REBUTTAL: Truth Be Told: State National Movement
This article should be entitled: Truth be told about “Truth be Told”. There is very little truth in this episode, which is surprising considering that there is an attorney in the video who should know better.
The speaker, Ann Vandersteel makes a few false statements. She says that:
- The title of this video has a subtitle referencing the “Sovereign Citizen Movement: Ann’s Personal Journey”. She is conflating “sovereign citizens” with “state nationals”. They are mutually exclusive and non-overlapping as we point out in:
Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf - When you become a state national, you don’t forfeit your privilege to collect government benefits because they are contractual. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Fleming v. Nestor that Social Security is NOT a contract.
- She also says the ratification of the original Thirteen Amendment was nullified. This too is BULLSHIT. See:
The “Missing Thirteenth Amendment”: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility, 8 S.Cal Inderdis.L.J.577
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/Missing13thAmendment.pdf
As far as Social Security In fact, people in states of the Union were NEVER eligible to participate at ALL and it is FRAUD to offer it in states of the Union, as we prove in:
Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf
Section 2 of the above document says the following:
“There is no claim here that Congress has taken property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, since railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S. 572, 575 (1979); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 608-611 (1960). “
[United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980) ]
“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments… This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.”
[Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) ]
So NO, she doesn’t retain her right to collect benefits after submitting the corrected SS-5 and Social Security is a GRANT that NEVER WAS a contract. All “grants” such as the Social Security franchise are unilaterally revocable privileges that DO NOT create a PRIVATE property interest in receiving ANYTHING that is cognizable under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
Therefore, we believe this woman is either an IDIOT or a Shill. It doesn’t matter which one: We wouldn’t trust her no matter what. As we frequently say on this website: Listen to everyone but trust NO ONE. Verify EVERYTHING they say with your own legal research as we have here.
She also talked with Bob Lawrence, who we have been friends with for many years. He is a fan of this site. I can’t believe the above FALSE statements are are still circulating after the truth supported by evidence has been available on this site for so many years.