Time: Mon Sep 29 19:28:43 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA11346;
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:28:56 -0700 (MST)
by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA21902;
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:23:08 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:22:39 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: children & SSN's
Cc: <wwatts@nothinbut.net>
Disclosure of social security number. Act Dec. 31, 1974,
P.L. 93-579, Section 7, 88 Stat. 1909, provided:
"(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."
Comments by Paul Mitchell follow:
Congress deliberately failed to codify this statute in Title 5 of
the United States Code. You will find it embedded at the end of
the historical notes within the Privacy Act. When a government
employee was sued for violating this Act, he asserted ignorance
of the law as his defense. The court upheld this defense, thus
creating an important exception to the general rule that
ignorance of the law is no excuse. My reading of this decision
is that the court was giving silent judicial notice to the fact
that Congress actually "hid" the law; thus, the court's holding
did not really overturn the maxim (ignorance is not excuse); it
merely recognized that fraud vitiates everything, even the most
solemn promises. I have taken this statute and reduced it down
to the size of a standard credit card. Then, I laminated it in
plastic and saved it in my wallet. Later, I gave it away to an
attendee of one of Lynne Meredith's seminars; the attendee was
mostly incredulous that such a law even existed. It is very easy
to make another one. I prefer to take a photocopy right out of
the law books, and to laminate that photocopy. Try it! It is
always very powerful to witness these laws yourself, at the local
county law library. Take this email message down to the
reference librarian, and see if s/he can locate it for you. The
Privacy Act can be found in the reference volume which lists
statutes by name. Good luck!
Paul Andrew Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
November, 1996
all rights reserved
At 10:18 PM 9/29/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 08:24 PM 9/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>>For religious reasons (explained below), we do not have Social Security
>>>numbers for our children, the oldest of 4 being 5 years old.
>
>>>Last year we sent in our return, as we have always done, without SSNs
>>>for our children. My wife and I do have social security numbers, and we
>>>sent those. IRS sent us a letter saying they were disallowing our
>>>exemptions since we had no SSNs for them. They gave us the opportunity
>
>>>children and our dependents. We don't have a problem proving that we are
>>>claiming legitimate dependents.
>
>>>This year we again sent IRS our return without numbers for our children,
>>>but this time we included the letter of acceptance for last year's
>>>return, and again they said they are disallowing our exemptions, and
>
>>>paperwork, and then she said, "those children need social security
>>>numbers or you cannot claim them." She mentioned the Tax Reform Act of
>>>1996 and Publication 553 as being the enabling documents that brought on
>>>this change.
>
>>In short, what you pretty much must do is to simply not claim your kids
>>as dependents anymore. Just as with *any* deduction, you have to jump
>>through whatever hoops they put in front of you to get that deduction.
>>To deduct a business lunch, you must provide a receipt; to deduct a
>>kid, you have to provide a government "receipt", ie, a SIN.
>
>>Most people who deduct their kids have in effect sold their kids into
>>slavery, only instead of 30 pieces of silver, it's something like 500bux
>>per year. You and only you have to decide whether you sell 'em for the
>>going price, or pay up the extra bux. Those bastards get to write their
>>own rules, and if you choose to play their game, you have to play by
>>their rules.
>
>Couldn't agree more. I haven't gotten one for my two year old, and I won't
>get one for the one on the way. Now if I could get rid of my seven year old,
>I'd be happy... Well, almost as happy in as I would be if I could get rid of
>mine.
>
>I didn't have children for a tax deduction.
>
>Bill Watts
>http://www.nothinbut.net/~wwatts/
>
>The jury has a right to judge both the
>law as well as the fact in controversy.
>
>John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S.
>Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford,
>1794:4
>
>To consider the judges as the
>ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
>questions is a very dangerous
>doctrine indeed, and one which
>would place us under the despotism
>of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson
>
>If we can prevent the government from
>wasting the labors of the people under
>the pretense of caring for them, the
>people will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson
>
>The Libertarian Party:
>
>http://www.lp.org/lp/
>
>-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>Version: 2.6.2
>
>mQCNAzPO9joAAAEEAMbCciXfxBj4mja/5X0n4LipgtvchcXTZNqmLBBrUscS+v+V
>ZEMjcyQd+jLLeaViFOpoDL6EfMtAHwimUsMcwa/pzuF44vR7/X4KoqmhIjal0PnK
>Vvo8NCi9lZSa7E71ygcqw+ODfcGzG3HHGjRcBikhuu76yDbrXyXN0EK2KZgJAAUR
>tCdXaWxsaWFtIEEuIFdhdHRzIDx3d2F0dHNAbm90aGluYnV0Lm5ldD4=
>=srtN
>-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
:
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
_____________________________________:
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail