See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Letter from the Census Bureau
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 12, 2010
Author: me
Post Date: 2010-03-12 20:05:00 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 617
Comments: 53
So when I got home tonight I found a letter waiting for me from the Census Bureau, telling me that I should fill out all of the information on the census form so that my town can get it's "fair share" of governmental goodies. I don't know about anyone else, but the only thing I am filling out on that form is how many people live in my home. When they send a live person to my home, then I am going to ask them if they have a warrant. When they tell me they do not need one then I will plead the 5th and shut the door on their faces. I am ready to take this as far as I can take it in the court system.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-6) not displayed.
.
.
.
#7. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
I agree. My plan is the same. Inform them of how many live here and past that, they can buzz off.
Public Law 93-579 states in part: "The purpose of this Act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against invasion of personal privacy requiring Federal agencies... to permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used or disseminated by such agencies...." The following questions are based upon that act and are necessary for this individual to make a reasonable determination concerning divulgence of information to this agency. 1. Name of public servant: _________________________________________________________________ 2. Residence address: ____________________________________________________________________ City ___________________________________ State _________ Zip __________ 3. Name of department of government, bureau, or agency by which public servant is employed: ____________________________________________________ Supervisor's name: _____________________ 4. Office mailing address:_________ ___________________________________ City ____________________________________ State _________ Zip __________ 5. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United States of America? Yes ______ No ______ 6. Did public servant furnish proof of identity? Yes ______ No ______ 7. What was the nature of proof? ID No. _____________________ Badge No. _____________________ Driver's License No. _____________________ 8. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation? Yes ______ No ______ 9. Will the public servant read aloud that portion of the law authorizing the questions he will ask? Yes ______ No ______ 10. Are the citizen's answers voluntary? ______ Or Mandatory? ______ 11. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law or regulation? ______ or are they being used as a discovery process? ______ 12. What other uses may be made of this information? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 13. What other agencies may have access to this information? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 14. What will be the effect upon me if I should choose to not answer any part of these questions? _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 15. Name of person in government requesting that this investigation be made? __________________________________________ 16. Is this investigation "general?" ______ or is it "special?" ______ Note: By "general" is meant any kind of blanket investigation in which a number of persons are involved because of geography, type of business, sex, religion, race, schooling, income, etc. By "special" is meant any investigation of an individual nature in which others are not involved. 17. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relative to this investigation? Yes ______ No ______ 18. If yes, the identity of all such third parties? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 19. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the information which you seek? Yes ______ No ______ 20. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this agency? Yes ______ No ______ 21. Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which was supplied by another agency or government source? Yes______ No ______ If yes, which agencies and/or sources? _________________________________________________________________ 22. Will the public servant guarantee that the information in these files will not be used by any other department other than the one by whom he is employed? Yes ______ No ______ AFFIRMATION BY PUBLIC SERVANT I, __________________________________________________, swear (or affirm) that the answers I have given to the foregoing questions are complete and correct in every particular. ______________________________________________________ Date: ____/____/____ (Must be signed & dated in ink. This signature should be witnessed by two people, if possible. Citizen may administer an oath if he or she so desires.) Witness ______________________________________________________ Date: ____/____/____ Witness ______________________________________________________ Date: ____/____/____
Haven't got my letyter yet, just the letter telling me to expect a letter. On the bright side, those letters probably created 75,000 jobs in Baltimore. Isn't Keynseian math fun?
“we were respected as the most disinterested and charitable nation in the world.” - Robert A. Taft
Ron Paul introduced a bill back in 2000 to prevent invasion of privacy by government servants on Americans. Census Privacy Act (HR 4085) http://lists101.his.com/pipermai...m/2000-August/002450.html
Here is more info on Ron Paul's Census Privacy Act Bill.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
a few weeks back my oldest son got a jury duty notice with it came a questionnaire WRT demographics saying the information was required by a state statute. I looked up the claimed law and all it said was the court was required to include the questionnaire but there was no requirement in the code for one to fill out the questionnaire. I told him to just ignore the questionnaire, which he did to my knowledge the court never pursued the issue. I got the same letter as you, funny how they skip over just where the funds they claim yours or my community needs a fair share of come from in the first place. hopefully I get one of those long winded census forms, I can write N/A with the best of them.
I never volunteer to respond to junk mail unless it has been personally served on me by legal process.
My rule of thumb is, if full postage is not paid, shred it without opening.
the closest thing the courts of Texas know about law is how to violate due process.
Here's some info concerning that Public law: www.supremelaw.org/ref/pl93-579/pl93-579.htm Disclosure of social security number. Act Dec. 31, 1974, P.L. 93-579, Section 7, 88 Stat. 1909, provided: "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. "(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to -- "(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or "(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. "(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it." Comments by Paul Mitchell follow: Congress deliberately failed to codify this statute in Title 5 of the United States Code. You will find it embedded at the end of the historical notes within the Privacy Act. When a government employee was sued for violating this Act, he asserted ignorance of the law as his defense. The court upheld this defense, thus creating an important exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. My reading of this decision is that the court was giving silent judicial notice to the fact that Congress actually "hid" the law; thus, the court's holding did not really overturn the maxim (ignorance is not excuse); it merely recognized that fraud vitiates everything, even the most solemn promises. I have taken this statute and reduced it down to the size of a standard credit card. Then, I laminated it in plastic and saved it in my wallet. Later, I gave it away to an attendee of one of Lynne Meredith's seminars; the attendee was mostly incredulous that such a law even existed. It is very easy to make another one. I prefer to take a photocopy right out of the law books, and to laminate that photocopy. Try it! It is always very powerful to witness these laws yourself, at the local county law library. Take this email message down to the reference librarian, and see if s/he can locate it for you. The Privacy Act can be found in the reference volume which lists statutes by name. Good luck! Paul Andrew Mitchell November 1996 A.D. All Rights Reserved Return to Table of Contents for Public Law 93-579
hehehehehe
Oh that's everywhere. In 2000 I had a visit from the Census Bureau asking questions like 1. How many exits are in this house? 2. What are your work hours? 3. Where do you work at? None of these questions had anything to do with taking population polls. My roommate was stupid enough to not ask for id or the name of the agency and their employee badge numbers. I suddenly made my way to the door and told them to immediately leave because their questions were highly invasive and had nothing to do with counting the household population. I walked them to their car politely and firmly and waited for them to leave. They did leave and I never saw them set foot on the premises again. I will comply with the census on three questions my name, address number of people living in household and their ages And that is all. Anything more than that, I will ask them to supply me a warrant or they must leave.
I don't understand why you won't come clean with the facts and figures to an 18 dollar/hour off the street employee of the US government. You seem to have an obvious distrust for government. Maybe you can detail why you are so distrustful and make a set of bullet items so we understand your point of view. If you don't come clean, its 5000 bucks or the slammer for ya.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
In reference to Lod's post #8, in order for public servants to avoid being sued, they must also be willing to provide answers to citizens concerning the census questions that they want the citizens to volunteer. No federal agent has the right to force citizens to volunteer information. If the information needed is mandatory, and requires more than a simple population poll, then a warrant needs to be shown along with proper badge identification. http://nonais.org/techdocs/PublicServantQuestionnaire.pdf Authorities for Questions: 1,2,3,4 In order to be sure you know exactly who you are giving the information to. Residence and business addresses are needed in case you need to serve process in a civil or criminal action upon this individual. 5 All public servants have taken a sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution. 6,7 This is standard procedure by government agents and officers. See Internal Revenue Manual, MT- 9900-26, Section 242.133. 8,9,10 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A) 11 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5), (e) (1) 12,13 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (B), (e) (3) (C) 14 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (D) 15 Public Law 93-579 (b) (1) 16 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A) 17,18 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (2) 19 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5) 20,21 Public Law 93-579 (b) (1) 22 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (1) 23 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (10)
Oh PSHAW! Since when are contemporary government employees the same as "public servants?" Back in the 1700s?
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
Do you trust a government that lies to it's citizens?
I think your question is far more apropos when suggested this way: Yes, I do.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
Government employees are public servants in that they all must take an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions. All of them take this oath.
Oh golly, gee whiz ... they take an oath at the water cooler to talk about their benefits and future retirement for seven hours a day. Of course they are entitled to an hour lunch break. And ten thousand days off for anything under the Sun: for one month's vacation, jury duty assignment, professional training, dental treatment, doctor's visit, tummy aches and a little stubby toe on the way to work. Tough life, 'eh?
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
Yep, it's a tough life. True, citizens should comply with the basis of the questions that are appropriate to population census. They do have that obligation. But if government servants want to make it easier for themselves, they will also comply with the law. Otherwise, they will be served legal process in their little cubicles and sued in their personal capacities. They are not immune from liability.
That is to say: there are only _____ people here. No they won't. They are continuously ridiculed in these chit-chat political forums. Why? Government does nothing in America anymore. And government employees know the same and exhibit the same retardation of so-called "service." Who really gives a damn about that perspective? The US government will extract ten thousand more lawyers to fight and defend for that little government employee than ten thousand bona-fide US citizens.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
The government servants will when they are personally served in their offices. It has been done many times. I have successfully served these people lawsuits by use of the sheriff, U.S. Marshal service, or by a qualified process server who handles cross state line legal process. Whether they are state or federal servants, they will be sued! Citizens are expected to uphold the laws. And that equally applies to public servants.
Wait a minute. Lets parse your POM-POM waving enthusiasm: But you neglected that the People pay for the fiasco of the same laws that lock-jaw this nation. There are no public servants. There are none. All there are ... government employees looking for guaranteed personal benefits.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
Most had no choice in being a "citizen" of the US of A. I had no such choice. Given the choice I would be a citizen of no nation. Sometimes I get mad at God for letting evil people rule Earth. Hard to understand.
God is always good!
If there were no public servants there would be no oaths to be administered either and we would have no government in place. Government employees are public servants. As public servants they swear an oath to uphold the constitution(s) and laws.
I would like to have been born a citizen of Hawaii. Or any place warm.
And what do they really do to benefit America? I mean beyond their recent little stubby toes on the way to the office....
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977
all are supposed to have their oath of office on file, many do not have said oath on file or at best the one on file is expired or suffers from other defects. all that besides public officials are quick to violate their oath as a matter of policy.
not to worry. you'll probably spend eternity in hell after posting that boat song.
that will make up for all those cold showers in the lawn sprinkler.
LOL!!
You'll lose. Top fine is $500 or $5,000. It is rarely prosecuted unless some D.A. or A.G. wants to make an example of you. Read the linked Spakovsky article too. I was glad to see my friend Hans von Spakovsky explain the need for truthful answers on the census. (This was in response to my earlier posts here and here.) This is why I've made clear that you should not lie on your census form by, for instance, answering "Klingon" for your race, or "Guamanian" or "Chamorro" if you're not, in fact, Guamanian or Chamorro, as stupid and unjustifiable as such a question is. Nor is the form overall especially onerous. It's one of the shortest ever, and no one's going to get the long form, with its questions about indoor plumbing and the like, because it's been replaced by the American Community Survey, which is an ongoing survey of a sample of the population. Filling out the census is your responsibility as an American — do it. Nor, while we're on the subject, do I have any problem with the letter we all got announcing that the census form was on its way. The Bureau's responsibility is to count everyone, and if they have good reason to think such letters (or even Super Bowl ads) are likely to help, so be it. And finally, before I get to the main point of Hans's post, I think it's important to note that the number-crunchers at the Census Bureau are highly trained professionals with skills much in demand in the private sector, and we're lucky to have them working for us. It's not like they sat around at a staff meeting one day and said, "Hey, why don't we to ask Americans what 'race' they are?" Congress tells the Census Bureau what to do and ought to be the sole focus of anyone's ire. This is why Hans is completely correct in writing "The only real answer to this problem is for Congress to prohibit the Census Bureau from collecting such information and to make all government programs (and the reapportionment process) explicitly race-neutral." But Congress isn't going to do that on its own. Our contemporary system of race laws is both stupid and evil, and thus supported by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. That's why it's necessary for citizens to come up with imaginative ways to register their disgust with the whole immoral concept of race laws and, if possible within the law, make them unworkable. And the decennial census is an ideal opportunity to do so, since it's one of the few civic rites where participation is almost universal. As Hans pointed out, 13 USC 221 says "Whoever . . . willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500." First of all, answering Question 9 by checking "Some other race" and writing in "American" is not false and therefore not a violation of the law. But if the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia disagrees, he just needs to call me and I'll be happy to turn myself in. If I lost, the $500 fine would come back to me 100-fold in a book contract; more importantly, simply shining a light on the utterly specious nature of our race laws would ring their death knell. For example: the census considers Korean and Pakistani and Guamanian to be distinct races — not ethnic groups, but "races," as evidenced by Question 9, which says "Other Asian — Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on." If "Pakistani" — a political/religious identity invented in 1934 — is a "race," then "American" is a race. What's more, if these are "races," then so are Jamaican, and Italian, and Mixtec. In other words, apart from any questions of constitutionality or morality, the government's concept of "race" is simply gibberish, and I dare the Justice Department to try to defend it in court. The late Hugh Davis Graham wrote Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America, which traced how these fallacious "race" categories were invented. If I might quote from my 2002 review of the book for NR: So the four "official" minority designations we now take for granted were essentially made up by civil servants preparing questionnaires for government contractors. This then led to an almost comical procession of groups trying to get on the gravy train. Hasidic Jews petitioned the Small Business Administration for participation in minority set-asides, but were rejected as a religious group. Then Asian Indians petitioned, and were accepted, bringing the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in their wake. Later, an Indonesian woman, initially rejected, finally mastered the lingo and argued in her appeal that Indonesian Americans "have suffered economic deprivation" and the "chronic effects of discriminatory practices for a very long time" — this despite the fact that there were only a handful of Indonesian immigrants in the U.S., and they were wealthier and better educated than native-born Americans. Iranians, however, were rejected, apparently because "the chronic effects of discriminatory practices" stopped at the Pakistani border; Graham wryly remarks that "the SBA's ethnocultural line-drawing at the Khyber Pass, coming from an agency not noted for this expertise, made no sense in terms either of Middle Eastern cultural anthropology or of American history and law." So for next week, remember: Question 9 on your census form — check "Some other race" and write in "American." You're doing nothing wrong. And you may help set something right.
Why do I mistrust government.....? Let me count the ways.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
I'll pay the fine.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
ROFLOL reading the now locked pudbot thread...LOL Every so often, neopud's mask melts all the way down and we all happened to be here for it this time.
Your article details fines for dishonest answers......not for refusal to answer at all. You can't be convicted for giving false information if you refuse to answer, TC. And even if you outright lie, this dastardly crime is RARELY PROSECUTED and there is no case to bring on fines if you refuse to answer. You can pee on yourself over this RARELEY PROSECUTED fine if it floats your boat, but don't try to scare the lot of us into licking census boots. : )
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
As long as you know up front, more power to you.
I think people should know up front. And I did point out that prosecution is rare.
True, you did. But you didn't address refusal to answer. The acticle speaks of prosecution for falsification of information, not refusal to provide the information. We can still take the Fifth on this one, simply give the number of people in the household--which is in line with the Constitution--and refuse to provide any other information that does not adhere to the original intent of census taking. By taking the Fifth, there will be no fine or prosecution. It merely requires one to take a stand on this issue of refusing to give the goobermint personal information beyond the scope of the census and the Constitution.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Comments (48 - 53) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#8. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, all (#4)
The Public Servant's Questionnaire - use it
#9. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
#10. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
(Edited)
#11. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
#12. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
#13. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
computer counted ballots are ballots that have been counted in secret, and with all probability not the way one voted.
#14. To: IRTorqued (#13)
#15. To: purplerose, all (#14)
#16. To: purplerose (#14)
computer counted ballots are ballots that have been counted in secret, and with all probability not the way one voted.
#17. To: Dakmar (#9)
#18. To: Lod (#8)
#19. To: IRTorqued (#16)
#20. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
#21. To: buckeroo, Lod (#20)
(Edited)
#22. To: purplerose (#21)
.... in order for public servants to avoid being sued, they must also be willing to provide answers to citizens concerning the census questions that they want the citizens to volunteer.
#23. To: buckeroo (#20)
..an obvious distrust for government.
#24. To: TwentyTwelve (#23)
Do you trust a government that lies to it's [sic] citizens?
Do you trust a government that is fearful of its own citizenry.
#25. To: buckeroo (#22)
#26. To: purplerose (#25)
Government employees are public servants in that they all must take an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions.
#27. To: buckeroo (#26)
(Edited)
#28. To: purplerose (#27)
True, citizens should comply with the basis of the questions that are appropriate to population census. They do have that obligation.
But if government servants want to make it easier for themselves, they will also comply with the law.
Otherwise, they will be served legal process in their little cubicles and sued in their personal capacities. They are not immune from liability.
#29. To: buckeroo (#28)
"Who really gives a damn about that perspective?..."
#30. To: purplerose (#29)
Citizens are expected to uphold the laws. And that equally applies to public servants.
Citizens are expected to uphold the laws.
And that equally applies to public servants.
#31. To: purplerose (#27)
#32. To: buckeroo (#30)
There are no public servants. There are none. All there are ... government employees looking for guaranteed personal benefits.
#33. To: RickyJ (#31)
"It has been said, 'time heals all wounds'. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. But it is never gone." ~ Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
#34. To: purplerose (#32)
Government employees are public servants. As public servants they swear an oath to uphold the constitution(s) and laws.
#35. To: purplerose (#25)
Government employees are public servants in that they all must take an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions. All of them take this oath.
computer counted ballots are ballots that have been counted in secret, and with all probability not the way one voted.
#36. To: wudidiz (#33)
I would like to have been born a citizen of Hawaii. Or any place warm.
#37. To: wudidiz (#33)
#38. To: groundresonance (#36)
you'll probably spend eternity in hell after posting that boat song.
"It has been said, 'time heals all wounds'. I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens. But it is never gone." ~ Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
#39. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
NRO: Our Race: American [Mark Krikorian]
#40. To: buckeroo (#20)
Maybe you can detail why you are so distrustful and make a set of bullet items so we understand your point of view.
#41. To: TooConservative (#39)
You'll lose. Top fine is $500 or $5,000. It is rarely prosecuted unless some D.A. or A.G. wants to make an example of you. Read the linked Spakovsky article too.
#42. To: wudidiz (#38)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#43. To: TooConservative (#39)
(Edited)
You'll lose. Top fine is $500 or $5,000. It is rarely prosecuted unless some D.A. or A.G. wants to make an example of you. Read the linked Spakovsky article too.
#44. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#41)
#45. To: abraxas (#43)
#46. To: TooConservative (#45)
I think people should know up front. And I did point out that prosecution is rare.
#47. To: all, Judge Napolitano and Walter Williams on the Census (#46)
.
.
.