Posted by Common Right Group on December 12, 1997 at 03:54:41:
In Reply to: Re: Social Security Administration Response posted by Jay M. Fuller on December 10, 1997 at 17:12:17:
: Enclosed is the text version and a copy of the actual document we received from the Social Security Administration after we revoked the signature on our social security applications. Along with the revocation, we demanded evidence of law requiring us to obtain and maintain a social security number (as per 5 U.S.C. 552).
: SOCIAL SECURITY
: December 4, 1997
: Ms. Carol G. Fuller
: 442 West Pacific Drive #1
: American Fork, Utah 84003
: Dear Ms. Fuller:
: 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, [LETS SEE NOW... IS IT NOT TRUE THAT A LACK OF SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT BY LAW IS (CONSTRUCTIVELY) A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION? IT IS IN THE AMERICA WE KNOW.] everyone working in the United States [UH-HUH. AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF US WHO WORK IN CALIFORNIA, WISCONSIN, WYOMING, ETC.? WHICH DEFINITION OF THE UNITED STATES ARE YOU USING? IT IS KNOWN THAT "THE UNITED STTES IS A CORPORATION WHOLLY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES," AS STATED ON PAGE ONE OF THE EEOC BOOK ON THE LAWS THEY ENFORCE.] is required to pay Social Security taxes.
: Similarly, people cannot withdraw the Social Security taxes that they have already paid. [WE KNOW THAT! IT'S A TAX, NOT A DEPOSIT TO A TRUST ACCOUNT. JUST STAY WITH THE QUESTION ASKED AND STOP PLAYING CUTESY BUTT BY ANSWERING A LOT OF STUFF NOT ASKED!] Social Security taxes paid by employees and employers are not placed in individual accounts, [YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW (SE PREVIOUS COMMENT)] but are pooled to pay benefits to eligible workers and their families.[B.S.! IT GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND LIKE ANY OTHER TAX. THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND IS FUNDED BY CONGRESSSIONAL ACT JUST LIKE THE MILITARY BUDGET. WE KNOW THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IS NOTHING MORE THAN ONE BIG BOONDOGGLE WELFARE PROGRAM. CARE TO REBUTT?] Benefits are paid only on the basis of a voluntary [THERE'S THAT WORD "VOLUNTARY." VOLUNTEER IN - VOLUNTEER OUT.] application.
: The Social Security Administration (SSA) is required by law (at section 205 of the Social Security Act) [OK. THE SSA IS REGULATED. WISH WE COULD REGULATE YOU TO TELL THE TRUTH INSTEAD OF PLAYING GAMES WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. WHERE'S THE PART THAT SAYS WE THE PEOPLE ARE REGULATED BY SECTION ???? OF THE SOC. SEC. ACT? HUH?] to maintain records of workers' earnings and to establish any other records necessary to carry out our responsibilities under the Social Security Act. ["UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.... OK, NOW, BACK TO THE QUESTION, WHAT PUTS ME/US UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, OTHER THAN THE APPLICATION FOR A WELFARE ENUMERATION NUMBER? LET'S CUT TO THE CHASE. WHAT LAW REQUIRES ANYONE IN THE SEVERAL STATES (NOT "U.S. STATES") TO OBTAIN, RETAIN, OR DIVULGE THAT NUMBER FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN SOCIAL SECURITY? YOU IMPLY THERE IS A LAW THAT REQUIRES ME/US TO GIVE UP PRIVACY SO YOU CAN MAINTAIN YOUR STUPID RECORDS. WE DON'T THINK SO. CARE TO REBUTT?] Because many people have the same name, or change their name, [SOUNDS LIKE A PERSONAL PROBLEM. YOURS.] a reliable and permanent system was needed to distinguish one individual from another in our records. [EVER HERE OF A BIRTHPLACE AND YEAR? STOP LYING! THAT NUMBER DOES NOTHING BUT CREATE AN "ASSET NUMBER" THAT ADHESIONS TO PEOPLE, AND NOT EVEN IN THEIR PROPER APPELLATION. WHY DOES THE NUMBER ATTACH ONLY TO A FICTION WHO'S "NAME" IS SPELLED IN ALL CAPS, LIKE A CORPORATION. DON'T GIVE THAT BIT ABOUT "EASIER TO READ" UNLESS YOU REALLY ARE AS ILLITERATE AS YOU HOPE I AM.] The Social Security account number system was established to meet that need [DID ANY ONE ASK? WHAT ABOUT THE STRICTLY 4-DIGIT NUMBER DESIGNED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN "WELFARE ENUMERATION?" TRADE MY WELFARE NUMBER IN FOR ONE OF THOSE, AND WE CAN TALK.].
: The constitutionality of the Social Security system, as established by the Social Security Act, [THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY CONTRACT, NOT UNLAWFUL, HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED AND HAS BEEN UPHELD ALSO. WHAT'S THE POINT?] and mandatory individual [DEFINE AND DESCRIBE "INDIVIDUAL." INDIVIDUAL WHAT? SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO ATTACH NOUN PROPERTIES TO AN ADJECTIVE. "INDIVIDUAL IS VAGUE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE. HOW MANY SUCCKERS DO YOU HAVE ON THE LINE FROM THAT PRESUMPTION BY THE GOVERNMENT EDUCATED MASSES?] participation have already been decided by the Supreme Court. [UH-HUH. SHOW ME, WITHOUT USING THOSE STUPID LITTLE ....'s THAT LAWYERS ARE SO FOND OF TO MISSTATE A LAW CITE. MAKE SURE THE CASES YOU CITE ARE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION AT HAND - IF YOU CAN. (TEE-HEE. GOTCHA!] We will not respond further to your correspondence about voluntary participation in the Social Security program or the withdrawal of Social Security taxes [WHADDYA MEAN, "RESPOND FURTHER?" YOU HAVEN'T RESPONDED YET TO YHE QUESTION ASKED. HOW MANY OF THOSE BOILERPLATE FORM LETTERS DO SEND OUT EACH DAY? HOW LONG DID YOU FIGURE IT WOULD BE BEFORE SOMEONE CAUGHT YOUR FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS? ARE YOU WILLING TO SAY, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT I AM REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM, MENING TO PAY THE TAX? WE'LL COUNT YOUR ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS CLARIFIED HEREIN AS YOUR FIRST RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, THEN NO FURTHER WILL BE REQUIRED AND YOU CAN KEEP YOUR WORD. AS A SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE, DON'T TRY TO THREATEN OR USE THREATENING LANGUAGE ON ME. I'M NOT YOUR SUBJECT - JERK!].
: The Internal Revenue Service has jurisdiction over the issue of liability for Social Security taxes [BASED ON REVENUE TAXABLE ACTIVITIES]; the Immigration and Naturalization Service has jurisdiction over the issue of citizenship [FOR IMMIGRANTS ONLY]. If you have questions about either of these subjects, you should contact one of those Agencies [WHO ARE YOU TO ASSUME? THE QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU WERE ABOUT YOUR SUBJECT MATTER. YOUR WHOLE LETTER WOULD BE BLOWN OUT OF COURT IN 1.3 MICRO-SECONDS AS IRRELEVANT AND NON-RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION ASKED. GOT ENOUGH HAIR TO TEST THIS? LET'S GO IF YOU DO. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!].
: Charles H. Mullen
: Associate Commissioner
: Office of Public Inquiries
Post a Followup