Is Your Social Security number the Mark of the Beast?

Most think not, because the time has not come yet when the Mark of the beast is required, but let's show you what happens if you try to get rid of it.  If the mark of the beast becomes a microchip implant or an identification card of some kind required before you can buy or sell anything; are you willing to have the convictions of this man? 
Also see    The Mark of the Beast.

From: David Alan Carmichael  mailto:freelancehuman@assure.net
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: Am I now a criminal?


Though most of you do not agree with me, all of you are aware of my
conviction that the SSN is the number of the beast referred to in
Revelation, chapter 13.  You are also concerned that the government is made
it so people with convictions like mine cannot live in America ("A Free
Country.")  You are aware of the struggle that has been going on in Federal
Court and the recent progress we have made convincing the U.S. Court of
appeals that we have an issue at law that must be addressed.  Now, we have
another case pending but this time I am not plaintiff, but defendant in a
criminal case (Commonwealth of Virginia v. Carmichael).

Since my letter of rescission to the Commissioner of Social Security on
October 1, 1996, I have done everything possible to clear the erroneous
association of a SSN with my name.  That has cost me a Navy Career, banking
privileges, at first the right to vote (corrected later), and home
ownership.  I communicated my convictions to the Department of Motor
Vehicles and presumed they had changed their records.  When it came time to
renew my license, they would not issue a new license to me or my wife unless
we affirmed a Social Security Number as our identifiers.  I wrote a letter
to the Commissioner of the D.M.V. requesting that he correct his records to
indicate we do not have Social Security Numbers or in the alternative,
cancel the original applications and allow us to apply anew.
The Commissioner responded that he had no authority to grant my request.

To the contrary, the statute that requires him to ask for a number also
states "The Commissioner may, on a case-by-case basis, waive any provision
of such regulations for good cause shown."

I sent several letters and the Commissioner continued to refuse my requests.
Finally, we transferred all vehicle titles into a trust (no number required)
and mailed our old driver's license cards to the Commissioner with a notice
of cancellation.  And yes, we have continued to drive.

It is a class 2 misdemeanor to drive without a license in Virginia.  It is a
jailable offense.  You may wonder how we can profess Christ yet violate the
law?  The answer is that we are in compliance with the law.  The actual law
breaker is the Commissioner and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Law is made up of more than just statutes.  Statutes must conform to the
law.  Commissioners must not only conform to statute but they must also
conform to law.  One rule of law in Virginia is "Where the state creates a
mechanism for legitimate individualized exceptions but fails to include
religious uses among these legitimate exceptions, discriminatory intent man
be inferred... Failure to make allowance for bona fide religious uses tends
to exhibit hostility, not neutrality, towards religion.  Horen v. Com., 23
Va. App. 735, 479 S.E. 2d 553 (1997).

Another rule of law in Virginia is "A state cannot grant a privilege subject
to the agreement that the grantee will surrender a constitutional right,
even in those cases where the state has the unqualified power to withhold
the grant altogether, and where such a condition is imposed upon the
grantee, he may ignore or enjoin the enforcement of the condition without
thereby losing the grant."  Alexandria v. Texas C., 172 Va. 209, 1 S.E. 2d
296 (1939).

I was detained, while parked at a gas station, for an administrative
infraction that was later dismissed.  But, I was also charged as driving
without a license (a crime).  I appeared in district court.  I presented a
statement to the judge, via the clerk of court office, that stated.
1.  I did not understand the charge (the reference on the summons did not
cite the statute and I did not have access to know what the specific charge
was).
2.  I did not understand the jurisdiction (it is tied to the specific charge
and the statute said a higher court had original jurisdiction).
3.  I stated I could not consent to a summary trial but instead needed a
trial by jury.
4.  I stated "If all the evidence of facts surrounding the circumstances are
examined by a jury, the defendant will be exonerated."
5.  I stated I needed legal counsel and did not have the financial resources
to retain one.
6.  I stated that I had told the arresting officer that the Commonwealth was
challenging me to; forsake the obligations I owe Almighty God according to
the Holy Scripture, or be punished for doing things that would otherwise be
lawful.
7.  I stated that my defense rested on common law, constitutional law, and
natural law.  (areas outside the jurisdiction of the district court)
8.  I moved that the court dismiss the charges because the prosecution
failed to apply the correct jurisdiction.
9.  In the alternative, I asked the court to exercise their power to correct
the warrant to indicate the circuit court had the jurisdiction to proceed
with a trial by jury.
10.  As a final alternative, I asked for a continuance in order to prepare a
defense with the aid of counsel.

Some of you who have not dealt with the modern court (concerned more about
efficiency than the rule of law or the rights of the citizen) may be shocked
at what occurred.  The rest of us do expect it and have to deal with it.
Here are the summarized events of the proceedings.

     The Court calls David Carmichael.  I approached the bench and said good
morning your honor.  The judge asked how do you plead to the charge of
driving without a license?  I noticed the information in the judge's hands
that had been submitted through the clerk.  I stated, I can't plead yet your
honor, I do not understand the specific charges or the jurisdiction of the
court.  Let me give you my background.  I then went on to tell the history
of my confession of Jesus Christ as Lord in 1975 and my obligation to obey
his word and specific commands.  I explained my conviction about the SSN as
the number of the beast and the actions and prohibitions required of me.  I
gave the history of losing my Navy career, being refused employment and
business licenses, losing my house and finally the refusal of the
Commissioner of DMV to grant me and my wife a license to drive.  And because
of all these things and other facts and things surrounding the particular
circumstances, the issue needed to be scrutinized by a jury in a lawful
constitutional court or record.

    The judge candidly stated that he did not have the jurisdiction to
address the matter.  I said I gave the whole background to the arresting
officer and that he should not have made a warrant to appear in this court.
I asked the judge if he received and read the papers submitted to the court.
The judge affirmed.  I said, then you saw where I contested the jurisdiction
of this court.  The judge affirmed.
     Up to that point, there was not a trial.  I did not plead, I only
challenged the jurisdiction of the court.  In each case prior to mine, the
judge heard the pleading of the defendant, discovered whether the deferent
wanted counsel or not, gave information how the defendant could apply for
counsel if they could not afford it and then issued a continuance to obtain
counsel.  Otherwise, the judge would swear in the arresting officer and the
defendant, and then have a summary trial whereby the arresting officer would
give witness that the crime charged had actually occurred.
    In my case, the judge only heard my challenge of the court jurisdiction
(pretrial procedural) and he affirmed that his court did not have
jurisdiction.  At no time was anyone sworn in, neither I nor the arresting
officer ever affirmed that the crime in question was ever seen to be carried
out, my request for dismissal was ignored, my request for a continuance was
ignored and my request for counsel was ignored.  Now let's see what actually
happened.

    Judge: Mr. Carmichael, I am just going to find you guilty.
    Me:  Your honor, we just acknowledged that the court does not have
jurisdiction and I have not yet plead.
    Judge: I know, but I'm just going to find you guilty and put you on
probation for a year.
    Me:  But I have not even had the benefit of counsel.
    Judge:  I know Mr. Carmichael.
    Me:  (I said with a huge questioning look on my face) You're going to
find me guilty without a trial?
    Judge:  Yes.
    Me:  (I then took a few seconds to get my composure and said) I
understand I can now submit an appeal to a court of record within ten days
and the case must be prosecuted by the Commonwealth de novo (meaning a new
trial as if the first had never occurred).
    Judge:  That is correct.
    Me:  (I then began to say with a bit of trepidation) "With all due
respect for you and this court your honor.. (I then paused realizing that
most people say that sort of thing when they want to excuse disrespectful
behavior.  So I change to an apologetic demeanor and said,..)  This is very
awkward.  I feel like I am arguing with a judge but I realize I need to
relax a bit.  After all, this is just part of what makes our country work.
It is just part of the process.  We are all friends, aren't we?"
    Judge:  Yes, we're all friends (the arresting officer nods.).
    Me:  Good, I feel better now.  Your honor, is there anyway we can make
sure that it goes on record that I challenged the jurisdiction of the court?
    Judge:  Yes.
    Me:  And that I did not even plead?
    Judge:  Yes.
    Me:  And that I requested a continuance to obtain counsel and it was
denied?
    Judge:  Yes Mr. Carmichael.  I will staple these documents to the order
and write on here that you challenged the jurisdiction of the court.
    Judge:  You really shouldn't drive without a license.
    Me:  It is not illegal for me to drive without a license.  It is a rule
of law in Virginia that if the Commissioner of a regulated activity says he
will give you a license only if you give up a right, you can engage in that
regulated activity with immunity.  Another rule states that if an exception
is made for non-religious reasons and denied for a religious one, that it
show hostility toward religion and is unconstitutional.
    Judge:  (with a questioning look)  You had a choice, it was just an
election you made.
    Me:  I do not have a choice your honor. Even if it would cost me my very
life.  I would have not given up my career and my retirement check for life,
or have my wife say I hate you, I hate you, I hate you (in a fit of passion
over the loss of the life we knew, understandable reaction, totally repented
of and totally forgiven, but remembered only because it is a feeling we can
all imagine having and is ultimately humorous).  I would not give up my life
for an election your honor.  I am absolutely prohibited from identifying
with the number of the beast.
    Judge:  But DMV will put a different tracking number on the license.
    Me:  "But they will not issue the license unless I identify myself with
the number of the beast.
    Judge:  True.
    Me:  Is that it your honor?
    Judge:  That's it.
    Me:  Well gentlemen, this has been very stimulating and I pray that God
blesses you both.  (We all departed as friends).

I am now on record as a convicted criminal.  I did not violate the law based
upon the rule of law in Virginia.  I did however drive without identifying
myself with the number of the beast.  Participating in the Social Security
Retirement and Disability Benefit Program is voluntary.  But unless you
participate and forever identify yourself with it's account number, you
cannot vote, drive, work, marry, fish, keep and bear harms, obtain title to
a car, or a house, obtain a bank account, credit,....... thanks, in part, to
a particular section of the United States Code, 42 USC 666.  It is even
rather difficult to find yourself on staff at a church.  It seems the only
thing you can legally do in America is preach the gospel.

Next, the Commonwealth Attorney has to prosecute me as a criminal.  I will
execute my right to a trial by jury.  I intend to make them have to prove
all elements of a crime, including criminal intent.  I will raise the
constitutional defense citing many parts of Article I of the Virginia
Constitution (Bill of Rights).  I pray that I am exonerated by a jury of my
vicinage and by the rule of law.  The principal issue at stake is:  Who's
law is supreme?  God's or the magistrate's?  Modern evolutionary thinkers
believe man has invented God, that man elects a particular belief system and
that society's government is actually sovereign.  In truth though, God has
created all things including man.  We, the people, are accountable to God
for our actions and the order of society.  Because of that, we have
instituted government to maintain order, giving government coercive power
towards those who act contrary to God's law in a way that is destructive to
good order or in offense to their brother.  Government is not instituted so
that it might coerce or entice people to abdicate their allegiance to God.
It is critically important to all of us that the principles of religious
liberty are strictly adhered to in this case.  You may not have the same
particular convictions as me; but if my convictions are not protected,
neither are yours.

"Prove my theology wrong by securing my liberty."  David Alan Carmichael

back to bibleevidence links page