The response I got from my first letter did not answer my questions, so I had to write again. This time I sent it certified U.S. Postal mail, return receipt requested. Since I knew that this letter may go unanswered, I needed to show my findings and work with the law of presumption. That is, state the facts as I understand them with supporting legal references, and place the burden of rebuttal on the SSA. If they do not rebut my findings, then my findings are presumed correct.

Neil McIver
210 River Way Court 102
Owings Mills, MD 21117
October 27, 1997

Attn: Mr. Charles H. Mullen
Social Security Administration - Office of Public Inquiries 
6401 Security Blvd. 
Room 4-C-5 Annex 
Baltimore, MD 21235 

Dear Mr. Mullen,

I am acknowledging receipt of your letter dated October 6, 1997, which 
was in response to my inquiry dated August 16, 1997.  I have enclosed a
transcript of my correspondence to you, and your response to me.

Please note that you did not answer any of the questions I had asked on 
my original letter.  I did not ask about ending participation
in the Social Security program, I did not ask about withdrawing social 
security taxes already paid, I did not inquire as to how the Social 
Security Administration carries out its duties, and I didn't even ask 
about the liability of payment of social security taxes.

Furthermore, since in the final paragragh of your letter you deferred 
the jurisdiction of liability of Social Security taxes to the IRS, I 
will consider the statements you made: "The payment of Social Security 
taxes is mandatory, regardless of the citizenship or place of residence 
of either the employer or the employee" and "The constitutionality 
of ... mandatory individual participation [has] already been decided by 
the Supreme Court" to be hearsay and without authority, especially since 
you did not provide any legal references to support those claims.

You have cited Section 205 of the Social Security Act as your 
requirement "to maintain records of workers' earnings and to establish 
any other records necessary to carry out responsibilities under the 
Social Security Act."  By "workers", do you mean all workers, or only 
some workers? (e.g. workers that are participating in the Social 
Security Program?)  I have examined section 205 (codified under section 
405 of Title 42 of the United States Code), and found under section 
405(c)(2)(B), that the "Secretary" is authorized to issue Social 
Security Numbers only to aliens upon entry into the United States, and 
to anyone that requests social security benefits.  Do you contest this 
finding?

I am concerned about your statement that you would not respond to 
further "coorespondence about voluntary participation in the Social 
Security program".  My inquiries are valid, honest, and true.  As a 
prior member of the United States Army, and having been granted a top 
secret security clearance by the United States government after a 
thorough background check, I think my credentials are worthy of respect 
and cooperation (not that such credentials should be a requirement for 
cooperation).  I have, after all, defended this country and the 
Constitution upon which it is founded.  I have a right to know the 
nature of those rights which I have defended, as do no less all other 
citizens of this great country.  As a public servant, you are at least 
morally obligated to provide the requested information to me, if not 
legally required to do so.  In any event, if you choose not to answer 
any further questions of this nature, please at least answer the ones I 
have already asked.

The questions I have asked are quite simple.  If the case regarding 
participation in the Social Security program is as you imply, than it
should be quite simple for you to answer them.  If you are unwilling or 
unable to answer these questions, please supply a statement to that 
effect.  If you do not respond with answers, it will be presumed that 
you are both unwilling and unable to answer.  

My research into these questions has revealed the following:

1) Are U.S. citizens unconditionally required by law to obtain a Social 
Security Number?

Answer:  No.  Pursuent to 42 USC 405, only U.S. Citizens requesting 
social security benefits need apply for one.  This is done by completing 
form SS-5, which is an application for a social security number.   The 
Office of Management & Budget, pursuent to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1980 (chapter 35 of 44 USC) has classified this form as "Required to 
obtain or retain a  benefit" when given that choice, and the choices 
"Voluntary" and "Mandatory".  (see enclosure).

2) Assuming the answer to the above is "no", is it lawful for a U.S. 
citizen without a Social Security Number to hold a job and earn a 
living with any company in the United States?

Answer:  Yes.  5 USC 556(d) states that the burden of proof is on the
proponent of a law.  Unless a law exists which expressly prohibits this 
action, then this action is perfectly legal.  I have found no law 
prohibiting this action.  The absence of such law was confirmed in the 
court case of EEOC vs Information Systems Consulting (CA3-92-0169-T, 
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas 
Division), in which the EEOC successfully sued for discrimination on 
behalf of an individual that did not provide a social security number 
when hired. (see enclosure)

3) Assuming the answer to #2 is "yes", what procedure(s) does the 
law provide for a U.S. citizen without a Social Security Number when 
he/she is hired by a company that asks for (and insists on) a Social 
Security Number?

Answer:  Pursuent to 26 CFR 301.6109-1(c), if a company hiring an 
individual without a social security number needs to furnish that 
person's SSN to the IRS, then the that company need only submit a signed 
statement to the IRS stating that the company requested a number from 
the individual but did not receive one.  That is the fullest extent of 
the company's liability.  Furthermore, a refusal to hire based solely on 
the failure to furnish an SSN would constitute unlawful discrimination, 
and the company in question could be subject to prosecution for 
discrimination based on religious beliefs.  (e.g. EEOC vs Information 
Systems Consulting).

-

If you chose not to respond with clarification of what appears to be
a discrepency between my findings and the information you supplied me 
on your letter, I will be forced to rely on and consider my own research
to be valid and true.  Whatever findings described herein that are not 
rebutted via U.S. Postal mail within 30 days of receipt of this letter 
will be presumed true and correct.


Sincerely,



[Noterized signature]


Cornelius J. (Neil) McIver
210 River Way Court 102
Owings Mills, MD 21117


Enclosure: Transcript of my letter to you dated August 16, 1997
Enclosure: Transcript of your letter to me dated October 6, 1997
Enclosure: Copy of Court ruling, EEOC vs Information Systems Consulting
Enclosure: Copy of OMB SF-83 reporting on the form SS-5

I want the facts, and proper knowledge about those facts rightfully belong to all citizens of the United States. Am I wrong?

Here's the response!

All information presented here is done so under the protection of the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and article I section 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, as established in the famous trial of William Penn in August 1670, and contrary to the unlawful instructions given by most American judges, in addition to judging the facts of a case, juries also have the right and duty to pass judgement on the law (meaning they may acquit a violator of the law if they believe the law in question is unconstitutional, immoral, just plain stupid, or if the penalty is deemed too harsh). Juries are also lawfully free to vote according to their conscience, above all other considerations.