[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: [LWAN] David Carmichael Responds April, 13, 2006 A number of people wrote in response to David Carmichael being disallowed to open a bank account in which to deposit his judgment award from his Navy lawsuit. Comments ranged from suggesting a bank that has opened accounts without an SSN, simply cashing it instead of opening an account or suing the Treasury that issued the check. David gives more a more detailed explanation for his actions below. ------- I received a letter in the mail advertising "everybody gets free checking". It had a facsimile signature from the bank president. I prepared a "let's sue the bank" 3-ring binder with the bank advertisement, the federal court rulings in our case, the form submitted to the U.S. Treasury by the U.S. Attorney telling them to pay me (they put N/A in the SSN block on the form), a letter from SSA explaining there is no law requiring anybody to get a SSN, and a notarized affidavit with my picture on it explaining my religious prohibition from identifying with a SSN. I visited the bank and told them I wanted to take them up on their offer. I explained my story and showed them my binder. They took me up through three levels of bureaucracy and explained that the law prohibited them from doing business with me. I went home and wrote a letter to the bank president. (The letter is included at the bottom of this message) The bank president wrote me a letter and then visited with me in person. He explained that they could work around the CIP (Customer Identification Procedures) even though I did not have a national I.D. but the Comptroller General's office said that they were prohibited from allowing me to be their customer unless I identified myself with an SSN. (Let the person with the Bank of American no SSN account know that the regulators are still debating whether they will force the banks to cancel services to those who got accounts without SSNs prior to Oct. 1, 2003) When I wrote my letter and the bank president replied, Herb Titus got pretty excited. He told me that I had set up a beautiful action that was winnable on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, it will be a long, difficult, costly endeavor that has to be acted on extremely carefully. The federal RFRA does not have the provision where you can recoup your attorney's fees unlike some of the state RFRAs. I can?t hardly get anyone to chip in on the "no brainer" Idaho RFRA case that will have us getting most of our fees recouped. If we could get folks to chip in for the Idaho case, I could then work toward a "no brainer" but significantly important Texas case. I can?t dive in to a case against the bank, the U.S. Treasury, and the Comptroller General unless I have folks that are willing to help shoulder the load. Now is the time to act. David picked up five stones and took out Goliath with only one of them. Goliath had brothers. I used one stone in our Navy case. There are other uncircumcised Philistines waiting in the wings. If anyone is willing to shoulder some of the administration, pass out information brochures, help to raise funds, arrange for some t.v., radio, newspaper interviews for me to get the word out, or even be willing to commit financial support, let me know. I am on the work force but not on the payroll. The money given will be to pay professionals to do this right. I am there merely to give the vision, to be the wronged party, and to keep the professionals fighting the right cause, the right way. Is there not a cause? David Alan Carmichael 4-5-2006 Bank Letter Dear [Redacted]: I visited your bank yesterday to take you up on your invitation to me to accept your free checking services (Copy enclosure 1), that I received at my home through the United States Postal Service. The invitation offered "A FREE account for everyone!" (Enclosure 2), with "No minimum balance, No monthly service charge, No per check charge, Unlimited check writing, Easy-to-balance monthly statement, Return of check images for easy record keeping, FREE ATM/VISA Check Card, FREE Online Banking." I have been interested in utilizing your services for quite some time. Thus, I was enthused to receive your invitation. I gratefully accept your offer. I recently won a religious discrimination case in the United States Court of Federal Claims. David Alan Carmichael v. United States, 298 F.3d 1367 (Aug 2002); 66 Fed. Cl. 115 (2005). I anticipate receiving a check from the United States Treasury, any day now. Later, I may receive another check to recover my attorney's fees and other expenses. I want to cash those Treasury checks but I do not as yet have a checking account. Several months ago, I saw another free checking advertisement and I tried to open an account, but your officer, and another employee, told me that "the law prohibits us from giving you an account." I disagree. I filed suit against the Navy after they discharged me when I asked for a religious accommodation. I asked to not be identified by a Social Security Number (SSN). I made the request in 1996 and we are just now getting the issue resolved. The Navy and, initially, the Court of Federal Claims were under the impression that they could not accommodate my request due to federal statutes, Navy regulations, and Executive Order 9397. The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, dispelled those notions. Though the Executive Order had words like "shall" indicating a mandate for federal agencies to use a Social Security Number, it really was not an absolute mandate. It is because the purpose of using solely the SSN as an identifier was merely for administrative convenience. The Executive Order, though reasonable for the sake of administrative convenience, could not override a religious obligation, especially when there is another mechanism available to accomplish record tracking in my situation, and the other mechanism was something that they had used previously. At one time, I believe up to September 30, 2003, the federal financial institution regulations required banks to ask for a SSN for someone having an account that made over $10.00 per year in interest income. It was an income-tax regulation. The instructions required the banks to ask for a SSN but did not require them to refuse an account to someone who refused to, or who could not, provide a SSN. There was a mechanism to solve the tracking need for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If the customer refused to give a number, for whatever reason, the bank merely had to write the person's name and physical mailing address, and keep it on a list ready for when the IRS asked for it. "Know Your Customer" anti-money-laundering regulations then required banks to ask for a SSN from somebody, who did not have an account with that bank, that wanted to conduct certain types of transactions over the amount of $3,000. If the customer had an account with the bank, there was no need for the bank to request a SSN. There were some other requirements for the bank to request a SSN from a customer if they wanted to withdraw over $10,000 in cash. However, the bank could only ask for the information, it was not required to be given by the customer. The information, or lack thereof, could be reported to law enforcement agencies. The bank merely had to use "due diligence" to comply with the requirement to "ask" for a number. The major problem with most regulations that require agencies to "ask" for a SSN, is that most people applying the regulation wrongly presume that disclosing an SSN is mandatory for the transaction to be allowable. Sadly, the regulations are written in such a way as to imply that disclosing an SSN is mandatory. It is as if they (the government) don't want to let the "cat out of the bag" so to speak. Thus, it has become 'in practice', virtually mandatory. It fulfills the predictions about the "number of the beast" referred to in the book of Revelation, in the Holy Bible. I came to understand that the SSN is the "number of the beast" through prayer and Bible study back in 1996. Since forsaking that number, the fact that it is the "number of the beast" is increasingly apparent, even without special divine revelation. Because of your invitation that I received on Wednesday, I went to your bank on Mellon Street yesterday and talked to one of your employees. I told her that I accepted your offer and showed her that I had twenty-five dollars to meet the minimum deposit requirement. She told me to present identification and a social security card. I gave her identification and told her the story of why I could not identify myself with a SSN. She told me that she was limited by her procedures and could not open an account for me. She then directed me to one of your officers. Both your employee and your officer were gracious and treated me very courteously. It made me want to send other customers to your bank. Your officer listened to my story, she read information that I had about myself and my situation, and then she did some research to see if there was a provision for religious accommodation. She came back with a written interpretation of a regulation. The interpretation came to the conclusion that the federal banking regulation prohibited you from doing business with someone who could not identify with a SSN. "Some members of some religious groups, such as the Amish, do not have SSNs. This presents a problem under the CIP rules because the CIP rules require all U.S. citizens to provide an SSN in order to open an account. There is no "loophole" in the rules for this requirement, not even for religious beliefs. Any exception allowed is if the individual has applied for an SSN. Therefore, in order to open an acount for a U.S. citizen under the CIP rules, the individual will have to either have an SSN or have applied for an SSN, unless this issue is clarified by FinCEN." The interpretation is erroneous. The first statement that must be called into question is "the CIP rules require all U.S. citizens to provide an SSN in order to open an account." There is a conflict with this statement compared to the official statement from the Social Security Administration: "The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number to live and work in the United States, nor does it require a Social Security number simply for the purpose of having one." How then can the "CIP rules require all U.S. citizens to provide an SSN in order to open an account", when it is not, and cannot be, required by the Social Security Act? The second statement that begs questioning is "There is no "loophole" in the rules for this requirement, net even for religious beliefs."" In America, the "loophole" for "religious beliefs" is inherent. Is there an exemption for non-U.S. citizens? Is not the purpose of the CIP rules to ensure someone is not using banking with a false identity? Is not the purpose of the regulation to "know" the customer? The regulation is not, supposedly, to use the force of law to exclude from banking services, those who will not forsake their obligations to the living God regarding the identification with the ubiquitously demanded number of the beast. It stands to reason that if the CIP allows one to open an account for a certain period of time until they secure the issuance of a Social Security Account Number, a person's identity can be known without them having to identify with such a number. If there is some fear that opening an account for someone who is prohibited from identifying with an SSN for religious reasons will cause the bank to violate the CIP Rules, it stands to reason that the bank can: Open an account for the same period of time someone would wait to secure the issuance of a SSN while the bank or other cognizant agency 'clarifies' the issue with FinCEN. It is reasonable to presume that the bank will not have violated the CIP Rules if they open an account for me, because: You will have used "due diligence" in this very unique circumstance, and there is "reasonable cause" for you to not identify me with a SSN. I introduced myself to your staff yesterday so that they could "know their customer." My hope is that they will recognize that I am a sincere man, created in the image of God, and not an enemy or a monster. I have lived in Hampton since 1988. I have been a member in good standing at Restoration Church - Phoebus Baptist for over twenty years. In 1997, I founded Educational Christian Ministries. Under that ministry banner, I provide free job skill training to the community, meeting physical needs, and meeting the deeper spiritual needs through the sharing of the gospel of Jesus Christ and by the teaching of God's word. I, and my wife, coach soccer for the Phillips Athletic Association. We are deeply involved in other Christian ministries and community support activities. We invest much in the lives of hundreds of people who live in this city. I have the ability to verify the truth of my identity through many lawful means. I can show by affidavit, I can show by witnesses who are known to Old Point National Bank staff members, I can show by my Attorney at Law, and I can show by other lawful means. I can show sound evidence that I am not someone who is trying to use banking services under a false or hidden identity. The bona fides of my faith and the limitations that they place upon me are clearly known and recognized by the United States government. A driver's license is often used by the bank as a means of identification, but I do not yet have one. Virginia and the other forty-nine States are taking the position that they are prohibited from issuing me a driver's license unless I identify myself by a Social Security Number. They claim to be compelled by the federal Health and Human Services Code, Section 666. Do the CIP Rules not allow for a number of mechanisms to verify a person's identity other than a government issued, or national, identification? I am writing to you personally because of your offer to me. You can certainly settle any conflict that would be an obstacle to your fulfilling your invitation to me. I am available to you if you would like an appointment to meet or make any other formal application to take you up on your offer to provide me, and those of my household, with a "Free Checking" account. You may respond by telephone, email, in writing, or personally. Personal references are enclosed (Enclosure 3). Other personal information that might be of interest or use in the opening of a free checking account is also enclosed (Enclosure 4). Sincerely yours, David Alan Carmichael Encl: 4) Personal and Family Information http://www.christianliberty.org
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||