Posted by Common Right Group on December 02, 1997 at 19:57:58:
In Reply to: Re: SSA Response (July 14, 1997) to my Affidavits of Rescision! posted by Sam Adams on November 30, 1997 at 03:14:31:
: that response is a flat out lie by the SSA. Go to my page and look at the response I received when I asked the same question. They have no idea what to tell people.
: : Charles F. Charpentier
: : c/o Box 883, Portage, Wisconsin
: : Postal Code 
: : July 18, 1997
: : Dear Friends,
: : Following is the text of a letter which I received today from the Social Security Administration, in response to my recent action of having my Social Security contract legally rescinded. Their letter was dated July 14, 1997.
: : =========================================================
: : Dear Mr. Charpentier:
: : This is in response to your correspondence about the Social Security program. People cannot voluntarily end their participation in the program. 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 exempt by law, everyone working in the United States is required to pay Social Security taxes.
WELL, WE JUST SORT OF WONDER WHAT THE VENUE IS IN WHICH THIS TAX IS MANDATORY AND PARTICULARLY WHAT IT IS BASED ON.....?
: : Similarly, people cannot withdraw the Social Security taxes that they have already paid. Social Security taxes paid by employees and employers are not placed in individual accounts, but are pooled to pay benefits to eligible workers and their families. Benefits are paid only on the basis of a voluntary application. (note: for you receiving this via email, the word voluntary was underlined in the last sentence)
WE KNOW THE NUMBER CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN. THIS IS IN THE PURVIEW OF THE SOC. SEC. ADMIN. AND IS ASSIGNED SORT OF PERMANENTLY. HOWEVER, CAN PEOPLE WITHDRAW BY MEANS OF RESCISION OF SIGNATURE OR DISCLAIMER OF INTENT TO USE SUCH NUMBER, IF THAT NUMBER IS NEVER USED AGAIN AND BENEFITS ARE NOT APPLIED FOR?
: : The Social Security Administration (SSA) is required by law (at section 205 of the Social Security Act) to maintain records of workers' earnings and to establish any other record necessary to carry out our responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Because many people have the same name, or change their name, a reliable and permanent system was needed to distinguish one individual from another in our records. The Social Security account number system was established to meet that need.
WHAT IS THE PARTICULAR VENUE AND JURISDICTION APPLICABILITY OF THE LAW? (BOY, ARE WE NOSY.)
: : The constitutionality of the Social Security system, as established by the Social Security Act, and mandatory individual participation have already been established by the Supreme Court. We will not respond further to your correspondence about voluntary participation in the Social Security program or the withdrawal of Social Security taxes.
UH-HUH. BUT IS IT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION AS A LEGITIMATE TAX, OR IS IT CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE WHICH TAKES IT WITHOUT THE PURVIEW OF ANY LAW BASED ON EVERYONE'S RIGHT TO CONTRACT WHICH TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY PUBLIC LAW, UNLESS THE CONTRACT IS ILLEGAL FOR GOOD CAUSE, SUCH AS A CONTRACT TO DAMAGE PERSONS OR PROPERTY (MURDER, INC.)?
: : The Internal Revenue Service has jurisdiction over the issue of liability for Social Security taxes; the Immigration and Naturalization Service has jurisdiction over the issue of citizenship. If you have questions about either of these subjects, you should contact one of those Agencies.
RIGHT! TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT THE IRS HAS JURISDICTION OVER ANYONE IN ANY OF THE SEVERAL STATES AND OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITY. LIKEWISE FOR THE INS' JURISDICTION OVER NATURAL-BORN, NON-IMMIGRANTS. HAVE THESE NOSEY-BUTTS CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY OF FITTING A STEAM SHOVEL UP THEIR PRYING NOSES? WE HAVE ASKED THEM JUST THAT QUESTION, AND THE ANSWER DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THEY WANTED TO TRY. THEY WENT AWAY! FAST. (AFTER A FEW SMART-ALECKY INSULTING REMARKS WHICH BROKE NOT A SINGLE BONE.)
: : Sincerely,
: : Charles H. Mullen
: : Associate Commissioner
: : Office of Public Inquiries
: : ===================================================
: : P.S. I haven't yet had time to dissect this letter for accuracy, or outright lies. I would appreciate your feedback, citing the applicable laws. Thanks.
SO WE'LL TRY TO DO IT FOR YOU, AT LEAST IN PART. DONE. NOW YOU GET TO SEND ANOTHER FOIA BASED LETTER AND ASK THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS INDICATED, PLUS ANY OTHER THAT MIGHT COME TO MIND THAT ARE RELEVANT AND KEYED TO THE LETTER. bOY! TALK ABOUT DECEPTIVE USE OF LANGUAGE INTENDED TO OBSCURE AND OBFUSCATE THE REAL ANSWER. THIS LETTER IS, IN OUR NOT-SO-HUMBLE OPINION, THE PUREST FORM OF FRAUD DUE TO ITS OBVIOUS INTENT TO CONCEAL THE MATERIAL FACTS AND QUESTIONS OF LAW. SHEESH!!
ANYBODY SEE ANYTHING OBVIOUS THAT WE MISSED?
Post a Followup