During the so-called "Great Depression" the Federal government acquired massive debt in order to finance Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. By 1938, the national debt had grown to such proportions that the entire nation was bankrupt, which was noticed by the United States Supreme Court in the Erie v. Tompkins case of that year. From that year, all of the Legislative bodies of the Federal government passed Public Policy statutes in the interest of the nation's creditors. In order to continue financing the expenditures of the Federal government, capital needed to be increased. Federal Reserve Notes which became "legal tender" under the Thomas Amendment (H. J. Res. 192, Public Resolution No. 73-10) passed by Congress in 1933, were made the medium of exchange for this capital. Previously, these notes were redeemable in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States at Washington in the District of Columbia, or in gold or "lawful money" at any reserve bank, which then could be used as capital and devoted to production. However, in order to have capital there must first be property. Property may be pledged and also the rights thereto, and converted into capital by the pledgee.
From 1936 to 1939, social security numbers where used mostly by individuals who were effectively connected with a trade or business in interstate commerce, or who's commercial activities affected commerce and by those receiving unemployment compensation. To refinance the debt annually and avoid default, Congress in 1939, rewrote Social Legislation, repealed Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act, and allowed for the issuance of another class of Social Security number which would be issued to individuals pledging their future performance as SURETY against the national debt in exchange for the promise of cradle to grave protection. This pledge as surety in exchange for cradle to grave protection is called "Welfare Enumeration." The condition of such promise of protection throughout life provided no vested rights in the pledgor and the terms of the agreement was left solely to the discretion of the body of policy makers (Congress) operating as agents of the trustee in bankruptcy representing the interest and rights of the creditor(s).
Property rights relating to future performance (labor) and contract are protected absolutely as they relate to the personality of an American citizen. Execution of those rights may produce a translation of property but not necessary a corpus of capital dedicated to the purpose of income production. A self declaration of bankruptcy by pledging one's property as surety against the national debt in essence converts one to a perpetual bankrupt and one's property so pledged to a bankrupt corporation (United States), a capital asset to be utilized by said corporation for the purposes of capitalization and revenue production earmarked as interest payable in discharge of the national (public) debt.
Until 1973, a person could walk into their nearest Social Security Field Office to apply for and be issued a "non-welfare enumerated" number. These numbers were assigned to individuals wishing to be covered under the original provisions of the Social Security Act, without the pledge of surety. In 1973, public policy was changed and all social security numbers are now issued from the Social Security Administration's Central Office in Baltimore, Maryland. Today most applications for social security numbers received at the central office are processed as requests for welfare enumeration. The management and control of this national welfare policy was delegated by the Congress to the President. The President maintains control of this power under the "International Economic Emergency Policy."
The several States were seduced into the new policy in 1939, with Roosevelt's promise of federal grants-in-aid. Federal Revenue Sharing (31 U.S.C. §§6700 et seq.) is the modern version of the grants-in-aid program. In return for these grants the states would agree to uphold and maintain the pledge of life, labor and property of their respective citizenry as surety for the debt obligations of the Federal government. The politicians of these respective states gladly complied, because they viewed this as an opportunity to increase their own political power, letting the next generation of office holders worry over the long term consequences of their acts.
The following stories are true. They lend evidence to the fact that critical changes have taken place in our government and further shows how a once free and self regulating People, have been converted into little more than commodities or resources, to be consumed and controlled for the purpose of promoting a hopelessly insolvent welfare state.
MY DAY AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY FIELD OFFICE
When I was a teenager I perceived that Social Security was a scheme developed to promote socialistic ideals and as such, was in direct opposition to the established principles of Christian morality and Law upon which the existence of the free institutions of our American constitutional Republic depend. It puzzled me that apparently no American could work without completing certain government regulatory forms that on their faces evidenced compliance to numerous federal regulations. I had been taught by my parents and teachers that the liberty to labor for one's support and living was an inherent obligation founded in the commandments of God and that there could be no logical reason to subjugate the exercise of one's right to the liberty of the free marketplace unless one desired to participate in programs founded in socialist, anti-Christian principles. How it was that virtually every employer could demand that a man or woman, born in one of the several States of the federal Union, submit to alienating practices in order to work for them appeared to me a great mystery. After all, Americans were born free and did not have to seek permission to exercise the liberty to occupy fields of common-right, nor could they by legally penalized for refusing to alienate their inherent liberties.
With this general background in view, the reader may find the following recital understandable, and perhaps even reasonable:
In the later years of my minority, it became apparent that I would have to approach the Social Security Administration concerning questions I had relative to obtaining a Social Security number. I had deferred this as long as I could without placing myself into a position which I felt would lead to possible difficulties. I had read the materials furnished at school, through the courtesy of the Federal government concerning income tax filing and the various penalties that could befall one for not properly dealing with various tax obligations. In general, the material was confusing and contradictory. However, there was always the clear flavor of threat running throughout it. And again, it appeared that you had to get a Social Security number to fulfill the obligations the literature focused on. Accordingly, I went to a field office of the Social Security Administration. Upon entry I presented myself to an officer of the agency. She kindly asked if I was there to apply for a Social Security number? I replied with a mild look of disgust on my face, that I supposed that was right. In seeing my response, the field officer replied that it didn't appear to her that I was very excited about the prospect. I then took the opportunity to express to her my feelings on the matter, telling her frankly that I resented the fact that apparently the whole world was intent on my procuring a number and I wondered why it was that such an undertaking was necessary. I stated that I understood applying for a Social Security number was to be voluntary but that this idea was apparently a joke of some kind and I could not understand how application could be mandatory. She then asked if I didn't desire to have unemployment benefits and social welfare benefits. This question went against the grain and I emphatically told her that promoting or receiving government welfare benefits was contrary to my personal religious beliefs and that I absolutely had no interest in obtaining, or in doing anything that would render me eligible to obtain any such benefit. I stated that "Government benefits were exactly what I do not want." Looking at me she asked if I was sure about that. She then asked if I didn't think I might want such security in the future, to which I replied that I was willing to take responsibility for myself and that I believed that I should place my faith in God and not government welfare.
She asked me my age and whether or not I had been accompanied by an adult. I had not been. She stated that my position could be a problem because "welfare was what the whole program was about nowadays." I said that such an idea seemed clear enough but that I still could not understand why a Social Security number was demanded by so many different people and agencies. I also wondered why an individual would apparently be required to obtain such a number in order to pay taxes that the State and Federal governments administer. She then asked straightway if I were a "U.S. citizen." By this time I was feeling a little more bold but at the same time uncertain. In other words, I was beginning to "smell a rat." I replied that I was born in one of the states of the Union. However, she quickly stated that that is not what she was asking. I was now confused and I told her that my understanding of law was that being born in one of the several states to parents also born within the same state made me a Citizen of the United States of America. She stated I still was not answering the question correctly and that "a U.S. citizen must obtain a Social Security number in order to work as an employee or under self-employment." I replied that I didn't believe I was a U.S. citizen then, because it was my birthright to be able to work without permission as long as I didn't break the law.
She asked where I was born. After I answered this question, she replied "then you do have the right to work without permission from the government." I asked how could I work for someone else without a Social Security number. She informed me that unless I wanted to work for the government or at some congressionally regulated occupation, there was no law that could compel me to use a Social Security number. She also stated that virtually all employers in the private sector only make-believed that they were actually real federal employers so that they could "cover" the obligations of all of the U.S. citizens that worked for them and were subject to social security taxes, employment taxes and income taxes. It was her opinion that as long as we still were a nation under law, if any private employer were to hire me and later threaten me with termination if I did not furnish a Social Security number and fill out a form W-4, I would have a lawful cause of action against that employer. She asked me if I thought I might want to someday work in "covered employment." I said that I did not anticipate such an eventuality but I didn't want to do anything that would reduce my options as long as I did nothing that would impair my position and fundamental rights. She then replied that she could issue a "special" Social Security Account number that was not associated with "welfare enumeration" and I could use this number as a federal tax account identifying number if I was in a position that required me to file tax returns of any type. She then went on to say that when I use this number, for whatever reason, I would still have no agreement with the government that would hamper my standing at law nor alienate my rights to assert and enjoy my inherent liberties. She then left for a few minutes and returned with a form for me to complete. She also showed me an SS-5 application form that had the term "Welfare Enumeration" near the top. I called her attention to this and again expressed my objection to any connection with government welfare. She assured me that my position would be honored and that she merely wanted to show me the document. She then stated that despite her search, she could not find a pre-numbered form of a high enough series with a matching Social Security card at the office and that the central office in Baltimore, Maryland would have to send me the actual card bearing the special number on the application. She then said if I did not receive the Social Security card in a couple of weeks, or if the number was different than the one she had processed, I should bring it to her and she would "correct the problem." She then left again to call the central office and obtain a computer generated four digit number and to complete an addendum to my original SS-5 application giving further details on the qualification and reservations that characterized the Social Security number being issued to me.
As we waited for the response from Baltimore, she looked at me and said she needed to ask me one more question. She asked, "Do you want to pledge your property as surety for the national debt." After contemplating this offer for a moment, the thought came into my mind "avoid debt like the plague." I responded in the negative and she accepted my answer. We then engaged in some general discussion and she stated that the legal authority for issuing the type of Social Security number I would receive was found in the original Social Security Act, at least the two remaining articles which are still intact, but as no government program was currently being administered under the original law, the number would carry no obligation under the current scheme which was concocted in the late thirties and revolved around welfare benefits linking the participant to regulated interstate commerce and Suretyship for a bankrupt, namely, the U.S. Government.
Shortly thereafter, the four digit number was received from Baltimore and she handed me the SS-5 application to sign. Before signing, I again wanted her to verify the fact that I had done nothing relative to our proceedings that would impair my status relative to my standing in law. She assured me I had not. Before I left, I asked her if all social security administration officers were as knowledgeable as she. Her reply was that she suspected not, although they were required to know the law relating to their official duties. She stated that a person couldn't be working with the Administration as long as she had been and not pick up some things along the way.
CONFESSION OF A STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE
One day, a state supreme court judge who was in the last stages of a terminal condition, decided to visit a doctor whose sign he had noticed one day while passing in his car. The doctor's sign was strange to the old judge because it displayed a title that was unfamiliar to him. His curiosity peaked, he decided to inquire into the nature of the practice in which the doctor engaged. After a few minutes of discussion with the doctor, who had started his practice just a few months before, it became evident that there was nothing of value that the doctor could do for the judge. The young doctor felt badly and apologized for having to disappoint the sick man who had expressed interest in his methods and philosophy. To the surprise of the doctor, the judge remarked, "Don't apologize, you have done more for me than you will ever know. You have told me the truth even though the thought may have entered your mind to take advantage of me because of my desperate condition. But you didn't even make the attempt. You told me the truth in a straightforward manner, and you never have to contradict yourself or prevaricate when you follow that course. I have finally met an honest man!" The old judge went on further, "I perceive you are a seeker of truth." He then inquired, "Have you ever heard of Damocles?" Damocles was the ancient Greek philosopher/teacher who, towards the end of his life, went about naked, sitting in a tub as it was carried about at night, from town to town, by his students. As he was thus conveyed, he held forth a lantern. When questioned by a curious bystander as to the purpose of this gesture, Damocles replied, "I am looking for an honest man." The judge seemed happy that the doctor was able to respond in the affirmative to the question concerning Damocles. Then the judge made a curious statement. He said, "You have done something for me, now I would like to return the favor." He immediately inquired as to why the doctor had licenses, particularly, a driver's license. The doctor, somewhat perplexed by this, advanced the best answer he could muster, saying, "Because I want to be a law abiding citizen." The judge responded in a manner that shocked the young doctor by retorting thusly, "It does not have anything to do with the law, and I really doubt that your citizenship has anything to do with it either. Don't you have the Right to travel as you please and where you please for your own private purposes and pleasure?" The doctor thought for a moment and agreed. Another question came quickly, "Well, why then do you have a driver's license?" The judge went on to explain that a license to drive was only required if you desired to engage in some sort of privileged, commercial activity which required the use of the public roads and highways. He said not only would the driver then need a license, but since he would now be operating a vehicle for commercial purposes, it would also need to be registered with the State. The judge went on to explain that the legal reasoning behind promoting the policy of requiring everybody to obtain a driver's license before operating a car on the road was to attempt to obtain some degree of accountability and to further insure that incompetent people did not go out on the roads and cause accidents. He indicated that the State has a legitimate need to provide for the safety and welfare of the people within its boundaries, but that it face a peculiar problem, in that the State Constitution never evidenced a power granted to the State, by the People, to allow that government to directly control the peoples private lives, nor to compel the Citizens to enter into any kind of a commercial agreement or contract with the government. The government was established to protect the people in the enjoyment of their Rights, not to compete with them in the marketplace. However, to overcome this obstacle, the public servants devised methods by which they could induce the People into approaching them, voluntarily, for the purpose of seeking a privilege; a privilege which belonged within the realm of the government's absolute jurisdiction. This concept came to fruition when, over ten to twenty years, the commercial driver's license, the application of which had been previously limited to commercial drivers of horse drawn carriages, wagons, etc., was extended to include virtually all people operating automobiles. The system was promoted as the proper thing to do to enhance safety on the roads, and the People bought it, as they always do, for the most part at least. Now the State could dictate to its official agents, the drivers, as to how they should conduct themselves. The State soon perceived that with the growing number of vehicles on the roads, they were looking at a pretty lucrative business opportunity. As long as the People were inhabiting, or in other words, residing within the State's corporate venue, which event was accomplished by their voluntary application for the privilege of engaging in official State business (driving), the sky was the limit.
The judge again pointed out to the surprised doctor (now pupil) that the Law only protected the Right to travel, along with all other Rights and Immunities. In fact he said that basic inherent Rights were equivalent to Immunities and that this meant nothing more than that the government was barred from controlling them. However, the States’ strategy has been extended to such a degree now that it involves almost every aspect of our once private lives. By applying for the various licenses, that have been created to lock us into privileged commercial activities, we have lost almost all of our status as private Citizens.
The old judge asked the doctor if he knew that it was unlawful for the State or Federal government to coerce a private Citizen into applying for a license in order to have the right to perform an act that in fact the Citizen had the right to engage in before obtaining a license. The doctor replied that it made sense. The judge said that many of the "patriots" that he had heard of or dealt with apparently thought that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was the root of all of the difficulties they perceived they were having in maintaining their various causes in the courts. He also said that some of these "patriots" felt that the Sixteenth Amendment was the cause of their woe's. He indicated that while these amendments certainly played some role in the difficulties that bothered the patriotic groups, in reality, neither one of those amendments were, in and of themselves, responsible for the loss of the liberties of the Citizenry. The judge explained that the U.S. Supreme Court had in many cases ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment never enlarged the scope of Congress' taxing power, and the 14th never was designed to affect the rights of the white Citizenry at all. It was designed to provide a means for the Federal government to project its municipal power beyond the boundaries of Washington D.C. The reason for adopting the Amendment was to provide for guaranteeing that certain minimal rights secured by the national Constitution to the white Citizenry of the States, would also be secured to the then recently freed Negro, as well as to the other racially impaired peoples who inhabited the States and territories of the United States. Do to problems which revolved around Supreme Court decisions such as the Dred Scott case, there was no way for the States to extend the organic Citizenship to the racial minorities. This difficulty was made of great importance by the War Between the States, and the national population was very much focused on correcting it in the 1860's, particularly in view of the reluctance of most of the Southern States to admit the Negro populace to the elective franchise or to allow them to sit on juries or engage in business activities which were competitive with white interests. So, a strategy was adopted to enable Congress to enforce the intent it had already expressed through the Civil Rights Acts. Some of the provisions of those acts were frustrated by being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Next the judge explained that the idea of focusing on the federal Constitution as a tool for standardizing individual standing before the law was largely brought about by focusing on the title of "citizen of the United States," which appeared in the first paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment. Before this time, it was very common practice to refer to the various States of the Union as countries. People generally referred to themselves as citizens of one of the states, or just Americans. The term "Citizen of the United States" though mentioned in the national Constitution, was not defined there, nor had it been defined by the Supreme Court directly. The Court spoke of citizenry of the United States as derivative of citizenship in one of the several States. However, the key to interpreting the true scope and effect of the Fourteenth Amendment was to perceive the meaning of the word "persons" used therein. The Amendment provided a means for Congress to protect the interests of all citizens of the United States through controlling the States as to their interactions with all citizens. It overturned the Dred v Scot decision, in effect, by declaring all "persons" born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the "jurisdiction" thereof (the use of that term could only be understood as it related to international law, meaning amenable to the general laws of that nation, allegiance thereto and eligible for protection under its laws) were citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside. State citizenship had always existed in a parallel fashion with national citizenship. The judge felt the language of the Fourteenth Amendment could have been better and that there were well documented irregularities attendant to its adoption but, if any person at this time were to attempt to approach any court of the United States with the argument that the amendment should be annulled, he would be viewed as an anarchist and of the ilk that would promote another internal rebellion. He then said he really didn't think appeal to the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary for most causes brought by so called "patriots." He stated that arguing the citizenship issue might be a good defense against some of the actions the Federal government might bring against a private party (if one wanted to spend ten years researching and constructing the briefs), but that Article Four, Section Two of the national Constitution defines citizenship for the purpose of law and one does not really need to confront the Fourteenth Amendment in most cases unless one is of the class of persons impaired as to standing without its aid.
The judge, in discussing the fate of proceedings at common law, stated that the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment effectively ended common law in the nation because it prohibited the enforcement of the civil penalties which the common law provided for. No servitude (in other words, no redress to the victim which would restore him to his original economic status), could be enforced outside of conviction for criminal offenses. You could not get the trespasser to work off the damage he had done to you even after a jury order. Redress was limited to seizure of the defendant's assets.
The judge went on to say that the Sixteenth Amendment was also not so much the cause of any difficulty nowadays and was basically a scare-crow which served as a reliable distraction for the "tax protesters." He said one of the great realities that needed to be understood was that, especially since the 1930's, government had ceased to function under traditional perimeters of law and equity, in fact, common law had basically ceased to be the foundation for federal procedure at about the turn of the century. Now administrative regulations controlled the process in virtually all of the courts of the land. This happened because our representatives and senators had so destroyed the country financially (with the aid of the people) in the 1930’s, that neither common law nor equity could be obtain through the courts. Courts are now functioning under the brooding presence of emergency policy dictated by the executive branch of the Federal government. Judges are not in court to protect the rights of the private individual but instead, were there to trick that person out of their rights by getting them to engage "the big Spook," as he called it. In other words, to join issue with a legal fiction. He then declared, "many of the judges have not even taken an oath of office. They sit as impostors unless challenged immediately in the proceedings." They view all parties as effectively "bankrupt and without standing before organic law." Usually the private citizen is intimidated into answering accusations in ways which traverse a claim and join issue before the court. Now, the judge is established as a de facto officer. If the accuser cannot appear in flesh and blood, there is no accuser at law. If no corpus delicti can be produced, there is no crime at common law. It is the right of every citizen and private person to have due process at legitimate law where issues involving their liberties and properties are involved. Where civil actions are undertaken, there must be a commercial connection with the government. All of the various licenses, permits, and certifications issued by government agencies are prima facie evidence that a private party is legally connected with commercial activity over which the government (almost always federal) has asserted regulatory control (usurped the field). The judge said that even the birth certificate was essentially a commercial document and all of the courts in the United States and internationally were operating in a commercial venue by treaty or otherwise. He then stated that when a person appears before these courts "he is basically viewed as an incompetent and a bankrupt by virtue of his status as an individual surety for the national debt. Therefore, his rights become subservient to the administration of public policy designed to serve the needs of the many at the expense of the few. This is the spirit of the new ‘equity’ jurisdiction asserted in the courts."
The judge went on to explain that to further insure their success when dealing with individuals who could possibly advance a defense based upon original citizenship concepts or theories involving natural rights, the defendant is always identified in a fictitious manner. In other words, they will never address a private citizen but ascribe to him an alternate identity, one which would fail under the defense of misnomer in a proceeding at common law. The idea is that all parties to an action must be moved into a venue of a corporate/commercial nature, functioning under a bankruptcy, which entails upon all of the participants. Since corporations now are considered on par with natural born citizens, at least in the courts, the spirit of social equity demands that the corporation's interests prevail. After all, "their activities effect the whole society to a much greater degree than those of any mere human being." The idea that the natural citizen could even get along in the world without the benevolence and indulgence of the corporations is considered untenable. Hence, corporations prevail, especially the government corporation.
In closing the judge declared that it was generally much easier to prevail as a defendant than as a plaintiff in today's court system. He lamented that when he entered the legal profession it was "the king of professions, now it's a whorehouse."