Your Papers, Citizen

Sierra Times ^

[Sir Gawain]

	Your Papers, Citizen By Mama Sierra Published 05. 13. 02 at 21:51 Sierra Time

I received this letter today, and it sent a chill down my spine like no other. I knew about it, I understood the implications of this long ago, but it is a long road from an intellectual understanding to the gut reaction when faced with immediate reality. We are doing it to ourselves. We have allowed, even encouraged this for so many years that it is our own fault. We have sold our liberty for convenience, and our sovereign independence for the myth that we can be protected from ourselves and others by laws and governments. Read it and weep. Then decide what you are going to do about it - now, today, for real. Today, I was refused medical treatment on a routine office visit because I do not have, and could not provide, a photo ID. My appointment, which had been scheduled for six weeks in advance, was with a Dermatologist. When I arrived at the office the attendant asked me to fill out the necessary forms and submit a photo ID. I told her I would be paying with cash and there would be no need to file with any insurance company. I then asked why a photo ID needed. I was told that it was office policy. When I explained that I do not have a photo ID, the office manager said the doctor would not provide the requested service unless I submitted a photo ID. I left without treatment. I'm sending this out primarily for the benefit of those readers who still don't understand the far-reaching implications of President Bush's Homeland Security initiative which includes proposed federal standards for nationalized driver's licenses incorporating biometric identification linked to personal data and other identifying information stored on an imbedded microchip. Some people still have the false notion that they can simply "erase" the chip or render it inoperable to avoid undesirable consequences. To those, I would say that a simpler solution would be to just throw the card away altogether. The result will be the same: You will be denied access to, and use of all goods, services and rights dependent upon possession and display of the "voluntary" IDs. I was denied renewal of my driver's license due to my religious objections with regard to mandatory submission of a social security number. I subsequently filed suit and we are currently awaiting reply from the Alabama Supreme Court on our Petition for Certiorari in that matter. (The state will not issue a "non-driver" photo ID to anyone eligible for a driver's license, and they demand an SSN from applicants for non-driver IDs anyway. So that is not an option.) If sufficient numbers of people do not begin now to object to universal demands for submission of state-issued IDs as a condition for services, there will soon come a time when all activity will necessitate possession of some form of chip-imbedded ID, and there will be no viable opportunity for objection.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[Bahbah]

I have been complaining about the encroachments on citizens privacy literally for years and some have thought me to be a bit of a crank. I hate being proved right.

[Maelstrom]

Told ya so

[basil]

This country is inhabitated by a huge majority of sheeple, so we will have to wait til hell freezes over before we see people objecting to this.

I am constantly amazed at how much personal information people will give out. For instance, one store in my area always asks for a home phone number when ringing up a sale. I have never seen a case when the people ahead of me in line refuse to give it. I have even received checks from perfect strangers in my volunteer job that have the person's SS number printed on the check!

Blows my mind!!!

[BlueLancer]

Alles es ordnung.

[Huck]

The doctor is operating a private business. The office set its own policy requiring photo ID. Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere. Isn't that the libertarian line? Or are we supposed to go to the courts to force businesses to alter their own office policies? I thought sierra types were opposed to this sort of statist intervention.

[cynicom]

Reverse is also true....

My last visit to doctor, there were two Mexican men, one woman and a baby in waiting room. One man spoke a little English. Nurse asked them to fill out usual paperwork. They could not. She asked if they had insurance, they had none, asked where they worked, they did not work. Finally in desperation, she threw the paperwork aside, took the baby for examination. All of the adults were illegals. She dared not turn them away, they were minorities and it would create a problem. I doubt if the doctor got anything for his care.

[mommadooo3]

This isn't going to come to an end any time soon. There are NOT enough people left who KNOW what the Constitution/freedom is all about. The school systems are cranking out 'graduates' who have learned the fine art of licking the hands that hold their chains.

[Henrietta]

Her point, Huck, was not that we should all sue to stop private businesses from demanding photo ID. It was that when the government keeps info on everyone in a data base, and then creates a little card that most people carry around with them with that information on it, pretty soon private businesses will make up some excuses to obtain said card, and hence, said information.

This is all fine as long as most businesses don't ask for the little card, but we've all seen this kind of "information creep" where people who really don't need to know your business ask for personal info like your SS# and phone number, and won't do business with you unless you provide it. Radio Shack, for example, once refused to sell me an electrical connector because I refused to give them my phone number. Sure, it was their right to refuse to sell to me without it, but what do we do when every store demands the phone number and we can't buy or sell without giving out the "number of the beast?"

[jetson]

Your point is well taken about big brothers intrusion, but because of our liberal approach to immigration over the last 11 years, we are going to have to do more of this. California is being overun with foreigners and a large majority are not legal. Our hospital systems are failing due to illegals using them for a tooth ache, etc. I hope the doctors are checking ALL ID's and not just the evil white mans.

[RicocheT]

I pay cash for most purchases at Radio Shack. When the guy asks for my name and telephone number, I just make it up. Use the 3 digits for a local exchange and go random on the next 4.

As far as a national ID, it is a prescription for a totalitarian regime. They promise safety and give us tyranny.

[3AngelaD]

I always give them an imaginary phone number. They don't know the difference.

[Huck]

Radio Shack, for example, once refused to sell me an electrical connector because I refused to give them my phone number. Sure, it was their right to refuse to sell to me without it, but what do we do when every store demands the phone number and we can't buy or sell without giving out the "number of the beast?"

That's my point. When that happens, you go to the government to force the private businesses to change their requirements, right? You sue. In the meantime, you don't have to shop at Radio Shack. Personally, I don't like to give out information to stores. It's a time consuming pain. Just sell me the product and leave me alone. When a cashier asks for my zip code, or phone number, or whatever, I just ask them to skip it, and I have never been refused a purchase. But then, I don't find photo identification objectionable either.

[mushroom]

Do what I do - lie shamelessly.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The doctor is operating a private business. The office set its own policy requiring photo ID. Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere. Isn't that the libertarian line? Or are we supposed to go to the courts to force businesses to alter their own office policies? I thought sierra types were opposed to this sort of statist intervention.

Good post. I agree.

[BlueDragon]

California HAD the requirement for Social Security numbers to be supplied in order to get a drivers license---but got stopped cold (after about five or six years) when it was challenged in court. So you have a California precedent---and I think they may have made it a "Federal" matter... (i could be wrong, and do not wish to mislead). It might have gone Federal, for if I'm remembering correctly, the original Social Security Act stated clearly that the numbers were NOT to be used for identification purposes. So there we go...States ignoring Federal "law" until sued and forced to comply. I wish I knew what case to look up, for I might seek an injunction against the Fish & Game for continuing to require the fed S.S.# to obtain a commercial fishing license. Must we sue each and every "department" of the State governments? They should pay our court costs plus "damages" IF we could catch them not complying with any possible "wider" court order prohibiting the conduct. But I'm not holding my breath, for most proceedings are narrowed at the beginning. Named plaintiff here---named defendant there. Others not directly parties to the case at hand---unaffected? If your lawyer can find any info on the Cal case---I'll be more than willing to poke around in the local county law library. It does have stacks of Cal Appellate, etc (Federal Codes also)...plus of course, all the California State Codes, annottated West's & Deerings---wait a minute! I might find a footnote in the Vehicle code that would lead me to the case. Though it could be in "Government" too, or only in those volumes. (i've not looked much at much in "gov", so am not familiar to the layout & scope of what's contained). For repealed laws are cited at times, with history. And if the Deerings is just the right "age", being young enough to hold the "requirement", but old enough to not have the amendment or repeal--except in pamphlet form stapled in the back--then presto---we gotta story! The Deerings on the shelf seem older than the West's by a few years...the West's are pretty fresh. (i sort of know my way around laws books somewhat...) I'll look--maybe tomorrow, for I'll likely be digging around in the law library anyway. Any info you could bounce my way to help narrow the search would be most helpful. Perhaps more so to you, than to me, hehehe... I dearly love finding the nuggets and gems (in the laws and codes) that fix "the bastard's" wagons---by taking their wheeels off!!! I can send photocopies, U.S. mail.
MKQ

[Redcloak]

Speaking of California, Mama Sierra could go to Mexico and sneak across the border into the Golden State. If she can manage to convince Gray Davis that she's really an illegal alien, then he'll happily issue her a driver's license.

[BlueDragon]

I should have said---pass this (my previous post on this matter) to Mama Sierra, if you can. Please look if you in any way have the time. It could be a "little" important to many, nationwide. How can I link up with the plaintiff? No, I'm not a lawyer. But basis research is legal for all to conduct. I'm not opposed to sharing info that can put a crimp in tryanny. It's much more productive than just "bitching" about it! And this DOES look like a case were others have already done the difficult groundbreaking. California Dept. of Motor Vehicles NO LONGER ask for S.S. #s! The guy won his case against them. If we could just keep the ball rolling... Anyone else with good clues to the Cal case--PLEASE chime in! It could make the difference as to wether or not I and others could "find" this existing precedent. I'm not "good enough" yet as a researcher to find it without some starting point.