First International Conference on Free Energy

CC: haspden@iee.org, pgb@padrak.com,john1@nidlink.com, kbala@elknet.net,brucelc@ihug.co.nz, science@pobox.com,brown@particlepower.com, brucelc@ihug.co.nz,sft@imaginet.fr, coolwar@aol.com,rdcook@bellsouth.net, jdecker@keelynet.com,rgeroge@hooked.net, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com,sales@flexigloss.com,

ANNOUNCING: The First International Conference on Free Energy (CoFE) to be held at the Department of State, Washington, DC as part of the Secretary of State "Open Forum", April 29, 30 with all day workshops on May 1st, 1999. Preregistration for security requirements: birthdate and SS# for US citizens, passport number for foreign attendees. CALL 800-777-8747 (301-595-7999) for official discounted hotel and travel arrangements (only 75 rooms have been set aside which will go fast). Speaker list attached. Sponsors are solicited at any level (see attached). All day Video Room and Exhibit Room featured. Demonstration of Devices include: Les Adam's peroxide helicopter model; Perrault's radiant energy device; Chip Ransford's transmutation demo; maybe Paul Brown's nuclear battery; Gravity driven motor; Griggs pump?; and of course, Paul Pantone's GEET motors. Speaker list is attached. Audience will average 3-500 and the auditorium can hold 800. The State Dept. itself will, by conservative estimates from other similar events, supply at least 200 people. DOE and NASA are receiving broadcast email messages for the event as well. Two congressmen on the Hill who are physicists (Ehlers and Holt) will be invited. We hope to have a press conference in the press room. The day before CoFE (Wed.) is the DOE meeting day with invited speakers presenting to them privately. We will have a Proceedings, videos, and a simultaneous netcasting on the internet. A lot of non-profit organizations and ambassadors will be attending since they are here in DC and they all want whatever we have to offer them for third world countries. The Washington Post will probably do an article for us since this is the first CoFE of its kind in DC. I have received more than one phone call asking for a definition of free energy! This will be a breakthrough educational effort to burst the energy conservatism dominating our nation's capital. No admission charge except to cover catering costs. Hope everyone who is interested in the facts will be able to attend. See website for updates: http://www.erols.com/iri


Subject: [svpvril] Re: First International Conference on Free Energy
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 07:07:19 -0600
From: Dale Pond
Reply-To: svpvril@egroups.com
Organization: Delta Spectrum Research
To: Thomas Valone

CC: duca@msw.it, haspden@iee.org,pgb@padrak.com, john1@nidlink.com,kbala@elknet.net, brucelc@ihug.co.nz,science@pobox.com, brown@particlepower.com,sft@imaginet.fr, coolwar@aol.com,rdcook@bellsouth.net, jdecker@keelynet.com,rgeroge@hooked.net, cincygrp@ix.netcom.com,sales@flexigloss.com,

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for extending your invitation to attend the First International Conference on Free Energy. I think this is a good move and is important to us all where the educational part comes in. The government in Washington, DC has been and is still out of touch with reality concerning a great number of things. This conference appears to be part of a movement to bring an expanded awareness to Washington and those that operate within its jurisdictional confines. Thank you for going to all the trouble to put this wonderful opportunity together.

I would immensely like to join you in your educational efforts. You may not know this but I was born there and raised up just across the river in Arlington, Virginia. I would love any excuse to visit the old stomping grounds. And I may come but for one thing. In order to attend this conference one is required: "Preregistration for security requirements: birthdate and SS# for US citizens...". Did you know that it is illegal to use the SS# for identification purposes? If you didn't perhaps the government agent demanding it does not know either? If the government doesn't know this who should know it? A long time ago I made up my mind I would not participate in illegal activities nor associate with those who did. So my conviction towards being honest and law abiding would preclude me from attending this noteworthy event because I am being asked to aide and abet a violation of the law and waive my own rights.

If my own government does not respect my right to privacy and our own law is it going to respect my right to property (my own inventions)?

True, it is to my ultimate advantage to attend but it is also to my detriment so much law is being violated in order for those who are paranoid to feel comfortable. I do not wish to break any laws nor cause undue ill feeling over this. If someone there can review the law and the conference's procedures and find a way to establish an OPEN and SHARING environment instead of one based and operated in fear and distrust I would be more than delighted to attend. Otherwise I will have to decline on the grounds given herein. I am including below a short piece on the issue of Privacy Violation and the use of the Social Security number as identification. It is most enlightening. I trust that you will pass it around that this matter can be moved forward without further illegalities and violations of rights.

By the way, what interest does the Department of State have in so-called Free Energy? Do they have a statement of policy? Seems they are far more interested in protecting the privately owned oil, gas and nuclear business than promoting freedom in research that would do away with all the fun, profits and power.

Please keep me informed as to this conference and if there is a way to attend in Peace and Sharing. I would love to bring the Musical Dynasphere and share it's marvelous technology and beauty with everyone legitimately participating.

Warm regards,
Dale Pond

PRIVACY ACT LIMITATIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER USAGE

Since many people objected to extensive loss of privacy which accompanied the use of computers, Washington responded by passing The Privacy Act. It stated quite simply that: "It shall be unlawful ... 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." Title 5 of United States Code Annotated 552(a) is known as The Privacy Act. Due to it, courts have ruled in part:

"Right of privacy is a personal right designed to protect persons from unwanted disclosure of personal information..." CNA Financial Corporation v. Local 743, D.C., Ill., 1981, 515 F. Supp.942, Ill.

The District Court in Delaware held that The Privacy Act:

"was enacted for (the) purpose of curtailing the expanding use of social security numbers ... and to eliminate the threat to individual privacy and confidentiality of information posed by common numerical identifiers." Doyle v. Wilson, D.C., Del., 1982, 529 G. Dupp. 1343.

In the strongly worded Guideline and Regulations for Maintenance of Privacy and Protection of Records on Individuals it is stated:

"(a) (1) It shall be unlawful ... 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."

Should a right, benefit or privilege be denied you when you decline to provide your social security number, you may file suit and are guaranteed to win a judgement of $1,000.00 plus costs and attorney's fees! This will be paid by the individual, business or government agency who wronged you. The Privacy act states:

"(A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000.00; and (B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court."

It is suggested that you take someone with you when you assert your rights under The Privacy Act. They will witness the incident and testify (if necessary) to the facts.

Courts have ruled that there are only two instances when social security numbers must be used. These are:

1) For tax matters.

2) To receive public assistance.

In any situation not listed above, when you refuse to give your social security number, simply present this document to any person who seems to need one. Invite them to make a copy. Point out the $1,000.00 penalty which is guaranteed upon showing that your rights were violated under this act. Point out that an individual may be personally required to pay the $1,000.00 if he/she is aware of the Privacy Act and refuses to follow it. In Doyle v. Wilson the court states:

"assuming that plaintiffs refusal to disclose his social security number was a clearly established right, where defendants could not as reasonable persons have been aware of that right and could not have recognized that any effort to compel disclosure of number or to deny plaintiff his refund violated federal law, damages against defendants were barred... " Doyle v. Wilson, D.C., Del., 1982, 529 F. Supp. 1343.

It is quite clear that the individuals must be able to show that they could not have been aware of the privacy act and could not have possibly realized that their actions were in violation of federal law in order to escape the $1,000.00 penalty.

Free Energy Responses to Pond's Letter Above

RIGHT ON!!!

I couldn't say it any better!

Thanks,

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

Ha!

Great One, Dale!!!
You know, sometimes I just forget all those digits, and maybe I sometimes transpose a few digits...
The Concentration camps are already built, you know...
[Hi Guys!]...(For the email taps...)

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

Your thoughts on Atlin are understood....from my experience of D.C. you would be lucky to get Atlin back to Oklahoma. "Preregistration for security requirements." this is the standard intelligence gathering approach...

All best


February 12, 1999
RE: First International Conference on Free Energy
Department of State, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Thomas Valone,

Thank you again for the invitation to bring my 14 years worth of research to Washington, DC and share it with the Department of State, NASA, Department of Energy and other assorted (and unspecified) federal and private agencies. In my earlier response to you I voiced concern about having my right to privacy violated by the requirement of submitting my private Social Security number and very private birthdate supposedly for "security" reasons. Whose security are we talking about? Have any of us committed a crime for which we are suspect? Is there a lawfully issued warrant requiring production of indentification documents?

Since I have never done anything to warrant suspicion from any of our public servants I feel somewhat offended by the notion I have to submit private information to allay their unfounded fears. I believe an unfounded fear is called paranoia. On the other hand, we have all seen in many forms and in many places and scenarios of federal government agents running amuck violating the natural rights of and bringing harm to innocent people and their property. Therefore I feel more than justified in asking for identification from these public servants that I may be assured my natural and civil rights will be respected and protected conforming to law by these same employees. Considering the violent and wanton history of certain federal government agencies and their agents in the past I do not think this is an unreasonable request. Do you?

Therefore, I submit the following Public Servant Questionaire to be addressed and answered by each public servant associated with this conference. The last we spoke you indicated you were working for the U.S. Patent Office. To show good faith, I would appreciate you filling out this questionaire and returning it to the Free Energy community. We can then all be assured (somewhat) of the good faith usually placed in our federal employees. Such a jesture on your part would encourage our other federal employees to do likewise.

I will post this request and your response(s) onto my web site as a Public Notice so that others may be fully informed and encouraged to attend your conference. http://www.svpvril.com/cofe.html

I await your soonest response.

Warm regards,
Dale Pond

PUBLIC SERVANT'S QUESTIONAIRE

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 by 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 in order that this individual may make a reasonable determination concerning divulgence of information to this agency.

1. Name of public servant (please print) .........................................

2. Residence ......................................................

City .................................. State ..................... Zip .................

3. Name of department, bureau, or agency by which public servant is employed: .........................................................

supervisor's name ...............................................

4. Department, bureau, or agency 's mailing address....................................

City .......................... State ..................... Zip .................

5. Did public servant furnish proof of identity? Yes/No ................

7. What was the nature of proof? ...........................................

6. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United States?

7. Does this public servant know what my natural rights are?

8. Will this public servant help protect my natural rights?

9. Does this public servant know the restrictions against government agents and the government in the ten Bill of Rights?

10. Can this public servant know there is no law or rule making which allows him to violate the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights?

11. Does this public servant know that when he violates 'law' he is liable in his personal and official capacity?

12. Does this public servant know that under Constitutionally guaranteed common law violators of my natural rights may be held liable for damages of my natural rights under the Laws of Nature's God and can be held accountable in the personal and/or official capacity?

13. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation or request for private information?

14. Will the public servant read aloud the portion of the law authorizing the request for private information?

15. Are the answers to the questions or requests for private information voluntary or mandatory?

16. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law/regulation, or are they being used as a discovery process?

17. What other uses may be made of this information?

18. What other agencies may have access to this information?

19. What will be the effect upon me if I should choose not to answer any part or all of these questions or requests for private information?

20. Name of person in government requesting that this investigation or request for private information be made...................................................

21. Is this investigation 'general' or is it 'special'?

22. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relative to this investigation or request for private information?

23. If so, the identity of such third parties................................................

24. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the requested information?

25. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this agency? If yes, which and how do I identify and obtain a copy of it?

26. Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which was supplied by another agency or government source?

27. If so, please deliver to me a copy of that information. I demand the documents be delivered within 10 days. The very existence of these documents may already be damaging my rights and privacy for which some one needs to be held accountable.

28. 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? If not, why not?

If any request for information relating to me is received from any person or agency, you must advise me in writing before releasing such information. Failure to do so may subject you to possible civil or criminal action as provided by the act.

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

PUBLIC SERVANT'S DECLARATION

I (public servant's name here, please print) ............................ declare that the answers I have given to the foregoing questions are complete and correct in every particular.

X ____________________________ Date: ________/_________/_____________

Witness:________________________ Witness:__________________________

Threaded Responses 2/13/99

Subject: Re: First International Conference on Free Energy
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 09:22:00 -0600
From: Dale Pond
Organization: Delta Spectrum Research
To: Thomas Valone

CC: SVPvril Forum <svpvril@egroups.com>,Jim & Janet Meisinger ,Patrick Bailey ,Jerry Decker,Toby Grotz

Thomas Valone wrote:

> Dear Dale, I remember you as a level-headed, intelligent man with a great
< amount of information to share with us about Keely. Perhaps you might be
< interested in being a part of this event with an exhibit booth at the
< Conference on Free Energy, or even to lead a workshop (only two slots are
< left). Seeing that this will be a very historic occasion with many people
< in DC learning about free energy for the first time, perhaps you might be
< a little less militant about a simple number?

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the stereo-typical lock-step response. I am not militant as you well know - I do not even own a gun. (Washington does and they do not hesitate to use them.) To seek verification of who I deal with is a legal, simple and innocent prodecure. I am saddened to see you perceive a question of authority as a threat.

The use of the SS# is not a simple number - it has become an identification system - contrary to the law and original intent as Janet M. so appropriately pointed out in her response to you, shared with others. The denial of access to your meeting being predicated on the SS# is also in violation of the law. I am a law abiding citizen. Apparently you and the other organizers of this meeting are not. Why would I wish to participate in a gathering of outlaws who repeatedly show distain and disrepect for the law and me and my rights? How could I possibly feel comfortable or be safe in such a fear-filled environment? I do not cater to or associate with those who willing and intentionally violate the law.

It is the law that public servants identify themselves when asked. You were politely asked. Otherwise we are all subject to possible fraud and false presentment of authority. It is a shame you choose to ignore the law and willfully refuse to supply the legally requested information.

>
> 13. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which
> authorizes this investigation or request for private information?
>

I guess we got your answer. There isn't any so how could you furnish it?

<
> If you must know, armed
< security guards protect the State Dept. which now also has a new concrete
< barrier around the whole building thanks to our actions in Iraq. A couple
< of months ago, some guy ran past a guard in the White House and shot the
< second guard who subsequently died. Government offices attract those
<types sometimes. Most importantly, I understand that Clinton and Albright
<will be in the other auditorium down the hall from our conference during
<one of the two days. I have to supply a list of attendees with their SS#
<and birthdates so that the Dept. of State Security will issue an
<admission badge to each of them. It is not my rule but theirs.

It saddens me to see what I remember as a beautiful and gentle city become a barricaded steel and concrete armed camp of paranoia. Is every doorway a check point now? ("Your papers (SS# & BD), please!") When I as a child we used to swim in the many fountains scattered around the many beautiful parks. We visited the many public buildings and museums. (Is a "visitor's pass/permission/licence" required in all them too now?) Those days were a happy experience for me. No doubt just being there is unsafe and illegal now too. We used to fish in the Tidal Basin from time to time. Guess that is being denied to the people too? (With appropriate papers, i.e., "pass/license/permission" is it OK, right?) Maybe; sounds like the whole place has gone to hell......

Sorry to hear you are being "forced" to break the law so innocent people can attend your conference. The standard excuse for ignoring the law and violating people's rights is to scream "National Security made me do it" and it is for our own benefit. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Why would Washington do any different? Why should you be any different? That is the same excuse they use to steal patents right? The excuses given for the innocent to waive their rights are lame as others have pointed out.

I'm not the militant/terrorist in this scenario. I did not bomb Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, Waco, etc. What do I have to fear? Those who wage vicous war on law-abiding civilians (terrorism) are always afraid and live constantly in fear of the innocent. Has Washington become the leading terrorist organization in the world today? Should we take a boomb, plunder and body count? DP

< If you can't be a part of this great event for fear of your rights being violated,
<then sit at home and watch it on the Internet since we will also have pay-per-view
<simultaneous netcasting as well. It's your call. -Tom Valone

There is no doubt now my rights and the law have no meaning to you or the others organizing this conference. So I was right all along in bringing this issue up. My concerns were justified and have now been confirmed by you.

Besides all this if I attended it might be viewed as me condoning and supporting all this law breaking and disrespect. My involvement with the Free Energy movement goes back to 1983 and the initial meeting forming the International Tesla Society. I love the people associated with this movement and have myself contributed much in terms of education, support, ideas and patronage to many lay people, inventors and conferences. The integrity of the movement is of concern to me. It appears to be in jeopardy at this moment just when so much is about to bear fruition for so many. The integrity of the movement is a reflection of the thoughts and actions those involved in it. I first met you in 1986 at the Tesla Conference in Colorado Springs. I attended your lecture on monopolar motors which insightful information I treasure to this day. I ask you to reconsider your position, thoughts and actions.

Personally, I see little if any benefit whatsoever in waiving my rights and needlessly exposing my research so I can be subjected to further disrespect and be exposed to more lawlessness. I remember the hell Newman went through at the hands of the National Bureau of Standards, our fine employees. Is he coming? Maybe his story could teach us something. Nor do I see any benefit coming from parading (for free) my many years of research before outlaws, assorted and unspecified agents, liars, politicians, prostitutes and theives. I am expected to come there on my own money and time right? For whose benefit? I think this whole thing is backwards and upside down. Maybe when love and fellowship returns to Washington I can come. Let me know when the barriers put up by fear are torn down and respect for the innocent is again heard from our employees as they tend the doorways of our own buildings.

The future, of course, will bring us the "rest of this story" as it unfolds. I've always respected you Thomas. I'm sorry to see things as they are now. A bright and wonderful future is just a mind-change away....

--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond

Free Energy Responses

Mr. Valone,

Only in nazi, fascist or communist countries are people required to be identified by a numbers. Please explain to me how accepting a 'number' as identification makes me more credible or less a criminal? I thought only 'criminals' are numbered, correct? If you will do some homework, you will find that the social(ist) (in)security number was fraudulently foisted upon most of us long before we were old enough, by law, to contract. There are many books out now, by learned people, disclosing how the whole SS system is a ponzi scheme, based on non-disclosure fraud. There is no 'security account' in your name. It is just another graduated tax against the people to add to the other 2nd plank of the communist manifesto: "a strong and progressive income tax" to enslave the people. I'm sure our forefathers would be shocked at the low level of knowledge of supposed learned people in our country, today. And their willingness to buy into fascist/communist/and nazi ideals.

I don't know about you, but once I was notified of the SS# fraud and recognized the SS# fraud, which is crime, I wondered why would anyone want to particpate in these unAmerican crimes?

your message states:

>"armed security guards protect the State Dept. which now also has a new
>concrete barrier around the whole building thanks to our actions in Iraq."

Excuse me, it was not 'our actions in Iraq.' Most of us have been appalled at the stupidity and criminal aggression against other countries by a handful of degenerates in Washington, DC for decades. And we have protested their unAmerican and evil activities for decades. Do not include us in the 'our'. We don't buy it - although we may all have to pay for it!!!

>"A couple of months ago, some guy ran past a guard in the White House and
>shot the second guard who subsequently died. Government offices attract
>those types sometimes."

To quote one of our forefathers, "It is not rebels that make trouble, it is trouble which makes rebels." And certain degenerates in D.C. create so much trouble in the world it is mind-boggling!

>"Most importantly, I understand that Clinton and Albright
>will be in the other auditorium down the hall from our conference during
>one of the two days. I have to supply a list of attendees with their SS#
>and birthdates so that the Dept. of State Security will issue an
>admission badge to each of them. It is not my rule but theirs."

You know what? I would never uphold unAmerican rules. How does 'numbering' our American brothers and sisters give us/them any more credibility or make them 'more safe'? The reasoning behind that is not only ludicrous, it is most communist/fascist/nazi , indeed. We can certainly see the parallels to how the German people followed nazi rules in order to 'get along' until there was no rights or freedom - just nazi tyranny.

>If you can't be a part of this great event for fear of your rights being
>violated, then sit at home and watch it on the Internet since we will
>also have pay-per-view simultaneous netcasting as well. It's your call.
-Tom Valone

I would not pay to watch people who have forgotten the founding principles of America do anything. I know that our Creator, upon whose immutable laws this country is founded, will provide us a way to learn and know about outstanding inventions without having to acquiesce to unAmerican, evil, enslaving rules. I'd much prefer to attend the conference in Seattle. Sounds much more fun! And more American!!!

In support of a true American, Dale Pond, I am,

Janet Lee: Meisinger

First Assembly of People in Colorado Grand Jury

P.S. I have volunteered at many New Energy conference in Denver and Fort Collins. I'm glad we upheld American Laws and Freedoms here!!!

PPS to Dale: Please send this to your entire list. My server said it was too many addresses for me to mail. :( Janet

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

Hi Dale et al!

This is being cc'd and bcc'd to a few folks because Dale has brought up an interesting point about this upcoming Free Energy Conference in Washington. That you have to give your SSN to get in. What an opportunity for mischeif. Dale has most of it posted at his website and it is enfolded in the email from the KeelyNet discussion list below;

http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/archive/00002637.htm

I wouldn't go that one if I won the bet and my way was paid. Just don't need that kind of weirdness and control in my life, not to mention the distinct possiblity of making yourself a target, depending on your involvement with alt sci.

Dale, feel free to use any of that you might want and thanks again for bringing it up, might save someone some serious headaches in the future.

Jerry Wayne Decker
http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

Responses of 2/14/99
Valone wrote: (2/14/99)

>Dale, If you believe the law is being broken by screening attendees by
>the ss# and birthdate, then call the State Dept. 202-647-0444 and let them
>know. Listen carefully to the recorded message in case you get it.

Hi Thomas,

I have no doubts whether my rights are bring violated. They are; and willfully at that. I'm including quotes from the law itself. These should help you see this whole affair is transcending friendship, common sense and the law. Please share it with your sponsors of the conference. It is my legal right to refuse to divulge my SS#. This conference or any of its sponsors, including the State Department, have no right to require I give it up. (Please excuse the necessary legalese.)

The Privacy Act states quite simply that: "It shall be unlawful ... 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." Title 5 of United States Code Annotated 552(a) is known as The Privacy Act.

Due to it, courts have ruled in part:
"Right of privacy is a personal right designed to protect persons from unwanted disclosure of personal information..." CNA Financial Corporation v. Local 743, D.C., Ill., 1981, 515 F. Supp.942, Ill.

The District Court in Delaware held that The Privacy Act:
"was enacted for (the) purpose of curtailing the expanding use of social security numbers ... and to eliminate the threat to individual privacy and confidentiality of information posed by common numerical identifiers." Doyle v. Wilson, D.C., Del., 1982, 529 G. Dupp. 1343.

In the strongly worded Guideline and Regulations for Maintenance of Privacy and Protection of Records on Individuals it is stated:
"(a) (1) It shall be unlawful ... 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."

The Privacy act provides for damages:
"(A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000.00; and (B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court."

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

Below is the government's own web site on this issue. I suggest you review it and bring this to the attention of the State Department. Apparently they are not aware of the law either. Do they even care? Why do we pay them? (Ignorance of the law is no excuse and does not relieve anyone of possible penalities for damages.) For more details see their complete web site:

http://www.dfsc.dla.mil/main/foia/foia.htm


DEFENSE ENERGY SUPPORT CENTER (DESC)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) And Privacy Act

Welcome to the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Home page. We are located at the Defense Logistics Agency, Headquarters Complex, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 4729, Fort Belvoir, Va 22060. DESC's FOIA and Privacy Act Officer is Landis B. Webb. He can be reached at (703) 767-8601, by fax (703) 767-8745, or by email at lwebb@desc.dla.mil.

1. General Overview of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act
The FOIA, enacted in 1966, provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency records or information. Federal agencies are required to disclose records upon receiving a written request for them, except for those records that are protected from disclosure by the nine exemptions and three exclusions of the FOIA. This right of access is enforceable in court. The FOIA, covers all records in the possession and control of federal executive branch agencies. The Privacy Act is another federal law regarding federal government records or information about individuals. The Privacy Act establishes certain controls over how the executive branch agencies of the federal government gather, maintain, and disseminate personal information. The Privacy Act also can be used to obtain access to information, but it pertains only to records that the federal government keeps about individual U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens. The Privacy Act, passed by Congress in 1974, establishes certain controls over what personal information is collected by the federal government and how it is used. The act guarantees three primary rights: (1) the right to see records about oneself, subject to the Privacy Act's exemptions; (2) the right to amend that record if it is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete; and (3) the right to sue the government for violations of the statute, including permitting others to see your records, unless specifically permitted by the act. The act also provides for certain limitations on agency information practices, such as requiring that information about an individual be collected from that individual to the greatest extent practicable; requiring agencies to ensure that their records are relevant, accurate, timely, and complete; and prohibiting agencies from maintaining information describing how an individual exercises his or her First Amendment rights unless the individual consents to it, a statute permits it, or it is within the scope of an authorized law enforcement investigation. [end quote]


>I organized this conference myself and accepted the offer of space at the
>State Dept. I believe it will help educate people in the DOS, DOE, and
>NASA who are all being invited by email BECAUSE it is within the State
>Dept. building.

No doubt your personal intentions are (probably) honorable. But ignorance of the law is no excuse. Education is primary and this correspondence with you is certainly educating a lot of people!!!

Please review this quote from the Privacy Act above. It says in part:
"The FOIA, enacted in 1966, provides that any person has the RIGHT TO REQUEST access to federal agency records or information. Federal agencies are REQUIRED to disclose records upon receiving a written request for them..." (emphasis added)

You and the State Department have not fullfilled my written request (PSQ) or honored the legal requirement to provide same (yet). When may we expect this to be completed?

I fully support your effort to educate the hordes of bureaucrats swarming all over this country eating us out of house and home. Free rent at the State Department must come at a price (there are no free lunches). If the price is not visible then it is hidden/occulted. What might that be?

>Email works wonders except when lengthy questionaires
>like yours are now being interpreted as originating from me! (Remy is now
>telling everyone that they have to fill out an unbelievably lengthy
>questionaire to get in.)

I'm sorry others have difficulty reading email. I am not responsible for other people's misinterpretations and actions. Is the government ignoring or otherwise misinterpreting my request for information? Is the pot calling the kettle black?

>Are you interested in helping the Free Energy movement?

What a ridiculous question, Thomas. Ha! Please go back and reread my earlier posts. I helped (in a major way to) make the Free Energy movement what it is today. If you haven't seen my web site then please do so. The site has had over 400,000 hits from about 60 different countries. Many, MANY complete copies of this comprehensive educational site have been downloaded in many different countries already. My books and videos have sold in the tens of thousands. The entire SVPvril web site is about Free Energy, free thinking and the FREEDOM to use and enjoy them both. All of my effort has been about education and the free distribution of reams of knowledge that one day the damages done by the bogus pseudo-government created and supported (mis)education system can be corrected - that we might, one day, find the illusive Free Energy (and other benefits) subject of your conference.

So, what is the Free Energy movement Thomas? It is the people making it happen. People are tired of being preyed upon as though they were a herd of cattle to be milked of their money, property, rights and very life blood, only to later be harvested and consumed by __________ (fill in the blank yourself). Why else would anyone number cattle/people so as to track them from cradle to grave? The Free Energy people seek FREEDOM from coercion, invasion of rights and the ughliness of a "system" that forces the use of polluting and deadly processes like oil, gas and nuclear death-traps. People do not like paying (by giving up their rights and property) for what is naturally theirs - freedom to associate at conferences, expression, life, liberty and pursuit of what they feel makes them happy.

In the end there is only one position and that is: We can not have Free Energy unless we have the FREEDOM to use and enjoy it. Otherwise it starts costing us.... it is no longer free.

If our own government (the world's champion of freedom) runs rough-shod over our rights how can there be freedom when freedom is defined as our free exercise of those rights?

This whole affair suggests much more scrutiny as to fundamental concerns. Without our rights we are nothing but owned peons subject to the whims of any bureaucrat and whatever motivates them (greed, power, attitude). A review of the Patent Secrecy Act reveals just one more example of the pseudo-government's war on private property and rights.

As a long-time acquaintance I ask please do not take anything I've written you as personal as none of it is meant to be an attack upon you or your person. We have all been duped and misled in our so-called up-bringing (training) and "education".

Somehow and somewhere this issue has touched some nerves and buttons. I have been receiving a lot of supportive email. So much unsolicited support comes as a pleasant surprise to me. Maybe there is hope America can regain her freedom if enough people care. You do care about our freedom don't you Thomas? Maybe this issue raised by your Conference is a blessing in disquise allowing us a deeper looksee into what the "Free" part of "Free Energy" is really all about. Why do we even pursue so-called Free Energy?

We are striving to be free in our expressions, our ownership of property, our rights to privacy and pursuit of happiness. Being forced (by artificially contrived lack of alternatives) to breathe deadly gases, live in poisonous emf fields, eat DNA destructive foods and patent medicines is not being free. It is being used as a source of income and power for the elite (whoever they are). Maybe these are the ones who consider themselves above the law and do not have to obey it?

A free thinking and aware people will not willingly choose to forego any of their rights, property and life if given the chance to understand the hidden costs in such things like "free rent" at the State Department. Like I said earlier: There ain't not such thing as a free lunch.

I concur with Jerry's eloquent presentation of this whole issue:

http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/archive/00002637.htm

I hope we can draw a close to this sordid matter. I would however like one of our over-paid employees in Washington to honor the law, their job and my legal and formal request for information concerning the requirement of furnishing private SS#, etc. as a prelude to attending this conference. There is so much curiosity stirred up over this I'm sure the answers to the Questionaire would be relished by those attending and those preferring not to attend. For some of these people's enlightening comments on this SS# thingie please see the recording web page:

Responses

more responses

--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond
State Department Acknowledges law, but....

Subject: CoFE

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:24:29 -0800
From: Thomas Valone
Organization: Integrity Research Institute
To: pgb@padrak.com
CC: dalepond@svpvril.com, reed@zenergy.com

Hi Pat,

Thanks for the summary email for CoFE. Due to Dale's quoting of the legal stuff, I check with another person at the State Dept. and he said Dale was right and furthermore, a driver's license or US passport number is okay for the admission badge. Perhaps a followup email to let people know will help. Is the INE mailing list available for a one-time use? We succeeded in getting the US Energy Association's mailing list which is very prestigious. Thanks again. -Tom Valone, President

Patrick Bailey wrote:


> Regarding the April International Free Energy Conference in WDC, per my previous email:
>
> a SSN is NOT required (thanks to Dale Pond!):
>
> Tom Valone says:
>
> and furthermore, a driver's license or US passport number is okay for the admission badge.
>
> Thanks Dale.
>
> Thanks Tom!

National ID (whatever the document) is still invasion of privacy

Subject: [Fwd:National ID Card Protest at Idaho Department of Fish & Game]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 04:36:37 -0600
From: Dale Pond
Organization: Delta Spectrum Research
To: Thomas Valone ,
Patrick Bailey

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the update Thomas about passport and driver license numbers (both computer linked to SS#). Maybe one day the message will sink in. The attached makes the point that a number is still a number and invasion of privacy is still invasion of privacy. Substituting one set of identification papers for another does not address the real issue. Handing over my private identification papers to those who ordinarily do not care about my person or rights is an oxymoron. Wish you luck - you are going to need it.

Warm regards,
Dale Pond
===================================================

Subject: [FP] National ID Card Protest at Idaho Department of Fish & Game
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:05:34 -0600
From: "ScanThisNews"
Reply-To: owner-scan@efga.org
To: "ScanThisNews Recipients List"

====================================================

SCAN THIS NEWS

2/16/99

Interestingly, at his most recent State of the Union Address President Clinton honored the icon of civil disobedience, Rosa Parks. Is it now time for all freedom loving Americans to engage in similar acts of civil disobedience such as practiced by Mrs. Parks at the cost of possibly losing one's hunting or fishing license? Unfortunately, this is much too great a price to pay for most soft Americans today. Suck up America, you'll reap what you sow.

====================================================
From: W.G.E.N.
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999
To:
Subject: NID:National ID Card Protest at Idaho Department of Fish & Game

>From the February 1999 Idaho Observer:

National ID Card Protest at Idaho Department of Fish & Game

Although you will undoubtedly find Mr. Hoover's tactics in the following story to be humorous, the issue that he is addressing is not at all funny.

The interesting thing about science fiction is that the moment an imaginative writer commits his futuristic fantasies to paper, an engineer starts building them.

We have all seen the movies which depict future societies where the people have their numbers tattooed to their foreheads or they can be identified by running their hand over a scanner. Well, welcome to the future because the future is almost here. ~DWH

by T. Allen Hoover

Recently, The Answer Man column told of a hunter at the Idaho Department of Fish & Game offices writing his Social Security Number (SSN) on his arm so people wouldn't overhear. In fact, this was a protest of the Idaho statute that submits to a federal regulation demanding SSNs be recorded on all licenses, drivers, occupational, professional, recreational and even marriage licenses.

These laws violate Section 7 of Public Law

93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974):
(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 becauseof such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.

National Identification Cards are control tools in totalitarian police states. Our laws, supposedly to find deadbeat dads, create a defacto National ID with this law. Will other freedom-restricting laws soon follow?

Like roadblocks to check child car seats, or suspected failure to use seatbelts as probable cause to effect a car stop (and a search)?

As Mark Twain said, The last refuge of a scoundrel is the children.

As a clerk demanded my SSN in order to get elk tags (I had a license before this law), I put on a WWII-era, Jewish Star-of-David Armband from the Nazi Mauthausen concentration / death camp and wrote my SSN on my arm. This was my protest to being numbered. Despite a Channel 2 news crew videotaping this, and a Channel 7 news reporter present (mumbling Black Helicopters...yeah right ), no mention of this protest made the evening news.

Ridiculing those who question our seduction into a police state is Politically Correct -- a phrase coined not by the liberal left, but by the late Chairman Mao Tse Tung of Communist China, whose tradition of executing political dissidents continues and whose money influences our elections.

There is no law requiring one to obtain a SSN, so why has the legislature passed statutes demanding them? Why are children, at birth, forced to have a SSN to be an exemption on income taxes? Elsewhere, police have, despite other ID's, arrested people who refuse to give a SSN upon demand. Before boarding an airplane a Government Issued Photo ID is demanded, even though this is not law, merely an FAA recommendation. You cannot travel without papers.

After WWII, Germans were asked how they had let it all happen, they answered, We all had jobs and the trains ran on time.

Possession of cash is evidence of possible drug dealing and frequently asked about, then confiscated during traffic stops as the Dateline NBC TV program discovered. Forfeiture laws permit police to confiscate cash as it may have committed a crime. With Y2K problems looming, people withdraw cash. Federal agencies propose Know Your Customer banking regulations, wherein your banker examines your normal transactions, reporting irregularities to the government. It should be the Prove you are not a criminal law.

Tacitus, the Roman General, from whence we get the word 'Tactics,' once said that, The corruption of a society can be measured by the number of its laws.

My old SSN card states "For Social Security and Tax purposes-Not for Identification."

In my years of hunting, I would have reported poachers, yet lately there are hunters who tried to buy a license but refused to give a SSN, are they now poaching, or protesting?

Are Americans co-dependant to government's obsessive 'control issue' problem?

Support HR-220 IH, the 'Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999' in Congress, and State Representative Twila Hornbeck's bill to restore freedom in Idaho (RS08465).

I will, for I am NOT a Number, I am a Free Man!

Mr. Hoover is a Boise-area businessman who specializes in preparedness supplies. He is also an "armorer" who has been supplying the police and the public with body armor for several years.

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

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 1353
Rathdrum, Idaho 83858-1353
Phone: 208-687-9441
Email: observer@dmi.net
Web: http://proliberty.com/observer/

==================================================

Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless:
1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or
2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true.

=================================================

Reply to:

=================================================

To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to
<majordomo@efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY.
Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY.
For additional instructions see http://www.efga.org/about/maillist.html

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

"Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N.
Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml

Subject: Re: SSN is NOT Required at the CoFE in WDC in April
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:51:48 -0700
From: JIM MEISINGER
Organization: EAGLES NEST HOLDINGS
To: Patrick Bailey,
Pond Dale ,
Thomas Valone

Dear Patrick,

A number, is a number, is a number. Only in communist/fascist/nazi countries and/or in prisons are people 'numbered'. Only in communist/fascist/nazi countries do people need to 'show their papers' everywhere they go. Let's face it, showing a bit of paper with a number on it does not change our 'intent'. Criminals will do criminal acts with or without a number/ with or without papers. Both Dale and I have studied the law and realize that any numbering or violation of our private rights is unAmerican in nature. I have volunteered at several new energy conferences in Colorado and we have never expected people to do unAmerican acts in order to attend.

Best Regards,
Janet Lee: Meisinger

cc: Dale Pond
Thomas Valone

Subject: Congrats!!
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 02:58:54 -0600
From: "Jerry W. Decker"
Organization: KeelyNet
To:
Hi Dale!

Patrick sent me an email about the SSN 'concession'...damn, that's great, your balls have grown much bigger than I remember..<g>...I have it posted at; http://www.keelynet.com/ssnnot.htm SEEYA!
--
Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187

Subject: SSN?
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:03:46 -1000
From: <>
To: dalepond


Wm Perry wrote:

>I have read your book "Nikola Tesla's Earthquake Machine"
>and wanted to say WOW! It was good. I have been looking for your
>other book "Universal Secrets never before revealed" I think >
>that is what it was called. It is rather difficult here to find.
>
Hi Bill, Thank you for the kudos on the book. The UL book can be found on my catalog page:

>
> When you and Jerry Decker say it is illegal to require an SSN for
> identification, does that apply to all those bastards who insist on
> putting it on your check if you have a military ID? I am in the Navy
> stationed in Pearl Harbor and it really pisses me off. I like to write
> checks for my purchases as cash is not something you should carry
> around in large quantities. Once they see my military ID, the cashiers
> INSIST on putting my SSN right on the check. One time, I ordered a
> pizza and had it delivered to my house. I had had a really bad day
> already. All the pizza delivery services here ask for the SSN over the
> phone, and if you don't tell them (over the phone), they will actually
> refuse to serve you. I was so pissed that night that I put my SSN, my
> DOB, my age, etc. Wonder if they noticed?BillP

It is illegal to deny service because a person refuses to divulge his or her SSN. Does this apply to military personnel? I dunno. The military is a special case and when operating on a legal military base makes it doubly questionable. Maybe you could print off the SSN law portion and show it to the pizza people and see if their lawyers can verify this or not? I'm not a lawyer so I am not the one to ask. I'm sure the pizza people are "just doing their job" and are as ignorant of the law as we all are. A little education can go a long way. I suggest you read very carefully the page cataloging this SS issue:

http://www.svpvril.com/cofe.html

Some specific laws are quoted thereon but you need to do more research to see if any of it applies to you specifically. Thank you for your support in protecting our privacy from those who don't appear to care about it - or doing the jobs they are being paid to do.
--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond


Subject: Re: [fwo] [BBAL,SOLU} Your Papers, Please!
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:04:51 -0600
From: Frog Farmer
To: "

Dale Pond wrote:
>
> I got a live one to untangle. Recently a conference was called on New
> Energy subject matters to be held in Washington, DC at the State
> Department this coming April. They required SS# and birthdate to enter
> the door. I informed them of the illegality of this and eventually they
> relented. BUT they now require a Passport or Driver's Licence number to
> get in the door! It's actually kind of funny in a sad sort of way.
> My question to this forum is: What now? Any frogets? I have no real
> interest in attending personally. I've gotten a lot of email on the side
> revealing all kinds of admonitions about this meeting - all positive to
> my cause I might add. My original intent was to alert many who never
> knew better they have rights, etc. This is working. What is an
> appropriate response to the "Your papers, please!" command?

"What papers?"

"Your passport or driver's license."

"I don't have a passport. Does this mean I'm to be deported?"

"What about your driver's license?"

"I don't have a driver's license. I took the bus to get here, and I'm taking a cab to go out to dinner later. Do I need to know how to drive in order to share my information regarding free energy?"

"Surely you must have some ID."

"Would my name on my underwear be good enough for you? Look, it matches the name Mom wrote inside my boots..."

"You can't get in here unless we know for sure who you are."

"Go inside and get the man who invited me to waste my time with the likes of you. He ought to know who he invited, shouldn't he?"

"He isn't a real person. We suckered you in so we could seal the hall and gas you all so that our owners could continue to poison the planet by burning fossil fuels. I'm just a stooge doing my job for this Friday's paycheck. I hope you understand. I have a family."


Subject: Re: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 00:04:53 -0600
From: "Jerry W. Decker"
Organization: KeelyNet
To: Trevor Osborne
CC:



Hi Folks!

...Beware gift horses...

Well now, doesn't this just make ALL the difference, that our glorious State Department would out of the blue become interested in Free Energy?

And isn't it interesting that NASA has, (coincidentally with this State Department affiliated conference), after all these years, out of the blue, put up $600,000 to test the so-called 'anti-gravity' effects reported in the Podletnekov experiment? An experiment first done in 1991, fully 8 years ago??

Ask yourself, what has changed to evoke such government interest when there is still no free energy device that has been practically demonstrated or sold commercially?

The Podletnekov experiment yielded about 1% weight loss ONLY in the zone above the stimulated SHC, never mind that John Schnurer of Antioch University, improved the experiment and got an 11 time repetition with 5% weight loss, but was he called or consulted by NASA....no.

It's not antigravity by any stretch of the imagination but if NASA HAS to spend our money, spend it on an American who has FAR EXCEEDED the original. John is at herman@antioch-college.edu and could certainly do wonders with that money.

Now let's look at this sudden interest in Free Energy - not by DOE, the government agency in charge of Energy, but by the State Department, a department completely unrelated to energy.

Ask yourself - How many F/E conferences have been held in the past? How many had an F/E device that is now in use, that was ever sold and worked, or that had plans which once built worked? NONE.

How many of you are aware of the initial REQUIREMENT of this State Department affiliated conference that no one be allowed to attend the conference unless they provided their Social Security Number (SSN) which is against US law?

How many of you are aware that ONLY Dale Pond questioned this SSN as identification requirement? (no government official thought anything about checking the legality including the STATE DEPARTMENT! )

How CONVENIENT FOR THEM to have 'forgotten' it was illegal and just make it a requirement that if you wanted to attend, perhaps NO ONE WOULD BALK at it or otherwise question the requirement?

Dale pointed out that it was illegal and was promptly called a 'militant'!

How many of you are aware that Dale's steadfastness against this ILLEGAL policy resulted in the State Department and the conference organizer(s) backing down, ADMITTING IT WAS IN FACT ILLEGAL and rescinding the requirement?

How many of you are aware that this compliance with US law was followed up immediately with a REQUIREMENT that anyone attending the conference must NOW provide a Drivers License OR a Passport?

And how many of you have seen this peculiar response from one of the conference organizer(s)?
========================
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:06:55 -0800
From: Thomas Valone
Organization: Integrity Research Institute

Even with three choices for admission, you people are still up in arms?

Have you ever written a check at a grocery store or post office? Try to keep your driver's license number hidden in those situations! Maybe you're ready for the new "thumbprint" machines now being released.

These machines nicely comply with all of your demands...no numbers.

Sincerely,
Thomas Valone, M.A., P.E.
COFE Conference Coordinator
============================
This isn't about cashing a check but its a great try at diverting concerns, though a miserable failure. Note the comment, 'even with THREE CHOICES for admission'. As in SSN, DL or passport, YOUR CHOICE, WOW!

Isn't this peculiar? Being a REQUIRMENT in ANY WAY that you IDENTIFY yourself at ANY public meeting and that the organizer(s) have NO PROBLEM with it?

In my lifetime;

I have NEVER HAD to identify myself at local lectures.
I have NEVER HAD to identify myself at movies or theaters.
I have NEVER HAD to identify myself at public meetings or lectures.

All of which involved information or entertainment as does a conference.

Have you had to identify YOURSELF before?

Why here? Why THIS conference? What is the ONE DIFFERENCE?

If that IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT (no matter now whether it is DL or passport) is by ORDER of the State Department, why would the conference organizers not RIGHTLY REFUSE to comply or just move it elsewhere?

Check out the details of this very real story;

http://www.keelynet.com/ssnnot.htm

Dale isn't trying to torpedo the success of this conference nor am I. Its a great thing to see such conferences because in all probability, based on other conferences, there will be no working, practical free energy device that people can buy or use to do work, at least you get to network with others interested in the field, though I always hope there will be SOMETHING that works.

So for that reason and in the very tiny hope that SOMETHING will be presented that works, people should attend OPEN conferences.

For myself, I am concerned that something isn't right with THIS PARTICULAR CONFERENCE and would seriously consider the pros and cons of attending.

I'm not paranoid nor militant but this isn't right no matter how you look at it. I've promoted F/E and alt science all my adult life and spent tens of thousands of my own money trying to find reality in all this mess, to date nothing.

Now, just because the State Department is involved, suddenly an open public meeting requires identification?

Would ITS have done this?
Would INE have done this?
Would Global Sciences do this?
NO WAY!

Would you have gone to any of THEM if they had required that you ID yourself?

It's a very simple matter to correct and assuage these concerns on the part of those who have sense enough to question it.

Options; NO ID be REQUIRED or move it elsewhere WITHOUT benefit of the State Department.

I agree with Dale, this is wrong and I would be very careful of such machinations via the government, no matter which department.

I would seriously consider the risk if I had any F/E technology that was remotely close to working OR was involved financially or in partnershipwith any inventor working on free energy technology.

It's bad enough riding a razor blade, but why set yourself on fire and call everyones attention that could lead to unforeseen strangeness.

It strikes me as a great way to identify everyone for a marvelously detailed database that could easily be updated at will by simply tracking those involved.

If I was wanting to track people in this field, I'd use the technique myself and blame anyone who questioned it as a troublemaker or 'militant'...<g>...Onward & Upward!
--
Jerry Wayne Decker
http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187


Subject: Re: [Fwd: SSN is NOT Required at the CoFE in WDC in April]
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 05:21:59 -0600
From: Dale Pond
Organization: Delta Spectrum Research
To: jdecker@keelynet.com


Hi Jerry,

Your post about the CoFE is quiet "in your face" as it is often said.Glad to see others picking up the load and asking for accountability. What kinds of people are these to be asking us to give up our personal and private information to a proven criminal organization? Pretty strange stuff. Weird.

I've kind of backed off this issue because there is no real need to torpedo the conference. If others wish to attend given the exposure of intent, etc. then that is certainly their business. My obligation developed when I saw the illegality (liability?) and it ended once I brought public awareness to it. So what do we do now? I dunno. I'll circulate your message.

Congress has plenary powers in Washington, DC. This means it can pretty well do what it damn well pleases. There are no Constitutional restrictions on it within the 10 square miles, the insular possessions or territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin islands, lawful military forts). So, if there are no restrictions on it in DC then it does not have to respect any of our rights to privacy, property or life if we are in DC? For instance guns cannot be owned in Puerto Rico as we saw several years ago in some TV special. Guns are outlawed in DC too. The feds cannot outlaw guns or anything else in the 50 State party to the Constitution because of lack of jurisdiction. The separation of power and jurisdiction is obvious once it is pointed out. See:

http://home.HiWAAY.net/~becraft/FEDJurisdiction.html
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/TYRANNY.HTM

So, take something really neat (invention, idea, etc.) to the Conference and "any government official" (see http://www.svpvril.com/Title35.html) can call it a threat to national security and TAKE IT. National security to them apparently means any threat to the federal government as an organization. This is borne out in the already proven disreguard for me and you and our rights.

I agree with you Jerry, nothing but mischief will come of this conference. At the very best suppose a bunch of government scientists (our employees) visited in all innocence. Suppose some exhibitor really did take something interesting to show off. The scientists (our employees) would be polite and ask questions then take the new knowledge back to their secret and off-limits lab and we would never ever see any benefit trickled down to us: the originators of the knowledge and owners of it, the government, the federal labs and anything they produce. Yeah, right..... remember Y-12? There is more security on Y-12 than on Fort Knox. Wonder why?

If they are so concerned about the technology they already have locked up (which we are all busy trying to duplicate in our own ways) what are they going to do to anyone who proves successful? Thank about that one.

No, I have not seen Trevor's response. Can you please forward it to me?

I'm forwarding a suggested course of action in these types of situations. I think it's implications are quite interesting and humorous.

--
Warm regards,
Dale Pond
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 04:14:38 -0600

From: Christopher Hansen

Hello again to everyone,

I got tired following the assembly race and Joshua's court case and then got sick. Then my computer could not be hooked to our new cable system and I just got frustrated and had to wait until we could set up my computer to our house net that has five computers now with Joshua's computer business. (Dad was last on the list of things to do) I have missed reading all of your letters. It gives me the strength as well as great ammo to carry on the fight. I just got 4257 messages so I will have some great reading material for a while.

Now for the good news:

Joshua's court case set in motion a change in the law here in Nevada. Assembly bill 169 had a hearing on Wednesday of last week and we were asked to testify. The bill bearly touched on the changes needed just changing the requirement from Nevada identification cards that require SSN or an SSN to a birth certificate or baptismal certificate. I attached Joshua's testimony and mine if any of you are interested. My brother, Dan, testified first and attacked the system with court cases and other statements. My wife testified after that on the absurdity of State IDs and how one lady came into where she works with IDs from four different states and how she sees dual IDs all the time. Then the County Clerk of Douglas County testified telling the Assembly election committee that it was true (although was rejected by the court) that to force Nevadans to get a ID was indeed a Poll tax. I almost burst out laughing. He also said that until this case he had no idea that there were people who did not have SSN's and that they must change the system if that was true. He was followed by the County Clerk of Lyon County who is the head of the association of County Clerks. She confirmed that it was a poll tax. I nearly burst with joy. She recommended that they completely change the system and not just patch up the mess and that they discard the SSN for a specific number for voting only that would just be a document number not an identification number.

I got to testify after that (see below) and then Joshua spoke. I finished by holding up two applications for employment from Taco Bell and Green valley Grocery. I pointed out that GV Grocery had the SSN as mandatory but had a voluntary area that included and was limited to (ha ha) your age, race and sex. I pointed out that law suits had changed those from mandatory to voluntary. Then I show the Taco Bell SSN (optional) line and explained that a law suit had forced that change. I told them that they must change their system now or it would just be forced to change by law suits like Joshua's.

Joshua wrote his with no help except a request to find the final quote. The Assembly could tell this was no little boy doing what Daddy told him to do. He fully understood it and completely believed his own words. Just before he finished the committee chairman stopped him and said, "Joshua you can stop, your passion has convinced us." It was a high point in my life.

It was an amazing change in government attitude. Here we were bashing the sacred cow of the Demos and Repubs (the Social Security System) and they were eating it u,. agreeing with us and complimenting us. I felt God had reached down and personally opened their minds so that they could understand the truth.

Joshua was followed by the representative of the Secretary of States office who confirmed that the requirement was a poll tax. I was now past joy and had gone directly to heaven. She confirmed everything we said was needed to change in the law.

Following the meeting the committee chairman, a liberal democrat, told my wife that they were going to do everything we had asked for and more. The Secretary of States rep asked my wife (I was in Vegas testifying by video teleconferencing and my wife was in Carson City at the meeting) "But what if they don't even want a document number?" My wife replied, "Well then I guess you'll just have to use letters on those." The Sec of State Rep just said, "Yes. We could do that." Heaven, I am still in heaven!

They decided that if someone wanted to come in in person that all they would have to do is swear they were who they said they were and that would be enough since they could just lie about the number if they wanted to lie and vote with motor voter. Heaven, pure heaven.

I hope we can get it through the Assembly now and then past the Senate but with the County Clerks and Sec of State office both in our corner an apparently Jesus Christ opening their darkened minds we just might get more than we dreamed of when we started.

Great to be back. I know I'll enjoy trying to catch up.

Christopher
==========================

My name is Christopher Holloman Hansen. I am a member of the Clark County Independent American Party Central Committee, the Founder and Presiding Sovereign of The First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty (a political religion) and one of the main reasons you are considering correcting the law concerning voter registration.

In order to understand the reason my son sued the Clark County registrar of voters you need to know a little history.

President Abraham Lincoln said: "Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges, let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls and enforced in courts of justice. And in short, let it become the political religion of the nation."

Our Constitution has literally become my political religion.

I have been politically active for 33 years. My passion is studying the constitutions and laws of Nevada and these united States of America, the writings of the founding fathers and both Nevada and united States Supreme court decisions. I found that the America of today has followed a path that regrettably was predicted by these authors of freedom.

Thomas Jefferson 1788 "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Thomas Jefferson 1799. "How long we can hold our ground, I do not know. We are not incorruptible; on the contrary, corruption is making silent progress."

I knew that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing and that although my action may jeopardize my security I also knew the words of Ben Franklin "He who gives up a little freedom for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."

I decided that I could no longer allow any government to infringe upon my nor my families God given unalienable rights. Not even in the smallest degree. That to do so was to desert my duty as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I could no longer allow government to believe that I was subject to their whims but only to constitutional law. We will not lose our liberty in one swift motion but in small steps decried by politicians as necessary to the proper order of society, just as occurred in Hitler's Germany. I therefore, cannot tolerate even the slightest loss of personal sovereignty and freedom.

Although I support the changes in defining what is constitutionally required I found some real problems with this bill on a technical, moral and legal level. The first problem is NRS 483.850 and 483.860 says to see 483.290 which says:
(a) If the applicant was born in the United States, a birth certificate issued by a state or the District of Columbia or other proof of the applicant's date of birth, including, but not limited to, a driver's license issued by another state or the District of Columbia, or a baptismal certificate and other proof that is determined to be necessary and is acceptable to the department; or

The statute is clear that these other proofs are not defined and not limited. Be sure you heard that: By statute there is no limit to the forms of identification that the DMV may consider. That's right: a Department of Motor Vehicles' bureaucrat is authorized to determine what forms of identification will be acceptable to allow a person to vote.

Now the most interesting part of that is if a person is not allowed to register vote (as my son was not allow his official documents) then NRS 293.533 says:
Action to compel registration. Any elector may bring and any number of electors may join in an action or proceeding in a district court to compel the county clerk to enter the name of such elector or electors in the registrar of voters' register and the election board register.

And at NRS 293.044 "County clerk" defined; synonymous with "registrar of voters" in certain counties.

So if a clerk at the DMV decides that, for what ever reason they may decide, that my unlimited ôother proofö is not satisfactory then I have to sue the registrar of voters who has no authority over the DMV clerk. There is nothing I can find in the statute that allows the Registrar or a deputy to determine the validity of identifications, only the DMV.

There is no statute addressing remedies concerning such actions by the DMV and voting.

The other problem I see is one from American history. In the south, before the federal laws to ensure voting rights, clerks were allowed jurisdiction in what would be acceptable and therefore who would be acceptable to vote. That history is one of blatant bigotry. I must assume that no one honestly believes that there is no bigotry in government today, especially when it comes to the hatred of differing beliefs. I was even informed by a reliable source that when my sister was recognized asking questions of this committee that someone said, ôOh no. There's those crazy people again.ö You never can tell where bigotry will raise its ugly head. Even here in Nevada members of the Mormon faith were not allowed by statute to vote until after the court overturned that bigotry in the 1920's.

There are several Supreme Court decisions that do not allow even legislatively authorized individuals of the executive branch of government like, license clerks, police officers, etc. to have such complete latitude and decision making powers over the rights of Citizens with such little legislative directive as is offered here. Especially when religious intolerance or other bigotry may be enabled.

The current law allows a voter to simply put a 9, 10 or 12 digit number that they claim under oath is an official number and they are registered to vote. That's right: no written documents, no official tangible proof. Just the word of one person under oath that they used their official number. And according to the Clark County Registrar of Voters that number is never checked. They don't have the money to handle this unfunded federal mandate. But, as in the case of my son, if three witnesses are willing to swear under oath that an elector, who does not have or does not want an official number, is whom he says he is then this is not acceptable. This newly created bigotry against the numerically identifiably challenged would be humorous if it had not taken a District Court decision to force it to stop. Even then the word of the witnesses was discarded in preference to government documents. We of The Christian Fellowship find this religiously repugnant. We are not creations of the State. The State is a creation of the People. If the State cannot trust the testimony of three citizens why should the citizens trust the individual entity known as The State of Nevada. After all, the United States Congress promised the American people that the Social Security number would never be used as an identifying number. When a state government encourages the use of the Social Security Number as an individual identification number they are perpetuating that lie to We the People.

We need to have a way to identify ourselves that is acceptable to this peoples governmental servants that does not include a government issued identification that Americans lived without for well over a 120 years. Something that does not interfere with deeply held Christian beliefs. Church documents were standard proof for centuries but are now dismissed out of hand or at least viewed with a jaundiced eye and yet they are mentioned in the Statute. Where then can we find a remedy. We must look to that document that according to the founding fathers was the very foundation of our Constitution. The Holy Bible which says in (Matt. 18:16) and elsewhere in both Testaments and concerns both legal and religious matters.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

If an elector is willing to take the time to have two witnesses with him to testify under oath or write affidavits as who a person is then that must be satisfactory. To lie under oath is a felony. To forge a birth certificate if a misdemeanor. Both can easily be done. George Washington in his farewell address said, "Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Washington said oaths by the religiously obligated are the very heart of our justice system. And although our current president does not have such high regard for oaths before God we must not devalue Washington understanding for as James Madison said.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." We of the Christian Fellowship do not want a bastardized government and so we ask that you specifically include this Biblical Christian option.

The current system of motor voter is such an invitation to voter fraud that national TV did a show illustrating its defects with even normal law abiding citizens registering their pets. How many people have more insidious reasons to falsify voting records.

At the very worst the proposal of three witnesses as an option to government documents which under the current proposal is not restricted although not mentioned would be no more advantageous to voter fraud than is the current system.

Thank you for your consideration.

Christopher Holloman Hansen

===========================

My name is Joshua Joel Holloman Hansen and you may remember me in that the very court decision that has brought about this call to legislative action was partially on my account. I am an eighteen-year-old lifelong citizen of the Nevada Republic and currently own my own business, that specializes in internet programming, and the use of global communications and commerce. In case you had some image of me being a mad bomber of some half cocked militia member ready to start an armed revolt against the government, I'd like to let you know, I am not.

In my battle in the courts regarding my right to vote I always maintained that the right to vote was sacred and that conviction has not changed since then. However it is also necessary that the purity of the vote is maintained and that dishonest men and women cannot cast their vote multiple times, for in this republican system it is only just that no single man's voice has any more bearing than another's. Maintaining the purity of the vote basically requires us to make sure everyone is who they say they are.

Before, although no where is it mandated unless you are using the motor voter system to register, the county required that a citizen of the Nevada Republic present one of three things as identification to vote: a social security number, a driver's license, or a Nevada ID. A birth certificate, notarized documents, and even a passport, the most universally acceptable form of ID, were not considered enough to allow one to register. And why? Because there is a little box on the voter application to enter an 8, 10, or 12 digit number.

There is no necessity for this number, except to individualize an individual within a computer database and match up distributed forms (which could be done just as easily with a random number that had no bearing on marking an individual). No two people have the exact same name, birthday, and address, and even if they did we all have signatures. There is no reason that we need a specific identification number. A random number serves just fine as our signature to the digital world or computers and if it were generated in a random fashion and renewed every year I would have no objection to a system of that nature.

Allowing a Nevada ID number and not a birth certificate is completely illogical and senseless seeing as to obtain a Nevada ID all you need is a birth certificate and ten dollars. Why is a birth certificate currently not enough then? Is current application of the law incorrect and indeed a birth certificate is a viable form of identification or is the state attempting to work its own kind of a poll tax in a round sort of about way?

Now for the rant. Albert Einstein once said ôIf you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.ö I am not here to dress anything up in pretty words or to be pleasing to anyone's ears, I'm here to tell you the purest truth as I understand it. The social security system is a socialist institution, even it its name, social security. It allows the old to steal from the young and for many others to get money for other people's hard work. It lets parents enslave their children and forces God loving patriots to compromise their beliefs if they wish to do things as seemingly normal as open a bank account, buy anything on credit, get a job, or even vote. How can a voluntary system, as the social security system is, and a system which, at its creation, was promised never to be used for identification be required for so much?

The acceptance and use of a single number as identification is something everyone here should be very weary of. As I stated before I work in the world of computers and global communications and commerce, and it is my business to understand how these numbers work in our world of communication. If you think a single number as identification is a good idea, give someone with my professional understanding of the computer world, that number, two weeks, and motive and you'll find out just what can happen to you. Medical records, credit history, address, phone numbers, shopping habits, where you work, and more are all at the fingertips of someone who could be most diabolical. For our own protection it is best that our state uphold congress' original promise that the social security number should never be used as an identifying mark.

Telling someone like myself that I need a social security number so that I can vote for representatives which will fight the social security numbering system and other socialist institutions is like telling a black man that before he can vote for representatives that will fight for his civil rights he must first burn a cross in front of a friend's home or that in order for a Jewish woman to vote she must have a Nazi Swastika tattooed on her. These cases may sound extreme, but to many Christian patriots out there the social security number is no less extreme. In essence we are being asked to mark ourselves with a number that, I for one, have good reason to believe is the Mark of the Beast as spoken of in the book of Revelations. (quote) This is a complete violation of everything we believe.

Throughout the history of the United States the government has silenced the voice of certain groups of people by making voting difficult for them. Blacks had one of the hardest roads to vote in that even after the Thirteenth Amendment was passed State governments still passed other laws that made it difficult and often impossible for blacks to vote. In an effort to strip these men of their most sacred rights government instated poll taxes and grandfather laws. They aren't the only ones who have been denied. It wasn't until the twentieth century that women could vote and for people my age during the Vietnam war the government felt it was acceptable to draft us off to war but not to let us vote. Government has throughout history made it hard for groups of people to vote that it wanted silence or oppress.

Not allowing someone to vote does more than just stop their voice in the government. It allows for their total oppression. It is both the nature of humanity and of government to take advantage of what is defenseless. Blacks were slaves and women were viewed as inferiors and until they finally won the battle to get their right to vote recognized, these views didn't change.

The question at hand is, how will the history books look back on this decision? As legislators you have the opportunity to be viewed as cruel and prejudiced and to be scowled at by children and adults alike and be compared the wicked men of the civil war era or for once you can look at history and learn from it and be the protectors of freedom. If there is one thing history has shown it is that if it takes picketing, if it takes marches, or if it takes down right violence, the voices of the people will be heard and people like me will fight in any way possible to see that our voices are heard and sooner or later it will be a force so powerful that no one and no group out there can stop it. We will be heard, but as to whether it is through peaceable legislative action or through protest, civil disobedience, and Godly rebellion in support of our Unalienable rights will be your choice today.

In his Notes on Religion, 1776 Thomas Jefferson said:
"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed."
The choice is yours.
Joshua Joel Holloman Hansen

IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL REPORT ON USE OF

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS RELEASED: 2/16/99

Prepared by the United States General Accounting Office, (GAO)

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

The General Accounting Office has just completed a Congressional Report on how private businesses and public governmental agencies use social security numbers.

The GAO report, published February 16, 1999, entitled "Government and Commercial Use of the Social Security Number Is Widespread" was prepared at the request of the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, in the House of Representatives.

Responding to public concerns about how organizations use and misuse of SSNs, several members of the Congress have introduced bills to regulate usage of the numbers. The Subcommittee asked the GAO to research and describe:

- federal laws and regulations requiring or restricting SSN use,
- how extensively the private and public sectors use SSNs for purposes not required by federal law, and
- what businesses and governments believe the impact would be if federal laws limiting the use of SSNs were passed.


The report is broken down generally into three main parts: 1) federal laws that "require" the use of social security numbers; 2) federal laws that "restrict" the use of SSNs; and, 3) public and private usage of SSNs that is neither authorized nor prohibited by law but is practiced by convention.

Some things to keep in mind when reading the report: 1) Social security numbers were intended for one purpose only, but have gradually and surreptitiously been converted to other uses. 2) Some of the uses that have been made of social security numbers are "unlawful," but nothing is being done to stop the practices. 3) With regard to public and private entities that "use" social security numbers as discussed in the report, the word "use" can be fairly replaced with the words "misuse" and "abuse" as appropriate. 4) The word "authorized" can also be interchanged with the word "permitted" as opposed to "required" in many instances. 5) Although the GAO admits there are "unlawful" uses being made of SSNs, the report fails to identify a single use that falls into this category. 6) The very few "lawful requirements" for SSNs which do exist apply only to the specific classes of individuals that are also subject to the broader scope of the respective federal law - typically with regard to certain tax payers; recipients of federal benefits; and, commercial driver licensees. And, 7) The "pseudo-requirements" for states to collect SSNs the report mentions are all tied to federal benefit funding programs for which there are no penalties imposed upon the states for failing to obtain SSNs (with the possible exception of a reduction in federal funding).

Of equal importance is the fact that the GAO was not charged with researching the reasons why Americans oppose the idea of social security numbers being used as universal identifiers, nor were they responsible for determining or evaluating the reasons why the practice may be contrary to the principles of freedom and liberty.

Lastly, the reader should maintain a clear mental distinction between the instances where "use" of social security numbers is "permitted" (or simply "not prohibited") and the very limited conditions where using a SSN is "required by law."

GENERAL REVIEW:

In developing their report, the GAO contacted the following users of SSNs: private businesses that sell information of a personal nature about members of the general public; businesses involved in providing financial and health care services; and two large state programs that frequently use SSNs for administrative purposes.

The Report begins by acknowledging that in 1936, SSA created SSNs as a means of maintaining individual earnings. And, "the Act now requires individuals to provide SSA with their number when they apply for Social Security benefits."

But, they go on to say that, "today, the SSN is used for a myriad of non-Social Security purposes, some legal and some illegal." And, "once SSA created and began using SSNs to help administer its programs, the Congress recognized the universal nature of the SSN and subsequently enacted laws requiring SSN uses for some purposes not related to Social Security."

According to the researchers, "over the years, the SSN has come to be viewed by many as a national identifier because almost every American has an SSN, and each is unique." (Interestingly, the footnote to this sentence states: "Some individuals do not have an SSN, either because they do not want one or because they are ineligible to receive one.")

Initially, the public trustingly accepted the numbers under the mistaken belief that they would only be used to maintain an accounting of payments made to the Social Security system. The report fails to acknowledge that over the years, a multitude of misuses and abuses have evolved by way of deception and misleading pronouncements from government officials.

The report states that officials of all the organizations they reviewed &emdash; including businesses that sell personal information (such as credit reporting agencies), providers of financial and health care services, and state personal income tax and driver licensing administrators &emdash; routinely "choose to use SSNs as a management tool to conduct their business or program activities." This should come as no surprise since all of the entities contacted benefit directly from the collection and distribution of SSNs in one form or another; either as a monetary return or as increased political power [i.e. control]. Perhaps some of the "illegal uses" mentioned in the report take place within these categories?

Not surprisingly the GAO report states that, "both private business and government officials said their organizations could be adversely affected if the federal government passes laws that limited their use of SSNs. Credit bureau officials and state tax administrators said federal restrictions could impede their ability to conduct routine internal activities, such as maintaining consumer histories and identifying tax filers..."

Moreover, many of the officials they interviewed "believed that federal restriction of their use of SSNs would hamper their ability to conduct data exchanges with other organizations." Accordingly, without SSNs, they said, "state tax administrators would have difficulty associating tax return information received from other tax agencies with tax information reported by residents. A health care provider said federal restrictions on SSN use "could impede providers' ability to track patients' medical histories over time and among multiple providers."

Representatives from the nation's biggest proponent of universal identifiers - the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) - said restrictions on the use of SSNs as universal identifiers "could make it difficult for states to detect noncommercial drivers who were trying to conceal driving infractions under other state licenses."

REQUIREMENTS FOR USING SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS ACCORDING TO THE REPORT:

The report states that federal laws "now require that SSNs be used in the administration of some programs, including the federal personal income tax program; the Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Food Stamp, and Child Support Enforcement programs; and state commercial driver licensing programs."

Other than the general taxing and social benefit provisions, the only specific federal "requirement" for SSNs mentioned is for COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSING - as distinguished from individual driver licensing!

The uses of SSNs referred to in the report as being "requirements" are as follows:

1)"The Internal Revenue Code and regulations, which govern the administration of the federal personal income tax program, require that individuals' SSNs serve as taxpayer identification numbers. ... Using the SSNs, IRS matches the information supplied by entities reporting payments or other transactions with returns filed by taxpayers to monitor individuals' compliance with federal income tax laws."

2)"The [Social Security] Act now requires individuals to provide SSA their number when they apply for Social Security benefits." And, "a number of federal laws require program administrators to use SSNs in determining applicants' eligibility for federally funded benefits such as SSI, Food Stamp, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Medicaid programs."

3)"Another federal law that requires the use of SSNs for identifying individuals is the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. This law established the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), a nationwide database. States are required to use individuals' SSNs to search this database for other state-issued licenses commercial drivers may hold. This checking is necessary because commercial drivers are limited to owning one state-issued driver's license."

Above are the specific requirement for SSNs. Following are some of the more "gray area" so-called requirements for SSNs, typically involving direct or indirect ties to various benefit programs.

4)"Federal law also requires the use of SSNs in state child support programs to help states locate noncustodial parents, establish and enforce support orders, and recoup state welfare payments from parents." [A footnote to this statements says: "States' receipt of federal funding for TANF is contingent upon their compliance with federal child support enforcement initiatives."] Additionally, "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 expanded the Federal Parent Locator Service &emdash; an automated database searchable by SSN &emdash; to include information helpful for tracking delinquent parents across state lines." [Another footnote states: "In cases in which individuals do not have SSNs or choose not to provide them, organizations may use alternative identifiers."]

This section on funding-contingent state requirements goes on to say: "The law requires states to maintain records that include (1)SSNs for individuals who owe or are owed support for cases in which the state has ordered child support payments to be made, the state is providing support, or both, and (2)employers' reports of new hires identified by SSN. States must transmit this information to the Federal Parent Locator Service. The law also requires states to record SSNs on many other state documents, such as professional, occupational, and marriage licenses; divorce decrees; paternity determinations; and death certificates, and to make SSNs associated with these documents available for state child support agencies to use in locating and obtaining child support payments from noncustodial parents."

With regard to the last category of "state requirements," it must be noted that, first of all, they only require states to "request SSNs from license applicants." Secondly, no penalty is imposed upon the states for failing to obtain SSNs. And, thirdly, there is absolutely no penalty imposed upon license applicants who refuse to provide an SSN to a state in furtherance of one of the funding-contingent federal benefit programs.

Under the fundamental principles of contract law - as well as God's Laws of Covenants - whenever one party breaches or defaults on the terms and conditions of an agreement, the other party is released from all reciprocal obligations. Clearly, the United States Government has admittedly breached its commitment to the citizens of this country and defaulted on its assurance that social security numbers would only be used for crediting payments to the records of contributors. They have knowingly abused the public's trust and have used deception to convert what was initially intended as a "single use" numbering system into a "universal numbering and identification system." Those individuals who have been deceptively mislead into using SSNs for purposes other than that which was intended are no not bound to abide by the newly imposed unlawful requirements.

Scott McDonald

------------------------------------------
The full report can be viewed in both HTML and PDF format at:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page2/fp-gao-ssn-report.html

It is also available at the GAO web site: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/he99028.pdf
------------------------------------------

Organizations and agencies that were contacted concerning their use of social security numbers:

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators; American Bankers Association; Associated Credit Bureaus, Inc.; BlueCross BlueShield Association; Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Taxation; Credit Plus Solution Group; Experian; Federation of Tax Administrators; Georgia Department of Public Safety, Division of Driver Services; Independent Bankers Association of America; Information Industry Association; Kaiser Permanente; Lexis-Nexus; Maryland Hospital Association; MasterCard; Mutual Fund Education Alliance; Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles; State of Maryland, Comptroller of the Treasury, Revenue Administration Division; Wachovia Corporation, Special Services; Washington Hospital Center.

Ordering Information: The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit:
Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to: info@www.gao.gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov

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

The Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. Representative from Texas, Bill Archer, said in a letter dated June 5, 1998, that:
"Since 1988, there has been an effort to expand the use of Social Security numbers for tracking absent parents who owe child support. In order to properly track the $34 billion in child support money that goes uncollected annually, the use of Social Security numbers is unavoidable."

Another U.S. Representative from Texas, the Honerable Ron Paul, has recently introduced the "Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act," H.R. 220, which would:
"Amend title II of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the integrity and confidentiality of Social Security account numbers issued under such title, to prohibit the establishment in the Federal Government of any uniform national identifying number, and to prohibit Federal agencies from imposing standards for identification of individuals on other agencies or persons." <