Social Security Numbers: Mandatory Requirement?

Today anywhere we go we are asked to provide our Social Security Number (SSN), whether it be to open a bank account, to have a cell phone plan, to work, to go to school, to get a driver’s licence, etc. It seems that in many cases the number itself is more important than who we actually are. This is why identity fraud is rampant – we no longer need to provide who we really are, we only need to have a 9-digit number and bingo, we are someone else.

How is it that we come to get this number anyways though? Despite some conspiracy theories and maybe some sci-fi movies, I am pretty sure that I didn’t pop out of the womb and the doctor read the SSN off my neck.

Through my research it seems that we are generally given the number at birth by our parents when we are born. Reading from the Social Security Administration (SSA) webpage we read:

Must my child have a Social Security number?:  No. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. But, it is a good idea to get a number when your child is born. You can apply for a Social Security number for your baby when you apply for your baby’s birth certificate. The state agency that issues birth certificates will share your child’s information with us and we will mail the Social Security card to you. (link)

It seems pretty clear to me that one can be born in the United States of America – even a natural citizen – and not have to have a SSN. So why do we all have one and what is it used for? And who is telling us that we must have one?

The Social Security Act of 1935 (Pub. Law 74-271, August 14,1935, 49 Stat. 620; as amended; and is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§301.1399) is when it all started. I find it odd that the SSN is not that old. There are still plenty of people around today that never had SSNs until they applied for one. Weird, right? That’s right, people functioned prior to 1935 without SSNs.

The only place that I can find where the law mandates that one has a SSN is in 1943 with Executive Order 9397 by Franklin D Roosevelt. Executive Order 9397 reads: 

WHEREAS certain Federal agencies from time to time require in the administration of their activities a system of numerical identification of accounts of individual persons; and

WHEREAS some seventy million persons have heretofore been assigned account numbers pursuant to the Social Security Act; and

WHEREAS a large percentage of Federal employees have already been assigned account numbers pursuant to the Social Security Act; and

WHEREAS it is desirable in the interest of economy and orderly administration that the Federal Government move towards the use of a single, unduplicated numerical identification system of accounts and avoid the unnecessary establishment of additional systems:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, it is hereby
ordered as follows:

1. Hereafter any Federal department, establishment, or agency shall, whenever the head thereof finds it advisable to establish a new system of permanent account numbers pertaining to individual persons, utilize exclusively the Social Security Act account numbers assigned pursuant to Title 26, section 402.502 of the 1940 Supplement to the Code of Federal Regulations* and pursuant to paragraph 2 of this order.
2. The Social Security Board shall provide for the assignment of an account number to each person who is required by any Federal agency to have such a number but who has not previously been assigned such number by the Board. The Board may accomplish this purpose by (a) assigning such numbers to individual persons, (b) assigning blocks of numbers to Federal agencies for reassignment to individual persons, or (c) making such other arrangements for the assignment of numbers as it may deem appropriate.
3. The Social Security Board shall furnish, upon request of any Federal agency utilizing the numerical identification system of accounts provided for in this order, the account number pertaining to any person with whom such agency has an account or the name and other identifying data pertaining to any account number of any such person.
4. The Social Security Board and each Federal agency shall maintain the confidential character of information relating to individual persons obtained pursuant to the provisions of this order.
5. There shall be transferred to the Social Security Board, from time to time, such amounts as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall determine to be required for reimbursement by any Federal agency for the services rendered by the Board pursuant to the provisions of this order.
6. This order shall be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER. (link)

The important thing here to notice is the “WHEREAS” parts. The first one mentions Federal agency administration while the second, third, and fourth ones clarify that those individuals are Federal Employees and or the Federal Government. Nowhere does it mention that a private-corporation needs to have it’s workers provide SSNs nor does it mandate that Average Joe Citizen have a SSN (unless he is working at a Federal agency).

The SSA admitted this in a letter dated 18 March 1998 from Associate Commisioner Charles Mullen. In this letter the SSA states,

The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one. However, if someone works without an SSN, we cannot properly credit the earning for the work performed. (link)

This clearly states that the Act does not require a person to have a SSN simply for the sake of having one unless they want to earn credits so they can be a part of the Social Security Insurance Program.

But why are our parents signing us up for an insurance program at birth? Well, as with many things it leads back to taxes. In 1986 the Tax Reform Act mandated that if you were claiming children as dependents on your tax return (to lower your taxes) they had to have SSNs (link). Of course to m this still raises the question of what exactly a SSN was used for originally. Originally it was used to give Federal employees a number and then later for anyone who wanted to participate in a Federal insurance program.

I think it is interesting when we dig into 5 USC § 552a, Records maintained on individuals. Section 552a(a)(13) reads,

the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits). (link)

I mention this because a “Federal person(nel)” is anyone who is (a) an officer of the Government of the United States, (b) an employee of the Government of the United States, (c) member of the uniformed services, or an individual entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States. Oddly enough this seems to encompass all Americans – I am not working for the government nor am I a soldier; however, under force I am expecting* to receive retirement benefits because my workplace is taking money out of my paycheck for SS.

* expecting: I do not desire to be in the retirement program and for that matter, I do not expect to get anything due to SS being bankrupt.

All this raises so many questions in my mind of what this entire SS program is all about. It seems by having a SSN I am automatically enrolled in this SS retirement/insurance plan and by proxy I am being classified as “Federal personnel.” What is more interesting is that government (employees) are bound by what the Code (U.S.C) is, which is versus a non-government citizen is not bound by Code but rather Regulations (C.F.R.).

Guess what the Tax Code is largely written in?

You guessed it, only Code. There are no implementing regulations for much of the tax laws.

But what if I don’t want to be a part of the SS retirement plan? While I was under 18 my parents gave me a SSN so they could claim me as a dependent on their taxes. However, now that I am over 18, can I release myself from the program? I would think that I could and should be.

Would my payor can me or would I be protected under 18 USC § 242,

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

or 42 USC § 1983,

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

I don’t know…

The system seems to be a vicious circle, but what I am sure of is this – I do not want to be a part of the SS retirement program. I am good with money and even if I was bad I am pretty sure that I would be better at it than my government.


129 Responses to “Social Security Numbers: Mandatory Requirement?”

  1. 1 Paul DeLand
    13 April 2010 at 09:22

    All the above is factual information and I can forward proof positive documetation to back it up.

    I have a letter from the SSA stating I don’t have a SSN and that I am not required to have one. I had to get this letter in order to renew my drivers license.

    Also had conversation with IRS 10 plus years ago about aledged tax liability and explained I had no SSN, of course I had to send copy of my SSA letter. After the IRS agents received it they stated “We can not talk to you since you don’t have an account with us”. Thats right if you don’t have an account (Which you don’t) you can’t have a income tax liability period.

    I have helped about 70 people around the country get the same letter from the SSA. It also helps to know how we voluntarilly put ourselfs into the system.

  2. 19 April 2010 at 09:32

    @Paul: Can you please give us a snapshot of yourself? Did you ever have a SSN? How long did it take you to “get off” the system? What are your experiences in everyday life without a SSN?

  3. 3 Paul DeLand
    20 April 2010 at 07:19


    It would be nice if you posted the docs I sent you.

    Just like most people our parents applied for a SSN I never applied for one.

    In order for there to be any alledged contract two basic things have to apply one you have to be of legal age to execute a contract and there has to be consideration the SSN application does not meet either one of these requirements.

    Since I never applied for a SSN I don’t use a SSN since no law requires it. If anyone or any agency (IRS) says I have one let them prove it by producing a application I signed they can’t.

    I have had my own business’s through the years so I have been fortunate in not having to produce a SSN. There are some good cases on the use of the SSN one is Taco Bell.

    The reason I got the letter I sent you from the SSA stating I am not required to have SSN is because I was having to get my Drivers License (A whole other subject) renewed. I call the SSA and explained my situation about the DMV wanting a SSN to renew my license. The gentleman on the phone with the DMV asked me to wait a minute and can back and asked me two questions.
    1. Are you receiving any federal aid of any kind? 2. Are you receiving any government assistance of any kind? I of course answered no he replied he could not issue a SSN for the purpose of renewing my license. I ask him if I could get a letter to that effect to which you now have a copy.

    The only way to escape the system (Matrix) is to not volunteer into it. People complain all the time but they don’t take time to study and apply the truth. Freedom is not free it takes considerable effort. In my opionion there is only one way to change the system don’t support it, I cast my vote against the system every April 15, by not filing a US Individual Tax Return (A whole other subject.

    When I got married I told my wife my beleif’s about the System (IRS) I told her some 15 years ago my position that if they showed up at my door and gave me the option to pay an income tax I have no obligation to pay or shoot me I would tell them to shoot me. Either we stand for what is right or our lives are a complete lie.


    Paul DeLand

  4. 20 April 2010 at 22:38

    @Paul: Once I figure more out about this and have more to “report” on then I will post your document and hopefully mine.

    You are in a slightly different boat than I am and most of my readers in that you don’t have, in any sense, an employer. you have your own business so if you know the law then you can go with it. However, in many of our cases the payer does not know the law. What are we to do then if they demand through their ignorance things of which we wish to not provide.

    With this said, due to the ignorance we have money withheld from our paychecks. Because of this, we have to file something to get that money back… and have to have a reason that is was improperly held in the first place. This is, to say the least, difficult with the massive amount of disinformation and general public ignorance.

    It is interesting about the SSN and the driver’s licence. Arizona says that you have to have one – or at least it appears that way. I wonder if I got one of these letters if I could have Arizona remove my SSN from their record.

    Maybe I don’t quite understand your exact position too – you had one… but do you still have it and only use it where you must (like if you happen to want to join SS by choice) or did you forgo it all together?

  5. 5 John Stevens
    12 July 2010 at 12:21

    Paul, can you help me to obtain a letter from the SSN? I originally gave the DMV a random number, I guess since whenever the new law was passed, the DMV and the SSN compared info, and as a result I got a letter saying I could not renew my license until this matter was resolved. I didn’t want to give them my number then, but they asked, so I just blurted out a number. Now they are asking to get it manditory, or I cannot renew. I do not want to give it to them. If you can help, let me know. I appreciate it. John.

  6. 12 July 2010 at 20:29

    @John Stevens: All you need to do is go in and ask your local Social Security office for a SSA-L676 letter. Tell them that your DMV is requiring you to submit a SSN for a licence, but you don’t have one and you need the SSA-L676 letter to prove it.

  7. 7 John Stevens
    13 July 2010 at 07:53

    I would love to do this, I have been issued a number in the past. I just refuse to give it to the DMV. ‘Will they still give a letter to me if I demand I don’t want a number? How will that work?

  8. 13 July 2010 at 21:20

    @John Stevens: Just because you have a number doesn’t mean that you have to use your number. I always explain it this way… The SSN is a number for your enrollment into the SS program. The only place that number is supposed to be used is for is the SS program. You wouldn’t use your car insurance number to apply for a home load, now would you? Of course not, that is stupid.

    Even the SSA website says that you don’t need to give it out to anyone… but that some places may request it.

    I am not sure what you mean by your question. Just go into your local SSA office and say, “The DMV wants my SSN to issue me a licence. But, I’ve never had a SSN and don’t want one. Can I please have a L676 Letter in this regard?” They should issue you this letter. Hopefully they will issue it to you and then you can give that to your DMV.. and consequently that your DMV has a rule/exception for people that have that letter.

  9. 9 John Stevens
    14 July 2010 at 11:20

    What information will the SSA require of me to get that SSA-L676? I mean when I say I have never had a number are they going look that up and then deny me the letter, or if I tell them I need the form will they just give it to me?

  10. 14 July 2010 at 14:25

    If you walk in claiming that you are not part of their system… how are they going to look you up in their system?

    Now, if you walk in and say “I have a SSN but don’t want to use it…” then that is a different story. You are at an advantage, both your first and last names are common… so how are they going to be able to tell one John Stevens from the next unless you tell them?

    They only know what you tell them… so tell them what I’ve told you and they should give it to you.

  11. 11 John Stevens
    14 July 2010 at 14:31

    I called and they said I have to bring in an ID. I would assume they want to look to see if I am in their system. They also said they would issue the ssa-L676 only if my application was denied for some reason, not because I wasn’t in the system. So assume they will be able to use my birthdate and name together to see that I am indeed in the system. I am sure there aren’t too many John Stevens with the same birthdate. What do you think?

  12. 14 July 2010 at 14:48

    According to Paul, walk in and ask for the letter.

    If they want an application… As them the following.

    1. What law requires me to have a SSN? (Their answer will be none)
    2. What Federal aid am I receiving that requires a SSN? (they won’t know)
    3. What government assistance am I receiving that requires a SSN? (they won’t know)

    Then say, so… you want me to get a number which I have no use for and don’t need? OK, so give me the damn letter.

  13. 13 Sara
    3 November 2010 at 17:25

    Can you please forward me Paul DeLand’s email or a way of getting ahold of him. I also have never had a SSN and I am now having problems with getting my professional license. I plan to be self employed but I need my license to do so. I would love to talk to him and see if he can help me in any way. Also, I know it varies from state to state but last I checked AZ, TN, and NV don’t require a SSN for a driver’s license as long as you have never had a SSN.

    Thank you,

  14. 13 December 2010 at 00:47

    To: John Stevens & Sara,

    My email address is pdeland@gmail.com. You can reach me at 817.832.5673.


    Paul DeLand

  15. 15 Al
    7 February 2011 at 20:22

    When I went to Kentucky a few years ago I got a driver license (DL) without providing a Socialist Party membership number (SSN). Kentucky and Illinois (at the time) had an exemption for those whose religious consciences are offended by using a SSN. Illinois has it in the law but the Highway Troops will not honor (obey) it. Kentucky was easy after I gave the clerk the URL of the religious exemption affidavit. She had never heard of it and didn’t believe there was such a thing but she did run the URL, print it out and had me fill it out and sign it.
    Later I brought my van to Kentucky and applied for title and registration. The clerk said I had to give “my” (it’s not MINE – read the back of the card!) SSN as there was no religious exemption for title and registration. I replied that to have the exemption for DL but not for vehicle title and registration was inconsistent. She got on the horn with the state’s attorney’s office and he asked if I had registered to vote when I got the DL. She said that I had. He said, “Put that number down.” She did, and issued the plate and registration paper.

  16. 16 END THE TSA
    8 June 2012 at 14:32

    We had a newborn abby and the form at the hospital allowed to opt out of a SSN at the time.
    So we chose NO.
    We just got a SSN card for our newborn and we are very upset.
    I am currently on hold with the SSN office and waiting to speak with someone. 15 mins on hold so far.
    I am hoping I will be able to request a deletion fo the number. Any thoughts or ideas?

  17. 9 June 2012 at 23:59

    When you say that you opted out of getting a SSN for your newborn (congratulaions BTW) do you man that on the birth certificate you said “NO” or did you verbally say no? If you verbally said no, then whoever processed the birth certificate probably checked it for you in assumption that you “forgot.” Hopefully the birth certificate had a YES/NO box for the SSN and you did indeed check the NO box.

    I would suggest that you get a copy of the birth certificate from the State Vital Records via a FOIA request. Check it over and see if it was altered or changed. Secondly, request a copy of the SS-5 from the SSA to see if anything was filed for your newborn.

    If all else fails, write the SSA a personalized letter saying that they made a mistake and that you as the parents (and guardians until 18 years) you have the right to rescind the application. Keep me updated.

  18. 18 Al
    11 June 2012 at 18:48

    EndTheTSA, all you need to do is turn the card over and do what it says.
    The text clearly says the card (and of course the number it bears) is not yours (your child’s). It says that the card (and the number it bears) is at all times property of the SSA (Satan’s Servants Administration).
    Further, it requests that if you find the card and it is not yours (as it says just above), please return it to the address thereon.
    A checkmark on a birth certificate is not an application.
    A FOIA request cannot be used to circumvent the fee for a certified copy of the original (long form) birth certificate. It is much simpler and quicker to order a copy of the original birth certificate.
    You may ask to have to original birth certificate returned to you as the state’s official copy is the one in their microfilm/computer records. You get the original back after recording deeds, etc. in the register’s/registrar’s of deeds office, why not the original BC?
    A copy of the SS-5 is now $27. When I requested a copy of the (forged) application that resulted in their card showing up in my parents’ mailbox it was free.
    If you want to scrap with them, refuse to pay for it. If they will not send it to you, send them a letter to the effect that as they have not provided you with proof of the existence of an application, it is evident that none exists and that heretofore you (that is, your child) will deny that you (your child) have a Satan’s Servant Number (which strictly is true even if SSA assigned one to you).
    “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.” — I Chronicles 21:1 NIV

  19. 19 Al
    11 June 2012 at 18:58

    Konfusing Kancer,

    You wrote: “1. What law requires me to have a SSN?”
    There are laws that appear to mandate a SSN for certain purposes, such as filing a 1040, obtaining freebies, government insured loans, etc.
    It is true that the SSAct does not mandate that anyone apply for or have a SSN.

  20. 11 June 2012 at 19:35

    @Al. you are correct in saying that the number is not yours. This is evidenced by the fact that when you die that number will eventually be re-issued. however, to insinuate that one only needs to mail it back does nothing legally. Once the SSN has been issued it must be legally broken to which mailnig card back to the SSA does nothing to nullify the “contract” that the government believes it has when it issues a card.

    A checkmark on the birth certificate is an application through the Enumeration at Birth (EAB) program via RM-00202.308 through RM-00202.314. Specifically see RM-00202.308 where it states, “EAB is voluntary for parents and hospitals.” Also note that you should have received a Form SSA-2853 in receipt of your “application.”

    You may FOIA an original copy of the birth certificate. A FOIA is not always a free service. That is why when you constript your FOIA, you state that you are willing to pay for any certification fees that are therein.

  21. 11 June 2012 at 19:37

    @Al, this is fairly fully explained in my original write-up. When I pose the question of “what law requires me to have a SSN” that is to mean “what law requires me to have a SSN for the purpose of having one.” If there is confusion, let it be put to rest now. I specifically mention taxes using and requiring the SSN as well as other government jobs requiring the SSN.

  22. 22 Al
    11 June 2012 at 20:26

    SSA states that no SSNs have been reissued after the person for whom the account was originally established died.

    “Are Social Security Numbers re-assigned after a person dies?

    “SSA does not reissue SSNs after someone dies. When someone dies their number is simply removed from the active files and is not reused. In theory, the time might come someday when SSA would need to consider ‘recycling’ numbers in this way–but not for a long time to come. SSA does not have to face reissuing numbers since the 9-digit Social Security number allows about 1 billion possible combinations, and to date SSA have issued a little over 400 million numbers.”

    Large blocks are reserved for other purposes, such as EINs, ITINs, and dummy numbers to be used by organizations that use SSNs so they can issue dummy numbers to persons who either do not have or will not divulge a SSN. “666” strings are not issued. Neither are “0000,” “1111,” “2222,” and so on.

    “… however, to insinuate that one only needs to mail it back does nothing legally. Once the SSN has been issued it must be legally broken to which mailnig card back to the SSA does nothing to nullify the “contract” that the government believes it has when it issues a card.”

    FICA/SECA is not a contract. It is a tax system. The SSN is a tax account number. SS is not insurance and is not a contract in any normal sense. Sometimes it is referred to as part of the “social contract,” which is a buggering of the term “contract.” I did not apply for a SSN, do not have a card, and do not participate in any of its programs.
    Returning the card is only symbolic. Simply not using the number stops it all. Now you won’t get a job with a corporation or most individuals, either. Or a bank or financial institution account.
    Really, shredding the card and never acknowledging the number or divulging it to anyone for any reason ever is the only way to disconnect the number from your name. Just disappearing from the incoming reporting is the most effective means. SSA declares that they never disconnect a number, once issued, from the name/birthdate it was issued in connection with. Even when a parent claims that they did not check the box, SSA states that the number will remain associated with the name/birthdate, and that if at some future time the parent or the individual decides to cooperate, all they need do is start using the number.
    If you change your name, the SSN will remain with the abandoned name as long as you never do anything to associate it with your new name. Changing your birthdate would be all the more effective.
    Before thinking that changing the birthdate would be lying, just remember that you really don’t know when your were born. You accepted other people’s word.
    Hardly anyone will consistently abandon “their” SSN without fail.
    I consistently denied having a SSN for nearly two decades. Only threats from my wife, who turned 180 degrees from when we married,* coerced me into using one again. The entire criminal protection racket did not intimidate me; one little woman has more power than the United State and all its millions of hired killers and murder machinery.
    *She claimed that she tore “her” SSN card into pieces and flushed it. She lied. I found it 18 years later where she had hidden it. I have no idea why she did this as I suggested to her that she not do that without going all the way – rescissions, whatever.

  23. 13 June 2012 at 04:33

    Whether or not they issue them right away or not is aside the point. If I am the sole owner than they will never be reissued.

  24. 24 Al
    14 June 2012 at 21:54

    You, the individual to whose name and birthdate a SSN is associated, do not own either the card nor the number. The reverse of the card itself makes this plain. Though the text of the card is not in itself the law, it is a concise summary of the relevant law. The issuer of an account number “owns” the number and sets the rules concerning its possession and use.
    Driver’s and professional licenses are examples of this principle. The issuer sets the rules (the issuing bureau in turn has to follow the rules set by its rulemaker, the legislature) of issue, possession and control.
    The accounts indexed by the licenses (SSN represents a sort of license to pay FICA/SECA, Medicare and 1040 taxes, among others), once created and associated with your name and birthdate, are never “shredded.” The only real way to disconnect your natural person from one of these accounts is to change your name. Then, if you do that, the governmental system will do its best to associate your former name with your new name if it becomes aware of the “disappearance” of its licensee.
    This action is much akin to the “witness protection program” in concept except that it is private, not governmental.

  25. 18 June 2012 at 04:10

    So are you attempting to disagree or just trying to expound?

  26. 26 Al
    18 June 2012 at 08:51

    Disagree with the idea of “ownership” of the SSN issued in your name and birthdate. It is owned by its creator/issuer, as is affirmed by the text on the reverse of the card.
    The SSA does not say that it never will reissue SSNs; only that it has not done so (so far) as it has not run out of numbers in the present system and will not for several more decades.

  27. 27 jesse james
    30 June 2012 at 16:53

    Hey Kyle,
    Theres an actually a ssn regulation stating one doesnt have to participate in the social welfare program but may need a ssn for other reasons.
    301. 6109-1(d)

  28. 28 Al
    2 July 2012 at 15:46

    “Not participating in the social welfare program” is declining to accept benefits (handouts).
    What most are chiefly interested in is not paying the FICA/SECA tax. You do not have to have a SSN to have FICA tax withheld from your pay, even if you can manage to get a job without a SSN. The employer will simply deduct it from your pay at the max unmarried individual no-allowances rate (assuming you do not fill out a W4) and send it off to IRS under the name your employer knows you by but without a SSN. You will not be credited for the wages subject to withholding; therefore they will not count toward any benefits you might someday apply for.
    This is much like how undocumented foreigners are treated. FICA is withheld from their pay but they can’t get any benefits without a SSN.
    The only people I know of who don’t mind paying FICA/SECA tax but will not apply for or accept benefits (SS, SSI) are Amish and some Mennonites and Hutterians.

  29. 29 jesse james
    2 July 2012 at 17:31

    For this sites education I used regulation 301.6109-1(d) as my foundation and 42usc 1982 as the means that the employer is liable for damages for depriving me access to my constitutional Bill of Rights to not particiapte in Social Security where the pay is treated as reportable “wages”. I dont have any deductions being taken out.
    There are a few court cites that went into this letter to the employer stipulating that no law can be passed that forces any American to participate in any government program where the end result is property being taxed (labor).
    The bottom line is its the employer (not the government) whos thinks Social Security is mandatory and all earnings must be treated as reportable income “wages”.

  30. 3 July 2012 at 07:41

    Any employer who wishes to be designated as an “employer” under Title 26 will withhold FICA taxes from your paycheck and also contribute their section of FICA taxes on your behalf. The trick is to find a way to have your employer operate as an “employer” to all workers who wish to be “employees” and for you they will act as a “payer” for you and anyone else who wants to be a “payee.”

    Of course, most businesses today operate in fear of the IRS so they won’t act in this manner, but that is how I am understanding it. Oddly enough, it seems like if they act of the latter that they would be saving money because they wouldn’t have to pay FICA for one of their workers. I agree completely with you when you say that it is the employer who thinks it is mandatory… the government is just collecting from people who have somehow “fell into the system.”

    With that said, I’m interested in how they are paying FICA on your behalf with the absence of a SSN. Most IRS forms require a SSN and a signature.

    As for deductions, I am pretty sure that you can have no deductions. The problem arises when your “employer” submits a W-2 stating your “wages” were earned. Hippalator, does your payer submit a W-3 form to the IRS and/or W-2 to you at the end of the year?

  31. 31 jesse james
    3 July 2012 at 10:34

    No W4 …no nothing. Not even a W3 transmittal (no reporting) as my earnings are not considered 3121(a) “wages” because I’m not participating in Social Security.
    The W4 is ONLY required when in the EXCISE activity of being 3121(b) “employment”.
    26usc 3111 specifically states the excise tax imposed on the employer is the reseult of an employee earning 3121(a) “wages” that are in respect to 3121(b) “employment”.
    3121(b) “employment” is defined in the Social Security Act and brought into Title 26 under Subtitle-C “employment taxes”.
    The W4 and W3 are required only when the employee volunteers to particiate in Social Security. The employer has no say in this decision of the employee participating or not.

    Its illegal for the government to pass legislation that compells Americans to participate having an end result of taxing the labor. Hence why the Social Security Act has no mandatory participation clause and regulations such as 301.6109-1(d) stating an individual doesnt have to participate.

  32. 32 Al
    5 July 2012 at 10:42

    “… they would be saving money because they wouldn’t have to pay FICA for one of their workers.”

    One IRS hassle is likely to cost the company/boss more in lost production time and pay for bookkeeper, tax lawyer, etc. than he would ever pay in the employer’s share of FICA.

    One employer said that when he did not withhold FICA some goon from the IRS called and threatened him. He asked that the threat be put in writing and the IRS goon would not do it, only threatened him over the phone again.

    A legitimate taxing agency/agent does not behave in such a manner. They have law to rely on. The IRS is a protection racket that chiefly sells protection from the IRS.

  33. 33 Al
    5 July 2012 at 10:46

    “With that said, I’m interested in how they are paying FICA on your behalf with the absence of a SSN. Most IRS forms require a SSN and a signature.”

    The worker’s name and identifying information that the employer has is sent to the IRS along with the withheld FICA and the employer’s FICA share. The employer’s EIN is on the form. IRS wants SSNs but is mainly interested in (phoney) money.

  34. 34 redbrickwood@yahoo.com
    5 July 2012 at 16:49

    There are no forms………period.
    Al, you dont understand, all forms such as W4’s and even the W9 are required when “wages” as restrictively defined for the purpose of Social Security are earned. “Wages” listed on a W2 are in respect to 3121(b) “employment” ONLY!

    When an employee doesnt wish to participate in Social Security the employee is legally no longer respected to 3121(b) “employment” and doesnt earn a defined “wage”.
    The earning of a nonparticipating employee are no longer legally required to be reported.

  35. 35 Al
    5 July 2012 at 21:55

    hippalator, you are welcome to “lay down the law” to your boss if you: don’t want to keep your job; your union will protect you from discharge; have a very rare skill that the boss would have a very difficult time replacing you; are married to the boss’ daughter.
    I can guarantee you that in almost all cases the boss is more afraid of the IRS than of you, or your lawyer.

  36. 36 jesse james
    6 July 2012 at 07:50

    Well Al……become educated in the proper ways of how the law works instead of the errors from armchair lawyer type gurus.
    The trump card over any fear of the government is 42usc 1983. The law is very specific to 3121(b) “employment”. And until you can grasp this you are lost within the law itself.

  37. 37 jesse james
    6 July 2012 at 09:44

    I believe the employer sends the money withheld and the info (info for sure) to the Social Security Administration. From there the money is dumped into the Treasury.

    The IRS updates/obtains all its records from SSA data (W3 from the employer).

  38. 38 Al
    10 July 2012 at 23:43

    jesse james, try to get a job, open a financial institution account, sell or buy real estate, driver license, etc., etc., and see if citing 1983 does you any good. Yes, spend your entire miserable life fighting one obstacle after the next while you see cooperative slaves living comfortably… most of the time … at least they eat.
    Some have succeeded in living outside the Socially Secure box, so if you can manage, great!

  39. 39 jesse james
    11 July 2012 at 07:49

    Hmm….you are an interesting charactor Al!
    I do beleive I posted regulation 301.6109-1(d) in relation to 42usc 1983.
    Anyway, Al, you can have a ssn for purposes of filling out other government forms and such for identification purposes and still not participate in Social Security where the income reporting structure originates.
    I have a credit union account and yet dont participate in Social Security.
    I recommend you, Al, read up on ssn disclosure regulation 301.6109-1(d).

    I used 42usc 1983 to force the employer to recognize that I have a right not to participate (no W4). And if forcing into participation they, the employer, was causing a tort punishable by 42usc 1983.
    Their lawyer hadnt known about 301.6109-1(d) being in the books. The lawyer recommended they the, emloyer, honor my request to follow the law which they themselves profited from as they no longer had to contribute the 26usc 3111 tax on my behalf.
    Win win situation for myself and the employer.

  40. 14 July 2012 at 13:48

    If I am reading this correctly then 301.6109-1(d) reads,

    (d) Obtaining a taxpayer identifying number—(1) Social security number. Any individual required to furnish a social security number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall apply for one, if he has not done so previously, on Form SS–5, which may be obtained from any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office. He shall make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. The form, together with any supplementary statement, shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the form, instructions, and regulations applicable thereto, and shall set forth fully and clearly the data therein called for. Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

    301.6109-1(b) reads,

    (b) Requirement to furnish one’s own number—
    (1) U.S. persons. Every U.S. person who makes under this title a return, statement, or other document must furnish its own taxpayer identifying number as required by the forms and the accompanying instructions. A U.S. person whose number must be included on a document filed by another person must give the taxpayer identifying number so required to the other person on request. For penalties for failure to supply taxpayer identifying numbers, see sections 6721 through 6724. For provisions dealing specifically with the duty of employees with respect to their social security numbers, see §31.6011(b)-2 (a) and (b) of this chapter (Employment Tax Regulations). For provisions dealing specifically with the duty of employers with respect to employer identification numbers, see §31.6011(b)-1 of this chapter (Employment Tax Regulations).
    (2) Foreign persons.

    And this is just the problem here, every most employers will assume that you fall under the 301.6109-1(b)(1) definition.

    Did I quote this section wrong or how did you convince your employer that you were “not a U.S. Person.” Especially if you have filled out paperwork in the past with a SSN and/or that you were a “U.S. Person.” I’m not saying you’re wrong – I just think that whatever relationship you have with your employer is probably different than most people’s relationship. I’ve already tried something similar to this and they kind of just said, “hey, we have to withhold from you, sorry, the IRS says so” and that was the end of that…

  41. 41 jesse james
    14 July 2012 at 15:26

    Its a matter of understanding that “wages” (3121(a) and 3401(a)) do not come before paragraph (b)’s “return, statement or document”.
    Before these statutory “wages” can be earned a document or even a statement (W4) has to be presented to the employer authorizing the employer (you authorizing the employer) to treat your earnings as “wages”.
    If no W4 has yet authorized the employer to treat the earnings as statutory “wages” then the law states the employer will withhold at single zero if both party’s are agreeing to earning “wages”.
    This is of course the employer is either assuming you want your earnings to be treated as “wages” or the employer doesnt understand theres a law stating you dont have to participate and treats your earnings a s “wages”.
    Now if you dont want to participate like myself I presented the Social Security law to the employer along with a statement the employer is causing a tort punishable by 42usc 1983.
    I had the employer right by the balls, legally, and he knew it, but I wasnt there to take the employer to court but to help each other financially.

  42. 14 July 2012 at 16:49

    The definition of “wages” via 3121 and 3401 are not in contention here. Nor is the filing of a Form W-4 to allow your paycheck to be treated as a “wage” to participate in the SS program.

    What is in question is… most payers (“employers”) don’t know the law. You can quote the law but in the end they are MUCH more afraid of the IRS than they are of you. YES, even if you quote the law! I know, I’ve tried this myself. Even when I asked them to show me what law made them withhold or have me fill out a W-4 and they pointed me to, of all things, the footnote on the W-4 stating, “Failure to provide a properly completed form will result in your being treated as a single person who claims no withholding allowances.”

    Let’s just say that I tell them to quit withholding, quote 301.6109-1, and threaten punishment under Title 42, Section 1983… and they continue withholding? So what then – I sue them under Section 1983? While it is possible that I may win, what is that going to do to my employment with them? My future with them? Whatever it is, it isn’t all that good unless you are such a highly prized commodity that it is impossible for them to replace you.

  43. 43 jesse james
    14 July 2012 at 17:15

    Also, in order to participate in Social Security one must sign under penalty of perjury stating one is a “US citizen”.
    However, one can be a ” US citizen” and not participate in Social Security.

    The Social Security Act has no mandatory participation clause within the Act for “US persons”. The Act has no compelling clause what so ever.
    The government can not compell anyone to participate in an Act of Congress where a tax imposition occurs.
    And if you are wondering obamacare is an extension of Social Security.

  44. 44 jesse james
    14 July 2012 at 17:42

    3121 and 3401 are very much in contention here Kyle. These two “wages” are what you are paid when you participate in Social Security….these defined terms are the end result of participating in Social Security.
    Without participating in SS you legally CAN NOT earn 3121(a) “wages” nor 3401(a) “wages”.
    Its these two “wages” the government has an interest in and without SS they dont have any means to extract the imposition.
    What I did was show my employer 301.6109-1(d) to the up side of me not participating.
    Go read 26usc 3111 and understand the employer is also taxed for an employee earning 3121(a) “wages” IN RESPECT to 3121(b) “employment” (the heart and sole of SS). Without 3121(b) “employment” Social Security doesnt exist.
    Also, this same 3111 section specifically states that 3121(b) “employment” is an excise. Its the “excise” taxable activity that nobody has put a finger on.
    Without 3121(b) “employment” nobody could legally earn 3121(a) “wages” nor could the private sector earn 3401(a) “wages” except government employees.
    3401(a) “wages” in reality are just the private sector SS participant lumped together with government employees to allow withholding.

  45. 45 jesse james
    14 July 2012 at 17:49

    Sorry, I forgot to explain by me not participating the employer is not imposed the 3111 tax…. that was the up side of me showing the employer 301.6109-1(d). not to mention the overhead cost of all that paper work the employer files….the W3 that goes to the SSA.
    You know the courts have ruled the government cannot compel anyone to participate with an end result of an imposition. This is why you see in 26usc 3101 and 3111 the language specifically stating 3121(a) “wages” are in respect to 3121(b) “employment”.
    Without 3121(b) “employment” (social security) the government has no case against you. In fact they dont have any reporting on you either.
    Without 3121(b) “employment” you are not in any excise taxable activity.

  46. 17 July 2012 at 06:06

    Also, in order to participate in Social Security one must sign under penalty of perjury stating one is a “US citizen”.
    However, one can be a ” US citizen” and not participate in Social Security. The Social Security Act has no mandatory participation clause within the Act for “US persons”. The Act has no compelling clause what so ever.
    The government can not compell anyone to participate in an Act of Congress where a tax imposition occurs.
    And if you are wondering obamacare is an extension of Social Security.

    There is no disagreement here.

    3121 and 3401 are very much in contention here Kyle. These two “wages” are what you are paid when you participate in Social Security….these defined terms are the end result of participating in Social Security.

    Again, there is no contention here from me. However, this is in contention for those who think that they are an “employer who only pays wages”!

    In large, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I completely agree with you that when you participate in SS (by signing a W-4 under perjury) your money earned is to be treated as “wages.” I am not somewhere that I can look this up – but Title 26 specifically states this somewhere! The problem arises when you are working for someone that has absolutely no interest in paying you anything but “wages.” And by this I mean that they demand that you fill out a W-4… or they fill it out for you.

    Yes, absolutely, if you opt out, then they win too! there is no argument from me on this issue either. However, as I stated before, most people giving people jobs are deathly afraid of the IRS. It is easier to pay the mob money that you don’t owe than to challenge the mob that you have no account with them to begin with.

    Do you get what I am saying here? I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just saying that most people who hire people to work for them think they have to be “employers” who have “employees” who earn “wages.” Anything outside of this standard-box is not worth the risk to them… even if they can benefit from it financially! Again, you are lucky that your employer realized that they weren’t an “employer” because you didn’t want to be treated as an “employee”!

  47. 47 jesse james
    17 July 2012 at 17:00

    No, actually the company I work for has always been an employer. They have other employees who do participating in Social Security. I’m an exception because I didnt want to participate.
    Participation isnt up to the employer…its up to the individual worker.
    The employer has no say in if the employee wishes or not to participate.
    If the employer does withhold after the individual employee asks not to participate then the employer is causing a tort in law that is punishable via 42usc 1983.
    Its punishable because the employer is forcing a legal action that administrative law says is the individuals choice, not the employers.
    I went to the employer explaining this to him which he reviewed my documents and asked if he coulkd consult his lawyer (his brother) about the matter. I said sure, no problem.
    A several days go by and the employer says ok your request to not participate is honored.

  48. 17 July 2012 at 18:13

    I have a feeling that unless I say “you are absolutely correct” then you are going to be argumentive. Why?

    I agree with you. I agree with you that your employer is an “employer” to people who want to be treated as “employees” who want to earn “wages” in order to participate in SS. I also agree that it is your prerogative to participate or not and that if you wish to participate, you have to sign up via a W-4. And what a W-4 does is to tell your payer to act as a “employer” as described in Title 26. I also agree that if they choose to fill out a W-4 on your behalf that you will probably win under Title 42.

    Alright, are we on the same page? I agree with you.

    However, I think that you are missing my entire point of the difficulty of this… Let me re-quote what I wrote above.

    Let’s just say that I tell them to quit withholding, quote 301.6109-1, and threaten punishment under Title 42, Section 1983… and they continue withholding? So what then – I sue them under Section 1983? While it is possible that I may win, what is that going to do to my employment with them? My future with them? Whatever it is, it isn’t all that good unless you are such a highly prized commodity that it is impossible for them to replace you.

  49. 49 jesse james
    17 July 2012 at 20:39

    I responded because you seem to beleive an employer is only an “employer” when their employees earn “wages”.
    Were employers “employers” before 1935?

    You have two choices to choose from dont you?
    So if you are scared then why this website?

  50. 17 July 2012 at 23:21

    An employer was just that before 1935… an employer! However, when there is a law written, all words are redefined. They lose their Webster definition and are replaced by their law definition. That is why in many of my posts I use quotation marks to try to distinguish the difference.

    I have two options? For what? Why so vague?

    I’m scared?! Of what!?

    I swear you aren’t paying attention just for the sake of being arguementive.

  51. 51 jesse james
    18 July 2012 at 10:25

    Ohh…..I’m definately paying attention…its you who isnt likeing the only two choices you have.
    Two choices?
    The only two choices you have is to either address the tort the employer is causing to correct the problem or continue to let the employer cause the tort and go your merry way and shut down your website.
    Basically your going to have to eventually get off the porch and do something about the problem.

    Yes, you are scared to go all the way through with standing up for yourself and the rule of law.

  52. 20 July 2012 at 12:51

    Again, you are missing the conversation here. To you the options are
    #1 Confront your employer and they abide by your request,
    #2 Confront your employer and they don’t abide by your request so you sue them under Title 42,
    #3 Don’t confront the employer, continue paying taxes, and bitch about it all.

    I understand these options. What I do NOT think you understand is that option #2 isn’t pretty for the employer-employee relationship. Are you denying the fact that suing someone for such an item changes the relationship and could potentially result in you being “let go.”?

    On another note, if you have all this figured out, why are you just on here berating me? you should be out standing on mountaintops proclaiming that you have it all figured out. Are YOU scared?

    As for shutting down my blog, why would I do that? If you haven’t perused, please do. This site is my own personal place to post whatever is on my mind – not just tax related items.

  53. 53 jesse james
    20 July 2012 at 14:07

    No I’m not missing a thing here Kyle….we are only left with two options.

    You are scared to be “let go”!
    I understand where you are coming from, but theres only two paths to take.

    And the reason i came here is because you have the knowledge to win (that 99.9 of the so called “gurus” think they know and dont know shit).
    Dont get me wrong Kyle. I’m not here to ridicule you or make fun of you. I commend your knowledge of the subject. You understand what the illness is (Social Security) that virtually nobody besides myself and you understand.
    Just want to see where your line in the sand is.

    Thanks for your time Kyle
    I’ll part my ways and bother you no more.

  54. 10 November 2012 at 09:24

    Hi Kyle,
    I see you’ve been visited by the “jesse james” fairy! I should tell you up front that I suspect he is bankster minion and the founder of Quatloos.com. He’s very good at the game, give him credit for that. Unfortunately for him, he couldn’t distract me away from learning the truth about the income tax scam with all his statutory SS talk. I am a successful 5-year NONTAXPAYER. Even though the SSA mailed me a SSN and I’ve used it to start bank accounts, I have opted out of Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, and Income taxes: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?461&p=5059#post5059

    I do it by REDEEMING LAWFUL MONEY: http://jesse2012.com/slavefree.jpg

  55. 10 November 2012 at 13:41

    I am well aware of Quatloos but I’m not sure how you’re gathering that JJ is who you say he is. Quatloos is very much pro-bankster and pro-government and I’m not really convinced that JJ has said anything of that sort. Can you point out what makes you think that? With that said, I’m not convinced either that there is one way out of this web that the banksters have made for us!

  56. 10 November 2012 at 20:14

    Well personally, I have found the way out and now the task is to free the country. Backing up… I am a CtC’er from when I read Pete’s book in 2008. As I recall, you posted good stuff over there as “PeacefulKancer” and I wish Pete wasn’t so heavy-handed, but … it is what it is. From there I began to explore the Quatloser site (as nasty as it was) and also Freedomwatch: http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16625-freedom-watch-show-ideas/suggestions/180526-cracking-the-code-by-pete-hendrickson

    It was there I ran into an arrogant “Larry Williams” who admitted he was FAMSPEAR of Quatloser fame (in 2009). The consensus at LostHorizons was that Famspear was Jay ADKISSON, the founder of quatloos.com As “johnthetaxist” I kept up an internet debate at Freedomwatch for years and then “Larry” stopped posting but someone named “jesse james” began posting with a very similar attitude, although he strategically introduced spelling errors. I continued to poke him with my success for thousands of posts.

    My internet travels also brought me to David Merrill who introduced me to this theory of “redeeming lawful money.” To make a long story short, David offers a more unified theory of bankster/priest oppression where federal taxation is just one small piece of a larger scam. In a nutshell: the federal income tax is an excise on use of Federal Reserve money. Of course the law doesn’t say that, not in so many words. But all of us putting his theory into practice are experiencing 100% success over IRS theft.

  57. 10 November 2012 at 23:16

    How are you figuring that I am PeacefulKancer on CtC?

  58. 10 November 2012 at 23:24

    12 USC § 411 – Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

    Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

  59. 59 John Libre
    11 November 2012 at 11:28

    I thought PeacefulKancer once linked to this blog; I might be mis-remembering that though. I doubt much of what PK wrote remains over there. Pete has “housecleaned” his forum at least 3 times since I’ve been there – pity. Are you denying you’re PeacefulKancer?

    Yes! 12 USC 411 is the key. “They [FRNs] shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand…” All I do is make my demand backside of my paycheck. You would do well to look at the difference between legal tender & lawful money.

  60. 60 Al
    29 November 2012 at 23:13

    My perception is that most feel that one hassle from IRS would cost them far more than the FICA tax they pay, which is just one more cost of doing business – to the boss just part of what he pays his worker. IRS is a gangster syndicate collecting on behalf of the Bank for International Settlements, the central bank for central banks: that is, the central bank of the world.

    John Libre, “legal tender” is bad money that is forced on people.. People hide their good money when bad money has the backing of the state’s gunmen

  61. 61 Earl Andrews
    14 January 2013 at 16:00

    A Mennonite man in Clinton, Arkansas, has been persecuted and JAILED for not having a Social Security Number! Andrew: of the family Watson, was just released from the Van Buren County jail, Friday December Seventh, after spending 71 days in jail. A new Federal law; TITLE 42, 666(13) requires a Social Security Number for any Drivers license, marriage license, hunting/fishing license, work license, or professional license in family matters. This law is tucked away in the dead beat dad laws. Andrew’s grandfather Howard Watson, suggested that the Social Security Number might be the number of a man, as written in the Scripture; Revelations 13. Andrew’s father, Doug Watson, suggested that it might be, if there were any ‘buy and sell’ restrictions put on the Social Security Number. Andrew had a Social Security Number, but rescinded it in 1991 when it was evident that the Social Security Number might be a precursor to the ‘number of a man.’
    However in the last two years he has been convinced that the Social Security Number IS the ‘number of a man.’ It must be the Van Buren County District Court’s conviction also, as Judge John Aldworth Sentenced Andrew: to 30 days in jail in June of ‘12’, and 40 days again in October of ‘12’.
    The ‘Constitution for the United States of America’ gave Andrew: the RIGHT to go to a peaceable assembly, (church fellowship) without a lien or license. Judge Aldworth took that away.
    The ‘Constitution for the United States of America’ gave Andrew: the RIGHT to go to Little Rock to address grievances without a lien or license. Judge Aldworth took that away.
    The ‘Constitution for the United States of America’ gave Andrew: the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To go to and from work, the park, or visiting the sick without a lien or license. Judge Aldworth took that away.
    The ‘Constitution for the United States of America’ gave Andrew: the RIGHT to DUE PROCESS OF LAW. After Andrew won his first case, and set a State precedence in law. (you no longer have to license or register an automobile in Arkansas if you don’t have air in your tires. City of Fairfield Bay vs Watson) Judge Aldworth added two other statutes to the case after court was over, and fined Andrew: 800.oo. Andrew: refused to pay the fine.
    The court has stated that the Alleged Defendant is not guilty at this time of S-27-14-601.
    The Court added S-27-14-701, which is against Due Process, The Alleged Defendant was not informed of this charge, nor was the Alleged Defendant given the right to defend. Fined as guilty of a charge that was not on the citation 567583. Of which I spent 31 days in jail.
    The witness testified that the Alleged Defendant did have liability insurance at the time that he checked the data base.
    The charge of the lack of liability insurance was totally incomplete in that there was no statute number included in the sentencing allowing for grave vagueness on the part of the court
    And also; the statute that was included on the citation
    S-27-13-102 applies to the revenue office in the event that someone should request license and registration as to what the fees might be. The witness stated that the defendant did not request license and registration. Thus the statute S-27-13-102 is a mutt point in this case.
    And also; the court’s decision that the State did not prove the the Alleged Defendant’s automobile did not qualify under the statute S-27-14-601, then there is a case of a non- automobile, No driver license is required for a non-license able automobile! Thus S-27-16-602A is also a mutt point!
    And also; Under the Police Powers act, S-27-16-602A is not legal, as in the ‘legislative intent’ it is stated three times that not having the statute will ‘cause catastrophic epidemic in loss of revenue to state, and local governments, and schools. The Police Powers act does not allow a statute for the purpose of gaining revenue.
    And also; The Constitution for the United States of America, does not allow forcing state individuals to be wealthy. (financial accountability) A civil law suit is for collecting damages.
    The Alleged Defendant does not have a contract with the City of Fairfield Bay corporation!
    Andrew: sent the Judge a letter similar to this;
    Article I
    Section 10:
    …”no State shall make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt”…
    Article VI:
    “This Constitution, …shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding… all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

    You have sentenced me to pay 800 dollars. The legal definition of DOLLAR is;
    DOLLAR, money. A silver coin of the United States of the value of one hundred cents, or tenth part of an eagle.
         2. It weighs four hundred and twelve and a half grains. Of one thousand parts, nine hundred are of pure silver and one hundred of alloy. Act of January 18, 1837, ss. 8 & 9, 4 Sharsw. Cont. of Story’s L. U. S. 2523, 4; Wright, R. 162.
    Being that the State of Arkansas has not issued any gold or silver coin in tender for the payment of debts since 1964. And it is a felony to request counterfeit moneys, the State has not given me remedy to pay this Debt.
    This Mennonite man, Andrew is having a difficult time going to work to supply for his family. (Yes, his family grows a lot of their own food. Even that is hampered when One is in jail.) He has appealed these last two cases. But his Right to an appeal is non-exsistant. You have to pay for an appeal in Arkansas.
    If you are freedom loving folk, let’s help this man out. He’s fighting for your freedoms too. (He can’t cash checks or M/O as he has no government I.D.) I’ll try to keep you all posted as his case and family situation progresses. Oh, He has lost a lot of his friends, as he has stepped on their Holy Cow-
    Pick press, p.o.box 45, Choctaw, Arkansas, 72028.

    UPDATE; Andrew:
    Andrew went in on the eleventh of December to check to see if the NOTICE OF APPEAL had been filed. The Clerk of Court, Ester Bass said that he would not file the Notice of Appeal. “You have to give me 165 dollars or I’ll not file it.”
    I don’t want a business of Appeal! I want the right to an Appeal. A RIGHT is something I own! You can’t Tax my right, you can’t put a fee on my right. I own it!
    “I will not file this without 165 dollars.”
    In my head I was thinking, (HYPOCRITE). Ester Bass was a pastor of a so-called church. And He swore an oath to the Constitution for the United States of America. (Just to get in office) Some folk are Christians and some are not. His church probably has the symbol of ba-al’s phallus sticking out the roof!
    Pick press, p.o.box 45, Choctaw, Arkansas, 72028.

    Update Andrew:
    A letter to Internal Affairs of Arkansas
    Internal Affairs of Arkansas, The Eleventh day of
    Two Union National Plaza December, In the year of my
    105W. Capital Blg, 2nd floor Lord Two-Thousand Twelve.
    Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201-5731

    My name is Andrew: of the family Watson, I was in jail for not having a Social Security Number, (Federal Law, Title
    42, 666(13) My beliefs in Jesus does not allow me to have a Social Security Number. I am a Mennonite, and on October 29th I was denied a constitutional trial of my peers. While I sat in the audience with my wife, the Court had two mock trials against me. I was sentenced to an undetermined amount of time in jail. (was released after 40 days.) While in jail I sent a ‘Notice of Appeal’ to the Court Clerk in a timely manner to have it filed. I had to cobble it together from memory, as the jail only gave me two hours use of the law library, would not allow me copies of the law books. (? legal documents ?) The law books that I needed just happened to disappear for four weeks!
    On this day, ‘Eleventh’ I went to the Clerk of Court’s office to check if it had indeed been filed.
    “No! You did not have an Indigent status filed with it, Or you can put up your farm as collateral. You have to pay me 165 dollars. for an Appeal.”
    I said that I wanted the ‘Constitutional right to an Appeal,’ Not some business contract. (This Appeal is only for the wealthy!)
    “You have to pay me 165 dollars!”
    My questions to you folks is;
    1) Do I no longer have a Right to a Jury Trial of my
    2) Do I no longer have a Right to Due Process?
    3) Do I no longer have a Right to a Appeal?
    4) Do I no longer have the Right to Travel to a
    Peaceable Assembly? (Church fellowship)
    5) Do I no longer have the Right to Travel to Little Rock to Address my Grievances?
    6) Do I no longer have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Travel to work, the park, Visit the sick, and in prison?
    My third grade public school teacher said that these were my inalienable (unlicensable) Rights! That a Right was something that I owned, not anyone else! Did Miss Jackson lie to me?
    All of my Constitutional Rights have been tromped on, except voting, and running for public office. As a Mennonite, I can’t utilize those two!
    I have spent a total of 71 days in jail this year. I bore it Patiently (Led 19 men to the saving grace of Jesus Christ)
    The Laws are on my side, but I’m not allowed a constitutional jury trial to Plead the cases.
    Andrew: of the family Watson
    UCC 1-207/1-308

    Pick press, p.o.box 45, Choctaw, Arkansas, 72028.
    Or send your gifts or tithe to me, via pay pal @;

    Update Andrew:
    Wonderful news, Andrew is writing a book, ‘THE INJUDICUAL SYSTEM of Van Buren County’ The BEAST CORPORATION. The book is at 123 pages, and growing!

  62. 22 January 2013 at 10:39

    Appreciation to my father who told me about this website, this webpage is in
    fact awesome.

  63. 63 Al
    2 April 2013 at 13:16

    Having a socialist party membership number is the modern state “church’s” form of denoting membership in the state (government) established quasi religion.
    In former times if one was not “baptized” into the state church, which was then the Roman Catholic Church, one was an outcast, not a member of the body politic.
    Later following the Protestant Reformation, if one was not “baptized” into the Lutheran or Evangelical (Calvinist) Church ( according to which one was the official established religion in the country in which one lived) he was in the same condition.
    Today professedly supernatural religion is out of style. Yet the same system is in place, a secular quasi religion of worship of the state. If you are not on the membership rolls of the state, or of a sister state (foreign country) you are an “enemy of the state.”

  64. 64 Al
    2 April 2013 at 13:28

    “… (you no longer have to license or register an automobile in Arkansas if you don’t have air in your tires.” !!

    I thought it was the motor that had amended the constitutions.

    You might note that in some states Amish (or any) buggies are required to be registered and display a county-issued identification plate. I don’t think they have air in their tires, at least not under pressure. Also, laws (I’m sure in Arkansas!) forbid operating a wheeled vehicle on a hard surfaced road without rubber tires. So solid rubber tires that do not contain air (under pressure?) are the only way to go to avoid titling, registration and identification.
    The Sears Motor Buggy was available with 36 X 1 3/8 inch solid rubber tires, 38 X 2 inch Cushion rubber tires and 34 X 3 inch Pneumatic tires. The first would be legal without registration. The last would be required to be registered for sure. But how about the Cushion tires? The were like solids but had a hollow space containing air inside. The air was not under pressure. The space just allowed to tire to squash a little for a smoother ride and better adhesion to the road (larger contact patch).

  65. 65 Diane
    6 April 2013 at 12:01

    If I want to claim my minor child on my tax returns (for the exemption) MUST I get them a SSN. Don’t want to put them in the “system”. Am I stuck? Can I claim them and then mail a copy of birth certificates with my tax filing?

  66. 6 April 2013 at 12:08

    Short version: If you don’t want to get bit by the alligators then don’t play in the alligator pit.

    Long version: You can’t have a membership number and not pay your membership dues. If you don’t want your child in the system then you can’t put them in the system. Every time you use his membership number you acknowledge that he is in the system. This is especially true when using their number on the systems (government) paperwork. Even the of birth certificates may pose as proof that they are in the system since a birth certificate is validation of their existence *by the system.*

  67. 67 Iz
    7 April 2013 at 13:39

    To add to this post as the one would want to see how far the rabbit hole goes. Here below is a copy of a letter written from Edward Mandel House to Woodrow Wilson in regards on how Birth Certificates and SSN (Social Security Number) would be systematized unto the people and without this system, it would be difficult to make a living. http://www.gemworld.com/EdMandellHouse.htm

    Also, as per my research the SSN is really the mark of the beast as per Revelation 13:15-18. If you think about it, in order to be part of the commerce game it is required to have a SSN, without one you cannot buy or sell which are the main formulas of commerce. I do recall that their is act under 42 USC Sec. 666 Chapter 7 – Social Security which I have not read as of yet. Hence, the Mark of the beast is another topic within in itself.

  68. 68 jessejames
    8 April 2013 at 03:58

    The mark of the beast is not the ssn.
    666, the mark of the beast, is describing three(3) events foretold in the Bible that happen at the same time to alert those who are aware of satans appearance on earth.
    There are seven (7) trumps, seven (7) vials and seven (7) seals total in the book of Revelation.
    These trumps, vials and seals do not happen in numerical order. However the 6th trump, the 6th seal, and the 6th vial all come to pass at the same time, 666.
    If you read the 6th seal, the 6th vial and the 6th trump you’ll come to realize each one of the these events is describing the wicked one appearing on earth.
    Our Father always warns us three (3) times….we wont have any excuses come the last trumpet being sounded.
    The last trump is the 7th trump which is Christ returning to earth. Please read these passages to get a better understanding of the not so far future events.
    Also to understand “666” a bit better. satan is coming to earth at the 666 as a fake Christ. Hes coming to play act as Christ. This is how satan fools the whole earth into worshipping him.
    “Anti Christ” in the book of Revelation when translated into its native language means “instead” of Christ.
    It means a fake imposter Christ verses the opposite of Christ..

  69. 69 Al
    10 April 2013 at 18:19

    We are still able to do some buying and selling without a Satan’s Slave Number. Flea markets, art fairs, many similar activities. I dealt in real estate rentals for over ten years without ever divulging a SSN. If “illegal” foreigners can find work then so can we, if we’re willing to work for similar pay under similar conditions. I know of an undocumented welder who is paid in cash. How long that will last – who knows?
    In today’s economy bosses have the upper hand. For each position there are generally several competitors. Why should a boss take the risk of hiring a non-SSNed worker when there are several SSNed ones who want the job? Only if the job is short-term, persons who have the skills needed are hard to find, or such person is willing to work for really cheap. Or, very rarely, the boss is supportive of non-SSNing.

  70. 70 Iz
    8 May 2013 at 11:34

    Kyle said:
    Also to understand “666″ a bit better. satan is coming to earth at the 666 as a fake Christ. Hes coming to play act as Christ. This is how satan fools the whole earth into worshipping him.

    My response:
    Scripture does specify this claim in verbatim, however what you just stated is conjecture. Scripture says in “verbatim” in Revelation 13:15-18, that many will receive a mark in their hand and in their forehead and without the number you will be unable to perform commerce (BUY OR SELL).. Therefore It says nothing about Satan coming in disguise as Christ, so if this claim is no where written in “verbatim” in scripture, what is the use of adding unto scripture ?

    I tell you what…..quit your present job and apply for another one without a SSN# and see what happens. Or apply for government benefits without a SSN# and see what happens.

    I bet you million federal reserve notes, that hardly any corporation will hire you, due to the fact that mostly all U.S. Corporations are terrified of the Beast, which the IRS is the right hand of the Federal Reserve who is monitored by Satan.

    Just incase, for those who are without a bible or is lazy on looking up this scripture online… I will post it below as it will specify its definition in verbatim about HOW the mark of the beast will administered and what will happen to those who are without this number.
    Revelation 13:15-18

    5 .And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

    16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,…TO RECEIVE…. a…MARK…in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

    17 And that no man might…..BUY OR SELL………SAVE HE HAD THE MARK….OR THE NAME OF THE BEAST, or the *NUMBER* of his NAME.

    18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

  71. 71 Priscilla Colombari
    17 December 2013 at 06:01

    I am a USA citizen, born in USA. I have a passport. I have never had a SSN. I have lived my entire life outside the USA. Do I really need a SSN?

  72. 18 December 2013 at 05:33

    The Social Security Administration specifically says on their website and through official documents that a SSN is not needed to live or work in the USA. If this is the case then surely you do not need one to live or work abroad.

  73. 73 TJ
    7 July 2014 at 05:58

    To clarify for readers: Al said, “I consistently denied having a SSN for nearly two decades. Only threats from my wife, who turned 180 degrees from when we married,* coerced me into using one again. The entire criminal protection racket did not intimidate me; one little woman has more power than the United State and all its millions of hired killers and murder machinery.*She claimed that she tore “her” SSN card into pieces and flushed it. She lied. I found it 18 years later where she had hidden it. I have no idea why she did this as I suggested to her that she not do that without going all the way – rescissions, whatever.”
    Al also claims to have lived for 10 years without giving out an SSN. I have known Al for decades. His wife is the opposite of how he pictures her. He doesn’t tell you he had an IRS lien and could not sell his home for 10 years (back when a lien expired in 10 years). His property fell into disrepair and his family became homeless. He lost nearly everything. Incredibly, even after his family had several children, including a newborn, and was living out of a vehicle with winter nearing, in a cold isolated part of the country, he flat-out refused to give out an SSN to get his first ever non-under-the-table job since he married. Family responsibility was never a strong trait in this man, sadly. The logical consequences of NOT getting a “conforming” job caused him finally to relent and get the job. Before making the decision to survive without an SSN, please, very carefully consider how you and your family will live. Do not trust everyone who dispenses advice on the internet.

  74. 7 July 2014 at 10:11

    What is interesting, TJ, is that you urge us to believe nothing on the internet… yet, here you are on the internet claiming that you know this man and that he has done his family wrong and that it would behoove us to get a SSN and use it. If I wasn’t stupid I would think that you were specifically stalking Al. Seems odd that in this wide internet that you would just run into each other.

    But what about your claims? The Social Security Administration (SSA) itself claims that you do not need a SSN to work or live in the United States of America. To date I have not seen an actual law dictating that you must have a SSN that includes penalties for those who try to work or live in the United States of America.

    So if there are no laws – Regulations or Codes – that mandate that you apply for, receive, and use a SSN to work and live in the United States of America… then why do we need one as you seem to purport?

    Furthermore, if the governmental body that runs the Social Security program itself says you don’t need a SSN. If you look at Social Security document 05-10023 (November 2013) it repeatedly states that you do not need one. (See here for the SSA website or here for a copy that I saved). So if their publications say you don’t need one… then why are you urging us to obtain and use one?

    With that said I have no idea what the exact story or scenario is with Al. But let us just say that what you say is true – he does have an IRS lien on him. On a topical level the IRS is not the SSA. The IRS is a governmental collection agency while the SSA is a retirement benefit agency. They do work together but they are not the same.

    As I have tried to outline in my original post taxation is heavily intertwined with social security. That as far as I can tell the SSN that you obtain is your membership number into the Social Security retirement program, which is a government ran retirement program. When you join such a program you are also giving up certain natural-born privileges in exchange for retirement entitlement. It is kind of like the terms and conditions when signing up for anything else… but in this case we don’t get to see the terms and conditions and most of the time our parents sign us up for the program.

    If Al is indeed in hot water with the IRS this has nothing to do with him having or not having a SSN. People work here in the United States of America all the time without SSNs. Bottom line is if you are in trouble with the IRS it is probably because of how you represented yourself to the government versus how you represented yourself while paying the government during taxes.

  75. 75 TJ
    7 July 2014 at 20:04

    Stalker? That’s amusing. It’s as if we blog readers can’t possibly be friends in real life. Are all your readers assumed to be friendless loners? (I jest). Al’s my buddy. He knows I read his posts. Yes, yes, I’ve heard all the SSN-is-voluntary evangelism before, from Al, probably before you were born (you seem to be a young fella). Did I claim anything either way about that? Did I tell anyone to go out and get an SSN? Nope. It’s a free country (on paper anyway). We’re free to choose to get by without an SSN. No doubt about it. Do what you want, dear readers. My point is, count the cost, folks, especially anyone thinking about having a family. “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?” Luke 14:28 Like tower building, living without an SSN, voluntary as it is, can still be costly.

    Lots of guys talk, but few walk the walk, as Al has. Al painted a rosy picture, and the realist in me had to call him on it, good buddy that I am. His wife has stuck by him through thick and thin, mostly thin, his family eating nearly nothing but food bank food. His adult kids, who were never given SSNs growing up, decided they don’t want to live off friends and relatives anymore, and work under the table and be treated worse than illegals. They’ve been working for years without success to get SSNs. Maybe they need to find more of those flea markets Al mentioned, or inherit farmland or rental property from a rich relative (and pray no lien is slapped on it). Best of luck, guys.

  76. 8 August 2014 at 10:29

    The point here is that You are saying “watch what you do – look at Al” while at the same time providing no factual proof that (1) Al is in trouble exactly for what you say and (2) that what you say has any factual basis internal to the SSA/IRS. As I said this subject is a tangled mess of law, half-law, bureaucracy, and public-opinion. Truth be told I am not sure how you are claiming that he, or anyone without a SSN is wrong permitting that I’ve pointed you to the SSA website itself for my proof. This isn’t mantra or evangelism, this is fact. If the SSA itself says you don’t need a SSN, then where do you get off saying that you need one “or it will be costly”?

    As for Al’s kids not being able to get SSNs is absolutely bunk. The SSA hands out thousands of SSNs a day – why in the world would they deny them?

  77. 8 August 2014 at 10:29

    The point here is that You are saying “watch what you do – look at Al” while at the same time providing no factual proof that (1) Al is in trouble exactly for what you say and (2) that what you say has any factual basis internal to the SSA/IRS. As I said this subject is a tangled mess of law, half-law, bureaucracy, and public-opinion. Truth be told I am not sure how you are claiming that he, or anyone without a SSN is wrong permitting that I’ve pointed you to the SSA website itself for my proof. This isn’t mantra or evangelism, this is fact. If the SSA itself says you don’t need a SSN, then where do you get off saying that you need one “or it will be costly”?

    As for Al’s kids not being able to get SSNs is absolutely bunk. The SSA hands out thousands of SSNs a day – why in the world would they deny them?

  78. 8 August 2014 at 10:29

    The point here is that You are saying “watch what you do – look at Al” while at the same time providing no factual proof that (1) Al is in trouble exactly for what you say and (2) that what you say has any factual basis internal to the SSA/IRS. As I said this subject is a tangled mess of law, half-law, bureaucracy, and public-opinion. Truth be told I am not sure how you are claiming that he, or anyone without a SSN is wrong permitting that I’ve pointed you to the SSA website itself for my proof. This isn’t mantra or evangelism, this is fact. If the SSA itself says you don’t need a SSN, then where do you get off saying that you need one “or it will be costly”?

    As for Al’s kids not being able to get SSNs is absolutely bunk. The SSA hands out thousands of SSNs a day – why in the world would they deny them?

  79. 79 Keith G.
    11 August 2014 at 17:11

    I have a 12 yo daughter. I refused at birth to “apply” for an SSN. I have read the SSA website and spoken with them on the phone. They have confirmed that application for SSN is purely voluntary but she would need one if she wanted certain “government benefits” I also went and applied for a passport for her and filled out the application with all zeros as instructed by the form when there is no SSN. BUT at the governmental office where I filed the form they kept telling me that without the SSN the passport application would be denied. I told them to send it in anyway and I would see what happens. I have been searching the internet to gain knowledge about this issue. I feel lost about how to get her a drivers license without the SSN (aside from moving to Tennessee. I now live in Georgia where you MUST show an SSN to get a license.) I have seen people reference form form SSA-L676 but if you read the fine print is says this form is not be used by people who have never had an SSN. Now what? Where do I go from here?

  80. 24 August 2014 at 09:21

    Keith G., thank you for writing and thank you for taking up the challenge of living without a SSN. I think one point to note is that most places that “require” a SSN only know how to process their documents with a SSN. They are not used to processing claims where people are natural born citizens but don’t have a SSN. This is true whether you are applying for a passport or a job down the street.

    With that said, there isn’t a lot about the subject. It is my personal belief that the web of truth and untruth are so obscure – largely due to States subjugating and yoking themselves to the Federal government – that it is hard to get answers from anyone. For example, if you go to the SSA website or even ask them if you need a SSN to live and work in the United States of America they will quite simply say “no.” However, if you inquire further about what that exactly means, especially in light that everywhere you go they will ask you for a SSN then they give you a non-answer such as “some places will require you to have a SSN which in that case you will have to apply for one.” So my question then becomes, which places are asking for SSNs that are mandated by law where others are asking because they have chose to. And if they chose to (i.e. let’s say that Billy Joe’s Pork wants your SSN to buy a BBQ sandwich, are they allowed to because that is their right as a property owner or is that an lawfully illegal use of a federal number for a non-governmental use?) can it be challenged in court? My guess is that the use of the number is solely mandated by law and that most places chose to. And if they chose to, you can either chose to do business with them or not, but you cant challenge the way they do business. And chances are, they don’t even know what the number really means (i.e. receiving governmental benefits as you said).

    As for driver’s licences… well, if a state requires it and they don’t have a way to give it to non-resident aliens then you will have to get a SSN if you want that piece of plastic. This whole idea raises another whole debate about privilege versus rights in my opinion. The fact is that you can always drive without a licence. The gas you put in your car has taxes to the federal government and to the local government and both of those taxes are used to build and maintain taxes – this is the perfect example of an excise tax. So what is the licence for? To me it seems that you are voluntarily agreeing to be subject to those laws where you will be driving on. You aren’t asking for the right to drive – you are asking for the privilege of being a part of their system (i.e. courts in case of an accident, maintenance costs outside the gas tax, etc.). I know the freemen-of-the-land drive without a driver’s licence with the idea that they are simply human and only are subject to common law jurisdiction, not statutory law. While I agree with this idea society is not going to make your life easy for you. It is going to take a lot of work and research to make sure that you do not subject yourself to the statutory law.

    For further reading you may want to check out Macquirelatory and see what they have to say. I haven’t checked out their methods or done them, but I do largely agree with them (and their court cases) from what I’ve seen though.

  81. 81 IZzI
    25 August 2014 at 07:42

    Also to add in regards to the right to travel vs driving as a privilege under commerce, which is what a drivers license is for. If you take a look at your states DMV statutes, it will clearly tell you that motor vehicles are considered vehicles for means of doing business on public roads (i.e. commerce). Even federal law 18 U.S.C. § 31 : US Code – Section 31 says:

    (6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

    Their are two options in asserting your right to travel.

    1. Use their statutes, codes and their case laws to show that you have a right to travel and that your not using the roads for any commercial purposes. Of course this option requires alot of research and it requires that you do not get intimidated by the Devils who run the court system (i.e. lawyers and Judges). As they will make it very difficult for you and will make the attempts to put you in jail just because your not abiding their scam system.

    2. Stand as a Man or Woman and challenge the system by asking these simple questions: “What evidence does your codes, and your constitution apply to me ? What evidence gives you the jurisdiction over me ?

    Violating a code because your driving without a piece of plastic in their eyes its is considered a crime, which does not involve anyone being injured, no property of being damaged or any one’s rights being violated. I do recommend option 2 because it is very effective and strikes right to the core of their claim and/or supposed jurisdiction. You can check http://marcstevens.net/ Marc Stevens has alot of information and past podcast that will prove that option 2 is very effective. I would also check out his two books “Adventures in legal land” and “Government: Indicted”

  82. 25 August 2014 at 08:05

    IZzI: Thank you for your post. I wonder if they will extrapolate you driving to work as engaging in commerce on roads even though you are not doing any commerce at that time? Especially if the workplace is considering themselves a federal corporate entity (look at your W2 form at the EIN, this is the Employer Identification Number, which is also called the Federal Tax Identification Number) and that you have probably said that you are a federal employee (by using your SSN).

  83. 83 hippy
    25 August 2014 at 09:55

    While researching my Iowa statutes on the subject of commerce I found that every state has a statute basically stating that “US citizens”, no matter what they do, is considered “commerce”.
    “US citizens”….breath, eat, play, work, travel, sleep……..in commerce………its a jurisdictional issue.
    So in reality everything you do is in the commerce field.
    “The People” are not in commerce…….. but in fact very much private….whil “US citizens” are under the jurisdiction of Congress (via the 14th amendment citizen) where congress has jurisdiction over commerce.

  84. 25 August 2014 at 10:25

    Hippy, I have come to a similar conclusion. If you claim in any way that you are a U.S. Citizen then everything you do falls under that jurisdiction and thus you are eligible for any protections (special courts) or fees (taxes) that are associated with that. The trick is how we voluntarily submitted to being a U.S. Citizen (probably at birth when our parents signed us up for a SSN by the Enumeration at Birth program) and how we can revoke that title.

  85. 85 hippy
    25 August 2014 at 10:38

    From what I’m seeing in the last 5 to 6 years of research is that every government form somehow or is someway connected to the SSN.
    What mean is in order to get a drivers license …you must give your SSN.
    In order to participate in Social Security you must sign a W4…which is, and like, all the other privileges of government (not Rights) signed under penalty of perjury of being a “US citizen”.
    Take for instance the SS5 form (application of SSN) it to is also signed under penalty of perjury of being a “UScitizen”.
    I beleive the root cause of this congressional jurisdiction is participation in Social Security…..becuase everything that deals with this 2nd class citizenship requires the disclosure of the SSN under penalty of perjury of being a US citizen.

  86. 86 IZzI
    25 August 2014 at 15:25

    Konfusing Kancer, You said: I wonder if they will extrapolate you driving to work as engaging in commerce on roads even though you are not doing any commerce at that time?

    My response: If your going to step within their legal arena and play the word game with them, then according to them, driving is considered a means of driving a motor vehicle and a motor vehicle is used for commercial purposes according to 31 : US Code – Section 31 (6)

    According to Transportation code: Title 7. Vehicles and traffic, subtitle B. Drivers licenses and personal idenfication cards. Sec. 522.003(11) it says:

    “Drive” means to operate or be in physical control of a motor vehicle.

    If your driving to work or driving to the store to purchase food, then to them your are engaging in commerce. If your traveling to work or traveling to the grocery store, then no you are not engaging commerce and your not using the public roads for any commercial purposes. There is a difference between driving and traveling. It is a privilege to drive, but it is a Human right to travel, which is why I recommend option #2 out of the 2 options I posted in my previous post on how to assert your right to travel. Engaging in debates with these lying criminals at traffic court (i.e. Lawyers and Judges) and using their codes and statutes against them in order to assert your status as a man and not a “Person” requires alot of time and research.

  87. 87 Joe
    27 September 2014 at 18:46

    I think that there’s something many posters (and readers) are missing here. Which is that what the law says does not really matter. Court does not really operate based upon the law and what it says..it usually operates off of something entirely different – Crookedness.

    Of course the SSN is the mark of the beast. The number of name that you cannot buy or sell without. Try to buy insurance, a telephone line, electricity..try to get a bank account. Try to sell your labor at a regular job. Only those willfully blind (or complicit) can miss it. The 600 and 60 and 6 is the Beast’s social security number. What country founded the UN and held it’s headquarters? What country dropped fire from the sky down onto earth before the eyes of man? What country came up with the SSN and is behind the ISSA? What country uses phony terrorism as an excuse to peep on everyone’s communications and naked bodies with the airpor scanner? What country says that only if you accept your special number and bark it out on command that you are secure and safe? The height of the Washington Monument – 1,666 inches. Take the roman numerals off of the great seal of the US (that creepy pyramid on the back of the dollar, which represents lucifer settling down upon the pyramid of serial numbered peasant blocks), break it into three sets of 3 digits, and what do you get?

    What I am saying regarding courts and crookedness is that regardless of the law and the current state of things, everything is going in one direction on purpose – you bear your number or you face a lot of trouble (and maybe death in the future). What’s funny is that it’s not like the number is some secret..it’s not like it can’t be impersonated or tricked up..but what’s required is for you to personally own it – for you to bark it out upon demand for the rest of your life so you know it as well as or better than you know your own name. This is the spiritual subjection that the number is really about. You are one serial numbered block in the pyramid of the great eye. You must accept your place or die. What if you turn up on the other side, and you are in darkness, and there is one question: What is your number? Will you bark out your Satan Slave Number? As if you can’t read Revelation 13??

    There is a guy up there who said that he banished the number for years until his wife did something. I hope he didn’t start bearing a slave number because of a woman. Don’t get thrown into the lake of fire over some foolish woman!!

  88. 88 Joe
    27 September 2014 at 19:08

    Also..I missed the post from TJ. It sounds like satan has come here to speak. I have heard the father of lies speak before. He always wants to quote a clip out of the bible…remember how he tempted Jesus with his bogus words. Get behind us satan! You won’t have my company in your well-deserved plunge into the lake of fire!

    Just like 42 USC 666, satan always tries to use the children to manipulate. “Think of the children!” Think of your children! think of how they will suffer from a lack of money if you won’t be satan’s slave! I’d rather be hungry and *gasp* embarassingly poor! my whole short life rather than to spend eternity in the flames. Here are my Bible quotes:

    9And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, If any man worshippeth the beast and his image, and receiveth a mark on his forehead, or upon his hand, 10he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, they that worship the beast and his image, and whoso receiveth the mark of his name. 12Here is the patience of the saints, they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

    And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

  89. 28 September 2014 at 03:49

    @hippy: Yes, there is a reason that you have to sign forms. It is your own admittance, and voluntary compliance, to operate under the associated rules regardless of whether you know what rules you are adhering to or not.

    @IZzI: I agree. What you refer to is legalese. Just because it is a word that we use in common language does not mean that it carries the same meaning when it comes to law – driving, traveling, employee, employer, income, profit, person, individual, etc.

  90. 28 September 2014 at 04:08

    @Joe: I am interested in the whole occult thing with all the numerology and symbolism that goes along with it. Is it all true? Could be. Is it all as the Bible says? Could be. With so much deception out there it is hard to say one way or another – and I say this from both sides… it isn’t like the Bible or any other religious text exactly spells out what is what and who is who either – they all use numerology and symbolism… don’t they?

    I mean we can go on and on about numbers and what they mean… if anything. The streets of Washington D.C., the owl on U.S. Currency. Make the star over the pyramid and you get a new word with a new meaning. Fold all the bills a certain way and it depicts the WTC falling on 9/11. New world order written. MDCCLXXVI isn’t 1776, but rather 666 as you say. 13 layers of bricks in the pyramid. ETC!

    Is it just us making stuff up or is there really a force at hand? Hard to say. I’ve often wondered… let’s say that we all are using the SSN as a mark of the beast. When we get to the Pearly Gates and are asked if we have a SSN… are we really going to be judged and cast aside because we unknowingly used a number that let use have a bank account so we could buy groceries? I’m not God so I can’t answer that but it seems a bit… harsh.

    Since the Bible isn’t explicit, how are we supposed to know with 100% certainty?

  91. 91 Joe
    29 September 2014 at 10:47

    @KK: I didn’t realize that there were 13 layers on the pyramid..thanks for that info. But you see, a pyramid with 13 layers and 666 under it. Then you have 42 USC 666, subsection 13 (4+2 = 6, even) which demands that you have the number “for the sake of the children” in order to have basic rights..I think to one point, God ensures that the devil types have 666 stamped on their work, but on the other hand, they appear to willfully stamp it on things themselves. For instance, it is considered a lucky number in the new age movement. And it is possible that the number even existed in ancient times deep in the Babylonian Mystery religion..

    (As an aside, certain parts of Revelation appear to refer to this religion explicitly..and as Christians don’t know much about it today, they are in the dark..)

    I don’t think the SSN originally qualified as the mark of the beast…I think, as usual, they slowly morph things over time. And that just about now (where the Privacy Act is still on paper, but doesn’t really apply in real life)…now, after 9/11, that it is becoming the official beast mark.

    You ask about being certain and 100%. The way I see it, if there’s only a 50% chance – nay, if there’s only a 1% chance…that it is the beast mark, would you want to be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb? Sounds embarrassing AND hot. Respect for God means taking no chances with him, particularly for the sake of an obviously evil government. Also, I would say that we can be pretty sure at this point that something is not right. A government with 666 and DEVILRY stamped all over it is telling us that we have to repeat this nonsensical number to have basic rights..while we are supposed to pretend that it keeps everything orderly and safe…which is just a bunch of hooey.

    Also, while we are thinking of 100%, I will say this. I have been thirsty to understand Revelation. I have prayed for insight, I have just about drooled for the knowledge. Then I came to the conclusion that a letter written to churches in Asia must have been in the lingua franca of the region – aramaic/syriac, and I found some direct translations from the syriac. You know it wasn’t written in old english..and there’s no point in writing to asia in Greek. The syriac has such subtle differences…it is hard to explain how there are some words which, with only the slightest difference, have two different meanings..and yet sometimes both meanings seem to apply at the same time. Anyway, what I’m saying is that something happened around then, and in like a few days time, I felt absolutely certain that I understood the entirety of Chapter 13 as well as other parts of the book. This won’t help those that want a scientific proof or anything, but for my part, I see it as clear as crystal…it’s not just some vague foolery like Nostradamus.

    Further, once you stop using the number, you will be persecuted. There is something spiritual about taking a serial number (the only purpose of which is to track a person, like property) and doing whatever you are told by the issuer of the number. One cannot have two masters. That numbering to prove subjection was done in concentration camps with the tattoo, and it is done in prison. As you see in our society, just about EVERYONE is afraid of the government, but they feel like God is not watching and can’t see. The government is trying to usurp (at least in the minds of the public) omniscience, etc. The Bible also says, let him with wisdom calculate the number. Everyone can’t have the wisdom..yet everyone CAN have the humility to listen to those who do (humility is also lacking in beast-land – as you see people eager to debate against even new ideas that they had never heard of 5 seconds before..).

    And so I will say that as I believe the number JUST became THE NUMBER, everyone will have a chance to know because people like US will tell them. The argument is so heavy, so strong, that no one who sincerely fears God can just ignore all of this numerology, etc. At the same time, child-like faith in the government has people believing all sorts of completely preposterous nonsense…ALL SORTS.

  92. 92 Joe
    29 September 2014 at 10:50

    One more thought…When I talk to Christians about the number, overwhelming them with proof, the end of the argument is that they worked hard for their retirement money and they aren’t going ts much about it today
    o give it up. Or that they need money to survive, and that God knows that and expects them to be able to make it! The Bible explicily says that you can’t buy and sell without the number, but that is their argument!
    What it really comes down to is a choice between God and money. That is an easy and fair test of faith.

  93. 29 September 2014 at 15:30

    @Joe: But isn’t that the problem? Nobody today is talking directly to God. Therefore all understanding we have of Christianity is that of what is in the Bible. Of which is in the Bible is something that was written in another language and translated. Along with translation the original text is written indirectly via symbolism and numerology. Even if you want to read the Bible in English, you have a whole slew of choices of different versions and different translations. How do we know that one interpretation is more correct than the other? How much has been lost in translation? How much of what you read, not only of the Bible, is interpreted by the reader due to their life, their circumstances, and their experiences?

    When IS the end times? In my opinion, Christians throughout history have thought that they were living in the beginning of the end-times. Even the Bible says in Matthew 24:34 that the current generation shall not pass. What generation? Many generations have passed. As you mention, Revelation 13 speaks of number to buy or sell. Well, back when this was written, barter was a big part of their life over money – I’m sure the advent of cash was a mark of the beast. Then fiat currency. Then credit cards. Then SSN. And now RFID chips implanted in people. What IS the mark of the beast that the Bible specifically talks about? 2 Timothy 3:1-5 talks about the end times having lots of peril – what peril? Can’t every generation talk about peril? WWI? WWII? Holocaust? People starving in Africa? Homeless starving in the alley of America? The people unemployed after 9/11? The riots throughout history? America “claiming” land from Mexico as she expanded? Colonialism through England? The age-old fighting in the land we call Israel? Point is, the world is and always has been filled with peril. How do we know that this is the proper end-time? People have always been persecuted and denied based on their religion – and this is not exclusive to Christianity. Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, etc have all been persecuted for their religion and this has happened throughout history and still largely happens all over the globe today.

    I used to be really interested in the end-times myself. I even went through the book of Revelation and pulled out anything with imagery and “translated” it to things I saw around me (i.e. Revelation 8:13 spoke of an eagle in the air going woe, woe… I was convinced that this spoke directly of a helicopter flying around shooting missiles. Revelation 9:3 was a bomb dropped out of the sky that ate people’s skin off, not scorpions and locusts eating people’s skin off them.) I was hellbent convinced that I was right. Who knows, maybe I am. But I realized somewhere along the line that if I was completely engulfed in charting the end times that in some sense I didn’t trust God. That I was trying to outsmart him. Sure, the Bible says believers will get a sense of the end-times, but hey, how are we supposed to know for sure since we generally do not have a direct line of communication with God, say like how God spoke to some in the Old Testament? Could you be better used by God to talk to others about being good people and repenting than worrying about the end times and chastising/judging Christians for not being ready to hear your gospel about the SSN/MotB? Food for thought.

    I’m not saying that you are wrong. After all, I’ve written this article expressing my grief with the SSN. I have no problem with the program itself – if the government wants to provide a retirement account for people to voluntarily join then that is fine with me. However, as a supposed free individual in one of the most “free” countries I believe I should have the absolute choice on whether I join or not. I don’t think I do have the choice – once you are in you are forced to remain in. If there is a religious issue with the number then that is a byproduct, to me, over being forced to use this number.

    With that said… I don’t know what you have exactly done, Joe, but I’d be interested in hearing what you have done and how you live without a SSN. Maybe we can all learn how you’ve done it and see if we can learn from you about how to rid yourself of the SSN and became a free man under the law and under God.

  94. 94 Joe
    1 October 2014 at 12:55

    @KK: To get into all of it would take some time, and perhaps a more orderly manner of working over each subject thoroughly, one at a time. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t claim to have all of the answers. Christianity is about faith in the end, and I believe God speaks to the heart of man through conviction. I also believe that the more you try, the more interested God will be in providing you with insight that you will see as clear as crystal. I don’t know if you felt that your thoughts on the helicopter and other stuff felt as clear as crystal in your heart, but I can tell you that I’m at the point where I am feeling that way about CERTAIN parts..not all..

    Regarding translations, I think if you use the parallel bible online, you will see that most of the old ones (yes, the conspirators are modifying the new Bibles, like the NIV)…most of the old ones say exactly the same thing. I think if you figure what language you think the original was in, then you get an original copy and use the best dictionary you can find, that you will then get even closer. However, I think the Bible was written such that all that is not absolutely necessary.

    I think the important stuff in the Bible can’t be missed. But I don’t think the prophecy should be ignored either. 1st Peter talks about the purpose of prophecy. God provides us with this to serve as a light shining in a dark place. We should see and understand Revelation better as the events actually take place in our faces. And then we won’t have to despair when we see the great evil around us, because we will know with certainty what is next.

    Further, my beliefs aren’t just based on funny feelings. I think that consideration of history and even the beginning of the Bible, such as the Tower of Babel, is critical. The Tower of Babel caused God to stop what he was doing, “come down”, and take care of it. That tower was a uniting of the people of the world..he broke it up with the languages. We know that this is the END END-times because the planet is being united by the most evil of…well, satanists. There was no uniting of the whole planet since the Tower of Babel. The “holy” roman empire was close, and it had its mention in Revelation. Today, not only are people able to travel everywhere, but we have easy google translation to every language. We have the United Nations. And it’s not enough, they are going as far and as fast as possible to homogenize the whole planet. “Nationalism” has been treated like sin for much of the 20th century. People in Japan are listening to American pop music, the phony ISIS threat started out as “Boko Haram”, which supposedly meant “western education is sin”, in other words, the whole planet needs western education, and the US will bomb it into them if they do not submit.

    Where on this planet can you go without having to have a SSN? Maybe 3 countries for now? And they’re probably “axis of evil” countries or “3rd world countries” in need of “help”. The whole planet is having all of its humans tagged for placement in the global control database. Where the evil puppetmasters will know if you’ve taken “your medicine” or not. And who will punish you by turning off your everything if you won’t do as they say. If that’s not the new tower of babel, I don’t know what could be.

    Regarding my life, it’s been fine for the most part without the number. One
    day, I realized it was just too creepy, and so I decided I had enough. I
    called the SS admin. I told them I wanted to cancel regarding the mark of the
    beast.. The lady acted like she had no idea what I was talking about. Even
    now, I wonder if she was lying. She said that you can’t be taken out of the
    system. It may have taken two calls, but I decided to get belligerent, about
    to tell her where to put that number! And then the lady says that the way to
    cancel is to never use the number again. And so I said fine. And then I
    started to take a systematic approach, canceling every account with every
    company that refused to say they were deleting the number. That means no
    electricity for me – now I use solar…

    Keep in mind, that I can’t make someone stop trying to pin a number on me behind my back..but I believe it is spiritual, and so the meat of it is about me refusing to accept the number, answer to one, or acknowledge one. After all, *I* can assign people numbers behind their backs. If my persecutors want to lie to me, it is fine, as long as they know I reject the number. I have realized that the number is about your acceptance, and that your persecutors will demand that you claim it. For instance, I wanted to close a bank account because of the number. The bank lady told me, despite me still having ID and a signature on file, that she needed me to say the number. I said no. She got into a long debate with me, saying that it was not the mark of the beast and that she was supposedly a Christian. (“They say they are Christians too”) Hot in the debate, she shoots out, “just rattle it off!” In the end, I won and she forked it over, perhaps knowing that I could sue my money out of them if I wanted…

    Other people, haters, have tried to yell at me “You still have a number whether you like it or not!” I give them the spiel about not having anything that I do not choose to possess..and further, I say that only their grovelling obedience (and worship) of the government allows them to believe that something is such just because the government says so. And I say that for people like me who are property of God rather than government property, government talk is just a bunch of meaningless blather, and I have a number for them, lucky 13, that they have whether they like it or not..

    The big battle now is the knowledge that I will be persecuted in the future.
    And I have decided that I will not renew my driver’s license if they won’t
    acknowledge that I have no number. I will sue them in their own crooked
    courts if they want…it will make a spectacle out of the “land of the free”. But hopefully, I can just go to a state that will not harass me over it..

    Also, I should mention that the haters appear to be possessed by some evil spirit at times when they foam in their rage. I have heard repeatedly, from different parties who hate my beliefs, that I don’t even know how many digits are in a SSN and therefore I must know nothing about it. How is that statement at all reasonable or meaningful? Is it supposed to make me prove that I know by barking out my ex-number or trying to think of it? But the answer to that question is easy. It is 3 and 3 and 3.

  95. 27 October 2014 at 05:37

    Like I said, I used to be really into prophecy. But in the end I just thought that it wasn’t what I should be dwelling on. The human mind and body is an amazing device and as you’d have it, we can really trick ourselves into things – good or bad – without even knowing it. Call it our subconscious or our id. Not sure. In all honesty I don’t know what to think or feel about a lot of things.

    As for the number, not sure about that either. Does it matter more about having the number or saying a number or what you feel deep down about it? Can I have and use a number and not love others as God desires? Am I unable to love Jesus? Am I unable to help my neighbors with a number? Etc? I’d like to think that with or without a number I should be able to do these things. It is what the number means to me. I guess one could stretch it to mean that I put the use of the number higher than God, but I’m certainly not ready to agree with that.

    As for you suing the courts – I honestly doubt you’d win. It is my opinion that if you are in their court arguing that you don’t belong in their system then you’ve already lost. To prove that you don’t belong and that you are right means that you have to prove that court doesn’t apply to you – that you are outside their jurisdiction. As I always say, if you don’t want to be bit by the snakes… then stay out of the snake pit.

    I’m not saying you are wrong because I truly don’t know. I just don’t know if having a number assigned to you by the government is any more sinful than getting a gym membership number. It seems more like it is about the intent than the act of carrying to me. I just want to be in a free country that permits its people to make choices as they see fit – whether it be their finances (work, banking, etc), their family, or their body.

  96. 96 tfg
    11 February 2015 at 00:12

    Very interesting blog and comments.

    I landed here precisley to read about the mandatory requirements of SSN or not.

    I would also like to get your legal opinion on FATCA or see a dedicate post on it. It has many dual nationals considering or already giving up US citizenship to avoid unjust taxations and filings.

    I’m an accidental American and both my parents are foreign. I have never been to the US since birth and left it when I was an infant in the late 70s. I applied for a US passport a decade ago and use it for global travel but still never been to the US or have a SSN. Why should I be taxed or file if I have never used US roads/schools, etc?

    This FATCA nightmare have left me and many others in my situtation in limbo. We can either ignore it, renounce citizenship, or comply with the IRS who recruited foreign banks to be their agents!

  97. 97 PC
    8 May 2015 at 07:41

    I have a question. In order for me to use the Caption Call phone (phones with captions for the hearing-impaired), I have to fill out a form – among the items requested is the ‘last 4 digits of SSN’. I left that part blank. Because of that, my captioning phone service was discontinued.

    How do I remedy that? Show them the SSA saying it does not require SSN to live and work in USA? Any info would be appreciated.

  98. 17 May 2015 at 18:40

    @PC: The CAption CAll program is a federal program. Therefore, if you want to use a federal program then you must be part of their federal program. To be a part of their federal program you can either be an federal employee or be asked to be treated as a federal employee to receive federal benefits. To do the latter option, one gets a Federal Social Security Number.

    If you want to “remedy” this then you are going to have to decide whether or not you want to receive federal assistance/benefit or not.

    That is kind of the whole game here – people signed up in the 1930s to receive federal assistance/insurance/benefit after the Great Depression. The main item of interest was Social Security. Social Security was a federal program that ensured that if you participated in the program (by voluntarily getting a SSN and paying into the SS system/bank) that you would never be left with your life savings/house/food all gone from you. There are other benefits that are given to “members” of the system too, which you obviously know one of. If you go to the SSA website HERE and read you will learn that the government finally put this whole “federal benefit = must have SSN” idea into codified law in 1975. So it isn’t exactly like I’m making this up here.

    Unfortunately for many of us our “federal benefit” came at the benefit of someone else before we could eat, walk, or talk – it came at the benefit of our parents. If our parents wanted the benefit to pay less on taxes, they would get their child a SSN, which was generally done at birth. From then on there was about 18 years of us on record showing that we “used” the benefit. And then from then on, we probably continued to use the SSN not knowing that we didn’t have to use it (as you said, as the SSA has said, you don’t need a SSN to work/live in the United States of America).

    And the story goes on…

  99. 99 PC
    19 May 2015 at 07:44

    Thanks for the reply. What about the Privacy Act of 1974? It reads as:

    “Sec. 7. (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.”

    Can I use this provision (especially Sec 7 (a)(1)) to skip the SSN requirement on the Caption Call form?

  100. 19 May 2015 at 16:10

    I still think that thye are going to deny it because the CaptionCall is a privilege to you.

    Stoianoff v. Comm’r of the Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, found “(Because 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i)) permits states to require disclosure of social security numbers in the administration of its driver’s license law[,] . . . § 7 of the Privacy Act, insofar as it relates to the ‘privilege’ at issue in this case [(denial of plaintiff’s application for taxicab license)], has been superseded[.]”)” Emphasis mine.

    Although 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i) is more about state rights superseding the Federal law, that may be the case here too. CaptionCall seems like it is not a privilege that is given to everyone (by law) as evidenced by you having to apply for it. They may be making a distinction between a privilege given by birth and a privilege given when applied for. The Privacy Act covers the former, not the latter.

    I’m not a lawer, but it seems that if you really wanted to, why not send the attached statues and ask them to clarify under “(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.” to clarify where it is required by law and is exempt from the Privacy Act.

  101. 101 RedBeardMcGee
    29 May 2015 at 09:54

    I appreciate this post, its comments, and its commenters posted links. I do not want my newborn son to have a SSN without his consent, which he is currently unable to give. I will forfeit the income tax break, but I need health insurance for him. My employer, a special municipal utility district, is requiring that I submit an SSN for all healthcare dependents. They make this claim according to a contract they have with Kaiser. A contract which have yet to show me. They also mention IRS tax code section 6056 and the SSN fields on form 1094-C and 1095-C, despite the fact that those forms are codes specifically say that SSNs are required for full-time employees only and not dependents. I have specifically asked them what law requires that I disclose the SSN and what they will do with it. All they responded with was the section 6056, the forms, and Kaiser contract.

    Can someone help me with this?

  102. 29 May 2015 at 10:42

    @RedBeardMcGee: I provide no legal counsel but I think a lot of this boils down to “how much do you want to push the issue?” There is a lot of ignorance when it comes to tax law – tax experts, congresscritters, and the IRS can’t agree on most of what it says or doesn’t say. So of course, because of this the businesses have no idea what is what either. So they default to the easy path, which is to put everyone on the same plan that gives them the least amount of negative feedback from the scary IRS.

    I have had similar issues with my workplace as well where I’ve asked them to show me the law that they are following and they show me the form that says you need to fill out the form. (LOL). That makes no sense. I actually got written up because I (“unprofessionally”) questioned why they would point to the form in question as the basis of proof for filling out the form instead of the laws that has the mandate.

    With that said, many public/government jobs have every right to require a SSN for you to work there. But that isn’t your point from what I gather – your question is whether dependents need a SSN. Which I think it still boils down to the fact of “do you want to reap the privilege of benefit?” If so, then you will need to have a SSN for your dependent.

  103. 103 Bobbi
    7 December 2016 at 21:35

    Popped on here because I also have a child who does not have a SSN. We forego the tax benefit of claiming her as a dependent, but, now that we have been FORCED by the government to carry health insurance (which we have always done on our own anyway, until Obamacare- now we cannot afford it as they want 52% of our income for premiums and deductibles for our family of 3). So, our daughter cannot get a subsidy to help offset the outrageous cost of her health insurance. Doesn’t seem quite right to me. Curious to know how other families with un-numbered children are dealing with this issue?

  104. 12 December 2016 at 09:17

    Bobbi, thanks for your reply. And thanks for sharing your story about going numberless!

    Since I’ve started my research and interest in the taxation and Social Security system I’ve basically come to the conclusion that the SSA is absolutely correct that you “don’t need a SSN to live or work in the USA.” The Social Security system is indeed 100% voluntary. However, if someone voluntarily chooses to be a part of the system (i.e. school, bank, healthcare provider, your “employer”) and you voluntarily do business with them then you too have to be part of their system which is the Social Security system.

    Of course the problem with that is that everyone uses the SS system because they have been led to believe that they are persons subject to the tax code. And if you are subject to the tax code then you need a SSN (or other applicable number to be a “member”) to be allowed to do business with them. Using the SS system is the only system people and businesses know so anyone not using their system will cause conflict.

    As for the government forcing people to have healthcare… I think that too is under the same realm. The government cannot force anyone to pay [an insurance company] just for the sake of being born in the United States of America. However, it can force it’s persons that are under it’s membership – the membership being the SS system – to do what they want. The membership provides benefits (real or pseudo) and drawbacks… just like many memberships out there. Think of being a member of Sam’s Club/Costco – the benefits are that you get to buy at a discount and all customers are kind of screened… the drawback is that it costs money to get in, they don’t accept all forms of payment, and you are forced to show your card upon entry/checkout. The difference between a warehouse membership and the government is that you can’t leave the SS system because everyone uses it – you can always change warehouses or forgo them all-together.

    So what I’m getting at is that you’re either completely part of the system… or you’re not part of the system at all. You can’t be kind of part of the system or pick when you’re part of the system. You can’t work and use your SSN or store your money in a bank that requires a SSN and then not want to use your SSN somewhere else. Since kids are not legal adults on their own they fall under you – and if you’re using your SSN, then they are kind of “member-guests” or “members in training.” Of course, I don’t know your situation but most people haven’t really found a way to “get off the grid.” Everyone and every part of normal living is voluntarily participating in the system so you are forced to do so to (or choose to move into the woods in absolute seclusion and only use barter).

    Maybe someone else with more un-numbered children can pipe in with more knowledge or experience than I have since I don’t have children.

  105. 105 Alana Rickard
    28 February 2017 at 11:21

    So I am a 55 year old US citizen who has never had a social security number. I have a US passport for identity however I cannot renew my drivers license without a social. On my last visit to the DMV they stated that as a US citizen, I have to have a social to renew. They however took my payment before telling me this. Has anyone been able to obtain a drivers license without one?

  106. 28 February 2017 at 13:03

    @Alana: So first off, welcome to my blog. I always seem to get a bump in visitors come tax season (not sure if that is what brought you here).

    Secondly, I’d be careful about calling yourself a “US Citizen.” If you are a “US Citizen” then you lawfully obligated to a few things – namely hold a SSN and file a tax return every year. So if you are indeed a US Citizen then yes, you need a SSN for a driver’s licence permitting your State requires one (which it sounds like it does).

    Now, if you are claiming that you are a resident of the United States of America, that is slightly different. This makes you a citizen of your State, not the US. You are under a slightly different set of rules.

    So you need to decide what route you want to take – US Citizenship or State Citizenship. The former option is easy as the government assumes everyone born in the United States of America is a US Citizen. Many of use are signed up as US Citizens at birth when our parents fill out the birth records and request you be automatically be given a SSN. Then we confirm it multiple times through our lives (starting work, opening a bank account, getting a licence, etc) by using our SSN. The latter option is a long hard road.

    In all honesty I haven’t even really tried to “get off the system.” It seems to me that everyone is a participant – banks, schools, the utility companies, the DMV, “employers,” etc. So for you to bank, go to school, have utilities, have a licence, or work you have to play on their turf, which is only for US Citizens. Most companies have no clue what to do with you if you aren’t just like everyone else. All they know is how to deal with US Citizens or the different variants of Aliens. While I think that everyone has the right to live and work in the United States of America as a free citizen and unbound by “Citizenship laws” I just don’t know if it is plausible or worth the time it would take to re-educate (re-program) everyone that you don’t have to be a “US Citizen” to work or live in the USA.

    So what do you want out of life? Is getting a SSN going to change the way you fundamentally live your life? Or is it just going to allow you to renew your licence?

  107. 107 ed
    1 December 2017 at 19:55

    kyle, on the income tax, ss tax and medicare tax, i would like to invite you over to losthorizons.com and get the book Craking The Code. it explains the pertinent sections of the law in detail and shows how to reclaim the money withheld from your pay.

  108. 1 December 2017 at 20:09

    @Ed: I’ve been there. I’ve read the book. I think Mr Hendrickson is close, but not close enough – hence his problems with the court system.

  109. 109 Hippy
    1 December 2017 at 22:18

    Yes Hendrickson premise is wrong. SS is causing the income tax liability. Read section 3121a again.

  110. 110 Brenda Hansen
    4 July 2018 at 23:06

    The mark of the beast is the RFID chip that will be mandatorily implanted in everyone’s hand someday. I study Luciferian texts, and I believe we will see WWIII, world-wide economic collapse, one world government and monetary system with the pope ushering in peace treaties, and chip implantation. Be prepared and be ready to go into hiding. Here is a link that says at the end that employers can’t comply with various reporting requirements if the person doesn’t have a ssn. We can rescind our signature on the original application for ssn. It’s easier to do things by the book if you’ve never had one. You can hold the person behind the counter personally liable if they refuse a person a driver’s license just because you don’t have a ssn. you could tell them to speak with a supervisor and obtain legal counsel. If you don’t have a ssn, you are wayyyyy less likely to get arrested or at least convicted as they can’t charge the CQV trust without the ssn (at least I think that’s the way it works). But once we have been assigned a ssn, we can rescind signature and mail back card and revoke the power of attorney we gave govt when we signed up for it. And we can use sedm’s methods with employers by showing them the statutes you list, but some employers won’t want to deal with you. You can let them know that the I-9 says the birth certificate authorizes you to work in the us. I agree that you want them to just not report anything about your hire to any authorities. They will think you are probably trying to avoid wage garnishments, so you will need to be honest about your situations and try to gain their trust. http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/employees_without_ssns.html

  111. 111 Michael Linder
    23 August 2018 at 19:23

    is it possible to get a copy of the letter the IRS gave stating that the SSN is nod mandatory.
    the Withholding agent per the IRC does not say anything about withholding for citizens ONLY non res aliens and corps, i would like to see the letter if possible.

  112. 24 August 2018 at 11:02

    The letter stating that it is not mandatory is on the original post.

    See HERE.

    If you write them they will state the same thing. At least they did for me. I have the letter stored away somewhere in some probably 300+ pages I’ve exchanged with the SSA.

  113. 113 Mike Hippler
    11 September 2018 at 15:38

    Mr. Linder
    You will find that regulation 6109 is all you need as proof to the employer nullifying the W4 (if that happens to be your goal). I have used 6109 successfully, but only after educating the employer with other documentation. The SSA letter is also a huge boost. Most importantly though you should get this SSA letter addressed solely to you by writing to them personally. If you run into the employer pushing back I went as far as having a three way phone call between the SSA, the employer and myself. Actually the company I work for and myself sat in a conference room while speaking to a SS representative.

  114. 12 September 2018 at 06:23

    The problem is that most employers will not “hear you out.” Most wont want to chance their normal mode of operation EVEN if you offer them to talk to the SSA or IRS themselves.

  115. 115 Mike Hippler
    12 September 2018 at 07:49

    Thats why I took extra material into the employer. Educated him that by thinking I’m required to sign a w4 he’s on the hook to pay half my ss taxes.
    Then instructed him by forcing me to sign the w4 he’s violating my constitutional rights and he can be punishable by court action. Of course I had my proof which rights I get and which ones I don’t. He didn’t like that but he understood I had him in a place he didn’t like so he was all for the meeting with the ssa.

  116. 12 September 2018 at 09:24

    Which is exactly what I am talking about. MOST “employers” want nothing to do with such things. They have a certain way of doing things and are completely and utterly unwilling to change the way they do things even if you bring in a SSA or IRS representative to tell them otherwise!

    My honest guess is that you work for a smaller company where the HR department is a friendly face that you can stop by and see them and take time to discuss such things with. Not everyone has that opportunity or option. I currently work for a Fortune 500 company where the true-blue HR department isn’t even in my state nor will I ever meet them. Everything is automated and rigid and you can’t simply just go in and hash things out with them.

    My old company was smaller but the HR department was not at my location either. I tried talking to them about SSA and IRS issues and their answer was just as I said above, they had no desire to change how things were done as that is how they were done and have been done. If I wanted it done otherwise, then I could resign or take them to court. I persisted a bit further but the end result in me being put on the HR shit list and eventually “randomly” selected to be laid-off.

    Let’s say I did take it to court, because them filling out paperwork as they saw fit would have been a violation. Let’s just say I won. You think I’d have a good name inside the company after taking my own company to court? I’ve already told you what happened to me after simply asking questions and asking for clarifications on such matters. HR-types don’t like to be “instructed” what to do. Ha!

    I hope you see the dilemma here.

  117. 117 Mike Hippler
    12 September 2018 at 09:46

    I know the frustration but working for a,fortune 500 company is where I wish worked. I’d have a multimillion dollar law suit and win just because they refuse to follow the law after being shown they are in violation. Case closed.
    By having to sign a w4 under penalty of perjury of being a US citizen upon hire strips the individual for their constitutional Bill of Rights.
    I have the documentation supporting such rights are stripped.
    And nobody can force anyone to lose their constitutional protections resulting in lose of property and rights.

  118. 12 September 2018 at 11:38

    Mike, with all due respect, I doubt you’d win. In a right to work system all rights are given to the “employer.” If they even sniff that you’re going to cause trouble they will let you go. Doubt a Fortune 500 company and their army of lawyers are just going to lay down for you wanting to sign or not sign a form.

  119. 119 Mike Hippler
    12 September 2018 at 19:20

    No offense taken Kyle.
    But in reply the “right to work” has no bearing on “employment” or not to “employment” as defined in the social security act.
    I’m a union electrician so I know about the right to work. I live in a state thats right to work (iowa) but work in illinois (not a right to work) state. All “right to work” is is ones choice to not join a union when doing the same job next to a guy who has joined.
    Honestly it would take a battalion of lawyers to try and beat the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and they still would not win.
    My point is Kyle the company (no one) has any authority to strip any American of his or her Constitutional protections (Bill of Rights). The only way that is to happen is by signature on a form thats signed under penalty of perjury of being a “US citizen” (vs. We the People). “US citizens” are of the class of “federal personnel”. Social Security falls into this same class of citizenship. See 5USC 552(A)(13). Social Security is a federal government retirement program. SSA is a federal agency.

    5USC 552(a)(13)

    (13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

    How does one receive immediate (unemployment, food stamps…ect) or even deferred benefits if you’re not enrolled as an active participant of Social Security? You cant unless you have quarterly credits into the system.

    I dont think you are aware of http://www.1215.org. There are two classes of citizenship…”US citizen” and “We the People” (State citizens). I really do suggest you visit 1215.org to understand the difference.
    When you are forced to sign a W4 or even if you do and then decide to end participation of SS the employer cannot and does not have any power over anyone to decide what Rights (“We the People”….Bill of Rights or US “citizens”…. Civil Rights) you can have. That is a explicit violation of federal law when someone (employer or human individual) does that. That is called a “Tort”. I suggest you google what “Tort” means in relation to law.
    So the “Tort” here is the employer is in violation of the Constitution by making their hirees become a second class “US citizen” “employee” by stripping the “BIll of Rights” (see 1215.org) from their workers as prerequisite to being hired. Employers do not have that authority because a lawyer or even a bean counter for that matter says so.

  120. 13 September 2018 at 02:33

    I fully understand the difference. I’m simply saying that it isn’t as easy as you purport. I agree that the “employer” is wrong in how they handle business. However, most “employers” aren’t even going to play this game with paperwork. You either fill out the paperwork as they want you to… or they move you along. My job history is proof of this.

  121. 121 Mike Hippler
    13 September 2018 at 05:01

    So you’re happy and content to just talk about taxes and the SSN?
    Sure doesnt appear like you’re gonna do anything else.

  122. 13 September 2018 at 07:45

    I’ve told you what I’ve done with my “employers” and it did not turn out well. You have an “employer” that was willing to listen. I have not and do not currently have the same options. My industry is very small/niche so I can’t exactly go around burning multiple bridges. I’ve already burned one trying to talk to my “employer” about this issue.

    Again, good for you for having the option to talk to your HR and for having an open-minded HR representative. Most people do not.

    I have a family so I have to unfortunately pick my battles. If you want to belittle me for my inaction due to my circumstances I’m sure there are other blogs that would welcome you.

  123. 123 Mike Hippler
    16 September 2018 at 17:10

    Well then if your other employer let you go over you wanting your Constitutional rights, which the employer said no and legally cant force them from you, and then let you go then what were you waiting for?
    It was all green lights for you to file a law suit they wouldn’t have won and you would have been millions in the bank and a very popular guy having a land mark case in the history books that probably would have turned America back into what it once was. But hey…..do as you please.

  124. 16 September 2018 at 18:42

    You make it sound like I had some big long drawn out written conversation with them. Wasn’t like that, unfortunately. It was more like “we have paperwork with you stating you have a SSN and want to be specified as someone actively using your SSN. You can’t nullify your SSN that you stated was true on previous legal documentation you previously filed with us.”

    That isn’t verbatim, but that is more or less how it went. I may have some legal standing for them essentially saying “we don’t care what your new paperwork says, we are using your previous paperwork” but the fact is… I was snuffed out of the company. I don’t have access to any of that documentation anyways. And if I did, how would the court see the situation that at one point I did have and use a SSN and now I didn’t?

    How would a court rule on an issue that is controversial as such?

    And this brings us back to the original question. If an employer wants to require their employees have SSNs, do they have a right to require that of their employees? Does them requiring a SSN violate the “you don’t need a SSN to work or live” as described above? Personally, I think that the court would rule that them requiring it (that the employer wants to voluntarily be an active participant in the Social Security System) isn’t stopping you from “working or living” in the US… it is simply stopping you from working at that company.

    Kind of the same thing with banks requiring SSNs and/or you having a driver’s licence with your SSN attached to the state’s records.

  125. 125 Mike Hippler
    16 September 2018 at 19:09

    I have a ssn but having one is irrelevant. Using it is a different story. I would have never argued to an employer you want to nullify it. They cant nullify it and neither can you, and again nullifying it is irrelevant.
    You approach them with 301.6109-1d. That is an “administrative” regulation they have to take into consideration. It is also something they can look up and read as part of their responsibility. That regulation is written for the employer to administer SSN in how they have to deal with them. Its tangible and they know its something that can be dealt with on their level. You dont want to blind side them with nullifying something they have no power over.
    When you sign a W4 all it does is put the applicant (employee) into participation with Social Security. Having a ssn does not make the person an active participant.
    Are you familiar with 3101(a) “wages” (box 3 on the W2) and 3401(a) “wages” (box 1 on the W2)?
    If so….do you realize both are the same? And I’ll take it a little farther. Did you know that for the private sector you must first make 3101(a) “wages” to earn 3401(a) “wages”?.
    3101(a) “wages” are social Security earnings…but both 3101(a) and 3401(a) are one in the same.

  126. 17 September 2018 at 07:27

    Isn’t what you are trying to “teach” me things this very blog post is about and have been discussed in the following comments?

  127. 29 November 2018 at 11:07

    To the earl Andrews post about:
    42 U.S. Code § 666 – Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement

    The “law” that the States and agency’s cite when the Demand your compliance to give them a SSN for any license is 42 U.S. Code § 666(a)(13)(a) – This is the exact same wording used in the SSA act – Section 466(a)(13)(a) of the Social Security Act

    (a) Types of procedures required In order to satisfy section 654(20)(A) of this title, each State must have in effect laws requiring the use of the following procedures, consistent with this section and with regulations of the Secretary, to increase the effectiveness of the program which the State administers under this part:

    (13)Recording of social security numbers in certain family matters.—Procedures requiring that the social security number of—
    (A) any applicant for a professional license, driver’s license, occupational license, recreational license, or marriage license be recorded on the application;

    For purposes of subparagraph (A), if a State allows the use of a number other than the social security number to be used on the face of the document while the social security number is kept on file at the agency, the State shall so advise any applicants.

    Now the key important part in all these “laws” are the definitions to the words used – this is where people get screwed.

    (2)For purposes of this subsection, the term “applicant” means— (A)a State, subdivision of a State, territory, Indian tribe, public or private nonprofit organization, or institution of higher education submitting an application under this section; or (B)an entity applying for assistance or approved national service positions through a grant program conducted using assistance provided to a State, subdivision of a State, territory, Indian tribe, public or private nonprofit organization, or institution of higher education under section 12571 of this title. (h)Unless specifically authorized by law, the Corporation may not provide more than 1 grant under the national service laws for a fiscal year to support the same project under the national service laws.

    (h)The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

    (20)The term “social”, when used with respect to a service, includes adult protective services.

    How does this apply to anyone? It doesn’t.

  128. 29 November 2018 at 11:34

    Right to Travel Cases

    In answer to one question above… Traveling to Work is not Commerce.


    I hope this comes out formatted correctly.

    The research found in this article is believed to have originated with Glen Bronstein of Spokane, Washington. It is also believed that the late Richard Quigley originally published it.

    Driving is a Right – Not a Privilege
    March 31, 2004 — If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:
    “Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”
    Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

    The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

    The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:
    “Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.”
    16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

    This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:
    “Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” [Emphasis added]
    II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

    “Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”
    1 Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__. 777; Bevier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

    Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.
    When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:
    “…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights is the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

    “Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [Emphasis added]
    Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.

    Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
    “…Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.” Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

    It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege.” We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”.

    Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”
    Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.

    XXStreets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

    “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” [Emphasis added]
    Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

    “The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [Emphasis added]
    Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    It is clear that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

    “…For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”
    State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.

    Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

    “Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.” Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

    “The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.” State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.

    What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so “radically and obviously” from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very “radical and obvious” difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
    “The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
    “This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

    This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

    “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
    Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.

    “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

    There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)

    “Personal liberty — or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty — is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution… It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property…and is regarded as inalienable.”
    16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.

    Clearly, the distinction between a “Right” to use the public roads and a “privilege” to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of “using the road as a place of business” and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?

    “First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.”
    Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs. Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

    So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the “learned” that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between…
    · Traveling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads, which is our Right;
    · Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.

    “[The roads]…are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business.”
    Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
    Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

    “When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways.” Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.

    “[The state’s] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith.” Ibid.

    “We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate…the use of the highways for gain.”
    Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.

    There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual “using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business.” However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state’s power to convert the individual’s right to travel upon the public roads into a “privilege.”
    Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a “Right” to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a “privilege.”

    In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.

    There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
    “The word `automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
    American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

    While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
    “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
    International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

    The term `motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word `automobile.'”
    City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

    The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
    “Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

    “Used for commercial purposes,” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

    Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine that may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

    The term “travel” is a significant term and is defined as:
    “The term `travel’ and `traveler’ are usually construed in their broad and general sense…so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure.” [Emphasis added]
    25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.

    “Traveler — One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health.”
    Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

    “Travel — To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey.”
    Century Dictionary, p.2034.

    Therefore, the term “travel” or “traveler” refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
    Notice that in all these definitions the phrase “for hire” never occurs. This term “travel” or “traveler” implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
    Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.

    The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler,” is defined as:
    “Driver — One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle…”
    Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

    Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be “traveling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

    Today we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver,” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is not the case.

    “It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator’ and `driver’; the `operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver’ is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator’ and `driver.'”
    Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

    To further clarify the definition of an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.
    This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the “privilege” of using the road for gain.
    This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:
    · Traveling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
    · Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.

    Having defined the terms “automobile,” “motor vehicle,” “traveler,” “driver,” and “operator,” the next term to define is “traffic”:
    “…Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state…will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear…”
    Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.

    Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the “privilege” to use the public roads “at the expense of those operating for gain.”
    In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word, which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.
    “Traffic — Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money…”
    Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.

    Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile.

    This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., and vehicles for hire.

    Furthermore, the word “traffic” and “travel” must have different meanings, which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra: XX “…in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous,
    interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them.”
    The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:
    “The word `traffic’ is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities.” Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.

    Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word “traffic” (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term “traffic” is business related and therefore, it is a “privilege.” The net result being that “traffic” is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.

    It seems only proper to define the word “license,” as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
    “The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.”
    People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.

    “Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.”
    Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.

    In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.

    This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions, as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See “Conversion of a Right to a Crime,” infra.)

    In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is:
    A permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power.” [emphasis added]
    Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.

    This definition would fall more in line with the “privilege” of carrying on business on the streets.
    Most people tend to think that “licensing” is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the “licensor” which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the “licensor.”

    “A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.”
    State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.

    The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.
    Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our “enforcement agencies” been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they “check” our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?

    How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her “blender” or “mixer?” They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.

    The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses too be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See “taxing power,” infra.)

    Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:
    · Is there threatened danger?
    · Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
    · Is this regulation reasonable?”
    People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power.”

    When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.
    First, “is there a threatened danger” in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?

    The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.

    It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)

    “The automobile is not inherently dangerous.”
    Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.

    To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See “Due Process,” infra.)

    Next, does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

    This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.

    The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?”

    The answer is No! It will be shown later in “Regulation,” infra, that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.

    Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.

    Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects.
    (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)

    “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

    “The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” [emphasis added]
    Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.

    “It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.”
    Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.

    “As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.”
    Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.

    As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:
    No person shall be…deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.

    As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.
    In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.

    “The essential elements of due process of law are…Notice and The Opportunity to defend.” Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427

    Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his / her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and
    business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.

    There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty…”
    Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.

    “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.”
    Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)

    The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected. But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.

    One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant “a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.”
    (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)

    Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that “no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court,” by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269.)

    Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the “privilege” of operating a motor vehicle “for hire.” It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have “in common.”

    The futility of the state’s position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General’s opinion on a similar issue:
    “The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized…”

    “Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of travelling freely upon the highways…”
    Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11.

    This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.

    This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state’s actions must fall.

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

    Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-hire vehicles.”

    The legislature has attempted, by legislative fiat, to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of “due process of law.” This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.

    “In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty.”
    25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.260.

    “Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission.” Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.

    One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.

    First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:
    Does the statute accomplish its stated goal? The answer is No!

    The attempted explanation for this regulation is “to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified.”

    However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.

    Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.

    Is the statute reasonable? The answer is No!

    This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)

    But isn’t this what we have now? The answer is No!

    The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.

    These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her “implied consent” to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.

    We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of “Right” in order to exercise his state “privilege” to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

    A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.
    “…the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use…” [emphasis added]
    Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

    If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?

    “To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land.”
    Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

    “We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
    Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

    Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the
    Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.

    Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation.

    The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied.”
    McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316.

    The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.

    “…It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax…a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars.”
    Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46.

    “If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation.”
    Ibid., p.47.

    Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.

    As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.

    Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and,
    “The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda, supra.

    Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government.

    So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.

    Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, free men stands before courts today to answer charges for the “crime” of exercising their Right to Liberty.

    As we have already shown, the term “drive” can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citizen’s Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.

    “The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty — indeed they are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect…the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.”
    Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.

    “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”
    Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.

    The courts are “duty bound” to recognize and stop the “stealthy encroachments” which have been made upon the Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the “ordinary course of life and business.”
    (Hadfield, supra.)

    Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the “due process of law” guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment.
    (Kent, supra.)

    The history of this “invasion” of the Citizen’s Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen’s Right to travel.

    This position must be accepted unless prosecutors can show their authority for the position that the “use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business” is a privilege.

    To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.

    “Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.”
    Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.

    “Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee.”
    Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81.

    “Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.”
    Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.

    Finally, we come to the issue of “public policy.” It could be argued that the “licensing scheme” of all persons is a matter of “public policy.”

    However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:
    “No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.”
    16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.

    So even “public policy” cannot abrogate this Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

    Therefore, it must be concluded that:
    “We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power.” Northern Pacific R.R. Co., supra.

    “The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain.” Ibid.

    Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen.

    Since no notice is given to people applying for driver’s (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

    The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

    Few know that the driver’s license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people’s actions or activities.

    Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

    No one in his or her right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations. XX “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Edmund Burke, 1784.

  129. 129 Mike Hippler
    30 November 2018 at 06:43

    You’re using the same reasoning as Pete Hendrickson did when interpreting the tax code.
    “Includes” is expansive, not restrictive

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain



%d bloggers like this: