Thread: Britian requires ID cards for foreigners

Good grief, my wallet is full of them. And, the issuing companies have us by the short hairs. Didn't they recently get legislation passed that makes it harder to discharge such debt?

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

Good grief, my wallet is full of them. And, the issuing companies have us by the short hairs. Didn't they recently get legislation passed that makes it harder to discharge such debt?

Yes they did, but if I explained hw that system of credit actually worked and the presumptions that allow you to exercise that "credit," you would go into a spin.

I am so certain that the current evil system of banking and credit that underpins this society and the unifying number (the SSN/TIN) that makes it possible is what John was talking about that I refuse to have an SSN.

How do you get by in society then? Do you have a TIN?

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

How do you get by in society then? Do you have a TIN?

No. There is no requirement that you have either unless you wish to participate in certain privileged activities.

How do they handle your taxes when you are working? Do you work as an independent contractor? Is there any way for those of us who entered the system when it seemed less sinister to slip out, at least in part?

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

How do they handle your taxes when you are working? Do you work as an independent contractor? Is there any way for those of us who entered the system when it seemed less sinister to slip out, at least in part?

Yes, I have always worked by contract or owned or been a partner in my own business.

I know that "slipping out" was an option as late as 1997. Many things changed in 1997-98, which has led to speculation that the government shut-down that ostensibly occurred as a result of a budget showdown between Gingrich's Congress and Clinton was in fact a default and reorganization. There were numerous fundamental changes to the Treasury Dept., for example. For the first time since the IRS began collecting "taxes," payments were made payable directly to and were endorsed by the United States Treasury. We changed both our coin and paper currency at the same time for the first time in the nation's history. Countefeit laws are essentially copyright laws, and copyrights may be lost in the case that the holder is dissolved through insolvency or other imposed dissolution. At any rate, the responses from Social Security to those seeking release from their SSNs markedly changed after that point. Prior to 1998, the SSA would admit when pressed that there was no mandatory language within the Social Security Act, that participation including application for an SSN was elective, and that provision of an SSN to an employer was "strictly a matter between the empolyer and employee." The quoted portion was from a letter that I myself received from the SSA back in 1994.

So in answer to your question, there may be a way out, but my guess is that it is substantially more complicated and difficult than it was a decade ago. If I were to offer a guess as to why, I would say that prior to 1998 the government was acting as agent for a creditor and had no underlying authority to require a citizen to register himself as a frnchise through the SSN. If the federal entity did in fact go into receivership, the new direct holder of the franchises would not be under the constitutional constraints of the former agent and would be able to use the lex mercatorum, whose rights protections are markedly inferior to the common law or the Constitution. For example, in Common Law, for a contract to be enforceable, a signatory must have knowledge, will and intent, which is to say that he must have been provided with the full terms of the contract, he must have understood that he was entering into a contract, and ther must have been no condition of duress - he must have freely and willingly signed the contract. These condition applt even if the signatory has already enjoyed full or partial benefits of the contract, as fraud negates any contract from its inception. International agreements under lex mercatorum are enforceable so long as a signatory has exercised the benefits thereof. Period. There is no requirement that you understand what you are signing, that you understand that you are entering into a binding agreement that may compel performance, or even that you were not under duress.

I understand about common law. In business law class we were taught that fraud or duress invalidated contracts, that there must be a 'meeting of the minds'. I was wondering where all these incidents were coming from in that some entitity enters into an agreement with another entity and then all of a sudden privately owned land was being earmarked for purchase (or condemnation) in vast swaths, or public roads weren't public any more, etc. If I were an Indian businessman, I'd forget about BPO and outsourcing and simply rent an SUV and tour the US with a Rand McNally road atlas. Then I'd make my pitch for some development to local authorities, and bam - instant real estate development tycoon.

Now, it occurs to me that if your theory about the SSN is correct - and I consider it a strong contender, especially in the light of the linguistic evidence you provided - then a lot of fine, clean-living, spiritual people have in fact received 'the mark of the beast.' They may have received it before it became the mark of the beast, in that it was not always used the way it is now, or they may have been coerced into getting it for their children (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html

I'm wondering what the advice to them should be. Other than join Alipac and contribute - excellent advice in any case.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

I understand about common law. In business law class we were taught that fraud or duress invalidated contracts, that there must be a 'meeting of the minds'. I was wondering where all these incidents were coming from in that some entitity enters into an agreement with another entity and then all of a sudden privately owned land was being earmarked for purchase (or condemnation) in vast swaths, or public roads weren't public any more, etc. If I were an Indian businessman, I'd forget about BPO and outsourcing and simply rent an SUV and tour the US with a Rand McNally road atlas. Then I'd make my pitch for some development to local authorities, and bam - instant real estate development tycoon.

Now, it occurs to me that if your theory about the SSN is correct - and I consider it a strong contender, especially in the light of the linguistic evidence you provided - then a lot of fine, clean-living, spiritual people have in fact received 'the mark of the beast.' They may have received it before it became the mark of the beast, in that it was not always used the way it is now, or they may have been coerced into getting it for their children (http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html

I'm wondering what the advice to them should be. Other than join Alipac and contribute - excellent advice in any case.

Well, I would advise them to do as I have done in the event that they do not already have an SSN or to refuse to saddle their children with the damned thing. I would advise them to look into their options for getting out if they are Christians and patriots, or just have good common sense. I realize that few will consider these actions.

It seems to me that having one's own business and working on contractor rather than employee status is a key here. And, frugal living and skill in bookkeeping because without SSNs parents cannot take their kids as tax deductions.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

How do they handle your taxes when you are working? Do you work as an independent contractor? Is there any way for those of us who entered the system when it seemed less sinister to slip out, at least in part?

[1] For example, in Common Law, for a contract to be enforceable, a signatory must have knowledge, will and intent, which is to say that he must have been provided with the full terms of the contract, he must have understood that he was entering into a contract, and ther must have been no condition of duress - he must have freely and willingly signed the contract.

[2] These condition applt even if the signatory has already enjoyed full or partial benefits of the contract, as fraud negates any contract from its inception.

[1] Almost entirely untrue.

First, those are not the elements to a contract at common law. (And you speak of common law as if it does not exist today; it does; common law is nothing but caselaw -- often enough defined as judge made law. The history of it is quite fascinating. You oughta read up on it.)

Second, the creation of a contract does not require a "signatory."

Third, the test for the creation of a contract does NOT depend on a party's knowledge, will, and intent. It is an objective test. A person who privately doesn't intend to enter a contract, but whose joking around appears outwardly as a manifestation of his intent to join the contract, will be bound by that contract, assuming the other contractual elements not at issue here are met.

Finally, a contract brought about as a result of duress may indeed be enforceable. You just really have no idea what you're talking about. The effects of duress on a contract makes that resulting contract VOIDABLE (not void) at the insistence of the victim. It's up to him. If he wants to go through with it, it's enforceable; if he doesn't, then he can disaffirm it, avoid it, rescind it. BUT! The victim may STILL BE BOUND by the terms of the duress-created contract: if he's affirmed the contract or allowed a reasonable time to lapse after duress but prior to the the disaffirmance.

[2] Almost entirely untrue. Fraud vitiates consent, but the lack of consent doesn't necssarily make the contract unenforceable. Which is to say the contract may be VOIDABLE at the insistence of the aggrieved party, though, in some case it may be void, too. It depends. Are you talking fraud in the inducement or fraud in the factum? I know you've never heard of either term before, so, of course, my question there is rhetorical.

I'd also point out that you have obviously never heard of promissory estoppel or quantum meruit. Or you'd not make such a claim as you did here.