[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Activism See other Activism Articles Title: LWAN: Idaho SSN Update - Appeals Court Decision Source: LWAN URL Source: http://cjmciver.org/cgi-bin/lwanread.cgi?2006-09-25 Published: Sep 25, 2006 Author: Neil McIver Post Date: 2006-09-28 12:39:24 by Neil McIver Keywords: None Views: 69 Comments: 4 Earlier this year there was an appeals court hearing within Idaho involving the requirement of Larry Lewis to provide an SSN to Idaho to obtain a driver license. There's been an update on that case. But before diving into that, the attorney for Lewis, Herb Titus will be making a speaking appearance this Friday, September 29, 2006 at 7:30 PM eastern time at the weekly meeting held at the office of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship at 12 Carroll Street, Westminster, Maryland. (Yes that is on Friday and NOT the usual Saturday for SAPF meetings). David Carmichael, who with the assistance of Titus won a very substantial and difficult SSN case against the US Navy, will also be there to speak. The meeting will be open to the public and you are invited to attend, or listen over the internet on http://www.libertyfeed.com. Herb Titus is also the attorney for PFC Michael New who was discharged for refusing to obey unconstitutional orders to wear a UN uniform. I'll also be in attendance and look forward to meeting these two fine gentlemen. On to the Idaho case. Lewis refused to provide an SSN out of a good faith conviction that doing so was morally wrong. I last covered this here: http://cjmciver.org/cgi-bin/lwanread.cgi?2006-06-28 There was a fair amount of optimism, albeit cautious (in court that's the best a sane person can be) that Lewis would win this case. A Supreme Court ruling handed down while this case was in progress was cited Attorney Herb Titus bolstered Lewis's case even further. However, it was not to be. The Appeals court handed down it's decision in favor of the state. That ruling can be found here: http://christianliberty.org/lewis/appealsopinionaug1706.pdf Herb Titus has taken substantial objection to the apparent basis of the ruling and has since filed an appeal to the Idaho's supreme court. That petition filed by Titus can be found here: http://www.christianliberty.org/lewis/lewispetition A summary of past announcements related to the case can be found here: http://christianliberty.org/lewis/announce It's my hope that Lewis and Titus will prevail in Idaho. Carmichael's own victory against the Navy also did not come easily and he similarly had to suffer through some very unfavorable circumstances and an unsympathetic judge, but he did finally win. My best regards go to Titus and Lewis. Neil McIver http://www.cjmciver.org Subscribe to *LWAN* Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: Neil McIver (#0) thanks for the update, Neil. christine  posted on  2006-09-28   13:07:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: Neil McIver, Christine (#0) (Edited) The Appeals court handed down it's decision in favor of the state. That ruling can be found here: http://christianliberty.org/lewis/appealsopinionaug1706.pdf I checked out the court decision... Lewis and his attorneys have gone about this all wrong. Lewis is using religious free exercise as the basis of his argument against providing a SS# to obtain a DL.... And, as he has found out, that bird won't fly!! That argument might work as a way of rescinding his SS application (once a SS# is issued, and ANY monies have been paid into that account, the number itself will NEVER be rescinded - BUT the application CAN be, in effect disassociating that number from the NAME which the number was issued to). Perhaps a better way of rescinding the application is demanding a Guarantee of Performance under the Uniform Commercial Code (which you have a right to under any contract). You simply ask for a guarantee that any monies you collect at the end of the contract have the same purchase power as the monies you pay in at the beginning of the contract. They simply CANNOT give you that guarantee, therefore giving you the ability to have it rescinded. Back to religious free exercise. Like I said, that argument CAN work as to getting out of the SS system; but it's the wrong arguement in the DL case. What SHOULD have been argued in the DL case is: (A) There is no LEGAL compulsion to obtain a SS#, therefore the SS system is VOLUNTARY; and (B) Since the system is of voluntary nature in the first place, the Idaho state law would seem to be superceded by the Federal law under section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1896, which reads as follows: "Sec. 7. (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. Ironically, he would have stood a much better chance in court using the religious free exercise argument IF he had used it as the pretext for NOT obtaining a DL!!!!! This argument could have gone as follows: "My religion consists of following the Creator. The One that MADE all of this, the One that warned me NOT to follow other gods. This Creator NEVER demanded that my feet be planted in one place - and the Constitution acknowledges that all rights are given by God. In short, I have a God-given RIGHT to travel. If I choose to abandon that RIGHT, and opt in it's place to ask the state of Idaho for a "privelege" to replace that right; then in effect I have made the state of Idaho a "god" superceding the one that I believe in and follow. I REFUSE to do that!" I used that agument in court. I had gotten a "No DL ticket" and told my wife I was going to fight it. She told me it would be a huge hassle, and cost more than to just pay the ticket. I finally let her talk me into simply pleading "no contest" and paying the fine. When I pled "no contest" the judge told me to go get my DL, and she would dismiss the ticket. I told her I would just rather pay the fine, but she insisted. So I walked out and never got the DL. About 6 months later I was summoned back to court, and she asked what had happened on the DL issue - had I ever gotten it yet. I told her "no", and proceded to give the arguement I stated above. She looked at me and said "you really feel that way don't you?". I said "yes I do." Then she said "well, you already plead no contest, so my hands are tied. I don't have the option of ruling in your favor, but I can set the fine. Fine $1" I haven't been stopped again since that day. Also, I find it interesting that the Federal statute used by Idaho to uphold it's position in the SS# vs DL thing is Title 42, section 666....... "Give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote" - Ben Franklin innieway  posted on  2006-09-30   13:03:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: innieway (#2) Perhaps a better way of rescinding the application is demanding a Guarantee of Performance under the Uniform Commercial Code (which you have a right to under any contract). You simply ask for a guarantee that any monies you collect at the end of the contract have the same purchase power as the monies you pay in at the beginning of the contract. They simply CANNOT give you that guarantee, therefore giving you the ability to have it rescinded. Lack of consideration is a killer for any contract. “The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes, knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal.” James Fenimore Cooper BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-09-30   13:16:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: innieway (#2) Hi innieway, You simply ask for a guarantee that any monies you collect at the end of the contract have the same purchase power as the monies you pay in at the beginning of the contract. They simply CANNOT give you that guarantee, therefore giving you the ability to have it rescinded. That assumes SS is a contract, and it's not. It's correct there is no guarantee that retirees will receive their enumerated benefits, but that's because it's a tax/welfare system, not an account. There is no trust fund. There is no obligation for congress to continue SS. It can be shut down tomorrow and no one would have any legal claim. "Sec. 7. (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. There are exceptions to this passage. it continues: '(2) the (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. She looked at me and said "you really feel that way don't you?". I said "yes I do." Then she said "well, you already plead no contest, so my hands are tied. I don't have the option of ruling in your favor, but I can set the fine. Fine $1" I'm glad you got a favorable rulling, but.... and I hate to rain on parades.... judges in traffic cases can do anything they want. They are hardly bound by anything at all. Any appeals into circuit court (a real judical court) are de novo, so they never get admonished for making a bad decision. They can rule in your favor if they like you or just don't want the hassle, or they can rule against you if they are having a bad day or just want to make an example of you or whatever. Telling you to get a DL is kinda dumb for a judge to order. What if you're blind or something? Traffic courts are mainly for getting people in a bind so if they want a real court to hear their defense, they have to file papers and pay appeals fees. One of the jobs of the TC udges is to keep cases from going to the next level where more resources are consumed. Yes, SSN disclosure is required as per 42 USC section 666. It is interesting. Pinguinite.com Neil McIver  posted on  2006-09-30   17:02:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]