Social Security is not a legal enforceable contract with the U.S.!

Published on 09-20-2015 by THE REIGN OF THE HEAVENS SOCIETY POST

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC NOTICE

Quote: In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits. End Quote

The Government of The United States of America is consistently asked whether or not American Nationals can still receive Social Security benefits while claiming a Nationality at the same time. The above quote is from an organization that advocates for Social Security Privatization. This newspaper is neither for nor against the whole issue on Social Security.

However, it can reference these other reports:

1: VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION!

2: Students Participate in Naturalization’s on Constitution Day and Citizenship Day???

The first thing people are going to do is deny the above quote meaning they will wait until someone sues for social security benefits and the whole scheme will change. Most also believe the U.S. Supreme Court will somehow magically change its mind and render the Social Security system private and give the participants an individual account.  That is simply not true. The Social Security System is subject to its creditors and they are not willing to bend and start giving up receiving free equity and tax free equity income. 

The following statements are from the pdf. that is downloadable from this newspaper here: LINK

1: There is no legal guarantee to social security benefits.

2: There is no private account in existence in the Social Security Administration that has anyone’s equity (payments) in it.

3: Social Security Benefits cannot be transferred to heirs.

4: Social Security is not insurance.

5: “Mr. Altmeyer, there being no contractual obligation between the Government and the worker, it follows, does it not, that the benefit payments under Title II of the Social Security Act are merely statutory benefits which Congress may withdraw or
alter at any time?

6: “The citizen has no “property” interest in the scheme. There is no segregated “account.” There is no “insurance contract.” There is no “trust.””

Here is the question.

If there is no property interest within the Social Security structure for the worker; Then why does everyone believe that there is an enforceable right that exists?

Further, if the social security number is required to even function in the whole United States system, does the original Social Security Act spill over into other contracts? ie… Marriage Licenses, Consumer Notes, (buying a car), Mortgage Agreements, and other contracts for basic needs.The whole system is based on the Social Security Number and the Social Security system which would explain a lot of issues.

There is another report talking about private patents on all products. LINK

Does one part of the system effect the other meaning no one can legally use the products and obtain an equity claim upon what is bought because of patent rights, however at the same time if the social security number is required to buy the product, would the buyer have any legal property rights to the product? 

Is this the reason why someone pays on property for 20 years and loses all equity within the property when foreclosed for merely missing a few payments?

Does this social security number issue of no property rights within that condition spill over into driving without a license and why the courts ask for a social security number in every case? Does the Social Security number null and void any property rights in equity within the court case? If the defendant does not have any property rights within any case, does that condition render the prosecutor and judge immune from being sued by a defendant in equity? If the defendant in any case does not have any property rights in any case, this would render the the defendant not liable because the defendant does not have any legal obligations? (Malicious Prosecution and nefarious act on the part of the court)

Is this the reason why all equity courts were converted into administrative courts 2 to 3 years after the “Social Security Act of 1935”? 

Is there a meaning behind the “Social Security Act of 1935” that has not been properly noticed and revealed to the Public?

These are just a few questions and statements about information that will shock many. If everyone believes one thing, does it make it true? Not according to the information on the pfd. linked above. It is well worth anyone’s times to sit down and read the 7 pages of information.  

09-20-2015