Cornelius J. McIver
30 West Forrest Avenue
Shrewsbury, Pennsylvania 17361
December 6, 1999
CERTIFIED MAIL No. Z 346 569 521
Mr. Charles Mullen
Associate Commissioner
Office of Public Inquiries
6401 Security Blvd.
Room 4-C-5 Annex
Baltimore, MD 21235
Dear Mr. Mullen,
I’m acknowledging receipt of your letter dated
October 8, 1999. Please find a copy of that letter enclosed.
I presume your letter was in response to
my affidavit dated
July 14th, 1999 (copy enclosed), sent to Mr. Tobin
of the Regional Public Affairs Office of the Social Security
Administration located in Philadelphia. But since you did not
specify what it was to which you were responding, I can only presume
it was in response to my affidavit. I delayed responding to your
letter to allow the 90-day response window to close, in the event
another response might be forthcoming, but I received none.
Please find enclosed a copy of a letter you sent to me dated October 6, 1997, which was in response to my inquiries about the social security program I made at that time. I note that your letter of October 6, 1997 is exactly identical in content to your letter of October 8, 1999. Since your most recent letter is obviously a "canned" response, I conclude you made no effort to consider any of the points asserted in my affidavit. Nevertheless, I will treat your response as though it were thoughtfully considered for the sake of establishing, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the truth of the facts I assert. Below is my answer to your rebuttal to my affidavit. I have referenced each fact by number and defend each as I inferred was necessary.
Fact #1: You did not contest the truthfulness of the first clause, (the voluntary nature of the application for a social security account number (SSAN)). The second paragraph of your letter to me, dated November 18, 1997 (copy enclosed) makes it clear that the second clause (no SSAN is required to contract or work) is quite true as well. Fact #1 stands undisputed.
Facts #2, #3, #4 and #5: You did not contest the truthfulness of any of these facts. All these facts stand undisputed.
Fact #6: Please note I am not terminating my participation in the social security program. I am revoking my signature from the original application for a SSAN on the grounds of constructive fraud, and the fact that I had not reached the lawful age of consent at the time of the application. Constructive fraud has been recognized in past court decisions (as cited) as legitimate cause to cancel a legal instrument. With the SS-5 application cancelled, the Social Security Administration’s response to the application (in issuing the SSAN) is legally voided. Nowhere in your letter did you contest my ability to revoke my signature from the SS-5 form on legal grounds. Therefore, my participation in the social security program is not being terminated, but rather, as a legal matter, never began in the first place, much in the same way as a legally annulled marriage preserves one’s status as having never been married. This fact therefore stands undisputed.
Facts #7: You did not challenge the notice that I served you, nor the truthfulness of my desires as stated. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has been served notice. Fact #7 stands undisputed.
Fact #8: The second sentence of the third paragraph in your letter
reads "...a reliable and permanent system was needed to
distinguish one individual from another in our
records" (emphasis added). This is prima facie evidence that
you affirm the truth of Fact #8.
Facts #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, and #15: You did not contest the truthfulness of any of these facts. All these facts stand undisputed.
As for the statements made in your letter, I find many of them ambiguous since I am unsure which definitions you intended for the terms you used. You may have intended them to be defined by our common everyday English language. Alternatively, you may have intended the terms be defined legally as they are within the various chapters of the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security Act, and/or their respective promulgated regulations. I protest your ambiguity, but make every good faith effort to address what I believe to be the intended meaning of your letter to me dated October 8, 1999. If I have inferred incorrectly the definitions you intended for the various terms, the burden falls upon you to clarify those definitions.
Paragraph 1, sentence 2:
"People cannot voluntarily end their participation in the program."
While this sentence does not pertain to me (as discussed regarding fact #6 above), I nonetheless challenge this statement. Any free sovereign people have a natural God-given right and duty to terminate their participation in any program they believe is morally repugnant, as I and many others find the social security program.
Paragraph 1, sentence 3:
"The payment of Social Security taxes in mandatory, regardless of the citizenship or place of residence of either the employer or the employee."
The terms "employer" and "employee", as defined by Title 20 CFR 404.1001 and 404.1003 refer to relationships which involve work covered by social security. If these are the definitions you intended, I do not contest this statement, as payment of social security taxes is mandatory for work covered by social security.
Paragraph 1, sentence 4:
"Unless specifically exempt by law, everyone working in the United States is required to pay Social Security taxes."
The term "United States" is defined within the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), 26 USC 3121(e) to mean the federal possessions and territories, and does not include the 50 states of the union. I understand Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the federal possessions and this sentence may well be true within the "United States" as legally defined in 3121(e). However, you have provided no law that makes this sentence true within the 50 states of the union, and I challenge any assertion that such a law exists which applies to everyone.
Having said that, I do agree that the payment of social security taxes to the IRS is required of all employers that conduct withholding under FICA, regardless of where they reside, and regardless of whether the withholding was required or not, as employers are obviously not permitted to keep such taxes for themselves. Furthermore, contrary to your above claim, I point out no employee has ever paid a penny of social security taxes anyway, as one pays by tendering payment, and withholding precludes the employee from every coming into possession of social security tax money. Since employees never come into possession of social security tax money, employees have no ability or duty to pay them. So the issue you artfully failed to address is whether the withholding of social security taxes was mandatory or not. It is undisputed that the payment of taxes is required, for those in possession of such tax money.
Paragraph 3, sentence 1:
"The Social Security Administration (SSA) is required by law (at section 205 of the Social Security Act) to maintain records of workers’ earnings and to establish any other records necessary to carry out our responsibilities under the Social Security Act."
I question only your intended scope of the term "workers’". I agree the SSA is required by law to maintain records of those workers that are covered by social security, but not of all workers. The SSA is in no way required or even authorized to maintain records on those workers that are not covered by social security.
Paragraph 4, sentence 1:
"The constitutionality of the Social Security system, as established by the Social Security Act, and mandatory individual participation have already been decided by the Supreme Court."
You failed to specify which supreme court decision(s) decided the constitutionality of the social security system and alleged mandatory participation, and whether they ruled in favor or against its constitutionality. This sentence is completely ambiguous and asserts nothing of material significance.
Paragraph 4, sentence 2:
"We will not respond further to your correspondence about voluntary participation in the Social Security program or the withdrawal of Social Security taxes."
If you choose to not respond to my answers to your rebuttal, then your silence will be taken as a presumption that all asservations outlined in my affidavit, dated July 14th, 1999, and further clarified and defended in this document will be presumed true and correct. This decision is, of course, completely yours to make.
This concludes my answer to the presumed rebuttal to my affidavit.
If I do not hear from you, or any of your delegates, within ninety (90) days of your receipt of this letter, I will presume that my answers and statements contained herein are true and correct and that you do not have any further rebuttal. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[signed]
____________________________________
Cornelius J. McIver
Encl:
My letter to Mr. Tobin, dated August 3, 1999
My affidavit dated July 14, 1999
Mr. Mullen’s letter to me dated October 8, 1999
Mr. Mullen’s letter to me dated October 6, 1997
Mr. Mullen’s letter to me dated November 18, 1997
Cc:
Mr. Thomas J. Tobin
Regional Public Affairs Officer
Social Security Administration
7th Floor Regional Public Affairs
P.O. Box 8788
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Copy retained
