Social Security Numbers

Table of Contents
  1. Instructions
  2. Navy Man Wins Lawsuit: Sues for Damages and Wins
  3. Victorious Litigator Helps Others Remove the Mark of the Beast
  4. Judge Rejects PA Gun-Buying Terms
  5. Your Social Security Number & the Privacy Act
  6. Your Socialist Slave Number is Voluntary!
  7. One Man's Experience Refusing to Give Social Security #
  8. Sample Employer Letter about SSN Waiver
  9. Memorandum
  10. Protected Individual
  11. Requesting Requirement
  12. Penalty
  13. SS Payments Federally Immune from Levies


The government wants you to use a number when communicating with them or when paying taxes.  The IRS and their cohorts, the financial institutions, want you to use a TIN  (Taxpayer Identification Number) which is either:

  1. your SS # (mark of the beast)
  2. EIN (Employer Identification Number) which they use to withhold and pass on to the IRS income taxes.
  3. TI (Taxpayer Identification) number which is used mostly by illegal aliens. The IRS explains the TI:

(3) IRS individual taxpayer identification number--(i) Definition. The term IRS individual taxpayer identification number means a taxpayer identifying number issued to an alien individual by the Internal Revenue Service, upon application, for use in connection with filing requirements under this title. The term IRS individual taxpayer identification on number does not refer to a social security number or an account number for use in employment for wages. For purposes of this section, the term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

Form W-7 is used

See CFR Sec. 301.6109-1

Current through 27, October 2005

Navy Man Ejected; Requests Religious Accommodation

Carmichael v. United States , 298 F.3d 1367

After 16 years of exemplary service in the Navy, David Alan Carmichael asked for an alternative military ID number because of strong religious objections to being enumerated by a Social security number. The Navy had a procedure for issuing alternative service numbers, but instead it refused his request, retaliated against him, and discharged him when he was on the brink of retirement. Carmichael then waged an eight-year legal battle. This summer the Federal Court of Claims in the District of Columbia followed instructions in a 2002 federal appeals decision in favor of Carmichael and awarded him back pay and benefits for three and one-quarter years, plus retirement benefits. He was entitled to a reasonable accommodation for his religious practices, the two courts said. Carmichael v. U.S. , 99-958C (Ct. Fed. Cl. Jun. 23, Court of Appeals decision,at 298 F. 3d 1367).

"This case is important not only for those people who cannot identify with a universal number because of their adherence to Biblical prohibitions; it is important for anyone that ever finds himself in a position where he would have to seek a religious accommodation," said Carmichael after his vindication.

Navy Man Ejected From the Military Because He Requested a Religious Accommodation

By David Alan Carmichael January 9, 2004

In November of 1996, I requested a religious accommodation from the U.S. Navy, and I was subsequently ejected from the Navy on March 17, 1997 as a result. I requested the Navy to assign a Navy generated service number as a Military Personnel Identification Number (MPIN) rather than using a Social Security Number (SSN). My request was based upon my understanding of Revelation Chapter 13, whereby we are prohibited from identifying with that universal number which is required in order to do anything necessary for livelihood. Though nearly every person I know initially considered me a heretic, I am obligated to obey that which my conscience knows to be true rather than the popular opinions of any particular theologian. I filed suit in United States Court of Federal Claims charging the Navy with unlawfully separating me from the service. (Citizen Review On-Line ). I filed the suit Pro Se initially but had Dr. Herb Titus come to my rescue as my Attorney of Record. Never-the-less, the case was flippantly dismissed. Fortunately, the United States Court of appeals ruled in my favor, finding that my claim justified the litigation. They vacated the lower court's dismissal and remanded the case for trial. (David Al an Carmichael v. United States, 298 F.3d 1367, US Ct. App. Fed. Cir., Aug 12, 2002 - ).

Recently, there has been a shocking turn of events. The Claims Court judge, upon being mandated to try the case, initially made his own "sua sponte" motion for another dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. He stated that I had no claim for money, so he thereby could evade the Appeals Court's mandate.

Since then, however, he has had a radical change of heart. It is very unusual for an enlisted man to prove he had a right to continue service. No one has a "right" to military service unless by some authority of statute or service regulation. We proved to Judge Futey that, in my circumstance, a regulation did apply that required my command to extend my service. Acting in reprisal against me for having the audacity to risk my career for my allegiance to God, the Navy deliberately failed to extend my enlistment for two years prior to transferring me, contrary to their regulations. Judge Futey has seen through the United States Attorney's many smoke screens and has ruled that I had a "firm right" to continue service to at least January 1999. Thus, I have a right to money. Thus, the court has jurisdiction. We are now about to litigate the issue of the statutory right to retirement. Since forsaking the SSN as an identifier in 1996, besides losing my Navy career, I can no longer: drive, vote, own realty or titled personality, bank, get automobile insurance, get life insurance, fish, hunt, (marry), start a business, or bear arms, among many other things. The IRS says I owe them thousands of dollars, because I will not identify myself or my family members with their beastly number.

Though the truth is, on the basis of the law of the land, I am not required by law to participate in Social Security. In most cases, identification with an SSN is either voluntary or merely an administrative convenience. Yet, I am prohibited from doing those things necessary fo r life, liberty and happiness unless I forsake my allegiance to God and His commands; unless I embrace the universal identifier in allegiance to, and trust in, Caesar rather than the King of Kings, Jesus. Most tell me my interpretation of scripture is in error. The SSN is not the number of the beast and I ought to obey every ordinance of man thrown my way, whether or not the ordinance is lawful. I say, "Prove my theology wrong by securing my liberty." So, by inspiration as well as necessity , I am spearheading a movement to take on the beast through cohesive, comprehensive, and credible civil action. Dr. Herb Titus and Larry Becraft, two extremely well respected constitutional litigators, have agreed to help me form an organization that will take on these critical issues. The organization will give its members information, counsel, legal support, and civil action to protect them from being disenfranchised from their natural rights and common privileges as Americans. If our adherence to a Biblical mandate is inferior to government administrative convenience, under the guise of an arbitrarily claimed "compelling need", all liberties are lost. Carmichael v. United States 298 F.3d 1367, U.S. Ct. App., Fed. Cir. 2002 & 66 Fed. Cl. 115, Ct. Fed. Cl., 2005 Court of Appeals & Court of Federal Claims Rule in Plaintiff's Favor

In SSN Religious Accommodation Case, Navy Chief Petty Officer was unlawfully discharged after he made a religious accommodation request  to have the Navy issue a "Navy generated service number" to be used as the Military Personnel Identification Number in lieu of a Social Security Number.  

After pursuing administrative redress through various Navy channels, Carmichael filed suit 'Pro Se' in the Court of Federal Claims in November 1998.  Judge Futey showed a propensity to ignore each of the Plaintiff's motions, acting on the Defendant's motions without allowing the Plaintiff any input.  Carmichael's case was in deep trouble when Herb Titus agreed to take on the case.  Never-the-less, the Court of Claims dismissed the case citing the Discharge Certificates statement that the discharge was voluntary.   

The case was appealed.  The Appeals Court vacated the Court of Claims ruling and ordered the lower court to allow a trial over Carmichael's claim that his discharge was actually involuntary and unlawful, and that it stemmed from the Navy's failure to follow its own rules regarding religious accommodation and due process.     

After a grueling eight years, with the odds stacked against us, we prevailed clearly because of Divine intervention.  The heart of the judge was turned by the hand of the Lord.  He ruled that the record showed the discharge was actually involuntary.  Then he ruled that Carmichael had a "firm right" to continued service beyond the date of his discharge.  Finally, he ruled that Carmichael had a right to serve until his 20-year retirement at a minimum and he ordered the Navy to pay back-active-duty pay, back-retirement pay, and future retirement pay.

Judge rejects Pa. gun-buying terms

The following is an important court case pertaining to the use of the social security number.  The Privacy Act is still in effect!!!


The prisons are not big enough to hold those who use this "number" including banks, credit card companies, and state and federal agencies, Dept. of Safety, Highway Patrol, insurance companies....


Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/28/2006 | Judge rejects Pa. gun-buying terms

and the case is at:

         Judge rejects Pa. gun-buying terms

          Requiring prospective owners to provide their Social Security
          numbers violates the U.S. Privacy Act, the judge ruled. Read
          the opinion

By John Shiffman Inquirer Staff Writer

Pennsylvania's requirement that buyers provide a Social Security number
to purchase a g un or obtain a concealed-weapons permit was struck down
yesterday by a federal judge. The state law violated the federal Privacy
Act, U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez ruled.

"This issue has been largely overlooked in Pennsylvania and other states
for a long time," said lawyer J. Dwight Yoder, who brought the case on
behalf of a retired U.S. Army officer from Lancaster. "This ruling is
about privacy, not guns. We weren't looking to circumvent gun laws.

"Lawyers for the Pennsylvania State Police are reviewing the decision
and considering an appeal, spokesman Jack Lewis said. By requiring
applicants to provide Social Security numbers, Lewis said, his agency
"simply has followed the requirements of the state's Uniform Firearms
Act."The wider impact of yesterday's ruling - whether, for example,
other Pennsylvania Social Security requirements would be deemed invalid
- was uncertain.

One reason is that there are two larg e exceptions to the Privacy Act's
protection of Social Security numbers. The act does not apply to state
and local government programs specifically exempted by federal law, such
as driver's license applications, or to programs from before 1974, such
as voter registration.

Sanchez's ruling noted that the right of privacy as to Social Security
numbers exists under a federal law, not as a right the U.S. Supreme
Court had interpreted as protected by the Constitution.

Still, Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of the Privacy Journal in
Providence, R.I., said yesterday's ruling was "significant because it
comes at a time when most government agencies are requiring more and
more information from people.""The decision is part of a trend in the
last 10 years as courts realize the importance of keeping Social
Security numbers confidential because of identity theft," Smith said.

Smith, who is also a lawyer and journalist, was a p aid expert for
Michael Stollenwerk, the retired Army officer who brought the case in
federal court in Philadelphia.

Stollenwerk said yesterday he hoped the ruling would inspire others to
challenge government demands for Social Security numbers. He also said
he hoped it would encourage local and state officials to review
application requirements.

"A lot of state governments have blown off this law," said Stollenwerk,
now a law student at Georgetown University. "I think someone had to
stand up to the government and say, 'I'm going to challenge this.'

"Stollenwerk, 42, has pressed the matter on gun permits in other states,
he said. In California, without going to court, he said, he was able to
convince state authorities that their gun-purchase law violated the
Privacy Act. In Virginia, he said, he was victorious in state court.

Stollenwerk began his Pennsylvania effort in June 2003, when he was
still an Army li eutenant colonel based in the Washington suburbs.On June
30, 2003, Stollenwerk tried to buy a Taurus revolver from US Prospectors
Sporting Goods in Columbia, Lancaster County. When the dealer asked for
his Social Security number, Stollenwerk declined to provide it. The
dealer called state police to try to complete the sale, but the state
police refused to run Stollenwerk's name through its database, the
Pennsylvania Instant Check System, without a Social Security number.

A few days later, Stollenwerk tried to apply for a concealed-gun permit
from the Lancaster County sheriff. He supplied his passport, driver's
license, voter-registration card, bank statements, and utility bills as
identification. When he refused to disclose his Social Security number,
Sheriff Terry A. Bergman denied him a license to carry a firearm.
Bergman referred calls yesterday to his attorney, David Karamessinis,
who could not be reached for comment.

Contact staff writer John Shiffman at 215-854-2658 or

One Man's Experience Refusing to Give Social Security #

It is not as scary as you might think!

I applied for a job at a temp agency today. I purposely did not fill out my Socialist Slave Number. At first I was told that they would hold onto my application until I could furnish a SS Number and explained that I was not eligible for any job until I could do so. Then I had a little discussion with the Manager. I told her that in the case of Lee v. United States, Chief justice Burger said that "Religious... beliefs can be accommodated. " The manager responded that I simply could not get a job in America without one. I informed her that the SS no. was voluntary, so how could that be? I also encouraged her to take this issue to her corporate headquarters and have their lawyers check it out. I then asked her if they were going to discriminate against me based on my religious conviction? And if she was, could I have it in writing? She would later decide that "as long as I did the job" she did not care about this issue.

Back to top


For Web questions and information contact PNwebmaster

Support group can help!
The Patriot Network can provide you with:
        Advisory service on tax examinations, collections, other IRS problems.
        Legal & administrative coaching from, Robert Clarkson, the most knowledgeable IRS fighter of all time.
        E groups and other modern forms of communications, plus up-to-date website with a vast amount of information:
        Assistance in navigation the website. The website has everything you need to fend off IRS harassment and to beat an audit, however this subject can be complicated and you may need help in using the website.
        Extensive bookstore on how-to materials on dealing with the IRS and other bureaucracies. Original books and videos by Robert Clarkson who has over 30 years� experience in opposing the IRS.
        Silver & Gold purchase program.

Free Consultation: You can call Dr. Clarkson with your IRS problem one time without charge. After that you can donate a small amount each year for the support group to assist you in the handling of your problem.



For questions about the website or to report broken links, contact the PN Webmaster.