans to engage in similar acts of civil disobedience such as practiced by Mrs. Parks at the cost of possibly losing one's hunting or fishing license? Unfortunately, this is much too great a price to pay for most soft Americans today. Suck up America, you'll reap what you sow.

====================================================
From: W.G.E.N.
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999
To:
Subject: NID:National ID Card Protest at Idaho Department of Fish & Game

>From the February 1999 Idaho Observer:

National ID Card Protest at Idaho Department of Fish & Game

Although you will undoubtedly find Mr. Hoover's tactics in the following story to be humorous, the issue that he is addressing is not at all funny.

The interesting thing about science fiction is that the moment an imaginative writer commits his futuristic fantasies to paper, an engineer starts building them.

We have all seen the movies which depict future societies where the people have their numbers tattooed to their foreheads or they can be identified by running their hand over a scanner. Well, welcome to the future because the future is almost here. ~DWH

by T. Allen Hoover

Recently, The Answer Man column told of a hunter at the Idaho Department of Fish & Game offices writing his Social Security Number (SSN) on his arm so people wouldn't overhear. In fact, this was a protest of the Idaho statute that submits to a federal regulation demanding SSNs be recorded on all licenses, drivers, occupational, professional, recreational and even marriage licenses.

These laws violate Section 7 of Public Law

93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974):
(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit or privilege provided by law becauseof such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.

National Identification Cards are control tools in totalitarian police states. Our laws, supposedly to find deadbeat dads, create a defacto National ID with this law. Will other freedom-restricting laws soon follow?

Like roadblocks to check child car seats, or suspected failure to use seatbelts as probable cause to effect a car stop (and a search)?

As Mark Twain said, The last refuge of a scoundrel is the children.

As a clerk demanded my SSN in order to get elk tags (I had a license before this law), I put on a WWII-era, Jewish Star-of-David Armband from the Nazi Mauthausen concentration / death camp and wrote my SSN on my arm. This was my protest to being numbered. Despite a Channel 2 news crew videotaping this, and a Channel 7 news reporter present (mumbling Black Helicopters...yeah right ), no mention of this protest made the evening news.

Ridiculing those who question our seduction into a police state is Politically Correct -- a phrase coined not by the liberal left, but by the late Chairman Mao Tse Tung of Communist China, whose tradition of executing political dissidents continues and whose money influences our elections.

There is no law requiring one to obtain a SSN, so why has the legislature passed statutes demanding them? Why are children, at birth, forced to have a SSN to be an exemption on income taxes? Elsewhere, police have, despite other ID's, arrested people who refuse to give a SSN upon demand. Before boarding an airplane a Government Issued Photo ID is demanded, even though this is not law, merely an FAA recommendation. You cannot travel without papers.

After WWII, Germans were asked how they had let it all happen, they answered, We all had jobs and the trains ran on time.

Possession of cash is evidence of possible drug dealing and frequently asked about, then confiscated during traffic stops as the Dateline NBC TV program discovered. Forfeiture laws permit police to confiscate cash as it may have committed a crime. With Y2K problems looming, people withdraw cash. Federal agencies propose Know Your Customer banking regulations, wherein your banker examines your normal transactions, reporting irregularities to the government. It should be the Prove you are not a criminal law.

Tacitus, the Roman General, from whence we get the word 'Tactics,' once said that, The corruption of a society can be measured by the number of its laws.

My old SSN card states "For Social Security and Tax purposes-Not for Identification."

In my years of hunting, I would have reported poachers, yet lately there are hunters who tried to buy a license but refused to give a SSN, are they now poaching, or protesting?

Are Americans co-dependant to government's obsessive 'control issue' problem?

Support HR-220 IH, the 'Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999' in Congress, and State Representative Twila Hornbeck's bill to restore freedom in Idaho (RS08465).

I will, for I am NOT a Number, I am a Free Man!

Mr. Hoover is a Boise-area businessman who specializes in preparedness supplies. He is also an "armorer" who has been supplying the police and the public with body armor for several years.

---------------------------------------------

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 1353
Rathdrum, Idaho 83858-1353
Phone: 208-687-9441
Email: observer@dmi.net
Web: http://proliberty.com/observer/

==================================================

Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless:
1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or
2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true.

=================================================

Reply to:

=================================================

To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to
<majordomo@efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY.
Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY.
For additional instructions see http://www.efga.org/about/maillist.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N.
Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml

Subject: Re: SSN is NOT Required at the CoFE in WDC in April
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:51:48 -0700
From: JIM MEISINGER
Organization: EAGLES NEST HOLDINGS
To: Patrick Bailey,
Pond Dale ,
Thomas Valone

Dear Patrick,

A number, is a number, is a number. Only in communist/fascist/nazi countries and/or in prisons are people 'numbered'. Only in communist/fascist/nazi countries do people need to 'show their papers' everywhere they go. Let's face it, showing a bit of paper with a number on it does not change our 'intent'. Criminals will do criminal acts with or without a number/ with or without papers. Both Dale and I have studied the law and realize that any numbering or violation of our private rights is unAmerican in nature. I have volunteered at several new energy conferences in Colorado and we have never expected people to do unAmerican acts in order to attend.

Best Regards,
Janet Lee: Meisinger

cc: Dale Pond
Thomas Valone

Subject: Congrats!!
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 02:58:54 -0600
From: "Jerry W. Decker"
Organization: KeelyNet
To:
Hi Dale!

Patrick sent me an email about the SSN 'concession'...damn, that's great, your balls have grown much bigger than I remember..<g>...I have it posted at; http://www.keelynet.com/ssnnot.htm SEEYA!
--
Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

Subject: SSN?
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:03:46 -1000
From: <>
To: dalepond


Wm Perry wrote:

>I have read your book "Nikola Tesla's Earthquake Machine"
>and wanted to say WOW! It was good. I have been looking for your
>other book "Universal Secrets never before revealed" I think >
>that is what it was called. It is rather difficult here to find.
>
Hi Bill, Thank you for the kudos on the book. The UL book can be found on my catalog page:

>
> When you and Jerry Decker say it is illegal to require an SSN for
> identification, does that apply to all those bastards who insist on
> putting it on your check if you have a military ID? I am in the Navy
> stationed in Pearl Harbor and it really pisses me off. I like to write
> checks for my purchases as cash is not something you should carry
> around in large quantities. Once they see my military ID, the cashiers
> INSIST on putting my SSN right on the check. One time, I ordered a
> pizza and had it delivered to my house. I had had a really bad day
> already. All the pizza delivery services here ask for the SSN over the
> phone, and if you don't tell them (over the phone), they will actually
> refuse to serve you. I was so pissed that night that I put my SSN, my
> DOB, my age, etc. Wonder if they noticed?BillP

It is illegal to deny service because a person refuses to divulge his or her SSN. Does this apply to military personnel? I dunno. The military is a special case and when operating on a legal military base makes it doubly questionable. Maybe you could print off the SSN law portion and show it to the pizza people and see if their lawyers can verify this or not? I'm not a lawyer so I am not the one to ask. I'm sure the pizza people are "just doing their job" and are as ignorant of the law as we all are. A little education can go a long way. I suggest you read very carefully the page cataloging this SS issue:

http://www.svpvril.com/cofe.html

Some specific laws are quoted thereon but you need to do more research to see if any of it applies to you specifically. Thank you for your support in protecting our privacy from those who don't appear to care about it - or doing the jobs they are being paid to do.
--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond


Subject: Re: [fwo] [BBAL,SOLU} Your Papers, Please!
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:04:51 -0600
From: Frog Farmer
To: "

Dale Pond wrote:
>
> I got a live one to untangle. Recently a conference was called on New
> Energy subject matters to be held in Washington, DC at the State
> Department this coming April. They required SS# and birthdate to enter
> the door. I informed them of the illegality of this and eventually they
> relented. BUT they now require a Passport or Driver's Licence number to
> get in the door! It's actually kind of funny in a sad sort of way.
> My question to this forum is: What now? Any frogets? I have no real
> interest in attending personally. I've gotten a lot of email on the side
> revealing all kinds of admonitions about this meeting - all positive to
> my cause I might add. My original intent was to alert many who never
> knew better they have rights, etc. This is working. What is an
> appropriate response to the "Your papers, please!" command?

"What papers?"

"Your passport or driver's license."

"I don't have a passport. Does this mean I'm to be deported?"

"What about your driver's license?"

"I don't have a driver's license. I took the bus to get here, and I'm taking a cab to go out to dinner later. Do I need to know how to drive in order to share my information regarding free energy?"

"Surely you must have some ID."

"Would my name on my underwear be good enough for you? Look, it matches the name Mom wrote inside my boots..."

"You can't get in here unless we know for sure who you are."

"Go inside and get the man who invited me to waste my time with the likes of you. He ought to know who he invited, shouldn't he?"

"He isn't a real person. We suckered you in so we could seal the hall and gas you all so that our owners could continue to poison the planet by burning fossil fuels. I'm just a stooge doing my job for this Friday's paycheck. I hope you understand. I have a family."


Subject: Re: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:04:53 -0600
From: "Jerry W. Decker"
Organization: KeelyNet
To: Trevor Osborne
CC:



Hi Folks!

...Beware gift horses...

Well now, doesn't this just make ALL the difference, that our glorious State Department would out of the blue become interested in Free Energy?

And isn't it interesting that NASA has, (coincidentally with this State Department affiliated conference), after all these years, out of the blue, put up $600,000 to test the so-called 'anti-gravity' effects reported in the Podletnekov experiment? An experiment first done in 1991, fully 8 years ago??

Ask yourself, what has changed to evoke such government interest when there is still no free energy device that has been practically demonstrated or sold commercially?

The Podletnekov experiment yielded about 1% weight loss ONLY in the zone above the stimulated SHC, never mind that John Schnurer of Antioch University, improved the experiment and got an 11 time repetition with 5% weight loss, but was he called or consulted by NASA....no.

It's not antigravity by any stretch of the imagination but if NASA HAS to spend our money, spend it on an American who has FAR EXCEEDED the original. John is at herman@antioch-college.edu and could certainly do wonders with that money.

Now let's look at this sudden interest in Free Energy - not by DOE, the government agency in charge of Energy, but by the State Department, a department completely unrelated to energy.

Ask yourself - How many F/E conferences have been held in the past? How many had an F/E device that is now in use, that was ever sold and worked, or that had plans which once built worked? NONE.

How many of you are aware of the initial REQUIREMENT of this State Department affiliated conference that no one be allowed to attend the conference unless they provided their Social Security Number (SSN) which is against US law?

How many of you are aware that ONLY Dale Pond questioned this SSN as identification requirement? (no government official thought anything about checking the legality including the STATE DEPARTMENT! )

How CONVENIENT FOR THEM to have 'forgotten' it was illegal and just make it a requirement that if you wanted to attend, perhaps NO ONE WOULD BALK at it or otherwise question the requirement?

Dale pointed out that it was illegal and was promptly called a 'militant'!

How many of you are aware that Dale's steadfastness against this ILLEGAL policy resulted in the State Department and the conference organizer(s) backing down, ADMITTING IT WAS IN FACT ILLEGAL and rescinding the requirement?

How many of you are aware that this compliance with US law was followed up immediately with a REQUIREMENT that anyone attending the conference must NOW provide a Drivers License OR a Passport?

And how many of you have seen this peculiar response from one of the conference organizer(s)?
========================
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:06:55 -0800
From: Thomas Valone
Organization: Integrity Research Institute

Even with three choices for admission, you people are still up in arms?

Have you ever written a check at a grocery store or post office? Try to keep your driver's license number hidden in those situations! Maybe you're ready for the new "thumbprint" machines now being released.

These machines nicely comply with all of your demands...no numbers.

Sincerely,
Thomas Valone, M.A., P.E.
COFE Conference Coordinator
============================
This isn't about cashing a check but its a great try at diverting concerns, though a miserable failure. Note the comment, 'even with THREE CHOICES for admission'. As in SSN, DL or passport, YOUR CHOICE, WOW!

Isn't this peculiar? Being a REQUIRMENT in ANY WAY that you IDENTIFY yourself at ANY public meeting and that the organizer(s) have NO PROBLEM with it?

In my lifetime;

I have NEVER HAD to identify myself at local lectures.
I have NEVER HAD to identify myself at movies or theaters.
I have NEVER HAD to identify myself at public meetings or lectures.

All of which involved information or entertainment as does a conference.

Have you had to identify YOURSELF before?

Why here? Why THIS conference? What is the ONE DIFFERENCE?

If that IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT (no matter now whether it is DL or passport) is by ORDER of the State Department, why would the conference organizers not RIGHTLY REFUSE to comply or just move it elsewhere?

Check out the details of this very real story;

http://www.keelynet.com/ssnnot.htm

Dale isn't trying to torpedo the success of this conference nor am I. Its a great thing to see such conferences because in all probability, based on other conferences, there will be no working, practical free energy device that people can buy or use to do work, at least you get to network with others interested in the field, though I always hope there will be SOMETHING that works.

So for that reason and in the very tiny hope that SOMETHING will be presented that works, people should attend OPEN conferences.

For myself, I am concerned that something isn't right with THIS PARTICULAR CONFERENCE and would seriously consider the pros and cons of attending.

I'm not paranoid nor militant but this isn't right no matter how you look at it. I've promoted F/E and alt science all my adult life and spent tens of thousands of my own money trying to find reality in all this mess, to date nothing.

Now, just because the State Department is involved, suddenly an open public meeting requires identification?

Would ITS have done this?
Would INE have done this?
Would Global Sciences do this?
NO WAY!

Would you have gone to any of THEM if they had required that you ID yourself?

It's a very simple matter to correct and assuage these concerns on the part of those who have sense enough to question it.

Options; NO ID be REQUIRED or move it elsewhere WITHOUT benefit of the State Department.

I agree with Dale, this is wrong and I would be very careful of such machinations via the government, no matter which department.

I would seriously consider the risk if I had any F/E technology that was remotely close to working OR was involved financially or in partnershipwith any inventor working on free energy technology.

It's bad enough riding a razor blade, but why set yourself on fire and call everyones attention that could lead to unforeseen strangeness.

It strikes me as a great way to identify everyone for a marvelously detailed database that could easily be updated at will by simply tracking those involved.

If I was wanting to track people in this field, I'd use the technique myself and blame anyone who questioned it as a troublemaker or 'militant'...<g>...Onward & Upward!
--
Jerry Wayne Decker
http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187


Subject: Re: [Fwd: SSN is NOT Required at the CoFE in WDC in April]
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 05:21:59 -0600
From: Dale Pond
Organization: Delta Spectrum Research
To: jdecker@keelynet.com


Hi Jerry,

Your post about the CoFE is quiet "in your face" as it is often said.Glad to see others picking up the load and asking for accountability. What kinds of people are these to be asking us to give up our personal and private information to a proven criminal organization? Pretty strange stuff. Weird.

I've kind of backed off this issue because there is no real need to torpedo the conference. If others wish to attend given the exposure of intent, etc. then that is certainly their business. My obligation developed when I saw the illegality (liability?) and it ended once I brought public awareness to it. So what do we do now? I dunno. I'll circulate your message.

Congress has plenary powers in Washington, DC. This means it can pretty well do what it damn well pleases. There are no Constitutional restrictions on it within the 10 square miles, the insular possessions or territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin islands, lawful military forts). So, if there are no restrictions on it in DC then it does not have to respect any of our rights to privacy, property or life if we are in DC? For instance guns cannot be owned in Puerto Rico as we saw several years ago in some TV special. Guns are outlawed in DC too. The feds cannot outlaw guns or anything else in the 50 State party to the Constitution because of lack of jurisdiction. The separation of power and jurisdiction is obvious once it is pointed out. See:

http://home.HiWAAY.net/~becraft/FEDJurisdiction.html
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/TYRANNY.HTM

So, take something really neat (invention, idea, etc.) to the Conference and "any government official" (see http://www.svpvril.com/Title35.html) can call it a threat to national security and TAKE IT. National security to them apparently means any threat to the federal government as an organization. This is borne out in the already proven disreguard for me and you and our rights.

I agree with you Jerry, nothing but mischief will come of this conference. At the very best suppose a bunch of government scientists (our employees) visited in all innocence. Suppose some exhibitor really did take something interesting to show off. The scientists (our employees) would be polite and ask questions then take the new knowledge back to their secret and off-limits lab and we would never ever see any benefit trickled down to us: the originators of the knowledge and owners of it, the government, the federal labs and anything they produce. Yeah, right..... remember Y-12? There is more security on Y-12 than on Fort Knox. Wonder why?

If they are so concerned about the technology they already have locked up (which we are all busy trying to duplicate in our own ways) what are they going to do to anyone who proves successful? Thank about that one.

No, I have not seen Trevor's response. Can you please forward it to me?

I'm forwarding a suggested course of action in these types of situations. I think it's implications are quite interesting and humorous.

--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 04:14:38 -0600

From: Christopher Hansen

Hello again to everyone,

I got tired following the assembly race and Joshua's court case and then got sick. Then my computer could not be hooked to our new cable system and I just got frustrated and had to wait until we could set up my computer to our house net that has five computers now with Joshua's computer business. (Dad was last on the list of things to do) I have missed reading all of your letters. It gives me the strength as well as great ammo to carry on the fight. I just got 4257 messages so I will have some great reading material for a while.

Now for the good news:

Joshua's court case set in motion a change in the law here in Nevada. Assembly bill 169 had a hearing on Wednesday of last week and we were asked to testify. The bill bearly touched on the changes needed just changing the requirement from Nevada identification cards that require SSN or an SSN to a birth certificate or baptismal certificate. I attached Joshua's testimony and mine if any of you are interested. My brother, Dan, testified first and attacked the system with court cases and other statements. My wife testified after that on the absurdity of State IDs and how one lady came into where she works with IDs from four different states and how she sees dual IDs all the time. Then the County Clerk of Douglas County testified telling the Assembly election committee that it was true (although was rejected by the court) that to force Nevadans to get a ID was indeed a Poll tax. I almost burst out laughing. He also said that until this case he had no idea that there were people who did not have SSN's and that they must change the system if that was true. He was followed by the County Clerk of Lyon County who is the head of the association of County Clerks. She confirmed that it was a poll tax. I nearly burst with joy. She recommended that they completely change the system and not just patch up the mess and that they discard the SSN for a specific number for voting only that would just be a document number not an identification number.

I got to testify after that (see below) and then Joshua spoke. I finished by holding up two applications for employment from Taco Bell and Green valley Grocery. I pointed out that GV Grocery had the SSN as mandatory but had a voluntary area that included and was limited to (ha ha) your age, race and sex. I pointed out that law suits had changed those from mandatory to voluntary. Then I show the Taco Bell SSN (optional) line and explained that a law suit had forced that change. I told them that they must change their system now or it would just be forced to change by law suits like Joshua's.

Joshua wrote his with no help except a request to find the final quote. The Assembly could tell this was no little boy doing what Daddy told him to do. He fully understood it and completely believed his own words. Just before he finished the committee chairman stopped him and said, "Joshua you can stop, your passion has convinced us." It was a high point in my life.

It was an amazing change in government attitude. Here we were bashing the sacred cow of the Demos and Repubs (the Social Security System) and they were eating it u,. agreeing with us and complimenting us. I felt God had reached down and personally opened their minds so that they could understand the truth.

Joshua was followed by the representative of the Secretary of States office who confirmed that the requirement was a poll tax. I was now past joy and had gone directly to heaven. She confirmed everything we said was needed to change in the law.

Following the meeting the committee chairman, a liberal democrat, told my wife that they were going to do everything we had asked for and more. The Secretary of States rep asked my wife (I was in Vegas testifying by video teleconferencing and my wife was in Carson City at the meeting) "But what if they don't even want a document number?" My wife replied, "Well then I guess you'll just have to use letters on those." The Sec of State Rep just said, "Yes. We could do that." Heaven, I am still in heaven!

They decided that if someone wanted to come in in person that all they would have to do is swear they were who they said they were and that would be enough since they could just lie about the number if they wanted to lie and vote with motor voter. Heaven, pure heaven.

I hope we can get it through the Assembly now and then past the Senate but with the County Clerks and Sec of State office both in our corner an apparently Jesus Christ opening their darkened minds we just might get more than we dreamed of when we started.

Great to be back. I know I'll enjoy trying to catch up.

Christopher
==========================

My name is Christopher Holloman Hansen. I am a member of the Clark County Independent American Party Central Committee, the Founder and Presiding Sovereign of The First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty (a political religion) and one of the main reasons you are considering correcting the law concerning voter registration.

In order to understand the reason my son sued the Clark County registrar of voters you need to know a little history.

President Abraham Lincoln said: "Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls and enforced in courts of justice. And in short, let it become the political religion of the nation."

Our Constitution has literally become my political religion.

I have been politically active for 33 years. My passion is studying the constitutions and laws of Nevada and these united States of America, the writings of the founding fathers and both Nevada and united States Supreme court decisions. I found that the America of today has followed a path that regrettably was predicted by these authors of freedom.

Thomas Jefferson 1788 "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Thomas Jefferson 1799. "How long we can hold our ground, I do not know. We are not incorruptible; on the contrary, corruption is making silent progress."

I knew that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing and that although my action may jeopardize my security I also knew the words of Ben Franklin "He who gives up a little freedom for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."

I decided that I could no longer allow any government to infringe upon my nor my families God given unalienable rights. Not even in the smallest degree. That to do so was to desert my duty as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I could no longer allow government to believe that I was subject to their whims but only to constitutional law. We will not lose our liberty in one swift motion but in small steps decried by politicians as necessary to the proper order of society, just as occurred in Hitler's Germany. I therefore, cannot tolerate even the slightest loss of personal sovereignty and freedom.

Although I support the changes in defining what is constitutionally required I found some real problems with this bill on a technical, moral and legal level. The first problem is NRS 483.850 and 483.860 says to see 483.290 which says:
(a) If the applicant was born in the United States, a birth certificate issued by a state or the District of Columbia or other proof of the applicant's date of birth, including, but not limited to, a driver's license issued by another state or the District of Columbia, or a baptismal certificate and other proof that is determined to be necessary and is acceptable to the department; or

The statute is clear that these other proofs are not defined and not limited. Be sure you heard that: By statute there is no limit to the forms of identification that the DMV may consider. That's right: a Department of Motor Vehicles' bureaucrat is authorized to determine what forms of identification will be acceptable to allow a person to vote.

Now the most interesting part of that is if a person is not allowed to register vote (as my son was not allow his official documents) then NRS 293.533 says:
Action to compel registration. Any elector may bring and any number of electors may join in an action or proceeding in a district court to compel the county clerk to enter the name of such elector or electors in the registrar of voters' register and the election board register.

And at NRS 293.044 "County clerk" defined; synonymous with "registrar of voters" in certain counties.

So if a clerk at the DMV decides that, for what ever reason they may decide, that my unlimited ôother proofö is not satisfactory then I have to sue the registrar of voters who has no authority over the DMV clerk. There is nothing I can find in the statute that allows the Registrar or a deputy to determine the validity of identifications, only the DMV.

There is no statute addressing remedies concerning such actions by the DMV and voting.

The other problem I see is one from American history. In the south, before the federal laws to ensure voting rights, clerks were allowed jurisdiction in what would be acceptable and therefore who would be acceptable to vote. That history is one of blatant bigotry. I must assume that no one honestly believes that there is no bigotry in government today, especially when it comes to the hatred of differing beliefs. I was even informed by a reliable source that when my sister was recognized asking questions of this committee that someone said, ôOh no. There's those crazy people again.ö You never can tell where bigotry will raise its ugly head. Even here in Nevada members of the Mormon faith were not allowed by statute to vote until after the court overturned that bigotry in the 1920's.

There are several Supreme Court decisions that do not allow even legislatively authorized individuals of the executive branch of government like, license clerks, police officers, etc. to have such complete latitude and decision making powers over the rights of Citizens with such little legislative directive as is offered here. Especially when religious intolerance or other bigotry may be enabled.

The current law allows a voter to simply put a 9, 10 or 12 digit number that they claim under oath is an official number and they are registered to vote. That's right: no written documents, no official tangible proof. Just the word of one person under oath that they used their official number. And according to the Clark County Registrar of Voters that number is never checked. They don't have the money to handle this unfunded federal mandate. But, as in the case of my son, if three witnesses are willing to swear under oath that an elector, who does not have or does not want an official number, is whom he says he is then this is not acceptable. This newly created bigotry against the numerically identifiably challenged would be humorous if it had not taken a District Court decision to force it to stop. Even then the word of the witnesses was discarded in preference to government documents. We of The Christian Fellowship find this religiously repugnant. We are not creations of the State. The State is a creation of the People. If the State cannot trust the testimony of three citizens why should the citizens trust the individual entity known as The State of Nevada. After all, the United States Congress promised the American people that the Social Security number would never be used as an identifying number. When a state government encourages the use of the Social Security Number as an individual identification number they are perpetuating that lie to We the People.

We need to have a way to identify ourselves that is acceptable to this peoples governmental servants that does not include a government issued identification that Americans lived without for well over a 120 years. Something that does not interfere with deeply held Christian beliefs. Church documents were standard proof for centuries but are now dismissed out of hand or at least viewed with a jaundiced eye and yet they are mentioned in the Statute. Where then can we find a remedy. We must look to that document that according to the founding fathers was the very foundation of our Constitution. The Holy Bible which says in (Matt. 18:16) and elsewhere in both Testaments and concerns both legal and religious matters.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

If an elector is willing to take the time to have two witnesses with him to testify under oath or write affidavits as who a person is then that must be satisfactory. To lie under oath is a felony. To forge a birth certificate if a misdemeanor. Both can easily be done. George Washington in his farewell address said, "Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Washington said oaths by the religiously obligated are the very heart of our justice system. And although our current president does not have such high regard for oaths before God we must not devalue Washington understanding for as James Madison said.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." We of the Christian Fellowship do not want a bastardized government and so we ask that you specifically include this Biblical Christian option.

The current system of motor voter is such an invitation to voter fraud that national TV did a show illustrating its defects with even normal law abiding citizens registering their pets. How many people have more insidious reasons to falsify voting records.

At the very worst the proposal of three witnesses as an option to government documents which under the current proposal is not restricted although not mentioned would be no more advantageous to voter fraud than is the current system.

Thank you for your consideration.

Christopher Holloman Hansen

===========================

My name is Joshua Joel Holloman Hansen and you may remember me in that the very court decision that has brought about this call to legislative action was partially on my account. I am an eighteen-year-old lifelong citizen of the Nevada Republic and currently own my own business, that specializes in internet programming, and the use of global communications and commerce. In case you had some image of me being a mad bomber of some half cocked militia member ready to start an armed revolt against the government, I'd like to let you know, I am not.

In my battle in the courts regarding my right to vote I always maintained that the right to vote was sacred and that conviction has not changed since then. However it is also necessary that the purity of the vote is maintained and that dishonest men and women cannot cast their vote multiple times, for in this republican system it is only just that no single man's voice has any more bearing than another's. Maintaining the purity of the vote basically requires us to make sure everyone is who they say they are.

Before, although no where is it mandated unless you are using the motor voter system to register, the county required that a citizen of the Nevada Republic present one of three things as identification to vote: a social security number, a driver's license, or a Nevada ID. A birth certificate, notarized documents, and even a passport, the most universally acceptable form of ID, were not considered enough to allow one to register. And why? Because there is a little box on the voter application to enter an 8, 10, or 12 digit number.

There is no necessity for this number, except to individualize an individual within a computer database and match up distributed forms (which could be done just as easily with a random number that had no bearing on marking an individual). No two people have the exact same name, birthday, and address, and even if they did we all have signatures. There is no reason that we need a specific identification number. A random number serves just fine as our signature to the digital world or computers and if it were generated in a random fashion and renewed every year I would have no objection to a system of that nature.

Allowing a Nevada ID number and not a birth certificate is completely illogical and senseless seeing as to obtain a Nevada ID all you need is a birth certificate and ten dollars. Why is a birth certificate currently not enough then? Is current application of the law incorrect and indeed a birth certificate is a viable form of identification or is the state attempting to work its own kind of a poll tax in a round sort of about way?

Now for the rant. Albert Einstein once said ôIf you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.ö I am not here to dress anything up in pretty words or to be pleasing to anyone's ears, I'm here to tell you the purest truth as I understand it. The social security system is a socialist institution, even it its name, social security. It allows the old to steal from the young and for many others to get money for other people's hard work. It lets parents enslave their children and forces God loving patriots to compromise their beliefs if they wish to do things as seemingly normal as open a bank account, buy anything on credit, get a job, or even vote. How can a voluntary system, as the social security system is, and a system which, at its creation, was promised never to be used for identification be required for so much?

The acceptance and use of a single number as identification is something everyone here should be very weary of. As I stated before I work in the world of computers and global communications and commerce, and it is my business to understand how these numbers work in our world of communication. If you think a single number as identification is a good idea, give someone with my professional understanding of the computer world, that number, two weeks, and motive and you'll find out just what can happen to you. Medical records, credit history, address, phone numbers, shopping habits, where you work, and more are all at the fingertips of someone who could be most diabolical. For our own protection it is best that our state uphold congress' original promise that the social security number should never be used as an identifying mark.

Telling someone like myself that I need a social security number so that I can vote for representatives which will fight the social security numbering system and other socialist institutions is like telling a black man that before he can vote for representatives that will fight for his civil rights he must first burn a cross in front of a friend's home or that in order for a Jewish woman to vote she must have a Nazi Swastika tattooed on her. These cases may sound extreme, but to many Christian patriots out there the social security number is no less extreme. In essence we are being asked to mark ourselves with a number that, I for one, have good reason to believe is the Mark of the Beast as spoken of in the book of Revelations. (quote) This is a complete violation of everything we believe.

Throughout the history of the United States the government has silenced the voice of certain groups of people by making voting difficult for them. Blacks had one of the hardest roads to vote in that even after the Thirteenth Amendment was passed State governments still passed other laws that made it difficult and often impossible for blacks to vote. In an effort to strip these men of their most sacred rights government instated poll taxes and grandfather laws. They aren't the only ones who have been denied. It wasn't until the twentieth century that women could vote and for people my age during the Vietnam war the government felt it was acceptable to draft us off to war but not to let us vote. Government has throughout history made it hard for groups of people to vote that it wanted silence or oppress.

Not allowing someone to vote does more than just stop their voice in the government. It allows for their total oppression. It is both the nature of humanity and of government to take advantage of what is defenseless. Blacks were slaves and women were viewed as inferiors and until they finally won the battle to get their right to vote recognized, these views didn't change.

The question at hand is, how will the history books look back on this decision? As legislators you have the opportunity to be viewed as cruel and prejudiced and to be scowled at by children and adults alike and be compared the wicked men of the civil war era or for once you can look at history and learn from it and be the protectors of freedom. If there is one thing history has shown it is that if it takes picketing, if it takes marches, or if it takes down right violence, the voices of the people will be heard and people like me will fight in any way possible to see that our voices are heard and sooner or later it will be a force so powerful that no one and no group out there can stop it. We will be heard, but as to whether it is through peaceable legislative action or through protest, civil disobedience, and Godly rebellion in support of our Unalienable rights will be your choice today.

In his Notes on Religion, 1776 Thomas Jefferson said:
"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed."
The choice is yours.
Joshua Joel Holloman Hansen

IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL REPORT ON USE OF

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS RELEASED: 2/16/99

Prepared by the United States General Accounting Office, (GAO)

-------------------------------------

The General Accounting Office has just completed a Congressional Report on how private businesses and public governmental agencies use social security numbers.

The GAO report, published February 16, 1999, entitled "Government and Commercial Use of the Social Security Number Is Widespread" was prepared at the request of the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, in the House of Representatives.

Responding to public concerns about how organizations use and misuse of SSNs, several members of the Congress have introduced bills to regulate usage of the numbers. The Subcommittee asked the GAO to research and describe:

- federal laws and regulations requiring or restricting SSN use,
- how extensively the private and public sectors use SSNs for purposes not required by federal law, and
- what businesses and governments believe the impact would be if federal laws limiting the use of SSNs were passed.


The report is broken down generally into three main parts: 1) federal laws that "require" the use of social security numbers; 2) federal laws that "restrict" the use of SSNs; and, 3) public and private usage of SSNs that is neither authorized nor prohibited by law but is practiced by convention.

Some things to keep in mind when reading the report: 1) Social security numbers were intended for one purpose only, but have gradually and surreptitiously been converted to other uses. 2) Some of the uses that have been made of social security numbers are "unlawful," but nothing is being done to stop the practices. 3) With regard to public and private entities that "use" social security numbers as discussed in the report, the word "use" can be fairly replaced with the words "misuse" and "abuse" as appropriate. 4) The word "authorized" can also be interchanged with the word "permitted" as opposed to "required" in many instances. 5) Although the GAO admits there are "unlawful" uses being made of SSNs, the report fails to identify a single use that falls into this category. 6) The very few "lawful requirements" for SSNs which do exist apply only to the specific classes of individuals that are also subject to the broader scope of the respective federal law - typically with regard to certain tax payers; recipients of federal benefits; and, commercial driver licensees. And, 7) The "pseudo-requirements" for states to collect SSNs the report mentions are all tied to federal benefit funding programs for which there are no penalties imposed upon the states for failing to obtain SSNs (with the possible exception of a reduction in federal funding).

Of equal importance is the fact that the GAO was not charged with researching the reasons why Americans oppose the idea of social security numbers being used as universal identifiers, nor were they responsible for determining or evaluating the reasons why the practice may be contrary to the principles of freedom and liberty.

Lastly, the reader should maintain a clear mental distinction between the instances where "use" of social security numbers is "permitted" (or simply "not prohibited") and the very limited conditions where using a SSN is "required by law."

GENERAL REVIEW:

In developing their report, the GAO contacted the following users of SSNs: private businesses that sell information of a personal nature about members of the general public; businesses involved in providing financial and health care services; and two large state programs that frequently use SSNs for administrative purposes.

The Report begins by acknowledging that in 1936, SSA created SSNs as a means of maintaining individual earnings. And, "the Act now requires individuals to provide SSA with their number when they apply for Social Security benefits."

But, they go on to say that, "today, the SSN is used for a myriad of non-Social Security purposes, some legal and some illegal." And, "once SSA created and began using SSNs to help administer its programs, the Congress recognized the universal nature of the SSN and subsequently enacted laws requiring SSN uses for some purposes not related to Social Security."

According to the researchers, "over the years, the SSN has come to be viewed by many as a national identifier because almost every American has an SSN, and each is unique." (Interestingly, the footnote to this sentence states: "Some individuals do not have an SSN, either because they do not want one or because they are ineligible to receive one.")

Initially, the public trustingly accepted the numbers under the mistaken belief that they would only be used to maintain an accounting of payments made to the Social Security system. The report fails to acknowledge that over the years, a multitude of misuses and abuses have evolved by way of deception and misleading pronouncements from government officials.

The report states that officials of all the organizations they reviewed &emdash; including businesses that sell personal information (such as credit reporting agencies), providers of financial and health care services, and state personal income tax and driver licensing administrators &emdash; routinely "choose to use SSNs as a management tool to conduct their business or program activities." This should come as no surprise since all of the entities contacted benefit directly from the collection and distribution of SSNs in one form or another; either as a monetary return or as increased political power [i.e. control]. Perhaps some of the "illegal uses" mentioned in the report take place within these categories?

Not surprisingly the GAO report states that, "both private business and government officials said their organizations could be adversely affected if the federal government passes laws that limited their use of SSNs. Credit bureau officials and state tax administrators said federal restrictions could impede their ability to conduct routine internal activities, such as maintaining consumer histories and identifying tax filers..."

Moreover, many of the officials they interviewed "believed that federal restriction of their use of SSNs would hamper their ability to conduct data exchanges with other organizations." Accordingly, without SSNs, they said, "state tax administrators would have difficulty associating tax return information received from other tax agencies with tax information reported by residents. A health care provider said federal restrictions on SSN use "could impede providers' ability to track patients' medical histories over time and among multiple providers."

Representatives from the nation's biggest proponent of universal identifiers - the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) - said restrictions on the use of SSNs as universal identifiers "could make it difficult for states to detect noncommercial drivers who were trying to conceal driving infractions under other state licenses."

REQUIREMENTS FOR USING SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS ACCORDING TO THE REPORT:

The report states that federal laws "now require that SSNs be used in the administration of some programs, including the federal personal income tax program; the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Food Stamp, and Child Support Enforcement programs; and state commercial driver licensing programs."

Other than the general taxing and social benefit provisions, the only specific federal "requirement" for SSNs mentioned is for COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSING - as distinguished from individual driver licensing!

The uses of SSNs referred to in the report as being "requirements" are as follows:

1)"The Internal Revenue Code and regulations, which govern the administration of the federal personal income tax program, require that individuals' SSNs serve as taxpayer identification numbers. ... Using the SSNs, IRS matches the information supplied by entities reporting payments or other transactions with returns filed by taxpayers to monitor individuals' compliance with federal income tax laws."

2)"The [Social Security] Act now requires individuals to provide SSA their number when they apply for Social Security benefits." And, "a number of federal laws require program administrators to use SSNs in determining applicants' eligibility for federally funded benefits such as SSI, Food Stamp, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Medicaid programs."

3)"Another federal law that requires the use of SSNs for identifying individuals is the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. This law established the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), a nationwide database. States are required to use individuals' SSNs to search this database for other state-issued licenses commercial drivers may hold. This checking is necessary because commercial drivers are limited to owning one state-issued driver's license."

Above are the specific requirement for SSNs. Following are some of the more "gray area" so-called requirements for SSNs, typically involving direct or indirect ties to various benefit programs.

4)"Federal law also requires the use of SSNs in state child support programs to help states locate noncustodial parents, establish and enforce support orders, and recoup state welfare payments from parents." [A footnote to this statements says: "States' receipt of federal funding for TANF is contingent upon their compliance with federal child support enforcement initiatives."] Additionally, "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 expanded the Federal Parent Locator Service &emdash; an automated database searchable by SSN &emdash; to include information helpful for tracking delinquent parents across state lines." [Another footnote states: "In cases in which individuals do not have SSNs or choose not to provide them, organizations may use alternative identifiers."]

This section on funding-contingent state requirements goes on to say: "The law requires states to maintain records that include (1)SSNs for individuals who owe or are owed support for cases in which the state has ordered child support payments to be made, the state is providing support, or both, and (2)employers' reports of new hires identified by SSN. States must transmit this information to the Federal Parent Locator Service. The law also requires states to record SSNs on many other state documents, such as professional, occupational, and marriage licenses; divorce decrees; paternity determinations; and death certificates, and to make SSNs associated with these documents available for state child support agencies to use in locating and obtaining child support payments from noncustodial parents."

With regard to the last category of "state requirements," it must be noted that, first of all, they only require states to "request SSNs from license applicants." Secondly, no penalty is imposed upon the states for failing to obtain SSNs. And, thirdly, there is absolutely no penalty imposed upon license applicants who refuse to provide an SSN to a state in furtherance of one of the funding-contingent federal benefit programs.

Under the fundamental principles of contract law - as well as God's Laws of Covenants - whenever one party breaches or defaults on the terms and conditions of an agreement, the other party is released from all reciprocal obligations. Clearly, the United States Government has admittedly breached its commitment to the citizens of this country and defaulted on its assurance that social security numbers would only be used for crediting payments to the records of contributors. They have knowingly abused the public's trust and have used deception to convert what was initially intended as a "single use" numbering system into a "universal numbering and identification system." Those individuals who have been deceptively mislead into using SSNs for purposes other than that which was intended are no not bound to abide by the newly imposed unlawful requirements.

Scott McDonald

------------------------------------------
The full report can be viewed in both HTML and PDF format at:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page2/fp-gao-ssn-report.html

It is also available at the GAO web site: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he99028.pdf
------------------------------------------

Organizations and agencies that were contacted concerning their use of social security numbers:

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators; American Bankers Association; Associated Credit Bureaus, Inc.; BlueCross BlueShield Association; Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Taxation; Credit Plus Solution Group; Experian; Federation of Tax Administrators; Georgia Department of Public Safety, Division of Driver Services; Independent Bankers Association of America; Information Industry Association; Kaiser Permanente; Lexis-Nexus; Maryland Hospital Association; MasterCard; Mutual Fund Education Alliance; Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles; State of Maryland, Comptroller of the Treasury, Revenue Administration Division; Wachovia Corporation, Special Services; Washington Hospital Center.

Ordering Information: The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit:
Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to: info@www.gao.gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov

-------------------------------------

The Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. Representative from Texas, Bill Archer, said in a letter dated June 5, 1998, that:
"Since 1988, there has been an effort to expand the use of Social Security numbers for tracking absent parents who owe child support. In order to properly track the $34 billion in child support money that goes uncollected annually, the use of Social Security numbers is unavoidable."

Another U.S. Representative from Texas, the Honerable Ron Paul, has recently introduced the "Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act," H.R. 220, which would:
"Amend title II of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the integrity and confidentiality of Social Security account numbers issued under such title, to prohibit the establishment in the Federal Government of any uniform national identifying number, and to prohibit Federal agencies from imposing standards for identification of individuals on other agencies or persons."

Representative Paul's bill would prohibit the use of social security numbers for any purpose other than that for which it was originally intended.

The full text of Ron Paul's bill can be viewed at:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-ron-paul-bill.htm

===========================================
Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless:
1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or
2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true.
=============================================
Reply to: <fingerprint
=============================================
To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to <majordomo@efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY.
For additional instructions see: http://www.efga.org/about/maillist.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N.
Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml

From: "Ray Iddings"
To: "Group A_No_SSN"
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:51:52 -0800
Subject: [no_ssn] Social Security Number Not Required - Newsletter

Greetings,

IRS Agent Says There Is No Law . . .

IRS Agent, Joseph Banister, says that there is no law that requires any American to file and pay income tax! I'm sure many of you have already heard this. What you may not have heard is that he now has a web site at http://www.freedomabovefortune.com.

New Poster, Just for Tax Season

Attached to our newsletter is a new (perjury) poster that is specially designed for the tax season. This poster would look really nice if it were posted everywhere that tax forms are made available.

People Share Their Experience about Living Unenumerated

We have added links to the home pages of Neil McIver (http://www.cjmciver.org/) and Brad Barnhill (http://bradbva.home.mindspring.com/freedom/). These two unenumerated warriors share their experiences about life after giving up their number. I hope everybody will visit their web site and give them encouragement in their struggle.

We have also had a few unenumerated visitorís in discussion forum so be sure to stop by and engage in conversation with them.

Who's Social Security Number Is it Anyway . . .

Iím sure that you have all been asked to provide a social security number for various reasons. Usually people mistakenly ask you for "your" social security number rather than carefully asking you for the "social security account number that was assigned to you by the Social Security Administration." I know, this sounds like a senseless technicality .... but wait, it brings up an essential question about who actually owns and controls the social security number. I believe this question is important because many state laws are ambiguous about what they are asking for when they attempt to require people to provide social security numbers. For example, in each case where the California Vehicle Code requires an individual to include a social security number, we read phrases like: "applicantís social security number" (CVC 1653.5, CVC 12800). This phrase structure implies personal ownership of this social security number by the individual. Contrasted with the federal terminology which read something like the following:
a.. furnish the social security account numbers of the owners of such applicant (USC 42, Sec 405) b.. utilize the social security account numbers issued by the Commissioner of Social Security (USC 42, Sec 405) c.. an account number has not already been assigned to such individual (USC 42, Sec 405) d.. applicants of social security account numbers (USC 42, Sec 405) e.. a Social Security number may be assigned to an applicant (20 CFR 422.104) f.. the social security account number issued to an individual for (26 USC 6109) g.. this number has been established for (Social Security Card) h.. this card is the property of the Social Security Administration (Social Security Card) The federal phraseology clearly calls for a social security number that was assigned to an individual by the Social Security Administration, thus leaving room for a social security number assigned or created by someone else. The lack of distinction in California Law seems to apply to social security numbers assigned or created by someone other than the Social Security Administration. Since there is no mandate in the California Vehicle Code requiring an individual use the "social security account numbers that was issued by the Commissioner of Social Security," the California Department of Motor Vehicle must then accept any number that an applicant thinks of as "their own" social security number. To do otherwise violates the law and could subject the DMV and its employees to 18 USC Sec. 242 and 42 USC Sec. 1983. .... of course, as you might guess, the California DMV could care less .....

Be sure to leave extra copies of the "there is no law" posters at your local motor vehicle office when you visit .... tape one to the entrance so everybody can read it.

Our Membership Is Continuing to Grow

Thanks to your help our membership is continuing to grow rapidly. Please continue telling others about our web site and our campaign to publicize the fact that there is no law requiring a person to obtain, have or use a social security number to live or work in the United States. To continue our growth, it is critical that you tell somebody about us each day -- as matter of fact: Tell ten people to tell ten people.

Some Success Stories

Although the poster werenít intended to be used while you are getting a new job -- we have heard two success stories where people were hired without using a social security number because of the "there is no law" notice. They didnít offer a social security number on any of the forms and when they were finally asked for one, they simply stated that they didnít have one and, while handing them a poster, explained that there is no legal requirement for any American to obtain, have or use a social security number to live or work in the United States. Letís all pray that they will be able to keep their jobs.

We also received word from a member who has been doing a Yahoo search of sites that mention a requirement to have and use a social security number. He then e-mails them a poster and advises them that there is no such law. He indicates that several sites (mostly schools) have responded favorably and corrected their web pages. This is great ... keep up the wonderful effort.

Another member told me how she is faxing and mailing copies of the posters to tax accountants, CPAs, attorneys and some businesses in her local community. She is apparently causing quite a stir, but has gotten a lot of favorable and encouraging feedback.

It is really great to see people with the courage and initiative to step out on their own and "kick butt" .... keep kicking, because people like you will change this nation back the "Land of the free and the home of the brave."

Just like you folks, I am also busy working for a living - so it is a real blessing for me to hear from people who understand the importance of this issue and are simply taking the initiative to make sure that people in their community become aware of the facts. I hope more people will step out and become community leaders. Our posters have proven to be very effective attention grabbers -- The fact, that there is no law requiring a person to obtain, have or use a social security number to live or work in the United States is a shocking realization for most people. Add your name and contact information to bottom of the posters and begin distributing them throughout your community ... people will soon begin asking you how they can hel

E-Mail Discussion Forums

There have been many recent enquiries from people who have joined our egroup mail list asking why they are not receiving regular mailings from the group. It appears that I failed to make it clear that this mail list is used exclusively for distributing this newsletter. People who wish to participate in ongoing discussions should join our Discussion Forum at http://www.semantechs.com/nossn/forum.htm.

Due Process, at [withheld by request?] , manages an e-mail forum that allows members to participate freely. Their discussion involve a much broader basis that just the social security number issue, but if you really wish to participate in an E-mail discussion forum, I think you find it useful. You can subscribe to the due process forum at http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/dueprocess.

------------------------------------------------------------

Social Security Number Not Required http://www.semantechs.com/nossn/

To subscribe send a blank e-mail to: no_ssn-subscribe@egroups.com

You can edit your subscription preferences by visiting the our eGroup web site at: http://www.eGroups.com/list/no_ssn/

Foward this newsletter to 10 people!

Government is not supposed to be a growth industry!

Subject: SSN# Law Violation a Felony
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 07:10:23 +0000
From: Dale Pond <
To: Thomas Valone
CC: Jerry Decker ,
Patrick Bailey ,
SVPvril Forum <svpvril@egroups.com>
BCC: Tony Sutton TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7 -
SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER II - FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

-HEAD-
Sec. 408. Penalties

-STATUTE- (a) In general Whoever - ... (8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond
Subject: Re: SSN# Law Violation a Felony
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 05:05:13 -0800
From: Thomas Valone
Organization: Integrity Research Institute
To: Dale Pond
References: 1

Dale Pond wrote:
>
> TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
> CHAPTER 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY
> SUBCHAPTER II - FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY
> INSURANCE BENEFITS
>
> -HEAD-
> Sec. 408. Penalties
>
> -STATUTE- > (a) In general > Whoever - > ... > (8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security > number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; > shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined > under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
> --
> Warm regards,
> Dale Pond
> Delta Spectrum Research
> http://www.SVPvril.com
> Sympathetic Vibratory Physics
> Sacred Science - Sacred Life
> SVP Discussion Forum:
> http://www.egroups.com/list/svpvril/

Dale,

You have harrassed us enough. Your "warm" regards are not appreciated anymore. Are you moonlighting as a policeman? There is no compulsion to disclose the SSN for our conference or haven't you heard? (see www.erols.com/iri) Please do not reply or send any further spam. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Thomas Valone
COFE Coordinator
It has been held in KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) the unreasonable requirement of presenting identification is unconstitutional.

SUCCESS!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Champion
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 10:50 AM
To: Subject: Another No SSN victory

This is an inspiring personal account by my friend Annette.

Dave

***************************************

I would like to share my success at the South Carolina DMV yesterday with you.

I stood in line for over an hour to get my SC Driver's License renewed. I had to fill out a form that asked for insurance information - I had to give my policy number and ins. company, or check the box that said I don't own a vehicle required to be registered in SC. I checked both boxes because both are true. However, I didn't know my policy number (forgot to take it with me). So I showed the car registration that shows I don't own the car and she agreed to renew the license without the ins. policy number. Cleared hurdle #1.

Then she noticed the box that asked for a social security number and I had written "None." She frowned and questioned me. I explained that I had revoked my SS-5 application and couldn't legally use that number anymore. She showed it to the clerk in the next booth. That woman also frowned and questioned me. I explained again. Then the second lady said, "Well, the SSN isn't printed on the driver's license anyway, so it doesn't bother me."

And they renewed my license on the spot.

I know this is not a total Constitutional victory, but to me it was a major one. I also know they probably realized they have my former SSN on file. But they could have said, "Sorry, no number no license;" and they didn't! So I feel pretty good about the whole thing.

I am continually amazed at what I can get done when I explain to people that I no longer have a SSN. Even though they're amazed to learn that having a SSN is voluntary for a citizen, they go ahead and do what I'm asking of them without getting one from me. In the past year I have accomplished the following things without giving anyone a SSN or other federal i.d. number:

Opened three bank accounts and obtained loans for Trusts.

Managed the purchase of a new home by a Trust.

Was given Power of Attorney for my elderly mother.

Got her bank to put my name on her personal checking account as POA. (This is probably the most amazing and important accomplishment.)

Rented an apartment (after another declined to rent to me without the SSN to do a credit check.) The second apartment manager was happy to get credit information from my mortgage company alone.

Bought car insurance and homeowners insurance from a major mainstream insurance company.

Gotten on airline flights using a personal photo i.d. that wasn't issued by a government agency.

There are probably other things, but I'm getting so used to getting things done without a SSN, I've probably overlooked them.

I feel empowered, and my life is so much better now than it was when I gave my SSN to every Tom, Dick and Harriet who asked me for it. I do feel that it is helpful that I can honestly say I don't have a number, rather than say I won't give it to them. To say I had one and then refuse to give it would make me seem uncooperative and I probably wouldn't be as successful with those who ask.

I'm also educating my fellow Americans on how to live as private, free citizens which is a good feeling.

I will be happy when all Americans learn the truth about how to live as our founding fathers intended, instead of allowing Big Brother to control their lives (primarily through the use of "taxpayer" i.d. numbers.) And I will be happy when Americans demand a return to our Constitutional Republican form of government.

That is my hope.

Life is good.

Thanks for listening.

--

Annette

What the Law Actually Says....

Subject: [Fwd: EMPLOYERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY
(http://www.devvy.com/ssa_19991031.html)]
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:28:50 -0600
From: Dan Meador
To: Dan Meador <dmeador@poncacity.net>

Subject: EMPLOYERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY (http://www.devvy.com/ssa_19991031.html)
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:42:02 -0800
From: "CCW"
To: "CCW"

Ok Folks, Carefully read the deception presented in this article ... then you'll begin to see the shell game without the pea. You folks who are "volunteering" into this sham Social (communist) Security Number Program are part and parcel of the problem, and not the solution. LEARN THE LAW and start back up the slippery slope to LIBERTY and FREEDOM! And remember, this SSN (Taxpayer Identification Number, or TIN) scam has been perpetrated since 1935. Gee, how did America and American's survive before that? Perhaps you need to also read the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution for the United States of America (1787), and its lawfully amended fist Ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights (1791). /s/ John R. Prukop CCW Coalition Legal Researcher

EMPLOYERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Devvy Kidd, August 30, 1999

Published in Media Bypass Magazine October & November 1999

The subject of social security, as we all know, continues to be referred to in political circles as a "sacred cow." What isn't referred to in political circles is the truth about this mathematically flawed system, the fact that social security is a tax and employers throughout this country have been forced into becoming unpaid tax collectors for the IRS.

There is a great deal of confusion on the part of employers regarding their obligation to the IRS regarding SS taxes and to their employees. I think the best way to address these concerns is ask two very specific questions and provide the responses from SSA and then determine what the law says in Title 42 and Title 26.

Q: As an employer, I have been told that every person who works in the United States must have a social security number and present that number to me for tax reporting purposes. Is this true?

A: Let's look at the response from SSA in a letter to Mr. Scott McDonald dated March 18, 1998 from Charles Mullen, Associate Commissioner, Office of Public Inquiries, SSA:

"The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one. However, if someone works without an SSN, we cannot properly credit the earnings for the work performed."

Now, it would appear from even a basic understanding of the English language, that what Mr. Mullen said is this: No one is required to have an SSN to either live or work in the United States. If that person does not have this number but does work, no social security taxes would be taken out of their paycheck and there would be no credit ledger entry made in their name for taxes paid.

One would think this is quite plain and clear. However, let's look at another letter from the same Charles Mullen about one month earlier (February 24, 1998) addressed to me:

"People cannot voluntarily end their participation in the program [SS]. The payment of social security taxes is mandatory, regardless of the citizenship or place of residence of either the employer or the employee. Unless specifically exempted by law, everyone working in the United States is required to pay Social Security taxes."

There seems to be a problem here: In one letter, Mr. Mullen states that having a social security number is voluntary and no one is required to have this number to either live or work in the U.S. In another letter Mr. Mullen states that the payment of social security taxes is mandatory and that everyone working in the United States is required to pay SS taxes. To borrow a little phrase from the movie, Apollo 13, with one minor change: "Washington, we have a problem."

Does anyone else in the U.S. government have an answer to this question? Let's look at the response in a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, Daniel W. Sutherland, Attorney, Office of Special Council, dated April 28, 1993:

"The Office of Special Counsel does not possess any of the documents you requested. It is possible that other federal agencies would have information or documents on the need to have a SSN. However, under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, there is no requirement that a person present a Social Security Card for the purpose of proving his eligibility to work. In fact, the opposite is the case."

And, one more from Charles Mullen, March 9, 1999:

"People cannot voluntarily end their participation in the program [SS]. The payment of Social Security taxes is mandatory....Benefits are paid only on the basis of a voluntary application....The constitutionality of the Social Security System, as established by the Social Security Act, and mandatory individual participation have already been decided by the Supreme Court. We will not respond further to your correspondence about voluntary participation in the SS program."

So far we have (1) This program is voluntary and (2) This program is mandatory.

We also have: (1) No individual living or working in the U.S. is required to have this number to be eligible for employment, therefore they would not be paying this tax, and (2) Payment of such taxes if you work in the United States is mandatory and therefore you must acquire this number.

This is what I call government lie-speak. No one is required to have this number but if they do apply for it because they have been forced to do so by being lied to, then they can't withdraw from this voluntary program even if they state they will never file a voluntary application for benefits. Hmm. It sounds to me like the inmates are running the asylum.

Additionally, few people know it, but there is a section in Title 42 regarding state employees:

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS FOR COVERAGE OF STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES

Section 218; Purpose of Agreement

SEC. 218. [42 U.S.C. 418] (a)(1) The Commissioner of Social Security shall, at the request of any State, enter into an agreement with such State for the purpose of extending the insurance system established by this title to services performed by individuals as employees of such State or any political subdivision thereof. Each such agreement shall contain such provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, as the State may request.

If you read this section it says that state employees already covered under state retirement programs are not required to participate in the Social Security Program but that the states may enter into an agreement to provide this social insurance program to their employees. Hmm. Seems to me we have a difference of opinion once again between what Mr. Mullen says and what the law reads. I happen to know that this is creating hell for individuals fighting the IRS who work for either state or county agencies and wish to withdraw their voluntary withholding agreements.

Going back to Mr. Mullen's last letter, he states that the IRS has jurisdiction over the issue of liability for Social Security taxes. Let's back up for a moment and take a look at what Title 42 says about all this. Title 42 is, of course, The Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Benefits Program. This "insurance" program is about five huge tomes of incredible double-talk. However, we will go directly to Section 405 that deals with the specific issue as to who can and cannot apply for this number:

42 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(2)(B):

"(B)(i) In carrying out the Commissioner's duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security

account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable, be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned);

"(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment;

"(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and

"(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of subclauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment; and, in carrying out such duties, the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures to assure the issuance of social security numbers;

"(IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians; and

"(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school."

We find more government lie-speak and the obligation or duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security card or number at 20 C.F.R., section 422.103:

"(b) Applying for a number. (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed Form SS-5, 'Application for a Social Security Card,' at any social security office and submitting the required evidence...

"(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a state...to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.

"(c) How numbers are assigned. (1) Request on form SS-5. If the applicant has completed a Form SS-5, the social security office...that receives the completed Form SS-5 will require the applicant to furnish documentary evidence...After review of the documentary evidence, the completed Form SS-5 if forwarded...to SSA's central office...If the electronic screening or other investigation does not disclose a previously assigned number, SSA's central office assigns a number and issues a social security number card...

"(2) Request on birth registration document. Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office....Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address."

Every American has the right to be fully informed of the law and the consequences of entering into any contract that binds them to any program. Forcing a newborn, incapable of understanding anything other than life giving functions such as food and shelter or a teenager to enter into a voluntary program for which they have no understanding, is reprehensible and flies in the face of all the principles of freedom and free choice that this nation was founded upon.

Now, I say this to employers throughout this land: If having a social security number were mandatory for every individual living and/or working in this country, why do individuals have to apply for the number? If it were mandatory, the government would automatically issue everyone a number at some designated time. They don't do this and the reason is clear: It is a voluntary tax that individuals may choose to pay in order to apply to receive a benefit whenever the benevolent in Congress decide they can retire from the work force. Recall the words above:

"..the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable, be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals..." No where here does it state that the Commissioner of SS must force this number upon any "appropriate groups or categories of individuals..."

Now we have seen what the Social Security Act says but what does Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code say about all this? Title 26 - Specific sections which apply to social security:

Subtitle C - Employment Taxes, specifically Chapter 21 - Employment Taxes and the Federal Insurance Contributions Act found in Vol. 2, page 6125 of the IR Code. No where in this entire chapter does it state anywhere that anyone is required to have a social security number. It simply uses the boilerplate language such as:

Sec. 3101 Rate of Tax (A) Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance. - In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following......

I have consulted several dictionaries to learn the definition of insurance and this is the standard one provided:

Insurance: The act, business, or system of insuring. The state of being insured. A means of being insured. Coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against specific loss in return for premiums paid. As a side note, there has been much discussion about whether or not social security is a contract. I would refer you to the following document:

Analysis of the Social Security System, Hearings Before A Subcommittee of The Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Eighty-Third Congress, First Session on the Legal Status of OASI Benefits, November 27, 1953, Part Six. This highly interesting and enlightening document is about 100 pages but I guarantee you, it's well worth the read. Social security is not considered a contract, yet every dictionary definition of insurance says it's a contract.....Now I know how Alice In Wonderland felt.

Back to our discussion. Social security is a tax that goes into the general fund of the treasury and is not earmarked for any specific purpose as found in Helvering v. Davis 301 U.S. 619-646. Social Security is not an "entitlement" because people are paying a tax to receive a benefit. It is not an insurance program because there is no guarantee that anyone will ever receive any benefit from social security because like the medical benefits promised to our veterans, Congress can yank these "benefits" at anytime.

Additionally, there is a very interesting legal point regarding Chapter 21 called the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, Section 3102: Deduction of Tax From Wages

(a) Requirement. The tax imposed by section 3101 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deciding the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid....

Notice that the word insurance does not appear in the body of the written text. We jump from an insurance to a tax. The word "tax" appears within the sentence structure of the body of the law. This has legal import. Section 7806 of the IR Code explains it quite plainly:

IR Code 7806. Construction of Title

(a) Cross References. The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other

provisions of the law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience and shall be given no legal effect.

(B) Arrangement and Classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section of provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title shall be given any legal effect.

Because the word "insurance" appears with the table of contents and the table of contents is "descriptive matter" used as an "outline," the word "insurance" has "no legal effect." In other words, no words in the table of contents have any force of law. The word which does have legal effect is "tax" because it is used within the body of the law itself; therefore, it has the full force of law. Legally, the word "insurance" does not apply, means nothing, to the chapter of the Code entitled "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."

SSA has a form numbered SS-5 that individuals use to apply to pay this tax. No where on this form does it state anyone is required under any law to apply. An individual fills out this form to pay a tax for a benefit they hope might be there at some future date. Sounds to me like an elephant skating on ice the thickness of a piece of paper.

More government lie-speak: "Other laws require people to have and use SSN's for specific purposes. For example, the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6109(a)) and applicable regulations (26 CFR 301.6109-1(d)) require an individual to get and use an SSN on tax documents......"

This would be a difficult thing to do since Mr. Mullen's letter above has stated that no one is required to have this number to either live or work in the U.S! Sec. 6109(a) of the IR Code is titled Identifying Numbers. At the bottom of this section, it states: "For purposes of this subsection, the identifying number of an individual (or his estate) shall be such individual's social security account number.

This particular section of the code would be impossible for anyone to comply with according to Mullen's letter of March 18, 1998. The IRS instructs individuals to obtain a TIN [Taxpayer's Identification Number] using a W-7 Form. However, as one can clearly see by examining this W-7 form, the small print states: For use by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, nationals or permanent residents. Ah! How many people have read that small print?

Most employers believe that they are required by law to force an employee to fill out a Voluntary Withholding Certificate. This little piece of paper needs a social security number and sets the rate of tax by the number of deductions you want taken from your paycheck. I have spoken with many employers who have not only a stark fear of the IRS, but they have done their duty by calling the IRS and asking them if demanding a Voluntary Withholding Certificate is illegal. Without exception, these employers have been told that they must force an employee to provide an SSN and fill out this voluntary withholding certificate. But what does Title 26 say?

Chapter 21 imposing the so-called Social Security (FICA) tax. These "tables and procedures" are authorized to be provided by the Secretary under Section 3402(p):

Section 3402(p). Authority for other voluntary withholding. The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding- (1) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and

(2) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter, if the employer and employee, or the person making and the person receiving such other type of payment, agree to such withholding. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated as if they were wages paid by an employer to an employee to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is in effect.

Note that the Secretary is authorized to provide for withholding by issuing tables, computational procedures and other instructional material on withholding that apply to only those who have voluntarily agreed to withholding. An agreement exists only when an individual who is hired voluntarily requests that money be deducted and withheld from his pay for payment of taxes and the one for whom he works completes the agreement by his voluntary act of collecting money as an unpaid tax collector for the government. Without the support of employers in this country to this strong-arming by the IRS, we wouldn't be in this mess and it's time employers stood up the the federal boys and just said, No!

The use of the words "the person making" and "the person receiving such other type of payment" related to non-Federal employers and employees who voluntarily "agree to such withholding". Federal regulation 26 CFR section 31.3402(p)(1) states:

Sub-Section 31.3402(p)- Voluntary withholding agreements. (T.D. 7096, filed 3-17-71; amended by TD 7577, filed 12-19-78).

(a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of Sub-Section 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 21, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder.

(B) form and duration of agreement.

(1)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3403(p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding.

(ii) In the case of an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) with his employer, if the employee performs services (in addition to those to be the subject of the agreement) the remuneration for which is subject to mandatory income tax withholding by such employer, or if the employee wishes to specify that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the employee shall furnish the employer with a request for withholding which shall be signed by the employee, and shall contain -

(a) The name, address and social security number of the employee making the request,

(b) The name and address of the employer,

(c) A statement that the employee desires withholding of Federal income tax, and, if applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph (d)(3)(i) of Sub-Section 301.6361-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration)), and

(d)(iii) No request for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an agreement between an employer and employee until the employer accepts the request by commencing to withhold from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.

Note the wording in sub-sections (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this regulation: "...an employee who desires to enter into an agreement" and "request for withholding", "desires withholding," all of which clearly and unambiguously show the voluntary nature of the entire withholding system. The significance of a Form W-4 "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate" is clearly explained in this regulation which states:

"The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding."

The printed heading on the Form W-4 confirms the voluntary nature of withholding; it states "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate." If withholding were mandatory, why would the form be called an "Allowance" Certificate? Allowance, as defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, is defined as: The act of allowing, something given. It does not say something taken or mandatory. To "allow" means to "permit" - if the law required the withholding of tax from an individual's pay, no permission or request form would be needed.

To further illustrate my point about social security numbers and employment, I refer to Handbook for Employers M-274 (Rev. 11/21/91)N. This handbook carries a return address of the Internal Revenue Service, WADC-9999, Rancho Cordova, California, 95743-9999, Official Business, IRS Bulk Rate. However, it states that if anyone has any questions regarding the contents of the booklet, do not contact the IRS but rather your local INS office. How odd.

On page 20 and 21 of this booklet, displayed in the exhibit, is Part Eight: Acceptable Documents for Verifying Employment Eligibility. You will discover that to establish employment eligibility, a person must present a document from List C, such as a Social Security Card, a United States birth certificate, or one of the other documents listed. If having an SSN were mandatory for purposes of employment, individuals would not be given a choice of which documents they choose to submit for eligibility - the social security number being only one in a long list of acceptable documents.

There are three sections of the IR Code which apply to not giving your social security number:

26 U.S.C. Sec. 6109(a)(3) 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6721(a)(2)(b), Sec. 6721 (c)(1)(b) 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6724(a)

These passages came about, for the most part, as a result of the passage of Public Law 101-239 on December 19, 1989 (The Omnibus Budget Restoration Act). According to the IR Code, the employer is to request (Sec. 6109(a)(3)) the employee to provide the employer with his SSN or TIN. If having an SSN were mandatory, the code would not request such an action by an employer, the language would read the employer must obtain or other clear language. The IRS regulation interpreting Section 6109 provides:

"If he [the employer] does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, he shall request such number of the other person. A request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under the authority of law. When the person filing 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, he shall sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service so stating. Teas. Reg. Sec. 301.6109(c)."

The applicable IRS statute and regulation place a duty on the employer to request a taxpayer identifying number from the employee. If a document must be filed and the employer has been unable to obtain the number but has made the request, then the employer need only include an affidavit stating that the request was made.

Q: As an employer, can I be fined by the IRS for not forcing an employee to provide a SSN and fill out a Voluntary Withholding Allowance Certificate?

A: If the employee refuses to provide the number and the employer fails to include that information, (the employee's refusal), in his return, then a penalty is normally imposed (Sec. 6721(a)(2)(b)). The Treasury Regulation interpreting the statute states:

Under Section 301.6109-1(c) a payor is required to request the identifying number of the payee. If after such a request has been made, the payee does not furnish the payor with his identifying number, the penalty shall not be assessed against the payor. Treas. Reg. Sec. 310.6676-(1).

If there is just one or two returns with the SSN left out then Sec. 6721(c)(1)(B) applies. The penalty provided in Sec. 6721(a) is only $50.00 per incomplete return, and that is considered to be "de- minimis failure" (Sec. 6721(c)). Black's Law Dictionary definition of de-minimis doctrine is: "The law does not care for, or take notice of, very small or trifling matters. The law does not concern itself about trifles."

The law permits the employer to simply ask for the SSN, and if it is refused, to simply notify the IRS by affidavit, that it had requested the number. The IR Code provides for a waiver of any penalty upon a mere asking for the number and having it refused. The IRS is not exempt from the law in that the provisions of the IR Code only make it appear to require that which is voluntary, but as stated above, other provisions of the IR Code explain that an affidavit will resolve the apparent conflict.

If one reads this exact language from SSA and IRS, you can only conclude the following:

1.No one is required by any law to obtain a social security number for any purpose.

2.No one can be denied employment because they refuse to

3.Employers may voluntarily enter into an agreement with an employee for voluntary withholding and this agreement may be terminated at the request of the employee.

4.The employer shall not be penalized if the employee chooses not to enter into an agreement to provide this identifying number.

Now for the reality check: 99.9% of employers in this country have no idea or understanding of the material above. Most will fire or refuse to hire an individual who asserts his/her rights on this issue. The IRS continues to threaten employers across this country with bluff that employers cave into without ever researching the law for themselves. Is there an equitable solution for both employer and employee?

The answer is a clear, yes: Employers throughout this country who still believe in personal freedom and privacy must stand up to the IRS and defend their employees rights. Employers: Your employees are the ones who make your business a success. They insure your livelihood continues in a prosperous fashion because they do the work that brings in the profit. You owe it to them, to yourself and to our nation to stand up and fight the beast.

I would like to make comment about Mr. Mullen's bald-faced lie that the Supreme Court has already addressed mandatory individual participation. When Congress adopted the Social Security Act in 1935, the Supreme Court had already held in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330, 368, 55 S.Ct. 758, 771 (1935). that Congress had no authority to establish a retirement scheme through its most tremendous power, its control over interstate commerce:

"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 be fairly 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 solely to the social welfare of the workers, 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."

There have been several other cases on this issue, i.e. In Steward Machine Co. V. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 833 (1937), an employer challenged the unemployment tax imposed upon it and the Court held that such tax was an excise which Congress could impose. In reference to the contention that the subject matter of the act was properly within the historical field reserved to the states, the Court held that Congress could enact legislation to aid the states in an area of great concern. The Court placed considerable emphasis upon the fact that the states were reluctant to adopt unemployment acts because such taxes created differentials between states which had such legislation and those which did not. By creating a national unemployment act, this difference was eliminated and the court claimed a great benefit to the American people resulted. In any event, the Court found nothing constitutionally objectionable to the act as to the issues which were raised - a very important legal point overlooked by government suits who respond to inquiries and who have a vested interest in seeing the system continue: their civil service paycheck.

In Helvering v. Davis, which I referred to earlier, the same reasoning was used to uphold the retirement features of the act. The importance in these two cases upholding the Social Security Act concerned the issues which these cases didn't raise: neither of those cases addressed the issue of whether or not anyone is forced by law to join the Social Security taxing program. The reason this issue was not raised is because there is no such requirement, period.

The fact is, this issue needs to be raised in court and the Wallace Institute would like to do just that if we could raise the necessary funds to see a court battle through to its end. The state legislatures throughout this country are forcing their citizenry to volunteer into a federal program to receive a state benefit or privilege, i.e. a driver's license and medical treatment at facilities under their State University system, even though their health insurance provider pays the tab.

This injustice against Americans is an outrage and needs to be challenged in court. We need employers across this country to start standing up and fighting to uphold the law as it's written instead of just caving in to whatever some flunky from the IRS or SSA tells them on the phone. We would do well to remember these words:

"One man with courage makes a majority." Andy Jackson

Court battles take a lot of money and only by pooling our resources and giving the Wallace Institute a chance to fight these battles, are we ever going to get to the heart of these matters. The social security number is not only abused by every agency at every level of government, it has spread to the private sector like a cancer. When Americans decide that enough is enough, I hope they will consider becoming a monthly sponsor of the Wallace Institute and give us the financial tools to continue the fight in a court of law.

Devvy's web site is: www.devvy.com and information on both the Wallace Institute and Larry Becraft's excellent Dixieland Law Journal can be found on her site. Legal accuracy of this article has been verified by Larry Becraft, Attorney at Law, Huntsville, Alabama.

Another No SSN victory

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: [SSN not Required]

FW: Another No SSN victory

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:10:54 -0800

From: "Ray Iddings"

Here is copy of a success story that was recently sent to me. Richard gave me permission to share this story with you. I thought I would share his story because it show that you can win when you simply assert your Rights. If you wish to contact Richard ... send your message to me and I will forward it to him. I'll leave it Richard to reply.

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard M.... []

Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 05:36 AM

Subject: Re: [no_ssn]

FW: Another No SSN victory

Ray: I too have some good news to report on No SSN. Recently, my son Samuel became 18 and needed, no wanted to get his driver license. First, I decided to get him a Learner's Permit. I contacted the Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor vehicles in Tallahassee and asked them what was needed other than a SSN for him to get a Driver's License.

I briefly explained that there was no law requiring me to ever get a SSN and that I felt I had been deceived and lied to. We were Christians and I specifically felt that now the SSN was a precursor of the Mark of the Beast and had decided to revoke my #. I further decided that my sons would not get that mark.

The woman advised me that all we needed was two other forms of identification. A birth certificate, a baptismal, a letter from our school, etc.. Since I started a school at my church (an act of rebellion by me by pulling my kids out of the public schools several years ago) all of these were no problem.

However, when Sam and I got to the FHP/Driver's License Bureau we were told that he had to have a SSN. When we refused, politely, I demanded to see the station manager. She pulled out a page with a statute on it that said we had to provide the # and or get the #. Explaining my efforts and position was to no avail. So I left and called the lady in Tallahassee and began to complain vigorously. She said that the station manager was wrong and asked me if I was going back there. Of course I am. She called the station manager and when we got there, the man who was greeting people and telling them to produce these documents, including the SSN, looked at me with surprise and said to me, "I am pissed."

I quietly asked him why. He said that when we left he had commented that if I came back and did what I had said I was going to do, which was produce the law that was higher than the state statute, he would be mad because he had been told that every one had to have a SSN in order to get a drivers license and here I was. Samuel went through the process and got his learner's permit. Some months later, after I had put Sam through a driver's training course, we went to Delray Beach to the Driver Testing facility.

I did not expect any trouble, but it raised its ugly head. The woman asking him for information to put into the computer got really upset about us not giving them a SSN. The discourse brought out this station manager and a FHP Trooper, big black man, who questioned me and made horendous comments. Such as, don't you support the social security system, don't you pay taxes, why are you trying to buck the system, aren't you an American?

After standing my ground and telling them it was none of their business about my taxes and support of the system and that all I was doing was protecting and demanding my constitutional rights to be respected and for them to obey the law. I further informed them that I had spoken to the state office and with the district director and knew that we did not have to have a SSN. You could see the anger in their faces as they filled out the computer form and issued Sam's driver's license.

Later, I called the district directors office and complained about the station manager's comments and questions as being inappropriate and inflaming. In front of several other people she had dared question me about not being an American. The district director apologized and said that she would contact that station manager and admonish her for the uncalled for behavior.

Thank you,

Beginning to live free in S. Florida.

Richard A. M.

Boynton Beach, FL

----------------------------------------------------------------

Group Manager: no_ssn-owner@egroups.com

To subscribe, send a message to no_ssn-subscribe@egroups.com or go to the e-group's home page at http://www.egroups.com/list/no_ssn

The following is by Larry Becraft, Attorney at Law.

This article is found at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ssn.html

COMMENT UPON VOLUNTARY NATURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

By Larry Becraft, Attorney at Law

Today, everyday Americans are constantly confronted with greater and more frequent requests from all too many sources that they provide to the inquiring parties their "Number of the Beast," the Social Security number ("SSN"). The examples of this modern day phenomenon are numerous and known to all. Many States are now moving to ostensibly require the display of SSNs upon drivers' licenses. Public school officials demand that school age children obtain SSNs before those children may be enrolled in any public school. Hospitals seek to obtain SSNs for each child born in their facilities. Private parties of all kinds, from banks to employers, deem it essential that they obtain the SSN of everyone with whom they may conduct any business. With all these entities making these demands, surely "the law" must contain a requirement that everyone have the "Number of the Beast"[1]. Or, is it possible that everybody simply acts like lemmings, dutifully following the herd instinct without any question, assuming such requirement without any knowledge of it? More simply put, does "the law" demand that everybody apply for and obtain a SSN, or is such purported obligation nothing more than so much hot air?

The first inquiry regarding the legal duty to apply for and obtain a SSN must involve an examination of the U.S. Constitution and the powers granted therein to Congress. Congress can only possess powers which are contained, expressly or by necessary implication, within the text of the Constitution, particularly Art. 1, section 8. Being straightforward and to the point, the problem here for Social Security is that no particular clause in this or any other article of the Constitution is sufficient to sustain such power to compel a domestic American to participate in a compulsory retirement or benefits scheme. The power to thus mandate participation in Social Security must therefore be one which is based upon an implied power.

To determine if this power is one arising by implication, a study of various Supreme Court cases regarding the limits of Congressional power is essential. The States are arguably the governmental entities which might possess the inherent, municipal power to compel participation in a retirement or benefits scheme; but, if the states might have this power, an issue which appears to not have as yet been decided, does Congress have a corresponding power? Can Congress assume this inherent power of the State and claim it as its own?

Limits upon the powers of Congress

Examples of Supreme Court cases which place some real limits upon the powers of Congress are manifold. In the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not authorize the conduct of business within the States in order to tax that business. In United States v. DeWitt, 76 U.S. 41 (1870), the Court held that a penal regulation in a tax act could not be enforced in a state. In United States v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315 (1877), the Court held that the United States could not receive property via a testamentary devise contrary to state law. In United States v. Fox, 95 U.S. 670 (1878), a penal statute remotely related to bankruptcy laws was held inapplicable in the States. In Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 (1879), the Court held that U.S. patent laws conferred no superior rights within the States. In United States v. Steffens, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), federal trademark legislation unconnected with "interstate commerce" was held inapplicable inside the States. In Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 656 (1887), certain penal, federal civil rights legislation was held unenforceable "within a state." In Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S.Ct. 850 (1890), and De La Rama v. De La Rama, 201 U.S. 303, 26 S.Ct. 485 (1906), the Court held that domestic relations matters were solely state concerns. In Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U.S. 413, 14 S.Ct. 1060 (1894), it was held that federally created corporations engaged in business in the States were subject to state laws. In Keller v. United States, 213 U.S. 138, 29 S.Ct. 470 (1909), it was held that Congress could not exercise police powers within the States. In Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 31 S.Ct. 688 (1911), it was held Congress could not dictate to a state, Oklahoma, where to locate its state capitol. In Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S.Ct. 529 (1918), and Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449 (1922), the Court held that Congressional attempts to regulate and control manufacturing activities in the States were unconstitutional; see also Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44, 42 S.Ct. 453 (1922). In United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 42 S.Ct. 570 (1922), the Court held that Congress could not regulate coal mining in the States. In Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925), it was held that Congress could not regulate the practice of medicine in the States. In Industrial Ass'n. of San Francisco v. United States, 268 U.S. 64, 45 S.Ct. 403 (1925), the construction industry was deemed to be inherently of local concern and beyond Congressional powers. In Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 570, 51 S.Ct. 601 (1931), the Court held that Congress could not impose a sales tax on items sold to state and local governments. Before the advent of Social Security, a statutorily mandated retirement system applicable to interstate carriers was held unconstitutional in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S.Ct. 758 (1935). The case of Hopkins Fed. S. & L. Ass'n. v. Cleary, 296 U.S. 315, 56 S.Ct. 235 (1935), stands for the proposition that Congress cannot "federalize" state financial institutions over objection from the State. The cases of A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837 (1935), Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241 (1935), and Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936), emasculated most of the National Industrial Recovery Acts in part on the grounds of invasion of reserved powers of the States. In United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312 (1936), the Court held that Congress had no direct power to regulate agricultural production within the States. Finally, in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 91 S.Ct. 260 (1970), it was held that Congress could not dictate voter qualifications to the States. The above decisions, as well as others, do place severe restraints upon the powers of Congress.

The genesis of Social Security is the events of the Great Depression. While that era saw extraordinary unemployment and a tremendous decline in national production, still it was not as cataclysmic as other events in our nation's history, such as the War Between the States. Further, no constitutional amendment was adopted during this era which can offer any basis for an expansion of Congressional powers. The legislation which started Social Security in 1935 must be viewed in the light of the various Supreme Court cases decided within a few decades of that legislation and prior thereto. When Congress adopted the Social Security Act in 1935, the Supreme Court had already held in Railroad Retirement Board, supra, 295 U.S., at 368, that Congress had no authority to establish a retirement scheme through its most tremendous power, its control over interstate commerce:

"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."

Additionally, the revolutionary acts of Congress adopted in the two preceding decades had been emasculated in a series of Supreme Court decisions. Are we to suppose that, against this legal background, Congress decided to enact legislation of the caliber which had been struck as unconstitutional in the same year?

In the Social Security Act, Congress imposed excise taxes upon employers and those tax receipts were to be deposited with the Treasury. The act further provided schemes whereby participants could enjoy unemployment and retirement benefits. When the act was adopted, parties opposed thereto made challenges to the act, relying upon some, if not all, of the various cases cited above. The major arguments mounted against the act were premised upon contentions that the legislation constituted an invasion of state rights. In Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 57 S.Ct. 883 (1937), an employer challenged the unemployment tax imposed upon it and the Court held that such tax was an excise which Congress could impose. In reference to the contention that the subject matter of the act was properly within the historical field reserved to the states, the Court held that Congress could enact legislation to aid the states in an area of great concern. The Court placed considerable emphasis upon the fact that the states were reluctant to adopt unemployment acts because such taxes created differentials between states which had such legislation and those which did not. By creating a national unemployment act, this difference was eliminated and a great benefit to the American people resulted. The Court, therefore, found nothing constitutionally objectionable to the act as to the issues which were raised. In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 57 S.Ct. 904 (1937), the same rationale was used to uphold the retirement features of the act. The importance of these two cases upholding the Social Security Act concerns the issues which these cases did not raise: neither of them addressed the issue of whether there was a requirement for any American to join Social Security. The reason that this issue was not raised is because there is no such requirement, unless of course one works for a state government which has contracted into Social Security; see Public Agencies Opposed To Social Security Entrapment (POSSE) v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 558 (E.D. Cal. 1985), rev., 477 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 2390 (1986).

The above review should readily demonstrate that there is indeed a real question concerning the point of whether one must submit an application to join Social Security. The cases which challenged the constitutionality of Social Security simply did not raise this issue, and it appears that no case has as yet dealt with it.[2] The reason for this absence of a challenge to such alleged requirement can only be explained by analyzing the act itself to determine if there is such a requirement. Because Congress lacks the constitutional authority to compel membership in Social Security, the act simply imposes no such requirement.

The modern version of the act is codified at 42 U.S.C., sections 301-433. If there were a requirement that every American join the Social Security scheme,[3] one would expect to find language in the act similar to the following: "Every American of the age of 18 years or older shall submit an application with the Social Security Administration and shall provide thereon the information required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every member of Social Security shall pay the taxes imposed herein and records of such payments shall be kept by the Secretary for determining the amount of benefits to which such member is entitled hereunder." Amazingly, no such or similar language appears within the act, and particularly there is no section thereof which could remotely be considered as a mandate that anyone join Social Security. The closest section of the act which might relate to this point is the requirement that one seeking benefits under the act must apply for the same. But, this relates to an entirely different point than a requirement that one join.

Since the statutory scheme fails to impose such requirement, the next question to be asked is whether perhaps the Social Security regulations themselves might impose such duty. But here, the regulations are no broader than the act itself, and the duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security card or number boils down to the following found at 20 C.F.R., section 422.103:

"(b) Applying for a number. (1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed Form SS-5, 'Application for a Social Security Card,' at any social security office and submitting the required evidence... "(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State... to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child. "(c) How numbers are assigned.(1) Request on Form SS-5. If the applicant has completed a Form SS-5, the social security office... that receives the completed Form SS-5 will require the applicant to furnish documentary evidence... After review of the documentary evidence, the completed Form SS-5 is forwarded... to SSA's central office... If the electronic screening or other investigation does not disclose a previously assigned number, SSA's central office assigns a number and issues a social security number card... "(2) Request on birth registration document. Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the State vital statistics office will electronically transmit the request to SSA's central office...Using this information, SSA will assign a number to the child and send the social security number card to the child at the mother's address."

The purported duty to apply for and obtain a Social Security number therefore boils down to this: you get it if you need it or request it. There is no legal compulsion to do so.

With the act of applying for and obtaining a SSN being entirely voluntary, the next question to be asked is whether any State can force you to use this number which is voluntary in the first place. This appears to have been addressed by section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1896, which reads as follows:

"Sec. 7. (a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. "(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to-- (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or (B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. (b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it." See United States v. Two Hundred Thousand Dollars in U.S. Currency, 590 F.Supp. 866 (S.D. Fla. 1984).

Thus, it seems perfectly logical, if having a Social Security number is not mandatory but purely voluntary, no state can use the lack of a number in any adverse way against anyone. The state cannot make that which is voluntary under federal law something which is mandatory under state law.

Today, many school districts seek to force school age children to obtain Social Security numbers before such children may enroll in school. Further, many states deny drivers' licenses to those who refuse to provide SSNs. All of these acts are of recent vintage and therefore violate the prohibitions contained within the uncodified amendments to the Privacy Act noted above. Such requests are thus illegal.

What should be done by Americans who are opposed to Social Security for whatever reason, be it the contention that it is the prelude to the "Beast's number" or any other? They should constantly inform those requesting the number that there is no obligation to have one.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A CONTRACT

Art. 1, ß 9, cl. 7 of the U.S. Constitution provides as follows:

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

While this constitutional provision does not of itself place a maximum ceiling upon the amount of debt which can be created by Congress, it does require that appropriating legislation be enacted in order to incur debts. This is aptly demonstrated by the federal cases which have construed this part of the Constitution. In Cummings v. Hardee, 102 F.2d 622 (D.C.Cir. 1939), and Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States, 155 F.2d 823 (4th Cir. 1946), it was held that officers of the United States lacked all power to pay any claim against the United States in the absence of an appropriation from Congress to pay such claim. This principle was more fully explained in Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 534 F.2d 889, 906 (Ct.Cl. 1976), where that Court declared:

"The second principle is that before any expenditure of public funds can be made, there must be an act of Congress appropriating the funds and defining the purpose for such appropriation. Thus, no officer of the Federal Government is authorized to pay a debt due from the U.S., whether or not reduced to a judgment, unless an appropriation has been made for that purpose." See also Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 272 (1850); Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 57 S.Ct. 764 (1937); and Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, __ U.S. __, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 2471 (1990).

In National Association of Regional Councils v. Costle, 564 F.2d 583, 586 (D.C.Cir. 1977), that Court elucidated this principle by stating: "Government agencies may only enter into obligations to pay money if they have been granted such authority by Congress. Amounts so authorized by Congress are termed collectively 'budget authority' and can be subdivided into three conceptually distinct categories -- appropriations, contract authority, and borrowing authority. Appropriations permit an agency to incur obligations and to make payments on obligations. Contract authority is legislative authorization for an agency to create obligations in advance of an appropriation. It requires a subsequent appropriation or some other source of funds before the obligation incurred may actually be liquidated by the outlay of monies. Borrowing authority permits an agency to spend debt receipts."

Thus, it is quite apparent that in order for the federal government to incur debt, it must adopt legislation authorizing a specific amount of federal obligations to be incurred.

It is easy to demonstrate the operation of this provision of the Constitution and its application to government contracts. Suppose the feds desired to build a new courthouse at a cost of $200 million. An agency in charge of such a project could theoretically "contract" with a construction company to build this structure. However, until Congress actually appropriates money to pay for construction, there is no contract. Even if the contractor in this example incurred lots of costs preparing to build this courthouse which ultimately does not get built because of lack of funds, he has no claim against Uncle Sam for breach of contract. The same principle applies to every other government contractor, whether aerospace, military, et cet. Government contracts are unique and different from private sector contracts due to this constitutional limitation upon the power to contract.

Is Social Security a contract? A private insurance policy is clearly a contract because the policyholder makes a promise to pay money to the insurance company, which in turn agrees to likewise pay the policyholder if certain contingencies arise. These "promise to pay" elements are essential for a contract, but they simply are not present with Social Security. First, Social Security "payments" are not premium payments, but are taxes instead. Secondly, there is no corresponding and enforceable "promise to pay" from the Social Security Administration to its "beneficiaries." As noted above, government contracts are very special and require an appropriation from Congress before money can be expended and a contract made. Regarding Social Security, the only "beneficiaries" who have any claim against the public treasury are those for whom Congress has already made an appropriation, which can last no longer than a year. The rest of the Social Security claimants in America have no enforceable claim on public funds, and all they possess is a "political promise," upon which Congress can renege at any moment. If Congress decided tomorrow to cut off all Social Security, nobody would have any claim for payment. Thus, Social Security has never been and is not now a contract.

NOTE:

To whom are social security numbers assigned? The answer is found in 42 U.S.C., ß405, which provides as follows:

(B)(i) In carrying out the Commissioner's duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable, be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned): (I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment; (II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and (III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of subclauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment; and, in carrying out such duties, the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures to assure the issuance of social security numbers: (IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians; and (V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school.

Footnotes:

1.Of course, there are a few cases which recognize objections to the SSN on First Amendment, "freedom of religion" grounds; see Stevens v. Berger, 428 F.Supp. 896 (E.D.N.Y. 1977); Callahan v. Woods, 658 F.2d 679 (9th Cir. 1981); and Callahan v. Woods, 736 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1984). See also Leahy v. District of Columbia, 833 F.2d 1046 (D.C.Cir. 1987). See I Chron. 21:1-3; and Rev. 13:17, 14:9-10

2.Two challenges have been made concerning the requirement to provide SSNs to vote; see Meyer v. Putnam, 186 Colo. 132, 526 P.2d 139 (1974), and Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344 (4th Cir. 1993).

3.It does not appear that the Social Security Trust fund is administered by the Secretary of the Treasury; see 31 U.S.C., ß1321.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ssn.html

==========================================================

-----Original Message-----

From: Craig Burkholder [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 02:21 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Small Victories.......

Hi Ray,

Just wanted to drop you a line to let you know about a recent small victory in the no-SSN corner.

I recently tried to open a bank account with my local bank , and when they asked for a SSN, I informed them that I didn't have one. They flatly refused and said that without a SSN that they absolutely could NOT open an account of any kind. I then proceeded thus to convince them that they were in the wrong:

1) I informed them that I had terminated my SSN legally in accordance with 20 CFR 3 ß 404.1905 and

2) I informed them that the bank could not be held legally responsible by anyone for failing to obtain a SSN from me pursuant to 31 CFR 103.34(a)(1) and

3) I informed them that under the Internal Revenue Code Section 6041, that they were not even required to provide any taxpayer identification numbers on the Form 1099 that they file with the IRS at the end of the year, and

4) I informed them that pursuant to 26 CFR 301.6109-1(c) that they were under no legal obligation to obtain a SSN from me, and

5) I informed them that 42 USC 408 makes it a FELONY to use threat, duress, or coercion to try to force a person by fear or deciet to provide his SSN in an unlawful manner.

After a brief meeting with the banks controller and legal counsel, I received a phone call stating that I would be allowed to open a checking account. Please pass this information along to your readers, in hopes that it may help someone else who may find themselves in this situation.

Craig Burkholder

Harrisonburg, VA

I believe in paying all taxes for which the written law makes me liable. I do not protest any tax; therefore, I am not a tax protester. I protest the misapplication of the tax laws by the IRS and the courts.

Learner's permit with no SSN & no birth certificate

"On Apr 14, Ray Iddings wrote:"

[--------------- text of forwarded message follows -----------------]

Below is another success story to share with you.

Please understand that Social Security Number Not Required does not necessary endorse, agree, or disagree with the opinions or methods use in the various success stories that we share with you. We simply forward (unedited) some stories with you only because we wish to celebrate their victory and show you just how easy it is to stand-up for and assert your rights. These people may or may not have used our Social Security Number Not Required Policy Manual to achieve their success - we hope they did, because it the best way to assure your success.

We appreciate people share these stories with us - please consider sharing your own story. Be sure to write it carefully and double-check each citation (because we won't edit it for you).

Regards, Ray Iddings http://www.semantechs.com/nossn/

++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----

From: Jim Hill

Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 08:54 PM

To: Jim

Subject: Learner's permit with no SSN & no birth certificate

Today, I took my 15-year old son to get his "learner's permit" at the local Department of Motor Vehicles. The first thing they asked for was his Social Security card and a certified copy of his birth certificate. He had neither.

The "polite" lady sitting behind the desk looked puzzled at me and asked if he had ever been issued one, to which I replied, "No." She turned to her more senior co-worker and said, "What do we do if they've never been issued one?" "He has to go get one, right?" The more senior co-worker looked puzzled at me and asked, "He's never gotten one?" Again, I replied, "No."

In walked their supervisor who, when told the same information, asked me the same question and received the same reply. She, being more knowledgeable about the law than the other two, said, "Well, we can't make him get one, so just put all nine's in that field (in the computer)."

That was just the first hurdle.

Next was the birth certificate. I explained that we didn't have that and offered up what we did have: 1) a school transcript from a private, Christian school with his birth date on it, the school seal, and no signature and 2) a family bible with my son's birth recorded in it. The transcript was denied because it lacked a signature from the principle or "guidance counselor." All that was left was the bible which I had placed on the examiner's desk.

In NC, as in all states, the common law is still in effect. In fact, in NC, it is written into the General Statutes in Chapter 4 (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/statutes/statutes_in_html/chp0040.html). Under common law, an entry into a family bible is considered to be a valid ID.

I never opened the bible. They never asked to see it. I don't know why. My guess is, considering all the grief they went through on the Social Security issue, they figured they had some weirdo on their hands. And, after looking at the bible sitting there they decided they didn't want to go there at all! Who knows. Bottom line, he got the permit without producing one solid "credential."

But that's not the point to the story..

The main point is that while we were there, several people came in and several more called on the phone asking what they needed in order to get their licenses. The phrase I heard repeated several times by these DMV employees was, "A certified copy of your birth certificate and a Social Security card." And everyone either handed these things over to them or walked out the door without their license. Yet, here I was, refusing to give either, and prevailing.

Why? Because I'm smart? Not really. Because I'm good looking? Not a chance! Because I know the law? Maybe. But then, there are many who know the law better than I who fork over the information. Because I prayed? You bet I prayed. But then, there are many Christians who pray more than me, yet they have numbered their children and willing give out their number whenever asked.

The simple reason I prevailed is that there is no law requiring a person to have a SSN in the first place and, knowing that, I just refused to submit to their unlawful demands in that particular instance. And that's the decision each of us has to make whenever we're faced with an opportunity to either fight or submit. Tyranny does not usually arrive with tanks and bullets (though there are exceptions). It most often comes in a gentlemanlike, one on one confrontation, usually with someone in a uniform. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose (even when the law is on your side). Either way, it sure beats the heck out of just rolling over and submitting out of ignorance.

Jim Hill

http://www.1776web.net

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams

You cannot ""Rescind"" a Social Security Number ... But ... (fwd)

"On Apr 14, Ray Iddings wrote:"

[------- text of forwarded message follows -----------]

We really appreciate hearing first-hand success stories. We don t always agree with various methods people use; sometimes, we even disagree with their opinion. But we are always joyful about their victory. With a few exceptions, it usually very easy for people to be victorious with social security number issues simply because there are no foundational law or regulations requiring a person to obtain, have or use a social security number to live or work in the United States. In fact, it is usually so easy that many people enjoy success even when they cite inappropriate law and erroneous opinion ... Of course, the success is always much better when you are right. You can visit our web site at http://www.semantechs.com/nossn/ to learn more about this issue.

Clarification Issue Number 1 You Cannot Rescind a Social Security Number ... There are basically three recession arguments being purposed by various groups. These arguments are as follows:

* Withdraw your Application These people often point to the Social Security Administration Form SSA-521, Request for Withdrawal of Application as evidence for their program. Certainly, from the name of this form, we could be lead to believe that it is possible to withdraw the Application for a Social Security Card. What their sales pitch doesn't tell you, is that this form is only used to withdraw an application for various social security benefits.

* Cancel Application because it is not binding Some groups claim that you can cancel or void your social security card because you did not apply for it yourself. That is, your parent's or guardian submitted the application on your behalf when you were a child. Since you were not of legal age to enter into a contract, the original application for a social security card is not legally binding upon you as an adult; thus, the original application can be rescinded. There is merit to this assertion, but you will need to argue your case in court as soon as you reach the age of majority to be successful.

* Terminate the agreement as provide in 20 CFR 404.1905 This assertion presents the idea that federal regulations provide the Social Security Administration with the legal authority to rescind or cancel a social security account. The proponents of this program tell you that you are asserting your legal rights under 20 CFR 404.1905, Termination of agreements. However, they fail to disclose the rest of the story, which is that the agreement written of this portion of code is a thing call a totalization agreement defined in 20 CFR 404.1901. As we read both sections together, we find that a totalization agreement, which is entered into between "the President ... and ... a foreign country" "shall contain provisions for its possible termination." This section of regulation has nothing to do with individual citizens and the issuance or recession of social security numbers. The proponents of this argument are simply pushing another scam.

The interesting thing about most federal law is that it does not apply to individual citizens but instead defines the operating rules for the various federal agencies. The Social Security Administration is one of those agencies. The majority of the laws and regulations written about the social security number dictate rules to the Social Security Administration about how they assign, use or react to the number issue. That is, things like the following:

* They assign a number when they receive an application ...

* They verify that a number and name match their record ...

* To receive Social Security benefits, the applicant must have a number issued ...

The Social Security Administration, like all government agencies, is highly regulated; they are not permitted to do anything without Congressional authorization ... that is what the laws and the regulations are written for. Within those laws and regulations, Congress never authorized the Social Security Administration to rescind or cancel a social security number. Therefore, the Social Security Administration cannot and will not rescind or cancel any social security number once it has been assigned to an applicant.

Even though several Social Security Administration documents attempt to personalize the number by saying it is "your social security number," nothing could be further from the truth. If it were "your" number, then you could do with it as you wish ... including changing the number. Many people would probably like to change their social security number to something more personal ... but if you do that, you could go to jail.

But, You Don't Need to Use a Social Security Number Since there are many laws that attempt to define using a false social security number as fraud it would be unwise to use a different number since using a number other than the one assigned to you might be considered fraud. However, declining or refusing to use a number because of religious/whatever conviction or because a number has not been assigned to you is legal and reasonable.

Additionally, telling people that you do not have a social security number, even if one was assigned to you, may be a correct statement for two primary reasons:

* The social security number is not yours, it belongs to the Social Security Administration. If it was yours, they could not prevent you from changing it.

* You probably did not solicit the Social Security Administration for a social security number ... somebody else, maybe your parents, did that for you. As such, you have no obligation, nor have you made any promises regarding the use, disuse, or abuse of any social security number that may have been assigned to you because of somebody else's action. ... Since you were not a party to the action, you are not obligated to recognize the fact that someone else may/or may not have requested a social security number for you ... The point is ... you have no social security number.

Clarification Issue Number 2: Form-1099 Reporting Is Not Appropriate Without a Social Security Number

The law mandates that "Every payor of any reportable payment (as defined in section 26 USC 3406(b)(1)) who is required to deduct and withhold tax under section 3406 must furnish to the payee a written statement containing ... Information required." And, the required information "must show the ... name, address, and taxpayer identification number of the person receiving any reportable payment." If the payor cannot show these three items, they cannot comply with this law and may be penalized for providing a frivolous return if they attempt to do so. Without a TIN (or SSN), the bank or anybody else should not file a Form-1099 (or Form-W2) because it is not required to do so ... If fact, doing so, would be a frivolous return and you could be fined $500.00.

Often normally unreportable income or payments become reportable when or if you provide a social security number or taxpayer identification number.

The Rest of the Story

From: Leslie R. Pastor
Subject: [svpvril] An Observation of The Control Paradigm - Tom Valone - Integrity Research Institute
Date: November 30, 2005 1:59:04 AM MST
To: http://svpvril.com/phpbb2/index.php

Thomas Valone has been vindicated. He is a prime example of a lifetime demonstration of how the control paradigm works and functions as a complete 'system.' The reality of the 'control' paradigm has been significantly demonstrated via his own personal life experience. He is truly a significant individual of high moral standards, and I applaud his significant contributions.

All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor

PS:

Tom Valone was fired from his employment as a Patent Examiner, when he attempted to host a COFE at the U.S. Dept of Commerce. Here is his Arbitration Decision: http://users.erols.com/iri/ValonePatentOfficeDecision.htm As was expected, he has been completely vindicated. The Arbitrator revealed significant 'collusion' between Robert Park [APS] and Peter Zimmerman [ACDA]

Research:

Antony C. Sutton Wrote About Dr. Peter Zimmerman
The Peter Zimmerman Affair and the Cold Fusion CheckMate
Peter Zimmerman and Randell L. Mills
The Empire Strikes Back [Village Voice]
What's New by Bob Park
Internet Infidels
Energy Crisis: The Failure of the Comprehensive National Energy Strategy [Tom Valone]
Conference On Future Energy
The First Conference On Future Energy
The Second Conference On Future Energy [September 23-24, 2006]
A recent Holiday Greeting from Tom Bearden

Thanks Les!

And I'm delighted Tom Valone won his case, even after all this lengthy period. Once in awhile the wheels of justice do grind and finish their job. I'm very glad that Tom Valone - who is a good researcher and who struggles mightily to advance this "field that is not yet a field" - did win the arbitration.

Otherwise, if the system always is allowed to always enforce the status quo, then the progress of science halts. The present status quo enforcement in science is particularly damaging to our young doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists, many of whom are keen to do some research in this area. But presently the system almost always compels them to either (1) toe the orthodox line, or (2) get out and forget their careers.

I fervently believe science is and must be based on investigation and experiment, not dogma. And I also believe the "old models" - and their accepted foundations concepts and assumptions - must always be re-examined to discover errors that imprison us - as Einstein so fervently pointed out when he stated:

"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." [Albert Einstein, "Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969, p. xi-xii.]

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving!

Cheers,

Tom

From: Leslie R. Pastor
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 5:24 AM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Tom Valone is Hosting the 2nd COFE

Good Morning Tom,

Tom Valone is hosting the 2nd International Conference on Future Energy on September 23-24, 2006.

http://users.erols.com/iri/cofe.html

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor

Research: Tom Valone

http://users.erols.com/iri/

http://users.erols.com/iri/cofe1.html

http://users.erols.com/iri/speakerlist.html

http://www.nuenergy.org/cofe/cofe.html

http://users.erols.com/iri/ValonePatentOfficeDecision.htm

Tom Valone is restored to his job at PTO. Patent Trade Office [Department of Commerce]

Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park [APS] are mentioned as instigators in the grievance.

http://users.erols.com/iri/ValonePatentOfficeDecision.htm

Antony C. Sutton mentioned Peter Zimmerman to me, and asked to research him.

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=296

COFE HISTORY

The wrongful dismissal arbitration case of IRI President, Thomas Valone, as a patent examiner from the US Patent Office in 1999 has finally been resolved in 2005! Read the complete Arbitrator's Decision (80-page html) for a fairly balanced biography of the case.

The Village Voice magazine carried a story entitled, "The Empire Strikes Back" by Erik Baard (4/10/2001), which reviews the effects of Drs. Park and Zimmerman interference with Dr. Randell Mills' patent applications, and concludes with a review of COFE:

"Park and Zimmerman have certainly affected patent-office affairs before. Patent Examiner Tom Valone was invited by the State Department to organize an April 1999 Conference on Free Energy to explore alternatives to fossil fuels, many of which were controversial. Zimmerman told an American Physical Society gathering that Park asked him to put a stop to it. 'The week before I was to start [at the State Department] Bob [Park] sends me an e-mail, in which he tells me in some detail about the Conference on Free Energy under the sponsorship of the Secretary of State's Open Forum. It says, "Pete, if you can't get that killed, what's the point of having you at the State Department?"' The conference was evicted from the State Department auditorium and then from the Department of Commerce. Park says he then called 'an investigative reporter' who writes for Science, suggesting he look into the patent office. The reporter, APS physicist David Voss, wrote a scathing article in the magazine's May 21, 1999 issue describing Valone's personal interest in novel theories, while acknowledging he never approved patents with questionable backing. Nonetheless, Valone says the report contributed to his dismissal.