Time: Mon Sep 29 19:28:43 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA11346;
	Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:28:56 -0700 (MST)
	by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA21902;
	Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:23:08 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:22:39 -0700
To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: children & SSN's
Cc: <wwatts@nothinbut.net>

     Disclosure of  social security  number.   Act Dec. 31, 1974,
     P.L. 93-579, Section 7, 88 Stat. 1909, provided:

     "(a)(1)   It shall  be unlawful  for any  Federal, State  or
     local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
     benefit, or  privilege  provided  by  law  because  of  such
     individual's refusal to disclose his social security account

     "(2) the provisions  of paragraph  (1)  of  this  subsection
     shall not apply with respect to --

          "(A) any  disclosure   which  is  required  by  Federal
               statute, or

          "(B) the disclosure  of a social security number to any
               Federal, State,  or  local  agency  maintaining  a
               system  of  records  in  existence  and  operating
               before January  1, 1975,  if such  disclosure  was
               required under statute or regulation adopted prior
               to  such   date  to  verify  the  identity  of  an

     "(b) Any Federal,  State, or  local government  agency which
     requests an  individual  to  disclose  his  social  security
     account number  shall inform  that individual  whether  that
     disclosure is  mandatory or  voluntary, by what statutory or
     other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will
     be made of it."

Comments by Paul Mitchell follow:

Congress deliberately failed to codify this statute in Title 5 of
the United  States Code.  You will find it embedded at the end of
the historical  notes within  the Privacy Act.  When a government
employee was  sued for  violating this Act, he asserted ignorance
of the  law as  his defense.  The court upheld this defense, thus
creating  an   important  exception  to  the  general  rule  that
ignorance of  the law  is no excuse.  My reading of this decision
is that  the court  was giving silent judicial notice to the fact
that Congress  actually "hid" the law;  thus, the court's holding
did not  really overturn the maxim (ignorance is not excuse);  it
merely recognized  that fraud  vitiates everything, even the most
solemn promises.   I  have taken this statute and reduced it down
to the  size of  a standard credit card.  Then, I laminated it in
plastic and  saved it  in my wallet.  Later, I gave it away to an
attendee of  one of  Lynne Meredith's seminars;  the attendee was
mostly incredulous that such a law even existed.  It is very easy
to make  another one.   I prefer to take a photocopy right out of
the law  books, and  to laminate  that photocopy.  Try it!  It is
always very powerful to witness these laws yourself, at the local
county law  library.    Take  this  email  message  down  to  the
reference librarian,  and see if s/he can locate it for you.  The
Privacy Act  can be  found in  the reference  volume which  lists
statutes by name.  Good luck!

Paul Andrew Mitchell
November, 1996
all rights reserved

At 10:18 PM 9/29/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 08:24 PM 9/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>>For religious reasons (explained below), we do not have Social Security
>>>numbers for our children, the oldest of 4 being 5 years old.
>>>Last year we sent in our return, as we have always done, without SSNs
>>>for our children. My wife and I do have social security numbers, and we
>>>sent those. IRS sent us a letter saying they were disallowing our
>>>exemptions since we had no SSNs for them. They gave us the opportunity
>>>children and our dependents. We don't have a problem proving that we are
>>>claiming legitimate dependents.
>>>This year we again sent IRS our return without numbers for our children,
>>>but this time we included the letter of acceptance for last year's
>>>return, and again they said they are disallowing our exemptions, and
>>>paperwork, and then she said, "those children need social security
>>>numbers or you cannot claim them." She mentioned the Tax Reform Act of
>>>1996 and Publication 553 as being the enabling documents that brought on
>>>this change.
>>In short, what you pretty much must do is to simply not claim your kids
>>as dependents anymore.  Just as with *any* deduction, you have to jump
>>through whatever hoops they put in front of you to get that deduction.
>>To deduct a business lunch, you must provide a receipt;  to deduct a
>>kid, you have to provide a government "receipt", ie, a SIN.
>>Most people who deduct their kids have in effect sold their kids into
>>slavery, only instead of 30 pieces of silver, it's something like 500bux
>>per year.  You and only you have to decide whether you sell 'em for the
>>going price, or pay up the extra bux.  Those bastards get to write their
>>own rules, and if you choose to play their game, you have to play by
>>their rules.
>Couldn't agree more. I haven't gotten one for my two year old, and I won't
>get one for the one on the way. Now if I could get rid of my seven year old,
>I'd be happy... Well, almost as happy in as I would be if I could get rid of
>I didn't have children for a tax deduction. 
>Bill Watts
>The jury has a right to judge both the 
>law as well as the fact in controversy.
>John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. 
>Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 
>To consider the judges as the 
>ultimate arbiters of all constitutional 
>questions is a very dangerous 
>doctrine indeed, and one which 
>would place us under the despotism 
>of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson 
>If we can prevent the government from 
>wasting the labors of the people under 
>the pretense of caring for them, the 
>people will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson
>The Libertarian Party:
>Version: 2.6.2
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail