[Ice]

A DBA is not that easy to come by. Most counties and states have a huge problem with “same name” issues and refuse to acknowledge the difference. I know very few people (2) that have been successful in this area… and they are from the same state — CALIFORNIA.

I don't recall reading your opinion regarding W-8BEN versus W-8 or W-8 substitute. But if your opinion on which of them is more favorable is in the book… I'm sure I'll be able to find it.

[Ice]

Seems to me that you don't want to get it. And what is all this about “conspiracy”… I never said anything about “conspiracy”. You don't honestly believe that the gov. would be involved in some sort of “conspiracy” to steal your freedoms or your citizenship, do you??? Don't they provide us with the CORRECT DEFINITIONS of words and phrases as well as their meaning on all those wonderful forms they ask us to fill out for all those wonderful programs they would like us to “contribute” to?? But, we can talk about that issue at another time.

Check the definition of Person. Then reread my post again. You will find that the definition of words is very important in these matters.

Taxation is based upon your citizenship… now where do they get the idea that you are a “U.S. citizen”?? Maybe from that SS-5 form that you filled out?

Your claim is that SS is not contractual — therefore it is a program that is FORCED upon the inhabitants of this great land. If you now claim that it is not FORCED then I ask you why it is that infants are immediately given numbers upon birth? OH!! BUT WHAT AM I SAYING!! IT'S A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM!! I am sure that the many infants getting this number are doing so on a voluntary basis… after all, they are not yet able to enter into a contract.

But again, read your cites a bit more critically. You may come to the realization that your SHADOW is engaged in contract with the gov. Your SHADOW is a PERSON… as a matter of fact, THE PERSON, that the gov. contracts with. As I said, this sort of dialogue: “Chairman Curtis. He has no contract? Mr. Dingell. As an individual.” is the way in which they have perpetrated fraud upon us in the first place. Mr. Dingell is correct — NO INDIVIDUAL IS IN CONTRACT WITH SS. Only PERSONS are.

ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES TO DO (PERFORM) OR NOT TO DO (NOT PERFORM) IS CONTRACT.

The above statement is a fact that you cannot get around… no matter what you cite. Now, when you can prove to me – beyond all doubt – that the above statement is false… then you win. Until that time, you will NEVER convince me that it is not a Contract, regardless of what you claim any government body has to say about it. (And we all know that we can trust the government to be completely forthcoming in all matters, specially where the SS, taxation and citizenship are concerned.)

This is not what I *WANT* to believe… but truth I have discovered. After the dissection of each word of your cites you may discover the same. The words they use may not mean what you think they do… and that is why you believe what you *want* to believe.

[Ice]

Family Guardian,

I have NEVER been able to get Utility service without an SS number. They always DEMAND it. Without it, there is no service provided. They get the number or you don't get service. The same goes with banks. I have been to several banks, in Indiana and Illinios, and have not yet come across one that would open an account without a number.

Question: Are you suggesting that the use of a W-8BEN will assist in the matters of banks, utility providers, etc.?

Question: Is the W-8BEN preferred over the W-8 or W-8 substitute, and why?

(FYI- I am not “employed” nor am I “employable”)

[Ice]

Do you honestly believe that the gov. is going to let the cat out of the bag? Everything that you are a party to with the gov. is contract.

Note that “There is no individual contract between the beneficiary and the government.” is a repeating theme. (“individual contract”.) “Chairman Curtis. He has no contract? Mr. Dingell. As an individual.” The gov. does not have a contract with “individuals”… it only contracts with “Persons”. Also note that they speak of “insurance contract”. And, they speak of “enforceable” contract. If you agree that the other party has total control over whether or not to perform… then what is there to enforce?… unless of course, they relinquish that control to you? I am not making the claim that SS is an “insurance contract”. I am simply stating that it is a contract. The terms used by those quoted in your cites must be understood in order to understand the EXACT meaning of the conversation. Of course, it may be true that an “individual” does not have a contract with SS — only “Persons” have a contract with SS — isn't that the all capital letter name on the card?… isn't that who the benefits are received by?… isn't that who contributes? So, we agree that no “individual” has a contract. I'll take it one more step — NO INDIVIDUAL IS A PARTY TO, OR MEMBER OF, THE SS PROGRAM IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. Only a “Person” can be involved in the SS program.

You state: “A contract is not merely an “agreement”- it is more than just two people agreeing to something. Generally, a contract requires that there be a bargain, with a manifestation of assent to the bargain, and it also requires consideration (generally some type of performance or promise to perform).”

Remember also, that a contract can require one person to perform and the other to NOT PERFORM, both parties to NOT PERFORM or both parties to PERFORM. A contract does not have to have the end result that either party RECEIVES anything of substance.

Also: “The reason that Social Security is not a contract is very simple – Congress has reserved its right to repeal the legislation – which in turn means you have no rights to the benefits should Congress repeal the act.”

You think that the simple reason that Congress could repeal SS substantiates that it is not a contract? The entire foundation of “U.S. citizenship” is based on CONTRACT. Are you going to claim that it is not?? Once you have signed a paper stating that you are a U.S. citizen — you are. But you can change that also, can you not?

I will agree that the SS program is not an “Insurance Contract” as it is pointed out in your cite above. But I WILL NOT AGREE that it IS NOT A CONTRACT. It is a contract that requires you to perform by “contributing”… and the performance or non performance of the other party (SSA) is spelled out in the SS programs Law, which YOU HAVE AGREED TO. If you didn't agree to it, then you wouldn't have become a party to it.

And how many newborns are intelligent enough to enter into such a contract??

Let me ask you this: Since when does anyone else decide that YOU or I should or must make any of our earnings available for anyone else in the event that they become disabled or they reach “retirement age”?? Please tell me who has the right to force upon you any social responsibility?? This can only be done with your agreement or by FORCE. If you do not agree that you have a responsibility to financially assist total strangers — then who has the right to force that upon you? Do you believe that under the Constitution of the united States of America anyone has the right to force that responsibility upon you? Of course, NO ONE CAN. But, if you become a party to a contract with which you assume that responsibility — there is no “forcing” — you have agreed. Other than sheer force or contractual agreement is there any other way in which the government could put social responsibility upon you? Of course, you could assume that responsibility WITHOUT GOVERNMENT laying out a plan or program. But, is there any other way that the government could put that responsibility upon you? I don't see one. Please enlighten me.

If you haven't already read it, then Please see the post that provides a link to George Mercier's “Invisible Contracts”.

[Ice]

As a matter of fact, I had a thought that I posted at another forum and would like to briefly share this with you…

The IRS is not a gov. agency… and the gov. says so.

But, all these gov. agencies, such as SSA and the Dept. of State, share information about “citizens” with this Privately owned business.

Sounds like a “privacy” issue. Something to think about.

[Ice]

To be honest, I don't see how you're cites validate your conclusion that there is no contract… nor do I see that those cites support your conclusion.

A contract is an agreement. Either you have agreed to accept the terms and conditions of the SS program, or not. If you have agreed to the terms and conditions, then you have contract… and the terms and conditions are spelled out.

You don't need any Supreme Court ruling to understand what “contract” is. A dictionary defines contract very well. The dictionary is the best “cite” to give for what “contract” IS. Now, knowing what contract IS, you can then locate the many contracts that you are a party to.

QUOTE

?We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments? This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.?

[Emphasis Added by Sonik Speed]

Click HERE to validate the quote. Basically, what the opinion is logically implying is that IF IT WERE, a contract then it cannot be modified. Now since the above quote states that it can modify the Act without constitutional restraints, it is therefore not a contract. Well what does that mean? This important court document informs us that YOU receiving payment from the Social Security system is strictly discretionary and not obligatory. This means that they do not have to pay you, because Congress can change laws at any time without our consent. If Congress were to change the laws, then the Administration would not be required to compensate you at all! Now if you do not believing my interpretation of the preceding, then here is a better supreme Court case that states it SPECIFICALLY. United States Railroad Retirement Board vs Fritz [449 US 166], mentioned that Social Security is NOT a contract:

In the above quote you suggest that the decision quoted “implies” that it is not a contract because the Congress can modify the program. You claim that because the decision sez that Congress can modity the SS program then it cannot possibly be a contract because a CONTRACT CANNOT BE MODIFIED. I say that a contract can be modified by one or either of the parties as long as it is agreed to within the contract. Contracts are nothing more than agreements. Does it take a cite from the Supreme Court to prove that point? I think not.

Take a look at page 4 of the SS-5. Notice that they say they may disclose information to other agencies, such as law enforcement, IRS, etc. Now, if you don't agree to this — then don't fill out the application!! A contract requires the parties to be in agreement to do or not to do certain things. It's that simple. The fact that a person has a number is evidence that he/she has agreed to the terms and conditions of the SS program. That sounds like contract to me.

The good thing about it is that contracts are not escape proof. Under certain conditions, such as fraud, they are rendered void ab initio.

[Ice]

Thanx for the reply. I have the book and have been visiting the site for almost 2 years now.

Tell me, how is it that you “just do not use” the number?

Even with employment, if they find that you actually have a number, they will stick it to you. I ran across something to that effect in the IRC… I remember thinking that it doesn't matter if you give them a number or not… eventually, they will come across your number and then you're stuck, dragged back into the system. I wouldn't put it past the IRS to inform the employer of your number.

But, how is it that you “just do not use” the number when, in fact, without one services can be denied to you? Is it true then, that the Utility Co, the phone co. and your ISP do not have your number?… and yet still give you service? And how did you accomplish this with the bank… and, of course, I am assuming that you use a bank. If this is true then I would be interested in learning how to go about achieving this for myself… that is, if you don't mind sharing your own personal experience of “just not using the number”.

[Ice]

“Click HERE to validate the quote. Basically, what the opinion is logically implying is that IF IT WERE, a contract then it cannot be modified. Now since the above quote states that it can modify the Act without constitutional restraints, it is therefore not a contract. Well what does that mean? This important court document informs us that YOU receiving payment from the Social Security system is strictly discretionary and not obligatory. This means that they do not have to pay you, because Congress can change laws at any time without our consent. If Congress were to change the laws, then the Administration would not be required to compensate you at all! Now if you do not believing my interpretation of the preceding, then here is a better supreme Court case that states it SPECIFICALLY. United States Railroad Retirement Board vs Fritz [449 US 166], mentioned that Social Security is NOT a contract:”

The claim that SS is not a contract because a contract CANNOT BE MODIFIED is in error. Any contract can stipulate in the terms and conditions that modifications can be made by any or either of the parties to the contract. The fact that benefits are not obligatory is a term of the contract. The fact that payment of benefits is discretionary (meaning the decision is SSA's) is a term of the contract.

The fact that a person signs a form AGREEING to the terms and conditions makes this agreement a contract. As long as the obligations of the parties are met, there is contract. A contract is simply an agreement of parties to do or not to do certain things. The SS program is based on “agreement” of both parties to do or not to do certain things… the terms and conditions are plainly stated within the law governing the SS program.