0 votes

Opening a bank account without an Social Security Number

A bank may NOT deny opening an account for lack of a Social Security Number:

1.) It is a Felony to "compel the disclosure of the Social Security number" as found in USC Title 42:

USC Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, SS 408 (a)(8)

(a) In general
Whoever—
(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States;

shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

2.) I have terminated my SSN legally in accordance with 20 CFR 3 A7 404.1905

20 CFR 3 A7 404.1905

§ 404.1905 Termination of agreements.
Each agreement shall contain provisions
for its possible termination. If an
agreement is terminated, entitlement
to benefits and coverage acquired by an
individual before termination shall be
retained. The agreement shall provide
for notification of termination to the
other party and the effective date of
termination.
BENEFIT

3.) This bank can not be held legally responsible by anyone for failing to obtain a SSN from me pursuant to 31 CFR 103.34(a)(1)

31 CFR 103.34(a)(1)

§ 103.34 Additional records to be made
and retained by banks.

(a)(1) With respect to each certificate
of deposit sold or redeemed after May
31, 1978, and before October 1, 2003, or
each deposit or share account opened
with a bank after June 30, 1972, and before
October 1, 2003, a bank shall, within
30 days from the date such a transaction
occurs or an account is opened,
secure and maintain a record of the
taxpayer identification number of the
customer involved; or where the account
or certificate is in the names of
two or more persons, the bank shall secure
the taxpayer identification number
of a person having a financial interest
in the certificate or account. In the
event that a bank has been unable to
secure, within the 30-day period specified,
the required identification, it
shall nevertheless not be deemed to be
in violation of this section if (i) it has
made a reasonable effort to secure such
identification, and (ii) it maintains a
list containing the names, addresses,
and account numbers of those persons
from whom it has been unable to secure
such identification, and makes the
names, addresses, and account numbers
of those persons available to the Secretary
as directed by him. A bank acting
as an agent for another person in
the purchase or redemption of a certificate
of deposit issued by another bank
is responsible for obtaining and recording
the required taxpayer identification,
as well as for maintaining the
records referred to in paragraphs (b)
(11) and (12) of this section. The issuing
bank can satisfy the recordkeeping requirement
by recording the name and
address of the agent together with a
description of the instrument and the
date of the transaction. Where a person
is a non-resident alien, the bank shall
also record the person’s passport number
or a description of some other government
document used to verify his
identity.

4.) Pursuant to IRC section 6041, this bank is not even required to provide any taxpayer identification numbers on the Form 1099 that they file with the IRS at the end of the year.

IRC 6041
(a) Payments of $600 or more
All "persons" engaged in a "trade or business" and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income (other than payments to which section 6042 (a)(1), 6044 (a)(1), 6047 (e), 6049 (a), or 6050N (a) applies, and other than payments with respect to which a statement is required under the authority of section 6042 (a)(2), 6044 (a)(2), or 6045), of $600 or more in any taxable year, or, in the case of such payments made by the United States, the officers or employees of the United States having information as to such payments and required to make returns in regard thereto by the regulations hereinafter provided for, shall render a true and accurate return to the Secretary, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the amount of such gains, profits, and income, and the name and address of the recipient of such payment.

NOTE:
Definition of "person" at IRC 6041A(d)(1):
(d)(1)The term “person” includes any governmental unit (and any agency or instrumentality thereof).

Definition of "Trade or Business" USC Title 26, 7701 (a)(26)
(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Easier way

Just open a Pecunix account. No "know your customer" BS, or fractional reserve nonsense, your money is 100% backed by gold. Sadly, even GoldMoney requires an SSN.

When the SSN was introduced...

...religious groups expressed concerns over "mark of the beast". The government promised repeatedly that the SSN would NEVER be used as a means of identifying anyone. So much for promises.

Opening a account without SSN

I want to open a account at a credit union, and many of there sites say their in accordance with the Patriot Act they are required to obtain information to prove your identity, (I.E. SSN) I read the Act and yes, it does say they have prove your identity but it does not specify your SSN, so am I right in assuming that the other laws still apply?
Also if the IRS identifies you with your SSN and they go to your bank/credit union can the bank/credit union really say that you are the person with that account if there is no SSN attached to your name on the account?

And has anyone else had problems with the IRS after opening an account without there SSN?

"...26 CFR §301.6109-1(g)

"...26 CFR §301.6109-1(g) allows that nonresident aliens do not need a social security number or other identifying number."

scroll down to "financial institutions"
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/3.14ChangeFil...

Yes. Not me. But thats what they want you to do.

In order to truely defeat them you must master the Law. This is what I'm currently trying to do. You must start to look on Constitutional Law as well as Contract Law, Statutory Law is basic nothing but a small concept.

I'm trying to do it the right way.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

Sorry But...

The government does f$%^&cked things all the time. And people sue the government all the time and win.

I am a big privacy advocate, but a big problem with the patriot and privacy movements is that they don't understand the basics of our legal system.

Yes, you should make every attempt to lead a private life and have bank accounts without a social. And in the event that the IRS does something has blatantly illegal as accusing you of a crime, and not pursuing prosecution, but confiscating your property, you should shove it up their ass in court.

Will you definitely win? NO! But at least you generate a public record of their activities to be used against them, and to get the laws changed.

Been there, done that.

I went the whole SSN cancellation route, including all the registered letters and quoting the federal statutes that you show. Bottom line.

I received a letter from SSA stating that I cannot cancel my SSN because that number does not belong to me, it was created and is owned by the SSA. It was created and was assigned exclusively for my use upon approval of my application. It was MY number for use in commerce. They simply returned my SS card and politely stated that if I had problems with the SSN all I had to do is to stop using it. They also said that the number would stay assigned to me for the duration of my life, should I wish to change my mind and use it.

However, I did manage to open a bank account without supplying a SSN. But, my account was always being flagged and reported to the IRS. Months later, I was examining details of my account and lo and behold, I saw my SSN pop up (they don't need you to tell them what it is). At the end of about two years, the bank (B of A) froze my account at the request of the IRS. Two days after that, over $7,000.00 was removed from my account and sent to the IRS with no explanation. I got a letter from the IRS that they wanted to talk to me. I went and they accused me of money laundering and said that I needed to document all sources of my income over the past five years or I wouldn't get my $7,000.00 back. I was doing business on the internet without a SSN and couldn't document anything as I didn't keep records. So, guess what? Bye, bye $7K

Yeah, go ahead and play the SSN games. It will get you nowhere fast except to be entered into their database as a troublemaker or worse. If you are going to get out of the system, you'll have to get TOTALLY out by going to another planet, living in a cave or by killing yourself. Otherwise, it will be an impossible task that will only frustrate and drive you insane. Good luck to all that try this.

Solution to tyranny: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Mahatma Gandhi

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”― Henry David Thoreau

That's where you went wrong

When the bank holds YOUR money it is THEIRS. Do not EVER keep more in a bank than you are ever comfortable on losing.

Expensive lesson, hopefully you learned from it.

desert rat

What's the big flap with a SS number to begin with?

Mythman

There is no big flap, Sonny.

It happened to be the thing so-called patriots were doing to try to regain their freedom back 15-20 years ago. I am anti-state, so it is a thing that I tried. Sometimes, DPers can get some crazy ideas from a post (like this one that I responded to). I simply relayed my personal experience on the subject, just in case anyone might consider doing the same.

Exactly what is it that I said that made you think that I was making a Big Flap about the SSN? I've been trying to fight this NWO crap for well over 35 years (probably longer than you are old).

Solution to tyranny: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Mahatma Gandhi

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”― Henry David Thoreau

just FYI, "Employees" are

just FYI, "Employees" are required to have a Social Security Number...but once again, the Definition of Employee is VERY narrow. It means someone who works for the Federal Government or a political subdivision.

My point is, if you continued to declare yourself an "employee" by inadvertently signing and acknowledging govt. forms, and continued to declare yourself a "citizen", then you were "required" to have a number assigned to you.

Imagine that you work for Dominoes Pizza (get ready for an analogy) and you decide you want to quit. In the original work contract you signed it said "No person may quit their position until all items belonging to dominoes pizza are returned"
well, you turn in your hat, and uniform, and dont show up anymore.

a month later you get a "failure to show up for work" penalty charge of $64.

You question the charge, and they tell you that you still have their Dominoes Car Magnets.... you give them back,

A month goes by, and you get another penalty, they remind you that you have their Dominoes Visor...you give that back,

again, the following month, another fine...this time it is for your "employee of the month" trophy...

my point is, all of these inconveniences, although frustrating, dont add up to mean that a person cant quit Dominoes Pizza, it simply means there is more work to be done. If you try to quit social security, without knowing all the laws, and without quitting EVERYTHING attached to the Social Security, then it will be a continual process.

ALWAYS remember the Amish, they work, they travel (ive seen them at the airports) they live their life, they bank, and they dont have social security and hence, dont have the Govt. calling them, writing them, etc. Thet have it easy, because they never applied to Dominoes Pizza.

"Employee"

Mythman informs you it simply means one who works for another. However, as an employer, UNLESS you hire a person as a contract worker like they do with illegal aliens, it means you must pay 1/2 of SS and Medicare contributions, and unemployment insurance to your state.

Mythman

Employee

Mythman is wrong and it aint simple as that.

The fact is, we are ALL Gov. employees until we have taken legal steps to remove ourselves and regained Sovereign American status.
This comes about do to the trickery utilized against our parents' ignorance when signing the applications for a Birth Certificate and Social Security #. The fact that their BLANK SIGNATURES have no protection of rights, means (long story short), we are ALL gov employees.

However, the Gov and IRS will never convict us on this fact due to the need to reveal the truth as to how we became US CITIZENS in the first place.

With that said Mr. Mythman, thanks but Websters dictionary has no place in this point. It's all about the legal meaning of the word, not the common meaning.
The legal meaning of the word EMPLOYEE includes; Corporate and Government officers and/or those hired by the above to carry out "trade or business", which also has legal meaning.

TRADE or BUSINESS includes; government functions.

PERSON includes; corporated fiction, STRAWMAN, not of flesh and blood.

common definitions have no

common definitions have no place in law.
Actually an "employee" means:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00003401----...
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

Now some (furlough-buzz) will try to say includes, means "in addition to the webster definition of employee", but in law, includes means "ONLY WHAT IS LISTED, and by supreme court findings, anything in the same class", for example,
if "person" includes corporations, trusts, and partnerships...it may also be deemed to include LLC's because they get the same privileges and act like corporations, trusts, and partnerships....or if "cars" includes Chevys, Buicks, Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Saturns, GMC's, Hummer, and Saabs...one may also conclude that "cars" also includes Cadillacs, BUT, you could not presume that it includes Mercurys!

For more info on "includes" read this:
http://www.sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Includes.pdf

Includes is a LIMITING word, which is why occasionally you will see "includes, but is not LIMITED to". This 'trick' is most notable in USC Title 26 7701 (9)(10) where state is defined as:

(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

and of course, Now that we know what "State" is,
it changes the meaning of this:

(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

and before someone (furlogh-buzz) says one is plural, and one isnt...
(p) Cross references
(1) Other definitions
For other definitions, see the following sections of Title 1 of the United States Code:
(1) Singular as including plural, section 1.
(2) Plural as including singular, section 1.

and to see what Title 26 has to say about the word "include":
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

this supports case law, and what I mentioned above, that; items within the same meaning, such as my GM example, or in the Case of TITLE 26, other federal zones, are included. So if "State" includes the district of columbia, then ONLY other areas of the world that share all or at least MANY of the same charecteristics can then be deemed to be 'included', in this case it would be OTHER areas that are treated as D.C. is, not a state, no state representative, federal jurisdiction applies, no bill of rights applicability, a federal zone, and so on. An actual "state of the union" on the other hand, is absolutely NOT in a federal zone, does have the bill of rights applicability, does not fall in a federal jurisdiction.

"abuse of language leads to false inferences, beliefs, and presumptions"

employee

... “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof ...

I have an elected seat on a city council, so I suppose I am an "employee".

Oh well, for now my seat on council allows me to repel FEMA's intrusions, cut spending, cut taxes, and begin to streamline (and maybe reduce) the fat code book.

Common definitions

Yes, that's what I just said, lol.

unreadable mess

mentioning my screen name in the middle of a crazy, disjointed rant mixed with copypaste is fun. I don't know where you get your info, but I didn't, and don't say crazy things. Plurals? What are you attributing to me? Wait don't answer, I'm tired of copypaste.

btw, your entire "thing" was unreadable

I didnt say, or mean to

I didnt say, or mean to imply that you say "crazy" things, only that you seem to have a history of dissecting law or code by using webster style definitions, or common meanings, rather than accepting that there are some extremely odd definitions in law.

Unreadable?

What do you mean when you say "copypaste"? That seems to be your new issue. Should I write all of the words from the code, rather than copy them? Im not sure of the significance of "copypaste" vs not. If you are referring to the sections of code, I only include them because MANY people (Furlough-buzz) question items on the D.P. that dont contain supporting evidence....words like "prove it" "wheres the proof" "Thats not true" etc.

as far as Plurals, people have said in the past things like:
"it says United States includes 'states' and....blah blah blah, and there is no definition of 'states', just 'state', which must mean that 'states' is different from state."

either way, ill await your retort

Dude, you're the man!

I couldn't have said it better myself. No really, I couldn't have, lol.

this link is for you

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/106790#comment-1177863

I know this and the other strawmen posts are the only ones you are interested in, so I'm sure you will see it soon enough, but just in case

"made a mistake 2months ago and said something dumb to someone."

You are terribly consistent.

p.s. Hope you don't cry yourself to sleep today, I have to admit, I was a bit worried yesterday.

You have some serious grounds for lawsuit.

I HIGHLY recommend getting involved with some sort of group that studies law.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

I forgot about that.

I remember pulling credit reports at my old job, some people wouldn't send me their social security numbers for security reasons (but they'd send bank account numbers, statements, routing numbers, yadayada... didn't make much sense)

anyway, long story short, if you didn't send me your social security number, I could pull your credit with just your name, address and signature authorization and what do you know, I'd get your CBR with your SS on the top of the page.

Whether you like it or not, it's yours.

First of all, in response to

First of all, in response to "why do you need a bank account"...there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about having a bank account, what is Unconstitutional, Illegal, and against the bible (for anyone who is into that) is interest!

Secondly, to all of the people who think this is "crazy talk", I am only pointing out law!
Furlough-buzz...have you ever seen the book "Wacky Laws, Weird Decisions, & Strange Statutes"...it has things like "in St. Louis it is illegal to give a donkey a bath in a bathtub" or "in Philadelphia You can not smoke a cigar on tuesdays before 8:00 a.m."...
Im just wondering if you consider the author of this book, or books like these, to be "kooks", or do you consider them well versed in obscure laws?

It seems, from your stance here, that you should be on an Amazon blog telling people not to buy those books because they are full of lies and were written by kooks.

I happen to study contract law, constitutional law, and history...and the DailyPaul is a great place to post these interesting findings. I am not here to convince you to give up banks, or cancel your mortgage, Im simply posting findings in hopes that people with similar interests will look up the law, decipher it, and use it how they wish.

If your impression is that I am living in some hut in the woods around a kerosene lantern waiting for the big implosion, think again, I have Wii, flatscreens, a blackberry, a Dell laptop, a 2008 minivan, cable, satellite radio,...my point is that I am a consumer, just like you, I go out to eat, I have a family, etc...the difference is EVERYTIME I sign a document, whether a passport, School enrollment form, lease agreement, contract for work, I ALWAYS actually read the contract, cross out, or change things, I dont agree with, or that need to be clarified, and often research the codes surrounding or mentioned in the document before I sign it....

As far as license, SS, parking tickets etc. I have found a method for fighting tickets, based on constitutional and contract law, that works, so far, flawlessly. If you dont think a ticket is a contract, you are wrong. Dont sign it, or sign it "under duress" and you will see it is unenforceable.

What do you make of 15
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00003002----...

side note and comment:

I noticed today that the carpool signs say:
"CARPOOL IS 2 OR MORE PERSONS"...It just sounds weird, why isnt it "CARPOOL IS 2 OR MORE PEOPLE"...again, because there is a difference between "Person" and "People"

Dude? Again, you are the man! However,

You really have a 2008 Minivan?! Man I was with you all the way til' you went there! lol

You are transparent

No offense buddy, but you are highly suspicious logging in just to come to someones aid and kiss their ass and disagree with their detractors.

I won't go out on a limb here, but you are highly suspicious and there are people shoveling this sh*t on everyone because of a very specific money making agenda.

So keep on agreeing with the people you came here to agree with, but you aren't doing your friends any favors.

HAAAAA, I agree, fortunately

HAAAAA, I agree, fortunately I have a wife, so I can pretend like it's hers!

.

I think the weird laws are funny, and yes I believe they are real laws. If you notice, I never say the law doesn't exist, I say it doesn't work that way. Also, I belive that many of the people selling the UCC-1 BS are reading it the way they want to, and don't understand how it is applied or look for any other measures that override what they "see" *

Pardon me if you caught some anger, but a lot of this stemmed from someone saying "have the treasury pay all of your debts by filing this magic UCC-1" We asked for proof, and no proof has ever been provided.

BTW - my favorite weird law is in PA where you can't sleep on top of a refrigerator if it is outside.

and I sell financing for a living, and have been doing it for years. I have had some guys send me back contracts that they changed, which I then tore up and told the guy to look somewhere else for the loan, but I had already approved them and they probably never got the financing because the banks I work with don't like overexposure.

UCC-1 BS? Hmmmm,

Have you looked into this stuff and tried it? Did you do it right? Did you give up the first time around? (incase of not doing it right?)

Most that I've spoken to on the subject are completely sold on the idea that it is BS also. That's what keeps me on it.
Everyone seems to think it's ok to get swindled out of our rights by not doing a thing to stop it from happening and THAT keeps me on that as well. Matter of fact, the two are tied in if you ask me.
Everyone seems to think Kanye West is a dick for his comment made on stage the other night too. My thing is, when the world is going in the direction it's going, how do we have time for that crap?! and not the Constitution or the UCC and other things that ACTUALLY have BEARING on our lives?

With that said, why is it that these same sheeple have little concept of how and why the gov pulls the wool over the sheeples eyes?
Why do sheeple so quickly attempt to discredit what they don't understand because that's easier than looking into it themselves to prove true or false?
Why is it that sheeple are constantly going bah bah bah bah bah bah all day about issues of little significance and all the while take it up the butt by the buttmasters they worship with their inability to stand up and question for truth, in complete silence?! Don't you all see how close to the edge of the cliff you are yet?

And last but not least, for the record, right or wrong, Kanye is a dick!

Keep them coming

Good information we all need to become aware of. If enough of, We the People, become educated in the law which was created to protect our individual sovereignty, we may yet be able to recoup our Republic and societal freedom. Thanks for the post.