Re: SSA Response (July 14, 1997) to my Affidavits of Rescision!

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on March 24, 1998 at 18:34:47:

In Reply to: SSA Response (July 14, 1997) to my Affidavits of Rescision! posted by Charlie @ Sterling Investigations on July 18, 1997 at 13:10:23:

Dear Mr. Charpentier:

I am certified as a Private Attorney General,
Federal Witness, and Citizen of Arizona state.
As such, I am one of the Sovereign People who
is qualified to serve in the Senate, House
of Representatives, and Office of the President.
See 1:2:2, 1:3:3, and 2:1:5, which have never
been amended.

The Secretary of the Treasury and Social Security
Administration have already been served with
conclusive evidence that the original Social
Security Act is a municipal statute which
has a territorial, and political, scope which
does not extend beyond the federal zone.

Both offices have fallen totally silent in
the face of this evidence. Therefore, their
silence is fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel,
and their silence also activates estoppel,
pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen. Citations are
available in Gilbertson's OPENING BRIEF,
which can be found in the case law of the
Supreme Law Library at this website.

Although Congress did reserve to itself the
right to amend the original Social Security Act
at any time, any attempt to expand the
territorial and/or political reach of this Act
is a plain and simple violation of the
Tenth Amendment.

Arguing in pari materia, for the moment,
consider the situation facing Congress,
if and when it wishes to create a
federal corporation. Pursuant to
Daly v. The National Life Insurance Company
of the USA, Indiana Supreme Court (1878),
Congress can ONLY create such a corporation
in its capacity as the legislature for the
federal zone. Congress CANNOT create a
national corporation, in its capacity as
the legislature for the entire nation,
because to do so would violate the
Tenth Amendment.

In this context, remember that the several
states of the Union retain authority to
create their own "domestic" corporations.
This authority is reserved to the several
states expressly by the Tenth Amendment.

Identical logic can be used to prove that
the original Social Security Act is
a municipal statute. Such a finding can
be demonstrated by the plain and simple
language of that original Act. The evidence
to which I have already referred above, is
contained, in detail, in documents already
served on the appropriate government offices,
including also the California Secretary of

For the proper approach to understanding
this problem, please see the winning brief
by John and Lois Knox in the case of
Knox v. U.S. et al., USDC San Antonio
(circa 1989). A fully edited version of
this winning brief was added to Appendix A
in "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of
Internal Revenue," electronic fourth edition.

Search for "contains all the proof you need"
that the term "United States" on either side
of this sentence refers to the federal zone.

Please be advised, and forewarned, that this
electronic fourth edition has been stolen
and unlawfully hosted on numerous Internet
websites. An official version of the
electronic seventh (7th) edition can be
purchased for $25, in cash or blank U.S.
Postal Money Order, from:

Supreme Law Firm
c/o general delivery at:
2509 N. Campbell Avenue, Suite 1776
Tucson 85719/tdc

See USPS Publication #221 for addressing
instructions (i.e. "foreign addresses").

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Counselor at Law, Federal Witness and
Private Attorney General

: Charles F. Charpentier
: c/o Box 883, Portage, Wisconsin
: Postal Code [53901]

: 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.

: 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)

: 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.

: 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.

: 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.

: 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.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]