bank account without SS#

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Strawberry
captain of 100
Posts: 335
Location: Missouri

bank account without SS#

Post by Strawberry »

Hi Everyone,
I'm just wondering if anyone has had success opening a bank or credit union account without using a SS# (slave surveillance number) or TIN?

I want to. I hate the thought that the government is watching every transaction I make, each deposit and withdraw. I'm working on freeing myself and my children. Here is a list of what one can do: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instr ... ourSov.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So far, I've " *tried* to open a bank account at Wells Fargo without one and they flat out refused, at Chase they allowed me to, using my passport as ID (if you have a drivers license, likely you used a SS# to obtain it) but they requested I fill out their W-8BEN (which does not have my correct status on it) when I had brought in an amended one stating my correct status as a union state citizen: http://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/Withholdin ... endeds.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. So, that doesn't work for me.

Heck, I wish I didn't have to even use a bank, I simply don't trust them. I don't know how to live without one though.

And, here is some of what I've found on opening a bank account without a SS# or other government number:


SSN No. is not required for opening a bank account.

If you are going to open a bank account, first thing the bankers ask about your SSN. If you tell them that you are not having SSN then they will refuse straightforwardly to open your account. The online account for the client like that could be an easiest solution.


Legal Position on SSN Requirement
There are numerous ways to convince the banks that SSN is not that much necessary.

SN can be ended legally according to CFR 3 A7 404.1905.
Bank can not pressurize customer legally to tell about his SNN according to 31 CFR 103.34(a)(1)
Banks are not asked to provide the taxpayer identification numbers at the end of the year on the Form 1099 under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6041
According to 26 CFR 301.6109-1© bank is not under any legal obligation to obtain SSN from customer
It is classified as crime under 42 USC 408 if one is threatening or forcing someone to provide his SSN.

How to Open Bank Account without SSNHow_to_open_a_Bank_Account
Some people can do it by way of court. Court usually provides the relief to customer. Some people open their accounts in the name of some fake trust. In this way they don’t have to provide their SSN and trusts are non human so how can it have SSN. Trust is formed under common law and is fully in accordance with the laws of State of Indiana.

Obviously when you are opening an account in the name of trust you don’t have to show any part of the trust to bank. One can open non interest bearing account in this way. To open such type of accounts one has to get knowledge of constitutional laws and if you don’t then you can go to the lawyer for an advice. Be sure of your state laws to open a trust. All this should be done according to the laws and rules of the state.

Checking and Saving Accounts
Make the name of the trust harmless. It may sound like a law firm or a trust. The type of the account should be checking not savings, as savings account has fee and probably interest bearing. You will be prohibited to disclose any terms of trust or beneficiaries by the trust agreement. An affidavit of trust identifies you as a trustee and permits you to open a bank account.
To do all above activity, it is quite important to have the knowledge of your state laws. The laws are well written and plain in Indiana which makes it good place for trusts. The party has no authority to investigate about the information provided by the trustee as it is provided in the laws of State of Indiana. The most important thing the status of the trust should be legal in the state.
Some of my friends have solved their issue of providing their SSN to the bank by warning the bank that if bank will keep on asking for slave number then they will draw their entire substantial sum and may close the account.

the Social Security Number is not required by law and is still voluntary, the banks can’t legally deny you the right to open an account based on your refusal to provide the SSN, as long as you establish valid ID otherwise. The Patriot Act does NOT require banks to collect your SSN to establish identity.

Apply for an i.t.i.n. (income tax identification number) from the I.R.S.
On the application which is the SS-4 in the section where you’re asked for your Social Security Number just write in the following: NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.
That’s because by law you are NOT required to produce a social security number.
Then you’ll receive your i.t.i.n in a few weeks.
Then when you apply to open a bank account just use that i.t.i.n. instead of a social security number.

The following companies open US bank accounts for non us citizens and without a social security number
http://www.global-inter.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.usbankaccountonline.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.globalecorp.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for any thoughts/insights on this!
Strawberry :)

medved
captain of 50
Posts: 79

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by medved »

Given your goals, the following may or may not help. If it does, great. If not, then please let us know if you find a better way to not be watched; I am sure there is one out there, just not aware of it myself.

First, start a club, non-profit, etc. You don't have to incorporate, just start one. Go to the IRS webpage and get an EIN. This is a substitute for a SSN for tax filing purposes, but, if you don't actually file any formation documents, there should never be any taxes to file. Go to the bank, open an account for "Strawberry's Good Times Picnic Club" using the EIN.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9911

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by JohnnyL »

It sounds like it's pretty much all the same in the end. SSN, EIN, IRS, GOV...

I have heard: Form an LLC, and some banks will allow you to open an LLC account without a SSN.

jonesde
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1294
Location: Albany, MO
Contact:

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by jonesde »

All of these alternatives involve a govt issued unique numerical ID that is tied to your identity, so what's the point?

The AML (anti money laundering) provisions of the Patriot Act pretty much make it impossible to open a bank account without a govt issued ID attached to it (with a unique number). I also found it interesting that when I explored the world of bankless financial transactions that check cashing places and such require a valid ID and record your SSN or ITIN or other govt issued ID number along with the transaction.

Based on experience with online financial companies (just a variety of "MSB", money services business), they also do the same thing. Large transactions for cash-equivalents (like gift cards) have the SAME AML requirements as banks and such, so I've had the pleasure of building software to collect this sort of information for legal compliance.

The agency that such organizations report to is FinCEN:

http://www.fincen.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you want some really depressing fun this is a great site to spend some time on. Another good source of information about it is internal policy documents that various banks and corporations have related to AML. They are supposedly "confidential" or "secret" but a quick google search is all it takes to find templates for these sorts of documents... and a typical title is "Anti-Money Laundering Policy Statement & Program Procedures".

For some really good fun, try asking a teller at your bank what their AML policy is and what the thresholds are for reporting. They will look at you with a combination of suspicion and annoyance because it's one of the questions they have been trained to consider suspicious, and they are generally supposed to write a suspicious activity report just for asking! For more fun try wearing a wig and sunglasses in an attempt to conceal your identity, ask this question before showing ID, and then refuse to show your ID or tell them your account number or any other identifying information. You can have the same sort of fun at the post office and all sorts of other places.

Welcome to the land of the free and home of the ???

User avatar
Strawberry
captain of 100
Posts: 335
Location: Missouri

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by Strawberry »

Jonesde,
Thank you for that. I agree, this is NO fun! I don't know that I want to have the kind of fun you are speaking about, though it would really be fun if it were safe to do that. I'm probably already on some watch lists. I tend to be pretty outspoken - which is probably not so good.

So, do you know of any way checks can be cashed without the government tracking it then? I've thought of going bank-less, but how would one cash a large check, like a monthly paycheck - or any check for that matter without a government issued number, which I'm *trying* not to use anymore.

And I guess our rights to life, liberty and property simply don't matter any more, nor does "innocent until proven guilty".

What about all this? It just doesn't matter anymore because people in power say so? Ahhhhhhh, such a sad and desperate state we are in.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and
any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality
dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Thank you again!
Strawberry

jonesde
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1294
Location: Albany, MO
Contact:

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by jonesde »

Strawberry wrote:Jonesde,
Thank you for that. I agree, this is NO fun! I don't know that I want to have the kind of fun you are speaking about, though it would really be fun if it were safe to do that. I'm probably already on some watch lists. I tend to be pretty outspoken - which is probably not so good.

So, do you know of any way checks can be cashed without the government tracking it then? I've thought of going bank-less, but how would one cash a large check, like a monthly paycheck - or any check for that matter without a government issued number, which I'm *trying* not to use anymore.
You can cash checks at the originating bank without having a bank account, but in recent years when I've tried this some banks charge a fee for doing this (usually a few dollars), and they want govt issued ID to do this (so they'll have your DL number or whatever). For cashing large checks (always over $10k, sometimes over $5k) they'll ask for additional info or make you fill out a form.

You'll run into similar things if you try to buy a car or real estate with cash if you're going through a dealer or closing with a title company. They will frown on taking cash and sometimes refuse (ie say go to a bank and deposit it, and then wire it). If they accept it they'll usually have to find out how to do it from a manager and ask for more paperwork, but should allow you to go to their bank and deposit it directly into their account... but if it's big the bank will want identifying info from you. As more people are running into this problem even individuals will probably start refusing cash for large purchases.

The legal excuse for all of this is to stop the heinous crime of money-laundering assuming that any large cash transaction is probably related to crime. The real reason, of course, is that cash transactions are harder for the IRS and other taxing agencies to monitor and/or audit... it all comes down to the top priority of govt: funding.

Another fun thing is actually having cash around. There are various federal and state laws about large amounts of cash, and the typical approach seems to be seizure of the cash along with threatened criminal charges. If they don't have enough evidence to prosecute you on an actual crime related to the cash (usually drug related is the excuse) they will actually have a court case against the CASH, not against you. The cash can't hire a lawyer and has no defense, so they just rubber stamp it in court to seize the money and add it to their coffers.

There are news stories about this from time to time, but it's not the sort of thing the media likes to cover. Usually when it does happen they tell a story that it is related to a drug bust or something, but never mention that NO criminal charges were ever filed. This seems to be standard procedure for federal raids on medical marijuana stores in places like California where it's legal according to the state, but the feds have laws against it. They don't want the possible loss in court and the public backlash that a trial would create, so they seize cash and property at these stores, sometimes bank accounts too, and then NEVER file charges or try to prosecute the people running the store or working there.

Basically, be careful with large amounts of cash... especially over $10k. There are criminals who want to shake you down, and they have checkpoints and stuff all over. They also lie and trick people to allow them to search things like cars and houses, even though you don't have to unless they have a warrant, and they are hoping to do just these sorts of seizures.

For anyone who still believes the drug war is a good idea, please understand that all of this is one of the key parts of the drug war. Property seizures are the primary motivation of local, state, and federal agencies to keep the drug war going. And you may say that states like Utah are holy and pure and have good Asset Forfeiture laws, but it doesn't matter because whenever they can they will do a joint raid with a federal agency that gives them better direct access to the property seized and this is a convenient way around the more restrictive state laws.

Sure, drugs are a bad thing. But people supporting current drug laws and the huge violation of constitutional rights they represent are not solving drug problems, are losing their rights, and hurting a lot of innocent people along the way. The same is true for the other big government lies like terrorism and such. Your chances of being killed by a cop (even without being involved in any crime, except maybe not jumping high or fast enough when they tell you to) is higher than your chances of being killed by a terrorist. And the chances of being robbed by the govt... well that is guaranteed and happens literally every day (sales taxes, energy taxes, communication taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes on companies you buy things from, etc, etc).

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by BroJones »

My dd and sil are going this morning to buy a house. She has been very frugal all her life and has finally saved up enough to buy a house! I thought it was a low-low offer, but its what they could afford without going into debt -- and the offer was accepted. A very modest home to be sure, but livable I think.

As a child, she saved nickels and quarters... When the Prophets said, "Stay out of debt" (they did say that, didn't they?) -- she listened.

I noted she was taking cash to the closing. We'll see...

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by BroJones »

They were successful, paying with cash. I think they allow things in rural towns that might not be allowed elsewhere.

jonesde
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1294
Location: Albany, MO
Contact:

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by jonesde »

DrJones wrote:They were successful, paying with cash. I think they allow things in rural towns that might not be allowed elsewhere.
The AML stuff kicks in based on the amount, so if you stay under certain thresholds it's not a problem. The main one regardless of the type of transaction (buying something, account deposit/withdraw, etc) is $10,000. Any cash involved in a transaction with a MSB (money services business) or various other types of organizations (see the fincen.org site for a full list) over $10k will result in a FinCEN report. There are a whole bunch of other thresholds for different types of transactions. For example, if someone is doing a bunch of cash transactions over $5k (this number varies for different industries and institutions) but under $10k then this is the suspicious activity of "structuring" to avoid the $10k threshold and is also supposed to be reported to FinCEN.

Anyway, the key factor in the successful closing of real estate is to keep it under $10k. It's pretty rare to buy a house for this much, but does happen! It's great that they were able to find a livable house with such a low price. It is a miracle of economically destroyed towns and seems to only exist in middle America... I haven't seen anything like that in the west (because land is SO limited due to govt owning/restricting most of it) or the east (just too many people for the land).

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9911

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by JohnnyL »

Check out Bitcoin.

jonesde
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1294
Location: Albany, MO
Contact:

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by jonesde »

JohnnyL wrote:Check out Bitcoin.
BitCoin is great, but there are anonymity problems with it too. Basically every node on the bitcoin network has a full copy of all transactions ever. Aside from being an architectural issue that limits scalability (leading to the popularity of sites like https://blockchain.info/wallet/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for an online wallet instead of keeping the whole thing on your computer, which can use a LOT of internet data), this also means that it's easy to get the data needed for some pretty intense analysis of bitcoin transactions.

It is true that there is no identity attached to a bitcoin wallet address, if you perform a transaction that involves your identity (an online order for goods tied to an identity or a few sent to the same address, buying or selling bitcoins from an institution that keeps identity records, etc) then your bitcoin wallet address can be tied to your identity. This is pretty weak evidence that you own it unless there are various transactions that point to you as the owner (ie how can you prove I didn't buy some bitcoins for someone else's account, etc).

The solution to this is using large numbers of accounts, including multiple layers of limited-use accounts for potentially risky transactions. Also, if you have any wallets with lots of bitcoins in them never buy bitcoins directly with them, or buy anything directly with them, ie always transfer the bitcoins going from or to these sensitive accounts through a few "layers" of other limited-use accounts to isolate your more valuable account.

Aside from the fact that this is inconvenient (money laundering always is) there is a question of how many layers are necessary to be effective. In the money-laundering world 3 hops is usually enough, but that is assuming going through cash and other financial instruments that are more difficult to track. In the bitcoin world single-use accounts are useless (the transactions on both sides are well known, so in the analysis you skip the account turning it into 0 layers instead of 1), so you have to use various limited-use accounts and transfer money across a network of accounts to get between the two accounts you want (ie like your big savings account and your single-use account for a certain transaction). The amounts of the transactions going between nodes across this network also need to be different and they need to be staggered in time over a reasonable period, like a few days even, otherwise it is too easy to search across the transactions between the nodes given the amount or the time period to isolate the end-points, again reducing it to effectively one easy to track transaction that isn't hidden at all.

If you didn't get the feeling that it's a bit complex to stay anonymous with BitCoin then I didn't make that confusing enough. ;)

Anyway, it is possible but it is difficult and as BitCoin becomes more popular you can bet the IRS and FinCEN and all sorts of agencies in all sorts of governments around the world will be building analysis tools to punch through even your best attempts to hide the end-points of a transaction. Heck, there are probably already people working on that. For anyone who doesn't find government work that erodes freedom distasteful, it might be a good business opportunity... :(

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9911

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by JohnnyL »

What about using encryption with it, and between two accounts, say? (Short answer is ok :) .)

jonesde
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1294
Location: Albany, MO
Contact:

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by jonesde »

JohnnyL wrote:What about using encryption with it, and between two accounts, say? (Short answer is ok :) .)
The encryption used in BitCoin is very good, but the transaction records have to be public in order for the whole peer-to-peer concept to work. There is no central server that could keep transaction data private, so to keep it "honest" (consistent is a better word) all nodes need to have the data.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9911

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by JohnnyL »

jonesde wrote:
JohnnyL wrote:What about using encryption with it, and between two accounts, say? (Short answer is ok :) .)
The encryption used in BitCoin is very good, but the transaction records have to be public in order for the whole peer-to-peer concept to work. There is no central server that could keep transaction data private, so to keep it "honest" (consistent is a better word) all nodes need to have the data.
I mean, encrypted connections between servers. Wait, I read an article on how to do this, though it is pretty hard to do... http://keepyourassets.net/2012/04/30/ho ... tcoin-tor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and some other similar ones.

User avatar
Strawberry
captain of 100
Posts: 335
Location: Missouri

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by Strawberry »

Yes, you guys are confusing me ;)

I spoke with my midwife's husband who has a career in the banking industry and understands liberty, but doesn't choose to live it because it's too much trouble and he's older :| . Anyway, he kept talking about SAR. Anyone heard of it? Apparently it's Suspicious Activity Reporting program. Has to do also with the FinCEN as well.

He told me that $10,000 is the cutoff for reporting. Any check deposited or cashed for 10K or more is reported to the government and has to have a SS# attached to it or it won't be cashed. Every bank, every time. 10K isn't much money????? That just seems like a whole lot of reporting going on to the government :-? He just said if I don't have/use a number I don't cash checks. The government wants to know. They don't care about the constitution or rights. If the banks don't comply with the governmental regulations then people go to jail and the banks get shut down. Apparently this happened with a bank he worked at in Vancouver, WA. So, if a banker, understanding my right to not have a SS#, opened an account for me he could be ruined and so could many others because of the government. Ahhhhh, the freedom, I can just smell it in the air :ymsick:

He told me much of the trouble with this is the FDIC insurance backing, the banks got in bed with the government giving up their freedom for security. He also told me there are just a few banks out on the east coast that don't have FDIC insurance. I might try them to see if since they aren't in bed with the government they'll let me open an account and store my money there till I figure out what to do with it.

He also suggested that perhaps since my husband will be going up to Canada on a regular basis for his job that maybe we open an account there?

Does anyone know of such a bank that isn't in bed with the government? Or how to open an account in Canada?

This is so much fun - trying to lawfully keep my property out of the governments grubby hands. I almost feel like a criminal just trying to do such a thing, the slave mentality is so engrained in me. :-ss

Strawberry

jonesde
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1294
Location: Albany, MO
Contact:

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by jonesde »

I don't think any financial institution can get around the AML laws. It isn't really based on FDIC participation and in fact even many non-bank organizations have to do FinCEN filings (see the FinCEN web site for a list, just look at the links on the left side of the home page).

There are ways to conceal assets, but they are getting more difficult and FAR more expensive. If you don't have a lot to conceal, keep it in cash or metals or some other asset that is relatively easy to liquidate or use in trade (and that retains value... hopefully).

If you have a lot to conceal and are willing to pay for it there are still corporations allowed in some states where you don't have to disclose the owner, and you can hire a lawyer to be the representative for the corporation, and the identity of the owner is protected somewhat under attorney-client privilege. This can still be pierced by court order, so it only gets you so far... but at least it makes it nearly impossible for state or fed govts to get that corporation on a list of assets you own. In other words, they can go from the corp name to you with a court order, but getting the corp name by searching around on your name is quite difficult. This isn't cheap to setup or maintain though, and you still have to file papers for the corp, including certain assets and of course income, etc.

The best protection I've found is not available in the USA. Some countries, maybe in many parts of the world but at least in Latin America, still allow corporations to be owned via "bearer bonds". In other words, you don't have to register ownership of the corporation... whoever holds the paper owns it. You still have to pay a lawyer to set it up and act as an agent for the corporation (S.A., or Sociedad Anonima), but they are less expensive in many Latin countries and provide much better asset protection.

As for feeling like a criminal... there is a reason for that. Technically having foreign assets that you don't report to the IRS actually IS illegal. I'm not sure about local assets, but I'm sure in many circumstances failing to reveal assets owned is against the law. Yes, that's right, privacy in what you own is illegal in many cases in the USA.

I'm not an expert on this, but this is the result of my research. Personally I've decided that it's not worth it... I really don't have enough wealth to justify doing anything of the sort, let alone having the time to set it up and stay on top of it. The little I do have is easy enough to hide under the mattress, or under the ground.

There are also many legal situations where courts may order you to reveal all assets. This includes civil matters like bankruptcy (which creditors can use the courts to FORCE you to do, you don't have to file it yourself) and divorce, and as part of criminal cases this is pretty much always fair game if the court or the prosecutor cares enough to go to the trouble. In court sometimes judges are very transparent about the "shake down" by asking how much property you have, or how much your can afford for bail or fines or whatever... and then they set it based on that. Naturally it's a good idea to cooperate as little as possible, and hire a lawyer that will help you do that. Ironically if you to use a court-appointed lawyer you'll generally have to disclose assets to prove that you can't afford one. They don't care about your personal or family financial situation and what sort of damage the case might do to you... if you have anything it's fair game to them... and they both love it and live on it.

Yeah, keeping the long, greedy arm of the government off your personal property is very difficult. The only solution seems to be to play their game and give them bits of your property here and there in order to hopefully avoid having them take it all by force.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9911

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by JohnnyL »

If you have a lot to conceal and are willing to pay for it there are still corporations allowed in some states where you don't have to disclose the owner, and you can hire a lawyer to be the representative for the corporation, and the identity of the owner is protected somewhat under attorney-client privilege. This can still be pierced by court order, so it only gets you so far... but at least it makes it nearly impossible for state or fed govts to get that corporation on a list of assets you own. In other words, they can go from the corp name to you with a court order, but getting the corp name by searching around on your name is quite difficult. This isn't cheap to setup or maintain though, and you still have to file papers for the corp, including certain assets and of course income, etc.
I'll pm anyone interested in this...

User avatar
Strawberry
captain of 100
Posts: 335
Location: Missouri

Re: bank account without SS#

Post by Strawberry »

I would LOVE to have you contact me privately about this. Thank you JonnyL!

On another note, this is something I came across today. I've been familiar with http://www.teamlaw.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for a couple of years now, I just found this from their site yesterday. http://www.wayofkings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It's an asset protection program? Not sure how that works. I haven't contacted them yet. I have spoken with the owner of team law. He's a member of the church and appears to know his stuff as they live free (ie don't pay taxes they don't owe, don't ask permission to exercise rights..... you get the idea).

And, this is something someone shared with me today from this site: http://www.state-citizen.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Unbeknownst to most people, the class termed "US citizen" did not exist as a political status until 1866. It was a class and "political status" created for the newly freed slaves and did not apply to the people inhabiting the states of the union who were at that time state Citizens."

So, back to the argument that only US citizens are eligible for social security, he goes a little into that. I want to contact him too, perhaps next week and see what he knows; can help me with???

And, has anyone heard this? The Patriot Act - IS NOT LAW!
Not to mention if two Laws/Acts conflict the one that came first takes precedent. I believe there's a latin word in Law that describes this.


I don't know the source, but knowing what I know, it makes sense to me.

Strawberry

Post Reply