------------------
Attachments:
Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment, 477 U.S. 41 (1986) -
California and its public agencies attempted to withdraw from Social Security and failed.
Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934) - Pensions, compensation, allowance, and privileges are gratuities.
Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, (1915) - Money is property.
Babcock v. United States, 250 U.S. 328 (1919) - rights created against the United States for Individuals.
Congressional Record - 1935 of Social Security Act - 49 Stat 620 = pages 5467-5478 OCR'ed Highlighted. More OCR'ed sections will follow, and it gets even more interesting and full of BS.
--------------------
The State of California and it's public agencies (sic) attempted to exit the Social Security system to no avail. The Agencies brought up "contractual right" as grounds for a "property" and lost. They did not plead the correct issue and the district court used this issue of property. See FN16 of Bowen. The issue should have been the taking of "money", which is property. See Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, (1915).
I find it extremely interesting that an agency could have standing and as a "third-party beneficiaries. See FN 17 of Bowen.
Alaska exited the SS system as the only STATE to do so [in Bowen]. When the AK folks in the annuity system retire after 20 or so years and at the correct age, they get in excess of $250,000 tax free in a lot of cases and upwards towards possibly one million + their retirement and medical. The AK judges in the 15 year retirement offered by the STATE OF ALASKA are all millionaires at the end of the 15 years. In Alaska the amount that would go to SS is placed into a annuity fund under your name only and matched by the STATE, and invested in money markets.
Also, Note the use of "social insurance." What a flat out lie.
You will notice that the people were wanting out of the SS system for various reasons, and the numbers were declining in the SS system, so Congress mandated that once you entered the SS system that is not a contract, you can't exit as it would be unfair to "workers" still trapped and stupid. See Bowen pages 46 et. seq. [page 3 of 8 pages]. Note also the use of "mandatory" in Bowen.
In Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934) you will notice the pensions, etc. that the "veterans" get and how they are not policies. They have no vested rights, just like the Social Security System. Screwed and tattooed like all with the folks with a SSN in the ADMINISTRATIVE STATE. Read very carefully about "gratuities" and look this up in the law dictionaries.
I have now scanned all of the Congressional Record of the 49 Stat 620 - probably 600 pages or so. Debie will be posted them to the home page soon, and I am reading them now to get a better understanding of the Slavery that was cast upon the people of the several States and the Territories. I have attached the beginning area and highlighted some interesting words. You will also find the words gratuities twice in this section - you can word search as this is OCR'ed and corrected, but not proof read.
Now, there is a one problem that requires some thought:
`How can Congress "create rights against the United States for individuals [Babcock v. United States,250 U.S. 328 (1919), i.e. benefits i.e. Social Security, i.e. gratuities that are OUTSIDE of the Constitution, and in the process, I have no "vested rights", i.e. inalienable rights, i.e. rights secured in the Bill of Rights WITHIN the Constitution, with the UNITED STATES still having sovereign immunity that is ONLY derived and arises from WITHIN the Constitution, and in the process, Congress's executive agencies [5 U.S.C. § 101 & 105] are taking my "money" which is property within the Constitution and arises under Due Process of Law and Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness?
Here is another problem that requires some thought:
If SS benefits are OUTSIDE of the constitutional protections, and the IRS is enforcing the SS collections via Title VIII and IX OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTITUTION, requiring that the IRS is OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTITUTION, and how can it be criminal to not provide constitutionally protected property (money) that is within the Constitution, to an AGENCY (sic) that is OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION?
Here is another problem that requires some thought:
How can Congress legislate over the territories and the several States at the same time, remembering that in the territories, Congress acts as both the national and state governments, and in the several States, Congress acts only as a National government? [it can't of course]
--------------
[2] War risk insurance, while resembling in benevolent purpose pensions, compensation allowances, hospital and other privileges accorded to former members of the Army and Navy or their dependents, differs from them fundamentally *577 in legal incidents. Pensions, compensation allowances, and privileges are gratuities. They involve no agreement of parties; and the grant of them creates no vested right. The benefits conferred by gratuities may be redistributed or withdrawn at any time in the discretion of Congress.
United States v. Teller, 107 U.S. 64, 68, 2 S.Ct. 39, 27 L.Ed. 352;
Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 166, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657;
United States v. Cook, 257 U.S. 523, 527, 42 S.Ct. 200, 66 L.Ed. 350.
On the other hand, war risk policies, being contracts, are property and create vested rights. The terms of these contracts are to be found in part in the policy, in part in the statutes under which they are issued and the regulations promulgated thereunder.