Time: Thu Nov 27 06:34:13 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA15779
for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 06:09:18 -0700 (MST)
by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA08169;
Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:22:32 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd008144; Wed Nov 26 23:22:24 1997
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 06:04:40 -0800
To: dkiah@mediaone.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: P.L. 93-579
Get P.L. 93-579, to wit:
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
number.
"(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
individual.
"(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 12:41 AM 11/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>
>I want to first of all thank you for all of your efforts and your
>passion and thank God that there are people in America (or sadly, what
>has become of it) to continue the fight. We are clearly in a situation
>where we must re-establish the spirit of what the country originally
>stood for. People have sold their freedom for the promise of things
>like their daily bread and free medicine.
>
>A friend who has helped me understand the "income tax" pointed me to
>your Supreme Law site. It is now a permanent bookmark in my browser and
>I will visit it frequently.
>
>I have done a lot of studying over the past 9 months or so. I read the
>book "Vultures in Eagles' Clothing" and have been voraciously educating
>myself on the Constitution and the essence of what this country
>originally stood for and what the founding fathers literally risked
>their lives to give to us. (They undoubtedly would have been hanged for
>treason under King George III had they lost the Revolution). I had a
>little primer on Constitutional Law in a course in college.
>
>I would like to ask for your assistance on 2 specific things: The
>Social(ist) Security number and the Birth Certificate.
>
>I have come to understand and recognize that the Social Security number
>is the tool of the modern American socialist welfare state. In applying
>for and receiving the number you acquiesce to be a part of the system
>and effectively if not directly waive many of your rights (without going
>into detail on what those are here).
>
>I have leaned from my neo-patriot friends that you can renounce your
>social security number by writing to the government and by invoking your
>rights demand not to numbered in such a fashion as this or any other
>manner.
>
>This week I wanted to get a passport. You are compelled to provide your
>Social Security number on the application. It says on the form that
>this information is passed on to the IRS. I was pissed and that was the
>last straw for me. I really felt like, 'Hey, why don't they just brand
>my ass with it and make me drop my drawers at customs.' But if you
>don't have a Social Sec. Number, you just enter all zeros. I have made
>the conscious decision that I want to now renounce my social security
>number. I have a tremendous amount of faith in my abilities to provide
>for myself and if I have one, a family. I don't want any part of their
>socialist system they have coerced me into with their manipulation and
>deceit. I am well aware all the other implications of not having a
>Socialist Security number.
>
>Birth Certificate - State of Massachusetts
>==========================================
>Also, in reading "The Federal Zone" by Mitch Modeleski; a section of
>that work covers the revoking of a birth certificate. In sample letters
>to the Governor and the Registrar of the Department of Public Health for
>Massachusetts, the writer points out that being issued a Massachusetts
>birth certificate places you into some sort of Massachusetts state trust
>before you have the ability to speak and make decisions on your own
>behalf. This subjects you to the laws created by the state
>legislature. He implies that if the legislature violates the rights
>guaranteed in the Massachusetts Constitution; it can do that by right of
>being sovereign to all in this trust by way of the birth certificate
>"registration;" that this registration places you in a different class
>than the one the Mass. Constitution protects.
>
>If you can shed any light on these issues or refer me to some materials
>or internet resources it would be much appreciated.
>
>God be with you in your continued valiant efforts. You are proving that
>we can have a bloodless revolution - the law IS on our side. And it's
>fun to see them squirm like I know they are. Please know that I and
>many other people appreciate what you're doing.
>
>Very truly yours,
>
>Dave
>
>
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail