Court rules using someone else’s social security number not identity theft

Your Social Security Card A History Lesson

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.[9]
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.

So using someone else's social security number is not identity theft so long as you use your own name? What next, if you are thoughtful enough to wear a condom then forcing an unwilling victim to have sex with you is not rape?

hahhahaha... only in America...

American Judicial system, criminals go free, the innocent are sent to privatized prisons.

Personal responsibility for one's "identity" being stolen is a scam perpetrated upon us by the banks. The fault lies with the "identity" thief and the duped party who accepted the fraudulent identification. Think about it.

That judge is an absolute and total fucking retard.

When an application applies for credit using name A and SSN 123, the system goes out to the credit bureau(s) that are used by the credit supplying bank and checks for a match.
Let's say the original name for SSN 123 was "Bob Jones". the application says "Juan Gutierrez, SSN 123"

The bureau returns information such as a NAME, address, etc. associated with the SSN.

If it doesn't match, the bank is supposed to realize that a potential fraud is occuring and refuse the credit.

If the bank does NOT reject the application, and gives the credit, here is what happens. The bank adds a new credit entry in its system. Every night, the bank then communicates this to the credit bureaus.

The credit bureaus have NO FRAUD PREVENTION METHODS in place. They leave this for the banks to perform.

Therefore, the credit bureaus simply aggregate the new information with the old information. The account will now read: "Juan Gutierrez, formerly known as Bob Jones".

The next time Bob Jones tries to apply for credit, he's going to have serious problems. The damage done to the credit rating happens to Bob Jones, not Juan G. This will cause the real Bob Jones very real financial damage: other creditors, such as credit card companies, will see Bob Jones' reported debt increase, and by their contracts, they may increase their APR on his lines of credit. Perhaps he had 8% on his cards. This could jump to 20% or more.

If he was applying for a mortgage, he might have qualified for 4% but now can't get less than 6%, or even 7%. This will cost him tens of thousands of dollars over the life of the loan.

This does not even account for th eamount of money he will have to spend to clear his name, nor the time he will have to spend.

Identity theft is NOT a victimless crime.

So thats how i will get a credit card

I hate to admit it but I think the court has a pointed out a glaring problem in the identity theft law. The guy used his own name and address so wasn't pretending to be the actual owner of the card unlike identity thieves who also use the persons total identity. And like the court said, using a SSN for a credit check is a lender requirement, not a legal one, so technically no "law" was broken.

The real issue is that he used the SSN of another person without their permission or knowledge. Apparently this has been resolved with a change in the identity theft laws as noted in the below quote.

"Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett, whose deputies prosecuted Montes-Rodriguez in 2006, said the ruling would have little influence in similar cases because new identity-theft laws address the crime of using Social Security numbers without authorization..."

So, now a website will pop up listing SSNs that have excellent credit ratings.
Zeesh....

What in the world?

THAT IS JUST WRONG!!!!! your SS number is your and no one else and to say anyone can use it just by changing the name is wrong ..as it is it was only suppose to be used for you and your employer and Social Security.
It wasn't to be use to get you credit or open an bank accounts or get Credit card it was for you to pay into Social Security and that was it it ..
this is very wrong and i hope the court is over turn on this. This will damage many many people beyond measure. New laws are on their way and this will not stand .. I been fighting to have the practices of our SS# being used for credit checked in all states and around the world and to have go back to original and to stop this misuse and abused something that was to help people save for retirement not a hand out to people who come her and have never worked or to attack you with more credit debt collection.

CC

This is a bizarre call. I wonder if there isn't some other extenuating circumstance not mentioned or if it actually has any bearing as a possible precedent. If so it's going to turn the banking world on it's head.

Wow! like half the posts here have been removed! What on earth happened?

This is typical, and it's real easy to figure out why the Leftist justices ruled the way they did. The criminal immigrants from south of the border skank the SSNs of Americans all the time, they trade them to other dirt bags when they sneak in to our country as well. So, the Leftists don't want to let it be established that there is anything "criminal" with using an American's SSN. This should be no surprise at all.

THIS IS A PHONY PAPER! Look at it's home page.

Why do we label our selfs as numbers anyway...

I agree with CitizenHill... fraud is fraud, and the one who uses any portion of another's identity is fraudulently and willfully misrepresenting their own legality.

I am getting sick of hearing about liberal idiot judges making such moronic rulings. I guess Colorado is a Sanctuary State now? Come amigo get a job using someone elses SS# it's all good! What about the poor jerk who has some ass hole use his SS# and who is sent a 1099 tax form that he throws in the trash. The IRS scans those numbers for tax evades that fail to report income. The actual person with that number is screwed until he can prove otherwise to the IRS. This ruling is Bull Shit. It should be a FELONY to use another persons SS#.

It is cases such as this, that should give us serious pause to wonder about the clarity and application of common sense of jurisprudence reasoning within our courts.
Fraud is fraud, no matter the rationale.

I think I can go along with this particular case because the guy used his real name. It was up to the employer and the lender to check whether or not the info was correct. The person whose social security number was used would never have been liable for any charges incurred because no other identifying info would have matched up.

At first glance this story scared the crap out of me, but under this circumstance, it seems okay.