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

Subject:

Comments:
: : : 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from the Social Security Administration, in response to my recent action of having my Social Security contract legally rescinded.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. : : Take some time to read the following Supreme Court Cases and you will learn an awful lot about the Social Security Tax. : Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) : Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) : (Note: these are different Davis parties) : Do a search on Findlaw's Supreme Court search engine and you can get a link right to the court's opinion. : The search engine is located at : http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html : Usually if you just search for the volume and starting page number together (ie. 301 AND 548) you will get the : case in the first page of hits. : Things you will discover: : 1) The Social Security taxes (employer and employee) are excise taxes. : 2) The money you and your employer pay goes directly into the general treasury of the US (purportedly). : 3) The money for Social Security checks is appropriated out of the general treasury each year by Congress (not mandatory by the way). : 4) There is no connection between the two, ie. you can't get your money back. : 5) Your Social Security 'Account' is a bookkeeping fiction used to calculate how much (if any) you will be paid from : Congress' annual appropriations. : It is also interesting to note in the Steward case that the court confirmed that all direct taxes must be apportioned. : It even cites the Brushaber case on that point. : "If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. : If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. : Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty." : So here you have evidence (after the 16th Amendment, and Brushaber) that the so-called income tax must also be an excise tax, as it is not apportioned! : Now what exactly does Title 26 impose these excise taxes on? (manufacture or sale of commodity?, a taxable activity?, or a gov't granted license?) : And where specifically does it make that activity subject to the tax? : Take a look at Otto Skinner's web page and consider getting his books. : http://www.1313mockingbirdlane.com/skinner/index.htm

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: