[naomi]

Would you consider it an ignorance of the sign if someone just left material on your door or doorstep?

[kilroy69]

naomi, on Feb 6 2010, 03:46 AM, said:

Would you consider it an ignorance of the sign if someone just left material on your door or doorstep?

Of course. I get it all the time though. I get a little pesky kid that comes through with his old man driving A van. He runs up dopps off his stupid bs at my door and leaves. I pick it up and throw it in the trash without even opening the bag.

[tikigods]

The only people that seem to ignore it are the religious wackos. No matter how many times I send out attack dogs, shoot, or try to pour buckets of acid on them, they still manage to leave that Watchtower on my property.

[Voltaire]

tikigods, on Feb 6 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

The only people that seem to ignore it are the religious wackos. No matter how many times I send out attack dogs, shoot, or try to pour buckets of acid on them, they still manage to leave that Watchtower on my property.

IEDs work well but you should only put them out when you see them coming, otherwise you're more likely to get the mailman or the newspaper kid.

[MedStudent]

You actually have a "no soliticiting" sign on your property? I have never seen that on a house. Come to think of it, the only soliciters I ever remember coming to my house were kids selling girl scout cookies or raffletickets for sports. Maybe in the old days with the door to door salesmen you would need a sign. The only other solicitor that i just remembered was a jehovah's witness coming to my apartment once. I just told him to go away and he did.

As far as leaving something on your door, i don't think he soliticed since he didn't ask for anything. But if you have a problem with it, I would change your sign to "No trespassers"

[Voltaire]

As a serious answer to naomi, I don't like solicitors, I wish they'd leave folks alone. But I don't care about flyers nor do I mind neighborhood kids. I just don't want professional salesmen with knives or vaacums or magazine subscriptions or religious folks coming to the door or cold calling on the phone.

[tikigods]

Voltaire, on Feb 6 2010, 09:58 AM, said:

IEDs work well but you should only put them out when you see them coming, otherwise you're more likely to get the mailman or the newspaper kid.

Causalities of war.

[tikigods]

MedStudent, on Feb 6 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

You actually have a "no soliticiting" sign on your property?

A lot of crimes are committed by people pretending to be soliciting things. I usually answer the door with my bathrobe, a hand gun, and a cigar hanging off my lip.

[naomi]

MedStudent, on Feb 6 2010, 07:21 AM, said:

You actually have a "no soliticiting" sign on your property? I have never seen that on a house. Come to think of it, the only soliciters I ever remember coming to my house were kids selling girl scout cookies or raffletickets for sports. Maybe in the old days with the door to door salesmen you would need a sign. The only other solicitor that i just remembered was a jehovah's witness coming to my apartment once. I just told him to go away and he did.

As far as leaving something on your door, i don't think he soliticed since he didn't ask for anything. But if you have a problem with it, I would change your sign to "No trespassers"

There use to be a sign at my place but people would still leave stuff (no one minded) and it seemed like a lot of people would go ahead and knock or ring anyway. A good number of homes in my general region have them.

I'm selling Avon and yesterday I was leaving the brochures in little plastic bags on doors, and I realized after the fact that I didn't pay attention to whether there were 'no soliciting' signs on any of the homes. Yesterday was more of a quick thing (didn't want to talk to my own neighbors ) But I plan on talking to people, asking them if they'd like a brochure and I'll skip the no soliciting homes then. Curious how many people with the signs would be irked by brochures simply left for them though, if they should be skipped altogether.

[tikigods]

naomi, on Feb 6 2010, 03:22 PM, said:

I'm selling Avon and yesterday....

Times tough or just something you're doing on the side?

[naomi]

tikigods, on Feb 6 2010, 12:27 PM, said:

Times tough or just something you're doing on the side?

Both. It's something to do, see how far it goes, while I figure an 'in the middle' out.

[tikigods]

naomi, on Feb 6 2010, 03:46 PM, said:

Both. It's something to do, see how far it goes, while I figure an 'in the middle' out.

Good luck with the venture. Hopefully you can pocket some cash and do some networking at the same time.

[naomi]

tikigods, on Feb 6 2010, 06:20 PM, said:

Good luck with the venture. Hopefully you can pocket some cash and do some networking at the same time.

Thanks Mostly doing it to see what all I can legally do without a social security number. Don't know about networking. It's not how I want to at least/can foresee a good connection coming out of it but I guess you never know. It's slightly degrading because I'm not big into the stuff myself, but it's a 122 year old American company that's still going strong...respect it on that note. Some of the stuff isn't bad.

[Voltaire]

naomi, on Feb 7 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

Thanks Mostly doing it to see what all I can legally do without a social security number. \

Why don't you have a social security number? Social Security isn't something people can opt out of (unless you move overeseas).

[tikigods]

naomi, on Feb 6 2010, 10:52 PM, said:

Thanks Mostly doing it to see what all I can legally do without a social security number.

Curious what you mean by this.

Quote

Don't know about networking. It's not how I want to at least/can foresee a good connection coming out of it but I guess you never know. It's slightly degrading because I'm not big into the stuff myself, but it's a 122 year old American company that's still going strong...respect it on that note. Some of the stuff isn't bad.

You never know who you'll run into. Sometimes these little gigs can lead to bigger things. Are you still in college or did you finish your undergrads?

[naomi]

Voltaire, on Feb 7 2010, 04:35 AM, said:

Why don't you have a social security number? Social Security isn't something people can opt out of (unless you move overeseas).

It's voluntary by law though it seems like it's mandatory if you want to do anything. In 1986 it became more difficult (but still doable) to have a newborn released from the hospital without them being on their way to having one.

My dad objected to the system so he didn't get ssns for my brothers or I. He left it up to us along the way. When I was 17 and really thinking about it I wound up on a website of a guy who broke down his moral, philosophic and legal objections. It made me understand where my dad was coming from x 10. I have an aversion to it, not necessarily a resolve to stay out of it, but whenever I get close to getting one, so far it's bothered me too much.

Tiki - true. Yeah I finished undergrad.

[Strike]

naomi, on Feb 7 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

It's voluntary by law though it seems like it's mandatory if you want to do anything. In 1986 it became more difficult (but still doable) to have a newborn released from the hospital without them being on their way to having one.

My dad objected to the system so he didn't get ssns for my brothers or I. He left it up to us along the way. When I was 17 and really thinking about it I wound up on a website of a guy who broke down his moral, philosophic and legal objections. It made me understand where my dad was coming from x 10. I have an aversion to it, not necessarily a resolve to stay out of it, but whenever I get close to getting one, so far it's bothered me too much.

You've posted about this before and I'm not sure if I've ever commented. I find it very interesting that you've chosen to try to navigate through life in this country minus that "important" number. Generally I'm a privacy advocate kind of guy, especially when it comes to the government. Working with computers for a living I'm only too aware that once a piece of information is in someone's database it ain't ever being removed. Heck, I won't even let the hair cutting place have my phone number or e-mail address. I mean, seriously, why should I have to disclose those types of information just to get a freakin' haircut? All that being said, in this day and age it seems reasonable for the government to be able to identify who is in the country. Unfortunately, I don't really trust them to be altruistic with that information so I understand any apprehension you might have to entering that "system." Anyways, just find it interesting that you're doing this. Don't know if I've ever met someone from the U.S. before without a SS number. If your stance ever changes I'd be interested to know what finally turned you.

[tikigods]

naomi, on Feb 7 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

It's voluntary by law though it seems like it's mandatory if you want to do anything. In 1986 it became more difficult (but still doable) to have a newborn released from the hospital without them being on their way to having one.

My dad objected to the system so he didn't get ssns for my brothers or I. He left it up to us along the way. When I was 17 and really thinking about it I wound up on a website of a guy who broke down his moral, philosophic and legal objections. It made me understand where my dad was coming from x 10. I have an aversion to it, not necessarily a resolve to stay out of it, but whenever I get close to getting one, so far it's bothered me too much.

Tiki - true. Yeah I finished undergrad.

Fascinating.

Does this mean you're not able to collect SS when/if you turn 65...assuming that system is still in place?

[Me_2006]

I'll second the notion of being really interested in naomi's absence from the system. Especially with all the credit cards and GPS stuff in cars today, it stands to reason that there might be something odd going on beyond simple convenience. I obviously wasn't given a choice in the matter, and didn't know it was even possible not to until reading on here about naomi's decision.

[jerryskids]

naomi, on Feb 5 2010, 08:46 PM, said:

Would you consider it an ignorance of the sign if someone just left material on your door or doorstep?

I don't have a sign, and I can't imagine people really give a shiot if they get a brochure on their doorstep. Unless maybe they travel a lot, and it is a signal that they are not at home. We have a community paper that kinda pisses me off, because I can't cancel it, it just arrives. If we're gone for an extended period, I'll ask my next door neighbor to grab them and trash them.

Back to soliciting, I'm in sales, so I actually kinda enjoy hearing their shpiels, depending on my mood and how busy I am. The big one here is (alleged) inner city kids selling magazines. They are pretty good at it. Sometimes I'll give them constructive criticism before asking them to fock off.

Good luck on the Avon thing.

[naomi]

Strike, on Feb 7 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

You've posted about this before and I'm not sure if I've ever commented. I find it very interesting that you've chosen to try to navigate through life in this country minus that "important" number. Generally I'm a privacy advocate kind of guy, especially when it comes to the government. Working with computers for a living I'm only too aware that once a piece of information is in someone's database it ain't ever being removed. Heck, I won't even let the hair cutting place have my phone number or e-mail address. I mean, seriously, why should I have to disclose those types of information just to get a freakin' haircut? All that being said, in this day and age it seems reasonable for the government to be able to identify who is in the country. Unfortunately, I don't really trust them to be altruistic with that information so I understand any apprehension you might have to entering that "system." Anyways, just find it interesting that you're doing this. Don't know if I've ever met someone from the U.S. before without a SS number. If your stance ever changes I'd be interested to know what finally turned you.

For me it's not really the lack of privacy aspect, though if I had one I wouldn't want to give it to a salon either.

I also have to realize that for logistical purposes the impetus to enumerate people and have different files linked to those numbers is going to strengthen. But it's how the SS system actually works (not the surface function) and legally who and what it makes you beholden to that bothers me. I wouldn't mind having a tax ID number and paying taxes...that would be nice in that it would be easier to get a job, but if you're a natural born citizen it's difficult to get one.

This is a lot to read (about 1/20th from this author's research). He has Christian (more specifically, biblical) based principles behind a lot of his objections. Sometimes there's long stretches where someone who only wants to entertain secular-friendly thought lines can roll with him, but I figure it's better for me to quote him and piece him out.

Quote

Can a Right be taxed? Do you have a Right to sell your labor, or is selling your labor a government granted privilege? (I use the term 'government granted privilege' loosely. It is actually a Contract with the people who own the IRS).

"Use" means "usury," the rights to your labor rather than a direct sale of labor. Directly selling your labor for a paycheck has never been taxable according to the Courts. Compensation for labor is not the same as selling labor rights. Don't think that privately owned employers are private organizations. They are Agents of the IRS (or whoever owns the IRS). When they ask for your IRS Number, they are performing an IRS function. "Corporations" are incorporated into the government.

To employ means to equitably convert. Once you get an employee identification number, you have been converted to their use. Corporations then may USE you for their purpose. IRS can then collect the usury of your labor. Employers must also pay for this government granted privilege. And, you must pay usury (income tax) whenever you profit from labor rights that you no longer own. The IRS gets wealth from the USE of labor rights that they owns. This is usury.
Business's do not purchase labor, they employ the labor owned by whoever owns the IRS.

You may still be confused about the distinction between a "direct sale of labor" and the "sale of labor rights." Your IRS Bureaucrats are not confused. They know exactly when to avoid imprisonment for theft, and when to boldly attack anyone who profits from labor that is owned by the Department of the Treasury.

Your U.S. Constitution, in Article 1, Section 10, prohibits any State from impairing the Obligation of Contracts. This means the supreme law of the land prohibits the State from interfering or regulating any Contract between a real (unnumbered) worker and those who pay him for his labor.

The Act to Strengthen Public Credit, signed into law by Ulysses Grant on March 18, 1869, pledged every American citizen as collateral for the repayment of all government obligations, including the national debt. Your federal government did not own anything, the states and the people owned all the wealth. In order to get the central banks to print money, the banks wanted collateral. You are that collateral. A classic book on this topic is The Coming Battle by Martin W. Walbert, published in 1899.

-----

Here are some more details for those who are doing homework: "Hypothecation" is a banking term. "Hypothecation" is defined in Section 14(a) of the Federal Reserve Act as an offer of assets owned by a party other than the borrower as collateral for a loan, without transferring title. The United States is the borrower. You are the party other than the borrower. On your behalf, and with your consent, your representatives borrow most of your national debt from the Federal Reserve Bank. Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 USC 411) says that Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of the United States. This is true even if the Federal Reserve is not a government agency, because the government has promised to repay the loans to this privately owned corporation. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by the full faith and credit of hypothecated assets (such as your future labor). According to the Legislative History of Public Law 94-564 "The U.S. commitment to redeem international dollars for gold became a physical impossibility". That's right! Your bankrupt government cannot repay Foreign lenders their gold. They will soon claim their collateral. You are the collateral."

------
The Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury, not the Social Security Administration, issues this Form. Although the current SS5 Forms do not state what department publishes them, the earlier SS5 Forms state that they are Department of the Treasury Forms. (You can get a photocopy of the SS5 you filled out by submitting Form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration). I will now prove that the Department of the Treasury IS a foreign power.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the head of the Treasury Department that issues SSN's. Federal Law (22 USC 286a(a)) requires the President to appoint the U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund. This appointment is given to the Secretary of the Treasury (see "Legislative History" of Public Law 94-564, page 5942 where Congress is explaining how they are implementing the Bretton-Woods Treaty). If the President appoints someone to an official office required by law, and that position requires him to control you with powers pre-approved by Congress implemented by a Treaty, don't you think his salary would be paid by his employer? Title 22 US Code, Section 286a(d)(1) prohibits your U.S. government from paying the U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund. That's right! His employer pays his salary. Who's chain of command are you under?

[Note: For those who do their homework: the "Agreement" mentioned in 22 USC 286a is the Bretton-Woods Treaty which stipulates that the Fund pay the Governors. Also notice that the Secretary of the Treasury is forced to accept "Amendments" on behalf of the U.S., whether we want them or not].

The Secretary of the Treasury is the U.S. representative to the International Monetary Fund. He also is the U.S. representative to INTERPOL, and has allegiance is to its' superiors. The Secretary of the Treasury was designated as the U.S. representative to INTERPOL in 1958. The word "representative" is very misleading.

INTERPOL Constitution, Article 30 states, in part:
"In the exercise of their duties, the Secretary General and the staff shall neither solicit nor accept instructions from any government or authority outside the organization. They must abstain from any action that might be prejudicial to their international task. Each Member of the Organization shall undertake to respect the exclusively international character of the duties of the Secretary General, and the staff, and abstain from influencing them in the discharge of their duties."

That's right! The Secretary of the Treasury must abstain from advising them in the discharge of their duties. He cannot give advice; he can only take orders. He is not the U.S. representative to the IMF; he is the IMF's manager OF the U.S.. The Secretary of the Treasury takes orders on how to manage IMF property. You are IMF property. It's not that it bothers me to be a part of paying off collective debt, but it's corrupt how you don't know what you're a part of if you go by surface presentation. I don't want to let myself be a subject of the system (joining social security), which is tempting in order to do very basic things. We might feel comfortable with it now, but there will be ramifications. (And there will be people who are still comfortable after the ramifications are realized).

The GATT Trade Treaty, Uruguay Round Agreement (which is the supreme law of your land) [Note: "Treaties" and your Constitution are both equally regarded as "The Supreme Law of the Land"] requires SSN's at birth, after November 30, 1996. See the "U.S. Legislative History" of Public Law 103-465 (House Report No. 103-826(1) page 196) where Congress is explaining how they are enacting this Treaty. "Section 2" is entitled: "Taxpayer identification numbers required at birth (sec. 742 of the bill and secs. 32 and 6109 of the Code)" [Note that this contradicts a February 1999 Pamphlet by the Social Security Administration. SSA Publication 05-10023 entitled "Social Security Numbers for Newborns." On page 4 it states: "Getting a Social Security number for your baby is strictly voluntary."]

"GATT" is a Treaty with an international political monster that evolved out of the European Economic Committee (EEC, also called the "common market" or "European Union"). The EEC was established at the Vatican on March 25, 1957, and controls most of all commerce in the world. The EEC is now headed by a Frenchman, Jacque Delores, a devout Catholic. The 1991 Maastricht Agreement by 12 (now 15, 13 of which are Socialist), European Nations created an international political body with it's own Parliament and tribunals, and limits the powers of member Nations. This tribunal controls (to some extent) Treaties of member Nations.

If you want to do further research, start by browsing through Title 22 of the U.S. Code, and notice all the laws that require deposits to foreign banks. Then notice that on the back of every cancelled check that you've ever written to the IRS (before 1999) has an endorsement for the payment of debt obligations of the U.S.. That's right! Your IRS payments do not run the government. Your IRS payments do not even go to Congress for them to decide whether or not to pay their debts. Your payments are levied directly to the bankruptcy receivership, just as you would expect in any bankruptcy.

(Details: they first go the states unemployment fund's bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank per Section 904 of the Social Security Act, then to the "U.N. Bank for Reconstruction and Development" per 22 USC 286 [created by the Bretton Woods Treaty], then after one year, they go to the IMF's Rothchild bank).
Then notice that all the money is backed, not by gold in Fort Knox, but by "the full faith and credit" of the United States. This means that you and your future labor are the collateral for this credit. Then recognize that the U.S. cannot pay the National Debt. Then prepare to be "seized" as collateral for all that money deposited by Title 22. The GATT Treaty merely takes inventory of legitimate collateral. A non secular point I'll leave in: You volunteered, so stop your mocking. You were warned not to be "surety" for strangers (Prov. 6:1, 11:15, 17:18).

Particular things happened in 1998. Starting with the 1998 tax returns (for the first time ever), tax payment checks are made payable the U.S. Treasury, not to the IRS. Black's Law Dictionary, seventh edition, was published and it no longer had an entry for "UNITED STATES" (which had always been the definition given by the Supreme Court's Hooven decision) and a new entry "United States of America" appeared which did not have an official definition. And new currency is issued which no longer indicates which Federal Reserve Bank issued the note. Perhaps Bush (the elder) and Clinton were right all along. They have been telling you for years that the federal government would be privatized.

"GATT" is a Treaty with an international political monster that evolved out of the European Economic Committee (EEC, also called the "common market" or "European Union"). The EEC was established at the Vatican on March 25, 1957, and controls most of all commerce in the world. The EEC is now headed by a Frenchman, Jacque Delores, a devout Catholic. The 1991 Maastricht Agreement by 12 (now 15, 13 of which are Socialist), European Nations created an international political body with it's own Parliament and tribunals, and limits the powers of member Nations. This tribunal controls (to some extent) Treaties of member Nations. Why do they require the U.S. to number your children?

The United Nations is involved in assigning Social Security Numbers to newborn children, and probably everyone else. In the next paragraph, I am going to quote a Federal Regulation that deceptively refers to the U.N. as if it was New York City. To understand the legal definition of the term "New York City" as it used in the Code of Federal Regulations, you must first understand that the U.N. has its headquarters in New York City, and that UNITED NATIONS LAW SUPERSEDES ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW "WITHIN THE HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT." This is according to a federal law known as Title 22, U.S. Code, Section 287(d). Apparently New York City is on U.N. soil. While keeping in mind that New York City (as you know it) is not a State, and it is not even the Capital of New York State, notice how federal Social Security Regulations refer to New York City (the headquarters of the United Nations) as a State:

Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 111, Subpart B 422.103b)(2): "(2) Birth registration document. SSA may enter into an agreement with officials of a State, including, for this purpose, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and New York City, to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children."

Perhaps someone can explain the above quoted law. Tell me if I have this correct: Social Security numbers have been assigned for six decades, but now officials of the U.N. headquarters district can establish a new procedure to assign Social Security numbers.

[naomi]

tikigods, on Feb 7 2010, 03:19 PM, said:

Does this mean you're not able to collect SS when/if you turn 65...assuming that system is still in place?

Yeah...don't exist to the system, not paying into the benefits, definitely not going to receive any. If I do get a ssn, I'll be beginning contributions later than most people, so when/if 65 comes, I'll be eligible for less than most unless I do something lucrative enough to make up for the lost time.

With Social Security itself, I'm guessing the foundation it provides for identifying people (and the legal ramifications of opting into the system) is going to be spring boarded from, but a new system will come into play...probably under a more central, international controlled economy and with an even wider arch. May go from not being eligible for government retirement benefits to having a hard time/inability to buy or sell.

Jerry - thanks Can see you giving them constructive criticism.

[Chronic Husker]

naomi, on Feb 8 2010, 10:14 PM, said:

Jerry - thanks Can see you giving them constructive criticsm.

Quote

Look, kid. After you get your bit out about High Times being a great deal, assume the close! If you don't think your potential customer is buying from you how do you expect them to think they're going to buy from you? Have that pen in hand and give it to them to sign as soon as you're done talking.....no, don't give the pen to me. I'm not buying. Get your ass back to Glendale or Mesa or wherever you came from. I don't buy things from door to door salesmen.

[GobbleDog]

Only old people get pissed about solicitors. I think they actually enjoy getting pissed about it.