The National ID Card Research Project
Page One
There is a move underfoot to initiate a National ID card. Up until recently, those who want a National ID card in the United States have not been successful in passing the necessary legislation. Their efforts, however, have apparently paid off, for, according to some, they found another way to implement this diabolical plan, via the state-issued drivers license programs.
The newly implemented high-technology Employment Authorization Document, Form I-766, is evidently just another piece of the National ID Card puzzle according to Jacki Juntti (idzrus@nwlink.com). Anyone who expects to work in the U.S., so it has been said, will eventually have to have one of these cards. Once this plan is in effect, an employer will not be able to hire anyone without swiping thier ID card through a card reader, which will, in turn, access a federal database, so it is said by others.
I would like to begin this set of pages with a short news article that appeared in the Safety & Security [electronic] Magazine, URL: www.imperium.net/~colombo/homepage.htm. Al Colombo
New Employment Authorization
Document For Aliens
The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, in conjunction with the DOJ, has created a new high-technology Employment Authorization Document, Form I-766, to help employers identify illegal aliens before they hire them. Using a combination of holographic technology and microprinting, this new EAD promises to help employers better screen illegals who apply for work. Identification numbers are stored on the card in the form of a bar code and the person's image is digitally stored on the card using encoded graphic technology.
The knee-jerk reaction among those aware of the implications of this development has not been especially good. Privacy experts and privy citizens fear that this is just another step in the U.S. Government's effort to implement a National ID card. Initially, some charge that this is being facilitated on a state level by way of a new drivers license that features a holographic representation of the driver's fingerprint, in addition to other information, personal and otherwise, on the licensee. Soon this card will assumedly give way to the use of "smart card" technology. It is common knowledge that issuing an ID card to every citizen is a trademark of communistic/socialistic countries. --Al Colombo
From: Keith D.
Subject: Trending and projections
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997
Al,
Jackie Juntti (idzrus@nwlink.com) is an activist out in Washington
State. I have gotten on her mailing list, which sometimes gets me
less-than-factual information. However, there is a piece that deserves a
look.
The Washington House has apparently passed a bill (#1243) that requires
the creation of new driver's licenses that include electronic
fingerprint scans. I have looked at a legislative site for the state of
Washington and it seems that this is the case.
The bill as passed would make the fingerprints VOLUNTARY; however, those
choosing NOT to give their fingerprints would receive a distinctly
different driver's license.
I wonder if the state of Washington knows what is going on in Georgia on
this subject?
Respectfully,
Keith D.
From: Jackie Juntti
Subject: (9/10) Fingerprints info from Georgia.
Greetings:
This just came to me and I think it needs to be distributed at once. I
have tried to clean upall the forward marks so it will be easier reading.
Jackie
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:23:55
To: Fingerprint Info Group
From: Bob or Cyndee
Subject: Letter to Attorney General
This is just a sample of some of the research we have done. There are over
200 case cites alone, that show travelling in an automobile is a "right",
"inalienable right", "fundamental right", "constitutional right", etc. The
majority of those cases state that a government cannot take a piece of
personal property (car) and then cause you to have to have a license to
operate it or turn that right into a "priviledge".
What I show below are some of the other aspects of constitutional
violations. Our plan is to send the below stated material to Michael Bowers
for his rebuttal. We are keenly aware that this comprises only a FEW of the
violations and we are also aware that the religious aspect does not affect
everyone.
First and foremost, the General Assembly has NO AUTHORITY to pass a law
regarding fingerprinting. If there is such authority, please state the
Article, Section and Paragraph number. It also has NO AUTHORITY to make
laws repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, nor laws
inconsistent with the Georgia Constitution. Lack of authority alone makes
the fingerprint requirement unconstitutional.
Georgia Constitution, Article III, Section VI, Paragraph I. General Powers.
"The General Assembly shall have the power to make all laws not
inconsistent with this Constitution, and not repugnant to the Constitution
of the United States, which it shall deem necessary and proper for the
welfare of the state."
Fingerprinting law abiding citizens has nothing to do with the "welfare of
the state".
"An unconstitutional legislative enactment, though law in form, is in fact
not law at all. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had
never been passed." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908);
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442.
"A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and
another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have changed
as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable." Traveler's
Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 76 S.W. (2d) 1007, 1011; 124 Texas 45.
"The meaning which a constitutional provision had when adopted, it has
today; its intent does not change with time nor condition; while it
operates upon new subjects and changed conditions, it operates with the
same meaning and intent which it had when formulated and adopted."
Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) Vol. 1, page 123.
"Motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance
propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes
on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and
property: "Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or
property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or
directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other
undertaking intended for profit." USCA Title 18, Section 31.
Those of us travelling in automobiles are not driving "motor vehicles" and
should not even be licensed. 1. How can you make a license mandatory in
the first place, except through fraud, and secondly require fingerprints to obtain
one?
2. Did we give up a constitutional "right" when we applied for and signed
our driver's license application or give up a "right" that was then turned
into a "privilege"?
"Waiver of Constitutional guaranteed rights not only must be voluntary,
they must be knowingly, intelligently done with sufficient awareness of the
relevant circumstances and consequences." Brady v. U.S. 397 U.S. 742 at 748.
Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph XIII.
Searches, Seizures and Warrants.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated;
and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation particularly describing the place or places to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.
AND
United States Constitution, Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
an no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."
"This amendment protects people, not places, and more particularly, it
protects people from unreasonable government intrusions into their
legitimate expectations." U.S. v. Chadwick, Mass. 1977, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 433
U.S. 1, 53 L.Ed.2d 538, U.S. v. Kelley, D.C.Okl.1975, 393 f.Supp. 755.
"This amendment protects people, not places." Katz v. U.S., cal.1967, 88
S.Ct. 507, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, U.S. v. Westerbann-Martinez,
D.C.N.Y.1977, 435 F.Supp. 690; U.S. v. Leonard, D.C.Ill. 1973, 363 F.Supp.
1348; People v. Christman, 1970, 307 N.Y.S.2d 545, 61 Misc.2d 1084; People
v. Rosenthal, 1969, 299 N.Y.S.2d 960, 59 Misc.2d 565.
"This amendment is to be liberally construed and all owe duty of vigilance
for its effective enforcement lest there shall be impairment of rights for
protection of which it was adopted." Ker v. State of Cal., Cal.1963, 83
S.Ct. 1623, 374 U.S. 23, 10 L.Ed.2d 726; Wrightson v. U.S., 1955, 222 F.2d
556, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 390; Catalanotte v. U.S., C.A.Mich.1953, 208 F.2d 264.
"The protection of this amendment cannot be impaired by a
construction thought necessary to meet changing demands of law
enforcement." U.S. v. Kennedy, D.C.Colo.1946, 5 F.R.D. 310.
"This amendment and Amends. 1 and 5 are related and safeguard not only
privacy and protection against self-incrimination but conscience and human
dignity and freedom of expression as well."
Stanford v. State of Tex., Tex.1965, 85 S.Ct. 506, 379 U.S. 476, 13 L.Ed.2d
431, rehearing denied 85 S.Ct. 879, 380 U.S. 926, 13 L.Ed.2d 813.
"Every person enjoys some measure of protection against being coerced into
cooperating with law enforcement authorities by governmental techniques of
intimidation and harassment, whether this protection derives from liberty
interest protected by Amend.
5, privacy interest protected by this amendment and Amend.1, or interest in
procedural regularity protected by due process clause of Amend. 5." Angola
v. Civiletti, C.A.N.Y. 1981, 666 F.2d 1.
"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police,
which is at the core of this amendment, is basic to a free society, and is
therefore implicit in concept of ordered liberty and as such enforceable
against states through the due process clause, and, were a state
affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy, it would run
counter to guaranty of Amend.
14." Stefanelli v. Minard, N.J.1951, 72 S.Ct. 118, 342 U.S. 117, 96 L.Ed. 138.
"This amendment applies to all seizures of the person including those
consuming no more than a minute." People v. Spicer, 1984, 203 Cal.Rptr.
599, 157 C.A. 3d 213.
"Detention by the government of persons for purpose of
fingerprinting is a 'search' within meaning of this amendment."
U.S. v. Thomann, C.A.N.H.1979, 609 F.2d 560 (Also refer to People v.
Spicer as shown above dealing with length of time of detention.
The presumption of detention is made because we are told we "must" obtain a
driver's license and we "must" "voluntarily" go to the driver's license
station ot obtain the license, which we allege is done by threat, coercion
and fraud. Otherwise, if we do not submit, we fear the facing of arrest
for "driving" without a license.)
United States Constitution, Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph III. Freedom Of
Conscience.
"Each person has the natural and inalienable right to worship God, each
according to the dictates of that person's own conscience; and no human
authority should, in any case, control or interfere with such right of
conscience."
Thousands of persons, including many Senators and Representatives are
vehemently opposed to the act of mandatory fingerprinting to receive a
driver's license or state ID card, because of the Biblical prophecies
written in the Book of Revelations regarding the "mark of the Beast" and
receiving his "number" or "mark". The
prophecy further states that anyone receiving this number or mark in their
right hand or forehead will spend eternity in Hell and also that no one
will be able to buy or sell without this mark.
The fingerprint law positively interferes with the right of conscience in
this case and it seeks to control, since one cannot go to work without a
car. If one can't go to work, one cannot earn a living. Therefore, one
will not be able to buy or sell without their fingerprint being turned into
a number, via a bar code and placed on their driver's license. If one
refuses to violate the
"dictates of that person's own conscience" and is refused a license because
of it, one of the most fundamental rights is violated.
Coercion, in this case, is extremely relevant and strong, for if one
refuses to violate his conscience and does not obtain a driver's license,
one is subject to arrest and incarceration. In other words, you are almost
certain to be jailed at some time for your religious beliefs.
Additionally, Colonel Sid Miles has stated that this is the "official" form
of identification for the state
and it must be used for cashing checks, obtaining credit and required to fly.
This belief is so widespread, that it absolutely defies the imagination of
many Georgian's that the General Assembly has not moved to repeal this law.
It has been testified to in both public hearings, is constantly brought up
in rallies and town hall meetings. It is believed that the majority of
lawmakers are Christians and are not ignorant of this prophecy.
Books have even been written about this subject and were previous to the
state of Georgia passing this law. One book in particular, "Project
L.U.C.I.D", even goes so far as to identify the exact Polaroid licensing
system that is currently in use.
Although there is no case law regarding the receiving of "the mark of the
Beast", there is case law regarding religious beliefs in general.
Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph IV. Religious
Opinions; Freedom of Religion.
"No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property or be
prohibited from holding any public office or trust on account of religious
opinions; but the right of freedom of religion shall not be so construed as
to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the
peace and safety of the state."
If you refuse to submit your fingerprint for your belief in the above
stated prophecy, and you are pulled over and charged with driving with a
now expired license, you will be molested in your property. There are
fines and the potential of jail time for this offense. Fines remove your
property. There is the potential for molestation of your person is you are
bodily searched during your arrest. As far as practices being inconsistent
with the peace and safety of the state, not having a driver's license would
not render you an unsafe driver, nor would it cause anyone's safety to be
at risk.
The people that believe in this prophecy, believe strongly. When it comes
down to defying the state or defying God, God will assuredly win. For
this reason, jail would be a better result than Hell. These people
absolutely cannot and will not allow themselves to be compelled to do this.
There are some that would literally seek death before complying. Is that
irrational? Only if you don't believe the Bible is God's true word.
"Before any state may restrict person's religious beliefs, it must proffer
some substantial interest it claims to possess which must be protected even
at cost of restriction of free exercise of religion by its citizens; i.e.,
state must show that it is acting to prevent grave and immediate danger to
interests which state may
lawfully protect." Holmes v. Silver Cross Hospital of Joliet, Ill.,
D.C.Ill. 1972, 340 F.Supp. 125.
"There must be a clear justification in the necessities of national or
community life to warrant the overriding of religious scruples, and, like
the right of free speech, religious freedom is not to be overborne by the
'police power', unless its exercise presents a clear and certain danger to
the community." West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
W.Va.1943, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 319 U.S.
624, 87 L.Ed. 1628.
"If a particular law impedes 'religious' activity even indirectly, it
violates free exercise clause of this amendment, unless impediment is
justified by compelling state interest arising from some substantial threat
to public health, safety, peace or order, and is the least restrictive
means for protecting the compelling state interest." Forest Hills Early
Learning Center, Inc. v.
Lukhard, C.A.Va. 1984, 728 F.2d 230.
"Protections of this amendment are extended not only to those whose
religious beliefs are held by organized religions but also to individually
held religious convictions." In re Marriage of Gove, 1977, 572 P.2d 458,
117 Ariz. 324.
"Neither trappings of robes, nor temples of stone, nor a fixed liturgy, nor
an extensive literature or history is required to meet the test of beliefs
cognizant under this amendment as religious, and one person's religious
beliefs held for one day are presumptively entitled to the same protection
as views of millions which have been shared for thousands of years."
Stevens v. Berger, D.C.N.Y. 1977, 428 F.Supp. 896.
For some, possibly even yourself, it has not been understood why there has
been such a groundswell of determination to rid ourselves of the
fingerprint law. If you wonder why the amounts of people keep growing at
such an astronomical rate and why we cannot be deterred in our fight to
repeal this law, it is our belief that giving in would be a death sentence.
The Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprints Law have literally screened
thousands of telephone calls. It is true that some may simply have the
problem of privacy violations. However, they do affirm that over 80% of
their calls and those signing petitions are doing so because of fear of
"the mark of the Beast". Don't look
for case law on the subject, it won't exist. It only comes with time.
Never has this state had a system for generating numbers from a person's
own hand or body part. Before now, that was left for items like cans of
dog food.
Can you now dare tell us that this does not violate any one of the following?
1. Does this prohibit the free exercise of our religion in obeying God?
2. Do we no longer have the inalienable right to worship God and obey Him
according to the dictates of our own conscience?
3. Will the state violate our right to worship God and obey his Word by
controlling our right of conscience?
4. Will the state violate our right by to worship and obey God's Word by
interfering with our right of conscience?
5. Will the state violate our inalienable right of same and cause us to be
molested in our person or property because of our religious beliefs?
6. Are we threatening public safety?
7. Are we threatening peace?
8. Is fingerprinting the least restrictive means for identifying one shown
to have driving skills?
9. Are we posing a substantial threat to public health?
Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph XXVIII.
"The enumeration of rights herein contained as a part of this Constitution
shall not be construed to deny the people any inherent rights which they
may have hitherto enjoyed."
1. Did we hitherto enjoy the right to obtain a license without giving our
fingerprint?
2. Is there an enumeration of rights of the state to our
fingerprints that we cannot find in the Georgia Constitution?
Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section II, Paragraph I.
"All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded upon
their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
Public officers are the trustees and servants of the people and are at all
times amenable to them."
1. Was the fingerprint law founded upon the will of the people?
2. Did anyone plead for a new law to be passed, saying please fingerprint us?
3. Where was the public outcry to be fingerprinted?
4. Are we now the servant and the government the master, with laws
originating with someone other than the people?
5. Did fingerprinting of Georgian's or even licensing for
automobiles originate with the will of the people?
6. If any of the above questions originated with the public
servants/trustees, then this law is unconstitutional for no other reason,
is it not?
....
"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling
into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from
falling into error."
U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds, 339
U.S. 382,442
Go to National ID Card, Page Two
Return to Rumor Mill
Return to Colombo's Safety & Security Home Page
No comments:
Post a Comment