Despite popular belief, the United States Congress is very unlike a King, as it has limited authority to legislate over a very limited number of subjects. This is all laid out in the Constitution, but we are not going to go into that here.

Suffices it to say, that the U. S. Supreme Court has already made a determination regarding the limitation of the authority of the Congress to legislate compulsory subjugation to social programs within the fifty states. This determination was made in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935). In this case the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Congress lacked the authority to enact compulsory laws for the provision of retirement income regarding railroad workers.

The Congress had attempted to implement this social legislation under its broadest, and only authority to enact laws that can affect the people of the individual fifty states, the Interstate Commerce Clause. Later, it would fulfill its obligation as agreed by the U.S. Senate in the International Labor Agreement (ILA) by enacting the allegedly broad sweeping Social Security Act.

Again, the Congress enacted a law where it would provide for retirement income, but something had changed. The one point that had changed was the fact that the law was not enacted as compulsory for U.S. Citizens. To this day, 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B) reveals that this law requires only aliens to be assigned numbers at the time of their lawful admission to the United States, all others must make application.

Application connotes exclusivity of membership or participation, and no government official has yet dared to explain how an application can be anything other than a voluntary act. It is apparent that if the registration into, and the subsequent coverage and subjugation under, the Social Security Act were mandatory, the law would provide for the assignment of numbers to all. In light of the fact that the Act was made law to fulfill the obligations of the U.S. Government as agreed to in a Treaty known as the International Labor Agreement, these legal points and facts should not be too difficult to understand.

Now that you see the limited nature and application of the Social Security Act in the letter of the law, and as seen by the Supreme Court, you should also see that the definitions of words such as "employer", "employee", and "wages" are not solely defined and applicable to all workers in the United States of America. These words are re-defined in the law for the purposes of the Social Security Act and the Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, where there is a law which implements the collection of the tax imposed in the Act. This is a legal fact as these terms were originally defined before the enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935.

This fact is plainly exhibited by the section of the Federal Regulations (20 CFR § 404.1002) which defines these terms as being only applicable to those who are "under social security", and thus subject to the Social Security Act. All of the proceeding definitions are reliant upon the presumption that the reader is subject to/under/covered by the "Act".

In the following explanation, we labor to make it clear that the law is written with an assumption that the reader is first subject to the Act, as only those subject to, and thus ‘covered’ by, the Act would be concerned about its specific regulations.

To prove this please examine the definition for "Wages" as found in 20 CFR §404.1041 . First you the reader must be defined as "You" under the social security laws as set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1002. This means that you, as a U.S. Citizen, need to be first subjugated to and thus "under" the "Act" before you can meet the legal criteria to be legally defined as "You" by this law. Second, "You" (who is first "under" the "Act") must be defined as an "employee" under the "Act" who has had remuneration paid to "You" for "employment". (Note here how the payment is "remuneration" until it is determined that the services "You" perform are "employment".).

"Employment" is defined in 20 CFR § 404.1003 as "any service covered". So first the employment must be "covered" by social security before the remuneration paid can be defined as "wages". How does the "employment" become "covered"? The simplest explanation regarding the employer is that the employer applied for an "Employer Identification Number" (EIN) on the SS-4 application, which is used as the Tax Identification Number (TIN). (Note that a business cannot open up a Bank Account to clear checks without a TIN/EIN, and the application only asks when the employer has, or will, first hire[d] non-resident aliens.)

So the businessmen and corporations, as well as individuals, are shut out of the Banking system if they do not have numbers. This is one way the worker is coerced into becoming "covered", and the fact that "You" are covered is used by the government to determine that "You" will pay a social security tax on almost all work that "You" may do, as set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1004. Still, we must all remember that these laws are built upon the presupposition that the U.S. Citizen is subject to, subjugated under, or "covered" by the "Act".

Finally in this explanation, is the definition of "employee", as set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1005. Please note that the definition begins with the presupposition of "You".

There you have it! With the law clearly indicating that the work/services performed by a U.S. Citizen is not "covered" under 20 CFR § 404.1004, if you as a U.S. Citizen are not "under social security" as set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1002.

So, how did you as a U.S. Citizen become "covered" by/subject to/subjugated under the Social Security Act?

That is simple. Review 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B), and you will see that you made an application (a voluntary act) to be subject to this law, and the government agencies which implement this law, when you signed the SS-5 Form, Application for Social Security Number Card.

Did you do this knowing that you were giving up a right as a U.S. Citizen to keep all of the remuneration paid to you?

Did anyone tell you that you had this right?

Did you do this knowing that you had the right not to be subjugated under this law implementing a Treaty, since you were a U.S. Citizen living and working in the U.S.?

Did anyone bother to tell you that you had this right?

What!? You did not sign the application? Who did then?

Your parents? Well did anyone tell them which of your rights they were signing away?

Do you think that it is just, fair, and legal for your parents to sign your rights away, without you ever having any knowledge or understanding of that which you have lost, forever?

If you signed the application as a minor, do you think that it is just, right, and legal for the government to depend upon the uninformed actions of a minor, for the determination of the applicability of a non compulsory law to a U.S. Citizen, when you became an adult?

Do you know of any state in the Union that upholds contracts made solely with minors?

These are the ins and outs of the Social Security Act and the Social Security number. Please note that the author’s children do not have social security numbers. There are many children these days who do not have numbers, as their parents learned how to resist the Enumeration at Birth Program implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services, the State Department of Vital Statistics, and the State Departments of Health. (They have enacted regulations requiring the Nurse Midwives and Doctors to issue Birth Certificates which are used by the Federal Government to issue an SSN if the parents do not sign the SS-5 or the Hospital personnel fail to falsify the answer as "Yes" to the question to the parents regarding participation in the Enumeration at Birth Program.) Nice huh?

Yes, not having a number, locks a person out of the Banking and Credit System. Yet having the number trivializes the common man’s ability to make use of the system. The number reduces him to a serf, as so much of his money is taken from him, since he can now be tracked and the IRS can not only see where he is working, but has his employer believing all kinds of things about him that make even more of his money subject to IRS withholdings (See the W-4 article). Therefore, the average worker sees over 30-50% of his pay check disappear before it is given to him, all based upon the law and system of coercion, entrapment, and non-disclosure described above.

How is a young man to save money so that he can be well established before he marries?

How does a young family ever save enough money to keep from being one pay check away from the street, let alone save to buy a house, as opposed to going into debt?

Is this how we define Social Security?

We are still working to provide you with the letters sent between a man and the Senior Tax Counsel with the Amway Corporation, which resulted in the Amway Corporation now admitting that it can have Distributors who do not have Social Security Numbers. An Attorney by the name of Gerald P. Nehra who specializes in advising Multi Level Marketing Programs made this evident by posting his position based upon that of Amway. (It seems that some will eventually make the admission that Bruce Squillante, Senior Tax Attorney for Amway, refuses to make). The article used to be found at http://www.ultimate.org/nehra/nossn.html but he removed it, presumably from the traffic we had caused him, we saved it and posted it to our site (click here) and his e-mail address is/was MLMatty@aol.com.

This success was made possible by the research provided by our researcher. If we can teach Amway something, what else is possible?

Here we have provided a simple pair of letters, one a document called an Asseveration of Coercion, the other a Cover letter, both to go to Federal Executive Officials and to your Congressional officials.  The purpose is to create pressure, and let the Congress and others know that we know what is going on regarding the law, and that we are not happy about it. Please click here for this non-invasive, non-committal strategy.  We think it is powerful and worth your time to examine.

Also, get involved now, please access our Political Action letters and take a little time to let your Government Officials know that you know the truth now, and that you want to know what they are going to do about releasing, and convincing frightened employers to release, those who were never given the opportunity to make an informed decision, regarding the waiver of their rights to all of their money, when they were told by employers and government officials that they were required to be "covered" by the Social Security Act and signed the SS-5 Form.