A Social Security Number is required to work in the United States, the territory owned by and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. Employers register as federal employers, thereby, making employees federal employees.
Employers register as federal employers?
Perhaps ignorant CPA's and attorneys register employer clients as federal employers thus placing them on federal territory and making their employees federal employees, employed in the Unidted States.
The application for an (IRS) employer ID # seems to the means by which they register. The SS-4.Originally Posted by David Merrill
All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.
By by Edwin Vieira, Jr.
(2) The Social Security Act provides a striking modern parallel for such an application of a statutory "reserved-power" clause.
Although that act provides for payment of benefits, Fleming v. Nestor denied that such benefits constitute "accrued property rights"222 "The Social Security system", the Supreme Court explained,
may be accurately described as a form of social insurance * * * whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. Plainly the expectation is that many members of the present productive work force will in turn become beneficiaries rather than supporters of the program. But each worker's benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the [610] national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. * * * [T]he noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of a holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.
* * * [The Social-Security] program was designed to function into the indefinite future, and its specific provisions rest on predictions as to expected economic conditions which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate, and on judgments and preferences as to the proper allocation of the Nation's resources which evolving economic and social conditions will of necessity in some degree modify.
To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjusting to ever-changing conditions which it demands.***
It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and [611] has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act.
* * * That provision makes explicit what is implicit in the institutional needs of the program. * * *
We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Constitution, the court held, does not preclude Congress from withdrawing "noncontractual" Social-Security benefits unless its action is "utterly lacking in rational justification"224 Dissenting, Justice Black correctly observed that the court had told "the contributors to this insurance fund that despite their and their employers' payments the Government, in paying the beneficiaries out of the fund, is merely giving them something for nothing and can stop doing so when it pleases.
NOT By by Edwin Vieira, Jr.
Social Security Act Cases. -- Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, Sec. 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to ``purchase compliance'' with regulations ``of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere.'' [545]
Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, [546] which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State.
To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were ``weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autono of the States,'' the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the ``general welfare'' clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation "to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,'' [547] since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury.
The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax ``if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power.'' [548]
NOTES:
[545] Justice Stone, speaking for himself and two other Justices, dissented on the ground that Congress was entitled when spending the national revenues for the ``general welfare'' to see to it that the country got its money's worth thereof, and that the condemned provisions were ``necessary and proper'' to that end. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 84-86 (1936).
Remember United States (v. Butler) not the country but the Federal corporation.
28 USC § 3002 - DEFINITIONS
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Last edited by Chex; 02-12-13 at 05:06 PM. Reason: Addition resources
Since the system acts on presumptions, isn't evidence toward the presumption that a business is a federal employer when a business applies for and receives an EIN? (Employer Identification Number)
I have no doubt you have it right Tom. I was hoping for a new and solid verification. - Like a federal employee filing form that is required for Employers to use that would be conclusive evidence that when a new employer registers with the IRS, the employer is obviously filing as a federal employee?
Presented for your viewing pleasure, here are the "Estimated Benefits" and "Earnings Record" I recently received from the Social Security Administration. As the trust account records show, I spent many years enriching the international banking cabal. I'm past feeling angry about that, in fact I'm happy to have learned enough about the scam to have escaped it successfully (beginning 2008). Thank You all! And as far as modern plantation wage-earners go, you can see I was a reluctant slave, quite below average. Sorry Banksters. HA!
If Social Security is a trust, a beneficiary should be able to resign and waive the benefits to terminate the trust relationship.
I'm most interested in how "the Informer" removed himself as beneficiary from the trust. Glad I have his broadcasts.
If Social Security is a trust, a beneficiary should be able to resign and waive the benefits to terminate the trust relationship.
I'm most interested in how "the Informer" removed himself as beneficiary from the trust. Glad I have his broadcasts
Please isolate anything you find and link us directly to the passage; cite Minute Mark for example.
Crosstalk:
I like reading Suitor’s expression of inquiry. It puts the question to the Social Security Trust as though there is somebody there to read it. I have heard that the actual Trust indenture is in a banking envelope in a safety deposit box. When Congress makes adjustments to the original indenture a courier replaces the last schedule in the safety deposit box. So in that sense it seems silly to be talking to a zipper envelope in a safety deposit box but it makes my approach rather attractive. If you say you have a SSN, then you are the beneficiary and the government is the trustee or grantor. If you say that you do not have a SSN then there is no trust in place. The Manager of the SSI office here explained this to me many years ago. The lady at the counter wanted me arrested for wanting to get rid of my SSN. She was even annoyed that the Manager came out and explained it all to me politely.
We do not have a process to get rid of Social Security Numbers. When did you request a SSN?
When I was about fourteen.
When you wish to use your SSN, how do you do that?
I write it down or say it to somebody taking it down.
Stop doing that.
Last edited by David Merrill; 01-10-12 at 02:01 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote