Question for all you lawyers out there...

Home

My buddy Scott F and I were solving the world's problems this evening when it came up that in order to purchase a hunting license or attend school here in Oregon, you have to divulge your Social Security Number. Now, if I remember correctly, the use of the SSN for ID purposes is in direct violation of Federal Law. Can anyone explain how it is possible for the state to get away with this?

Ed, Pa has done the same thing the past couple of years. The explanation I heard here was something about using it to track down "deadbeat dads".I still don't know if it's required here. Last year they asked me and I didn't give it. No problem. This past year the girl at Stuff-mart said it was required. I don;'t think it is. I told her a fib! [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] If anyone can answere the question, I'd like to hear it too.
7mm

It is required in Oregon. You don't give your SSN, you don't hunt or fish. My son-in-law has to give his in order to get his EMT licence. No SSN, no licence. I was asked by a Doctor to give my SSN and my wife's SSN before he would treat me. This was for an injury covered by Workers Comp insurance. They had a insurance case number. The Doctor was quite put out when I refused to give the numbers.My SS card, issued somewhere around 1964 states on the bottom, "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES-NOT FOR IDENTIFICAON.Someone please explain to me what hunting, receiving medical treatment, or getting an EMT licence has to do with tax.My mother gave me a name, is that no longer any good. I defy anyone to show me another Robert Fairing alive in the world today. I am not a dead beat dad, in fact I have raised other peoples children with no reimbursement of any kind, unless you count the babys I now call grandchildren.So tell me, am I being a Buthead or should I make a stand?

Hey, Canby Man! I live just down the road from you in Redland, so I think we can talk heart-to-heart....Do what I and all my hunting/fishing pards do. Look the little lady straight in the eye and give her an artificial SS number. I have licenses in Wisconsin, Louisiana, New York State, Oregon and Washington with a single SS number, and its made up of whole cloth.In short, don't fight the system -- just run around end!

Sorry Sir, their is another with your identity!
 Notice All documents from ANY govt. agency have your name in all capital letters.(check your drivers license)
 It does not represent you. It is a nom de gurre (defined as a war name) and not you at all. Courts have no jurisdiction over you the living being, the govnt. created you as a corporation 45 days after your birth certificate was logged into the system. You legally died on that day and are now a corporation/fiction-identity. The all caps you has no rights, it is a SUBJECT of the govnt.
 To understand this better, go to www.ptrc.net and click on the link at the bottom of the page "the truth about ID cards.
 I have compiled VOLUMES of evidence on this matter, the site mentioned is a good place to start. If you have the courage to learn more TRUTHS about our country and our God given rights let me know and I'll point you in the right direction for your research.
 "resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
 ps my state, Nebraska, just started that and I sent them a letter. I told them I will sue them if they keep it up!
 Public Law 93-579 Sec 7(a)(1), It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State, or local govt. agency to deny to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individuals refusal to disclose his ss#.
 Title 42 chapter7 subch1 sec 408, whoever discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States shall be guilty of a felony and shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
 pps no you are not a butt head, you are a patriot like me and yes you MUST take a stand!
 God bless!
 and God bless America!! (the Republic)

Per the OR 2002 Big Game Manual< Federal and state laws require ODFW to collect the SSN of applicants for hunting and fishing licenses.These laws were enacted as part of a nationwide effort to improve child support compliance.>Yeah right, Won't be long they'll be tattooing it on our forearms,sound familiar?

It is a maxim of law that no new legislation may be enacted which alters or over-writes an existing law. The former law must first be repealed, amended, or revoked.
 Kind of makes you wonder what is going on here in the good old land of the free and home of the brave, doesn't it?
 My business partner recently ran across an old timer who studied law some 30 or so years ago. he was nearly ready to get his degree when,something happened to a family member and he was forced to quit school and go home to run the farm. A couple years back he turned the farm over to his kids and returned to school but very soon he quit. He said he was just too disguisted to go on. During his early years of study he said there were a certain set of laws which were considered to be untouchable. All other laws were written in accordance and conjunction with these original laws and rules. Upon his return to school he found that these original, carved in stone, precedent laws were being disassembled, altered, and being treated as though they were open for debate and OPINION!
 I have always believed that opinion is a problem in the court room. It is not a judges, or jurys, or attorneys job to pronounce any thing resembling opinion. Have you ever heard the words "it is this courts opinion that..."
 The court is to determine or discover the facts/truth. Period!!!
 Any other form of justice is no justice.
 
 "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"
 Thomas Jefferson.
 ps It is also not the courts duty to try the facts.
 Think about it, you cannot try a fact! That's stupid.
 They are to discover facts!
 The sun comes up in the east, rain is wet. These are facts! Put them on trial and you will be the laughing stock. WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE DOING????

Ishootem, you sound like a flamming idiot tax protester. Quit your pontificating and take one of the public entities to court and see how illegal they are! Come on, give us a break from all your so-called expertise. I am tired of hearing from the likes of you about what so-called rights you have and what so-called rights the government doesn't have. Go for it or keep quiet ! I have read quite a bit of this kind of crap when served with so called legal papers from a tax protester. He threatened me for withholding taxes from his wife's paycheck. I told him to threaten the IRS and leave me alone. He, like most hot air, drifted away when I called his bluff.

Dear Rolly,
 If all you came here to do is hollar, go right ahead, I won't try and stop you.
 I will however point out your complete lack of attempt to refute any of the points that I made. I am not saying these things in self defense, you may call me anything you like, it has no effect on me. I am speaking in defense of literally millions of my countrymen who have taken a stand. If anyone has the courage to grab hold of any truth and make a stand, I salute you, and I would never cut you down for it or call you names!
 I find it somewhat disconcerting and very disappointing that one of my countrymen and a fellow shooting enthusiast would speak so brashly pertaining to his rights. Government agencies have no rights, only duty(s). That is why their employees are called public servants. The use of the word servant was very deliberate, this word denotes the fact that they have masters. Do you believe these public servants have been granted authority to ignore the law or change law at will? When they do ignore law and do as they please, what does that make them? What do they represent then? NO, they are law officials, and they have sworn an oath to uphold the law.
 I have never made any claims of "expertise" as you call it, but I have studied law for many years, and all of my statements are based on FACTS that I have discovered. What are you basing your comments on? Maybe the people who asked the questions I was answering appreciate the time I invested in their freedoms, If you don't, that's your choice. No one is forcing you to read these posts.
 I have never protested taxes and I cheerfully pay any legal tax (and even some which aren't legal). Instead, I gain knowledge from the law and present government agencies with facts in a respectable and legal manner. In other words, I do not protest, I object, and when the agency is presented with the truths I have discovered, they always comply with the law. You say shut up and put up. "Take one of these agencies to court" you said. I have never had to. Fact is, they don't want me in court or anyone else who has knowledge, too many witnesses (new students seeking knowledge) and they can't afford bad case history.
 I recommend you find a soft spoken elderly retired judge and discuss these points with him. Ask him to tell you of the changes he has seen in his lifetime of service. Ask how these changes have affected him, his beliefs in the system, his feelings about his job/duty, and most importantly, what these changes have done to his compassion and overall love for mankind. I think that you will be suprised by his answers. I believe that you will find he is very grieved in his heart.
 Please Rolly, if you or anyone else out there finds proof that my statments are incorrect, add a post to this thread and let everyone know as I am most teachable and willing to adjust my stance in light of new FACTS.
 I hope the head of the family that you told "Take your problems to the IRS and get out of my face" did just that because he is right. I hope he used his experience with you as the stepping stone that it was and continued his studies. He may not have had enough facts gathered yet to enforce the truth that he had, but he was right, and I can prove it from the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.
 
 Life is like a box of choc-o-lates"
 Forrest Gump's mother

Ishootem,
 In case you're curious, I didn't even honor your answer by reading it. Use the courts, get over it or keep quiet.
 That is my last comment.

And I suppose nobody gives their SSN# on Form 4473 when they purchase a firearm. Any Tom, Dick and Harry with a good wit of computor sense can get your SSN#. Nothing wrong with giving them the SSN#, the state already has it if you are employed in that state. They already have it if you go to any educational institution in that state. They know what it is, why make it harder on yourself by falsifying official documents by putting a fake number on it?

Dear Rolly
 
 LOL
 
 I asked you to provide evidence if any of my points were incorrect. Instead you stick your head in the sand and quit.
 You're just what America and liberty needs in time of crisis. Perserverance, dedication, courage, apt to think of others first, the list goes on and on. I'm sure the founding fathers would be very proud of you, their sacrifices obviously mean so much to you.
 
 "Complacent slaves are next best to uneducated ones"
 Council on Foreign Relations

At a Dr's office first visit for a workers comp. claim, I was asked for both my SSN and my wife's SSN. They had a small fit when I refused. Said they HAD to have both to look at my MRI. Give me a break! I bought a CZ 527 several weeks back, did NOT put in my SSN and had less than a one minute approval from Oregon's instant background System.
 
 I have a friend who has been trying to clean up her credit reports from SSN theft. You can tell me all you want how illegal it is and how easy it is to correct but it has taken her over three years and they can not get a mortgage because of it.
 
 I for one will NOT give out my SSN to anyone who thinks they want it.

Allen, you have a point there, but just the same I'd rather make them work for it. This is a hunting license for crying out loud. What in the world does the state need your ssn on a hunting license application for?
 
 I doubt they could connect the dots to you anyway. Look at the INS giving new student visas to dead hi-jackers! The beurocrats aren't the most efficient people in the world.
 7mm

Troll, this guy needs to be deleted, Rick check out his profile and send him back under a rock.

I'll second that.

Third ! -- no

Maybe he is a troll, but, would any lawyers here care to look up those laws he said about? Or have any forehand knowledge of those laws? I"m pretty sure it's illegal to DEMAND a social security number.
 As far as his profile, yeah, he needs to go. I don't like big daddy's or cop killers.

Hey Rick, do you still have what that guy said? I'm kinda wondering. Could you put it up (leaving him banned of course) so that any lawyer could do the research on that, please? Many thanks.

I obviously missed something while I was too busy, but glad whatever it was that you all got Rick to act quickly. We do not need someone like this person active and causing whatever grief he can.

Sorry big, but after looking at his profile, I flat deleted him without a second thought.
 
 Folks, we have been live for over two years now, and this is only the second person I have ever banned. The first was a PETA nut who spouted off about poison and nuking water supplies and all kinds of garbage. He lasted less than 10 minutes.
 
 This guy would have been gone sooner, but I just saw his post (teaching night school). Just the handle was immediately over the top. Then the profile removed any vestige of doubt.
 
 It's funny, because apparently there was enough substance in his only post to provoke thought. It's too bad he came in with no credibility.
 
 Bye-eeeeeeeeeeeee.
 
 Rick

Well we have done not bad then, and I guess this is the best way to handle some of these people. Just too bad there is always someone pulling something. Though I must say that Longrange forum is getting a workout.

It's alright Rick. I'm kinda wishing that I had copied that down to a file or something, dang!
 I have some memory though. The main part I was wondering about. He said something about there being a law dated back to 1974 that says nobody has to give out their ssn for any reason. Would any lawyers look into this, or know anything about this? The rest of it, well, unfortunately, I pretty much forget it.

Took me a while to find this, but I hope it helps. Also sent an e-mail to the SSA to see who was entitled to this information.
 
 
 Is it illegal for someone to ask for my SSN?
 The short answer is that there are many restrictions on government agencies asking for your number, but few on individuals or companies. When someone from a government agency asks for your number, they are required to provide a Privacy Act Disclosure Notice, which is required to tell you what law allows them to ask, whether you have to provide your number, and what will happen if you don't provide the number.
 
 Private companies aren't required to follow this law, and in general your recourse is to find another company to do business with if you don't like their policies.
 
 
 
 The Privacy Act of 1974
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579, in section 7), which is the primary law affecting the use of SSNs, requires that any federal, state, or local government agency that requests your Social Security Number has to tell you four things:
 
 the authority (whether granted by statute, or by executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;
 the principal purposes for which the information is intended to be used;
 the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published annually in the Federal Register, and
 the effects on you, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information.
 The Act requires state and local agencies which request the SSN to inform the individual of only three things:
 whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary,
 by what statutory or other authority the SSN is solicited, and
 what uses will be made of the number.
 In addition, that section makes it illegal for Federal, state, and local government agencies to deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their SSNs unless the disclosure is required by Federal statute, or the disclosure is to an agency for use in a record system which required the SSN before 1975. (5 USC 552a note). So anytime you're dealing with a government institution and you're asked for your Social Security Number, look for a Privacy Act Statement. If there isn't one, complain and don't give your number. If the statement is present, read it. Once you've read the explanation of whether the number is optional or required, and what will be done with your number if you provide it, you'll be able to decide for yourself whether to fill in the number.
 There are several kinds of governmental organizations (see the list in the Short History section) that usually have authority to request your number, but they are all required to provide the Privacy Act Statement described above. The only time you should be willing to give your number without reading that notice is when the organization you are dealing with is not a part of the government.
 
 One weakness of the Priavcy Act is that it doesn't carry any penalties. ( Bob Gelman claims there are some that haven't been exercised in court.)
 
 SHORT HISTORY
 
 Social Security numbers were introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935. They were originally intended to be used only by the social security program. In 1943 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9397 which required federal agencies to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems. In 1961 the IRS began to use it as a taxpayer ID number. The Privacy Act of 1974 required authorization for government agencies to use SSNs in their data bases and required disclosures (detailed below) when government agencies request the number. Agencies which were already using SSN as an identifier before January 1, 1975 were allowed to continue using it. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 gave authority to state or local tax, welfare, driver's license, or motor vehicle registration authorities to use the number in order to establish identities. The Privacy Protection Study Commission of 1977 recommended that EO9397 be revoked after some agencies referred to it as their authorization to use SSNs. It hasn't been revoked, but no one seems to have made new uses of the SSN recently and cited EO9397 as their sole authority, either.
 
 Several states use the SSN as a driver's license number, while others record it on applications and store it in their database. Some states that routinely use it on the license will make up another number if you insist. According to the terms of the Privacy Act, any that have a space for it on the application forms should have a disclosure notice. Many don't, and until someone takes them to court, they aren't likely to change.

I have been watching this thread in hopes Rolly would recover his wits and behave in a proper manner. When I found copkillers post, I was disguisted to say the least.
 Alot of what he said was correct, I planned on digging through my study notes and the law books to confirm the things he said that I was unfamiliar with. This sort of attitude is definately most unwelcome. People in America need to be taught the truth, but no one will be served by a bad attitude.
 
 Dear copkiller,
 you've obviously done some study, that's good, but who do you suppose is going to listen to you with a name like that? My brother in law is a cop, and in the military, he shipped out to Saudi day before yesterday. I'm glad more people out there are educating themselves but I am overwhelmingly offended by the name you chose. Not offended for my own sake, but for that of my countrymen and my little sisters husband and father of my nephew. Freedom is very important to me,and I take my studies very seriously. With a change of attitude, you may actually prove useful.

ps
 
 Thanks Rick for the quick use of the delete key

Ishootem, I am not hessitant to post and actually am quite civil on most topics. I am not, however, going to subject myself to drivel from some self-annointed constitutionalist who is paranoid about every governmental agency who needs to use his social security number. Your posts sounded just like that and frankly, I have seen enough non-lawyers who think they have studied the law sufficiently to call themselves students of the law and who only want to claim our current laws and rules are non-consitutional. Those are the arguments used by tax protesters and anti-government fanatics. Regarding the theft of SSN's, nobody can condone the use of the SSN when it isn't necessary but on the other hand, I believe most public entities use it responsibly. When they don't, they too should be subject to the ramifications of the law. As I said in my earlier post, I was threatened once with the "law" by the type of person about whom I write and when I told him to save his breath and have his lawyer contact me or to sue the IRS, he disappeared. Call me unpatriotic, if you wish, but you are in error. I am patriotic but require the legetimate law of the land to rule my life and the lives of those that I may affect. Your excuse that you are a "student of the law" doesn't hold any water in my mind and doesn't give you credibility in my eyes.

This is the response I received from the SSA on the question of who has the right to ask for your SSN#
 
 
 
 
 This is in response to your inquiry.
 
 We have no authority to interpret or enforce the law as it applies to
 programs that we do not administer. Thus, we cannot comment on the way other
 Federal, State, or local
 government agencies use Social Security numbers (SSNs). Questions about the
 use of SSNs by other governmental agencies should be directed to:
 
 Chief Counselor for Privacy
 Information Policy Branch
 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
 Office of Management and Budget
 725 17th Street NW
 Washington, D.C. 20503

Thanks AllenAlaska. I was kinda wondering about what he said, and how much credibility he had. Again, thanks.

ALaska was demanding SSN on hunting licenses last year, but dropped it this year because someone challenged them in court... or so I was told. Anyone know anymore about what really happened?
 art

The SSN is optional when you purchase a firearm. It states that you don't have to provide it and that it is just to speed your approval.

Dear Rolly,
 I'm glad to see you're back. Thanks.
 Please forgive my implying the degree of your patriotism. That was uncalled for.
 I agree there are many flakes out there with little or no ammunition going off about this or that pertaining to law because of something they heard or read, but some people have studied law, and not all of them are lawyers. The ones who aren't (or aren't anymore) have no B.A.R. membership to protect. I've had lawyers side step my questions. I've used freedom of information act request and had government agencies flat out REFUSE to answer! It's a matter of job security. You have to stop and consider, there are a lot of people looking into this kind of thing now days, can't be that many are all wrong. Must be something to it.
 
 
 Cop killer,
 If your still out there, after the body of your post was deleted, the quote remained a while. It said you hate nazi's.
 Why, what good does it do? Does your hate cancell out theirs? Does it help to reach them? Does it imporove life for any one on the planet?
 Only one way to deal with such things, go to Heb. chapter 11 and 1 Cor. chapter 13
 
 Dear AlleninAlaska,
 The SSA is right as far as their administration goes, but did you notice they didn't cite any laws, I did, Please go look them up. Tht proof is in the US Code and The Code of Federal Regulations.
 
 quote for the day.
 
 "Your Honor, the statutes cited for charges against my client have no implementing regulations and aren't listed in the federal register."
 Ollie North's lawyer
 
 "Case dismissed"
 the judge

Folks,
 
 My wife did a bunch of research on this SSN nonsense. Under the guise of "protecting the children", almost all the restrictions against the use and requirement of a SSN by Fed/state/local government were either lifted or amended by the Child Support Nazis. So all the laws quoted earlier are, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant.
 
 As a nation of laws, you have to go past the date of a law and find the most recent amendment or replacement, and THAT will be the enforceable law, NOT the original.
 
 It bites, but that's the reality. The Child Support Act was one of the biggest nails ever driven into Freedom's coffin.
 
 My (non-lawyerly) advice is to give out your SSN to any government authority which demands it--99.9% of the time, the law will be in their side, not on yours. Appeal all you want, but the chances are that you'll lose. The SSN cow has left the barn.
 
 BTW, giving out a false SSN is a felony, and is regarded as SSN theft by the courts (you're using someone else's SS ID fraudulently). Instead, you may want to ask whether a driver's license number will suffice as a replacement--in many cases, it does. Of course, if your local DMV already has your SSN, the difference is irrelevant.
 
 Sorry to be a wet blanket, but them's the facts.

Ishootem, evidently you didn't read my second post on this matter. They can ask for your SSN# as stated by the Freedom of Information Act. Evidently you like to skip over post that may disprove you and just respond to post that don't post any relevant laws. Here is a copy of the Child Support Enforcement Act. It has since been amended 3 or 4 times. As soon as I find the amendments, I'll post them. Now Ishootem, you really haven't posted any pertinent laws or regulations, just a bunch of numbers that could come from anywhere. If you have done so much research on these laws, you should have hard copies right at your fingertips. At least I am posting laws, you aren't.
 
 
 SUMMARY OF UNIFORM CHILD SUPPORT
 ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1997
 
 H.R. 2189
 
 INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN HYDE (R-IL) AND
 CONGRESSWOMAN WOOLSEY (D-CA) - July 17, 1997
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. The Act is called the Uniform Child Support Enforcement Act of 1997.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 SECTION 2. ASSIGNMENT OF THE RIGHT TO COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT AND THE AVAILABILITY OF CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Currently, child support is often collected by state agencies acting pursuant to income withholding orders issued by courts and administrative agencies. This Act replaces this scheme with a system in which the federal government--through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-- enforces orders based on an assignment of rights from the person to whom the support is owed.
 
 The Act begins by establishing that--as a condition for receiving federal funding for their child support (IVD) systems-- states will have to enact laws creating a presumption that custodial parents have assigned the right to collect their child support to the IRS. State law will also have to provide a procedure so that custodial parents can opt out of or into the IRS collection system at any time.
 
 So that the IRS will know the terms of the orders it is to enforce, courts and administrative agencies which establish or modify child support orders will have to provide standardized abstracts of existing orders to the newly-created Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders. Then every time they enter a new order or modify an old one, courts/administrative agencies will have to provide an abstract to the Federal Case Registry. The abstract will contain information about the parents, the amount of the order and any arrears owed.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 SECTION 3. COLLECTION OF CHILD SUPPORT BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Once an assignment is in place, the IRS would collect both the current support and arrears.
 
 Employee Obligations: Each new employee who is subject to IRS collection will be required to file a withholding certificate with her/his employer. The withholding certificate will provide the employee with the opportunity to declare that he/she owes child support, the amount of the obligation, and the tax identification number of the person to whom the support is owed. Thereafter, whenever there is a new or modified order, the employee will have to file a new withholding certificate within 30 business days of the change. A covered employee who willfully fails to provide correct information can be prosecuted and fined up to $1,00 and sent to jail for up to one year, or both.
 
 Employer Obligations: Employers would be required to begin withholding child support from the employee's first/next paycheck based on information provided by the employee in the withholding certificate. Within 30 business days, the employer would also send a copy of the withholding certificate to the IRS for comparison with information in the Federal Case Registry. The IRS would have 20 business days to confirm or correct the information provided by the employee. If the information was incorrect, within 20 days, the IRS would notify the employer of the correct amount of withholding. The employer would then adjust the withholding accordingly.
 
 The IRS's Obligations: Child support -- like income taxes -- would be withheld from an employee's wages and collected by the IRS. The employee's annual W-2 form would tell the employee how much child support had been deducted from his/her wages. This would be credited against the actual obligation. If the employee had overpaid, he/she would get a credit. If he/she had underpaid, any support still owed would have to be paid to the IRS along with an taxes owed by the employee. If an employee failed to pay all child support due on or before April 15, the IRS could proceed to collect the delinquent support using the same methods used to collect unpaid taxes. Moreover, the employee would face the same penalties and interest as apply to delinquent taxes.
 
 For the self-employed, the IRS would collect child support along with estimated tax payments. Adjustments would be made for those who are also employees and are having support withheld from their wages.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 SECTION 4. DISBURSEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS. The IRS would send the child support (and any penalties or interest collected) to the Social Security Administration (SSA)for disbursement. SSA would have 5 days to send the money out. As under current law, families which had never received public assistance would receive all the money collected on their behalf. Families which do not currently receive public assistance but did so in the past would receive current support and (by the year 2000) all pre- and post-assistance arrears owed to them. The state and federal governments would then split arrears(if any) which accumulated during the time the family received assistance. The state and federal governments would also share the support collected for families currently receiving public assistance.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 SECTION 5. ELIMINATION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ENFORCING CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS EXCEPT MEDICAL SUPPORT. Since the IRS would be collecting support, states would no longer be required to provide this service and the federal government would no longer fund state collection efforts. Therefore, all language contained in Title IVD of the Social Security Act relating to a state's responsibility to collect and distribute child support would be removed. The only enforcement obligation left to the states would be for medical support. Also eliminated from Title IVD would be state incentive payments since these are based on collections and states would no longer be making collections.
 
 In addition, states would no longer be under a mandate to have certain state laws relating to the collection of child support. Gone would be the requirement that state law must provide for immediate wage withholding, state income tax refund intercept, liens, bonds, or credit reporting.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of the Act would become effective on the 1st day of the first calendar month that begins two years after the date of enactment.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 --July 24,1997

Dear Allen,
 
 Thank you for your post, I've never read through that one before.
 
 Has the 1997 Child Support Enforcement Act been published in the Federal Register?
 
 44 USC Sec.1505 says that any obligation to the public which perscribes a penelty must be published in the Federal Register.
 
 I have other cites from CFR which basically state the same thing as you pointed out above from PL 93-579
 
 But
 
 Article VI clause 2 of the Constitution states that all federal and state law must be written in concordance with the constitution.
 
 Amendment XIV Sec. 1 says; No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
 
 The people have a right to privacy.
 
 Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137
 The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.
 
 16 American Jurisprudence Sec.256.177 2nd Edition
 The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute...though having to form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose,...In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
 
 Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436
 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule or legislation which would abrogate them.
 
 Norton v Shelby County 118 U.S. 425
 An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights, it imposed no duties, affords no protection, creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
 
 They can write new laws all day long, the fact still remains, no new law can nullify existing laws.
 It doesn't matter what they write or say, it has no force and effect of law. The above list of case law attest to that.
 
 I have never found any law which requires us to have a social security number. If it is not required to have one, how can it be required to give it out?
 
 
 This is good conversation, thanks again Allen for your input. I do appreciate it.
 
 To everyone reading these posts, don't just take our or anyone elses word for it, go look these things up for yourself. You'll be suprised what other interesting points and opinions you'll find along the way.
 
 Thanks and God bless!

Now IF these laws are followed.....
 
 Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137
 The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.
 
 16 American Jurisprudence Sec.256.177 2nd Edition
 The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute...though having to form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose,...In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
 
 Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436
 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule or legislation which would abrogate them.
 
 Norton v Shelby County 118 U.S. 425
 An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights, it imposed no duties, affords no protection, creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
 
 .....Then the NFA of 1934, and a WHOLE pile of other laws and restrictions are null and void. Right?
 7mm

Ishootem. you still have not proven that it is against any law to ask or require a SSN#. When are you going to prove that point that you keep speaking of?
 
 How many thousands of laws have been passed by congress or state legislatures since the first 7 Articles of the Constitution were written? How many laws have been written since the passage of the 27th and last amendment to the Constitution was approved by the states?

That's a very good question 7mm.
 
 It leads to many other questions, about many other laws, but we can't just throw open the prison doors and have a free for all.
 
 It looks to me (this is opinion) like this nation was founded on scriptural principles. If all were to adhere to these principles, we would have no need of laws or prisons or most of the functions of govnt for that matter. That's not likely to happen anytime soon.
 
 I see freedom deteriorating very rapidly. This concerns me.
 
 I believe people need to get together with their local officials and work together to see to it that freedom and safety are passed along to future generations. Keeping it all of course, based on the Constitution.
 
 We are priviledged to be living with the best government this world has ever seen, there are however certain people and groups and agencies within the govt which have strayed from their original intent and corruption has grown out of that.
 
 I really don't know how to answer your question 7mm. But I do know that people need to educate themselves on these issues, and they need to become active in their community concerning the future of freedom.
 
 My original post on this thread was to inform someone who asked, that there is indeed another with his identity and because of that he is subject of the probate court. I also stated that from PL 93-579 sec.7(a)(1) it is unlawful for an agency to deny service to someone for refusal to disclose his SS#.
 
 Dear Allen,
 The people have a right to privacy. I also cited title 42 ch. 7 subch.1 sec.408.
 According to the SS administration the number system was not created for identification, and there is no requirement to have a number.
 Are you sure I keep speaking of that one point?

Well I guess this thread is coming to a slow death. And seeing how Ishootem can't dig up proof positive that other agencies can't ask for a SSN# from somebody, I'll let go at that Wonder if Ishootem always makes others do the footwork for him, as he can't seem to post any laws or regulations. All he does is cite them, and we all know that citing something is not quite as good or even anywhere near an answer to the original ? about SSN#'s as actually copying and pasting such laws here would be.

Dear Allen and everyone,
 Please try not to be sarcastic. It serves no one.
 If this thread is going to die a death, slow or otherwise I am disappointed. I should think that people who exercise freedom and are concerned about any particular one freedom or all of them collectively would be keenly interested in the ONE THING upon which those freedoms are based. LAW.
 You are perceptive enough to see that I am not giving answers to certain questions. People must first be prepared to understand the answers. The answer to your question Allen, has been given (or enough so) in my previous posts, all one need do is assimilate evidence and connect the dots. There is actually a lot more information (than it appears on the surface) and clues to other lines of thought given in my previous posts. Read all of my posts carefully. In the future, as people learn, they will want to refer back to them. Your particular question does not present a life-threatening situation. What's important is that people ARE taking an interest in this sort of thing. I'm not doing this to give answers, but rather to lead people to answers. Many, like horses, will refuse to drink, at least for now, because it's not life-threatening, or because it's not on THEIR DOORSTEP. But this will change.
 You notice I didn't tell 7mm that I don't know the answer, but rather that I don't know HOW to answer. That's God's honest truth. I said that it is a good question, actually it's an excellent question. Most people don't arrive at that until later down the road. The answer is much more complex than yes or no and it has FAR REACHING implications. That answer, in its entirety, is known and fully understood by very few lawyers, if any, and only a portion of the judges in this country. Good luck trying to pry more insight out of any of them!!!
 I can tell by the responses to this thread that we are not dealing with people slow on the uptake. If that were the case, I would be more apt to just give answers. I never asked anyone to do my leg work for me, I am TELLING people don't take my or anyone else's word for it, look it up and have proof on hand. At the end of this post I will give you the links to quickly look up statutes and regulations from the U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations.
 
 THINGS TO CONSIDER:
 1. When looking laws up, or having ANY dealings with law or legal matters whatsoever, keep in mind that DEFINITIONS ARE KEY! "United States" for instance has, by one report given me, over 7000 differeint definitions throughout the U.S. Code. (That should explain a lot to you).
 
 2.Others to watch carefully are: person, individual, and state. You'll be VERY suprised.
 
 3. Also keep in mind that the hard copy of the Code is different from the on line versions, in many instances, remarkebly so.
 
 4. The following list is the Title Numbers from the U.S. Code which HAVE BEEN enacted into POSITIVE law:
 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, and 49. There are 50 Titles in all and they are numbered 1 through 50. (This means that less than half are LAW).
 
 5.Webster defines code as: A system used for brevity OR SECRECY. But...
 
 Black's Law Dictionary defines it as: a collection of laws, a COMPLETE system of POSITIVE law scientifically arranged and PROMULGATED by legislative authority.
 
 The very word "code" implies something is hidden. Which definition is THE definition? (Read them again and carefully consider your answer.) We are talking about law so we must assume the legal difinition is the one to use. If that is so, why do the courts behave as though all Titles are POSITIVE and PROMULGATED?
 
 I originally commented on this thread to start people thinking. I realized many years ago that I wasn't going to school merely to learn, but to learn how to learn. I have also observed along the way that people are trained by the system to learn and think along certain lines. People are trained (from grammer school through college) not only what to think but more importantly HOW to think. This is especially important to note when considering professionals. (Lawyers, politicians, doctors, etc.) If you are a professional and this makes you angry, that is your fault, and your CHOICE. A wise man standing right next to an angry one would be saying to himself "maybe there is something here that I have overlooked, maybe I should dig for evidence. Surely many millions of my countrymen can't all be wrong.
 
 Perspective. Different point from which to view. New lines of thinking, not right or wrong, just different. THAT is what I am offering. An introduction, a place to start (one of many) to get a better idea of what is going on in America. A place to start to build a foundation from which one can understand THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION. By looking these things up, one will begin to find, as I have, many FACTS and TRUTHS the intricacies and implications of which are beyond staggering.
 
 Those desiring more information may continue to email me privately, I am glad to help out. But I WILL NOT respond to hecklers. This topic is too important to be wasting time argueing with obtuse,stubborn, closed-minded people.
 
 I am going to start a new thread with a reprint of a very informative brochure that was given me about 10 years ago (13 years after my starting this quest). Look for it under the 2nd amendment heading, it will be entitled "One World"
 
 The U.S. Code can be found on line at findlaw.com or http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm , just type in Title and Section or search for words/phrases.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations can be found at, www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/ or just use google.com
 
 REMEMBER, definitions are key. It does you no good to look up ANY law unless you check the definitions section of that particular group of statutes. Legislators have a habit of being sneaky and misleading. They, like politicians, are very profecient with double-speak.
 
 Thanks and God Bless!
 
 Resistants to tyrants is obedience to God
 Thomas Jefferson