Freaks Macintosh Archive/Freaks Macintosh Archive.bin/Freaks Macintosh Archives/Textfiles/zines/DNA/DNAV1I6.sit/DNAV1I6/ARTICLE.011

Text File | 1993-12-01 | 19KB | 387 lines

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                     The
                                 Sixth Column

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                        The Freedom of Information Act

By: Lestat De Lioncourt

     For those of you out there who have been following the information about
"Traveling By Rights", this article should be a treat for you.

     Since the "DMV, Inc." won't explain certain details to the people, we
must use other methods to wring the information from them.  One such tool has
been the use of the Freedom of Information Act.  This string of FOIA letters
is an exchange between a sovereign individual and the DMV.  You may find this
interesting oh how, the DMV handles FOIA requests. (ie. Lies its ass off)

     This article will be broken up into three sections.  First, the original
request for information.  Second, the DMVs response, and finally, a follow-up
letter to the DMV.

     The following is an exact copy of the documents.  I have been instructed
to omit the author's name for obvious reasons.  If you wish to have a
photocopy sent to you that shows the DMVs letterhead, e-mail Lestat De
Lioncourt on DnA Systems for a copy.

     This FOIA request was sent out after the DMV attempted to DEMAND
disclosure of the author's social security number.  Since the author has been
investigating sovereign citizenship for the past three years, he wasn't about
to comply with the DMVs request.


<Request for Information>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                                           October 14, 1993

Frank S. Zolin
Director
Department of Motor Vehicles
PO Box 11828
Sacramento, CA  95853


Dear Mr. Zolin,

Thank you for forwarding my license renewal application for processing.  As
you recall, however, I expressed displeasure with the fact that my social
security number was allegedly required with the application.  As citizens we
were assured that the social security numbers would "never be used as a
general identification number."  In my letter dated August 28th, I asked that
you not attach such numbers to my account in respect for my profound religious
belief that to surrender such information is in violation of God's law.  I
have not received confirmation of your compliance with my lawful and proper
request.  Accordingly, this is a second request that you confirm that no
number issued by the Social Security Administration was attached to my driving
documentation as maintained in your office.

The California Vehicle Code and section 42 of the United States Codes (Health
and Safety) have never been passed into positive law, but are only PRIMA FACIE
law, with the latter being a foreign jurisdiction to the Republic of
California.  The Constitution of the United States, on the other hand, is the
PRIMARY source of law, above which there is nothing higher, save God's law.
Since my UNALIENABLE RIGHTS include the FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (Amendment
1) and the RIGHT TO PRIVACY (Amendment 4 & 9), it is clear that any law which
is by its nature destructive of these rights is VOID, AS IF IT NEVER WAS
PASSED, Maybury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137.  My church teaches that the social
security number is the basis of the "mark of the beast" spoken of in the 13th
chapter of Revelation.  We are cautioned not to submit to the beast.  How can
I deal with this dilemma?  Additionally, how can I furnish my Social Security
number without waiving my privacy or any other of my Constitutional Rights?

In response to these questions, I have a letter from Bion M. Gregory,
legislative counsel, addressing this issue.  His opinion states: "However, it
is possible that a court may find that the requirements [SS# disclosure] may
not be applied to a particular person because that person's religious beliefs
are entitled to constitutional protection and the requirements are not the
least restrictive means of promoting the governmental interest.  In such a
case, while the particular person may not be denied a driver's license on the
basis of not obtaining or providing his or her social security number, the
department may require alternate reliable identification before issuance of
the license or registration."  Pursuant to this opinion, and the Bill of
Rights, I claim the protections of the Constitution and the United States,
First Article in Amendment, and the California Constitution Article 1, Section
4, Liberty of Conscience.

At this writing I have not yet received a reply to my JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE
or request for documents in your possession as previously requested under the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC, section 522.  Please supply copies of those
documents which are most responsive to the following four (4) items.  If such
document is not currently available please state why not.  If no such document
exists please state that there is no documentation your possession responsive
to the request.

     1. An exact copy of the law passed by the legislature of California or
        the Congress of the United States which states clearly and
        unequivocally that a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN of California (not a resident
        thereof), is "required" to furnish a social security number in
        conjunction with the renewal of a license to travel on the highways of
        the state.

     2. A copy of any law passed by the legislature of California which
        requires that a citizen of California (not a resident thereof) obtain
        a license in order TO TRAVEL (a right guaranteed by the Admissions Act
        of 1850) on the highways of the state.

     3. A copy of any "evidence of contract" that I may have signed which
        gives your department an attachment of equity jurisdiction or power of
        attorney over my person, a sovereign citizen of the state of
        California.

     4. A copy of any law passed by the legislature which authorizes the
        Director of the DMV to deny the renewal of a LICENSE TO TRAVEL for
        failure of a citizen (not a resident) to disclose his social security
        number.

In lieu of any of the above, I remain willing to accept a CERTIFICATION, in
writing, that no social security number was attached to my records, and was
NOT reentered into any of your computers.  I insist that you comply with one
or the other.  In keeping with the opinion of the legislative counsel, it
would be better to avoid a court order, and in good faith simply honor
citizen's objections to the attachment of social security numbers to their
license records (if a CITIZEN requires a license, for an activity legal at the
common law) for reasons of religion and remove such numbers from your records.


Sincerely,

<<REMOVED>>


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


     Now, witness the side-stepping and evasive nature of this response.  They
don't even address the issues raised in the request, nor does the DMV employee
have the courage to sign his/her own name.

<Response to Request>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


October 19th, 1993

****************
********* Street
************, CA ******

Dear *********:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1993, regarding  vehicle registration
and driver license requirements and the Social Security Number (SSN)
requirement for the issuance of a driver license.

The department's authority to regulate vehicles owners and operators is
authorized by statute.  These statutes are incorporated into the California
Vehicle Code (VC).  The department legal office does not agree with the
position you have presented as current statutes require all vehicles being
operated upon our highways be currently registered for legal operation.  In
addition, the vehicle operator must possess a valid driver license when
operating a vehicle.  Following is a summation of the statutes regarding the
state's authority to regulate vehicle owners and operators:

     * VC Section 516 specifies residency for vehicle registration
       requirements.

     * VC Section 670 defines a vehicle subject to vehicle registration and
       driver license requirements.

     * VC Section 4000(a). Requires vehicles be currently registered for legal
       operation.

     * VC Sections 12500 and 12591.  Requires individuals to obtain and have
       in their possession a valid driver license when operating a vehicle
       upon our highways.

     * VC Section 12505 specifies residency for driver license requirements.

     * VC Section 16020.  Requires every driver and owner of vehicles using
       our highways be financially responsible (insured).

All these requirements are present whether travel is for pleasure or
commercial gain.  The Vehicle Code does not restrict an individual's right to
travel.  You may travel where permitted; however, the vehicle being operated
must be legally registered and the operator must possess a valid driver
license.  The states authority to regulate travel over the highways for our
residents general welfare is extensive.  Since motor vehicles are instruments
of danger, the regulation of vehicle owners and operators has been required
almost from their first appearance.

Vehicle Code Sections 1653.5 and 12800 (enclosed) are the statues that require
individuals applying for a driver license for identification card to furnish
the department with their SSN.  These statutes are very specific regarding an
applicant providing the SSN before the department  can accept a driver license
application.  The department does not have the authority or discretion to
alter the SSN requirement.  THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.  Consequently, the
department is unable to comply with your request not to enter your SSN into
our computer system and onto your driver license record.

The department does not dispute that Social Security is a voluntary system in
that no individual is required to obtain a SSN.  However, the Social Security
Act of 1976 allows a state or political subdivision to REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE
of the SSN to establish the identity of any person affected by any tax law,
general public assistance law, driver license law, or motor vehicle
registration law.  The statutes that the California Legislature enacted that
require the disclosure of the SSN were based upon the Tax Reform Act of 1976.
The state of California can withhold issuance of a California driver license
unless a SSN is provided by the applicant.

You also referenced the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in regards to the
renewal form you submitted for your driver license.  The UCC was designed to
apply to contractural agreements, property, torts, and other business matters.
Its purpose is to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing
commercial transactions.  California implemented the UCC in 1965 in response
to the ever increasing introduction of new products, new selling, distribution
and accounting practices, new methods of transportation and communications,
and the development of new credit requirements and techniques.

UCC provisions are not applicable to the statutes governing the application
for and the issuance of vehicle registration or a driver license.  The
California Vehicle Code contains the statutes that regulate vehicle owners and
operators who desire to operate a vehicle upon our highways.  Consequently,
the UCC sections you referenced do not apply to the application and issuance
of vehicle registration or a driver license.

You indicated you believe there is a conflict between our laws and the United
States Constitution.  the constitutionality of statutes is a matter to be
determined by the courts.  Under Article III, Section III, of the California
Constitution, state agencies are prohibited from declaring a statute
unenforceable or from refusing to enforce a statute on the basis that federal
law preempts state law unless an appellate court has made a determination on
that issue.  Every member of state government is required to enforce
California statutes as written.

Enclosed are the appropriate Vehicle Code statutes that are applicable to both
vehicle registration, driver license and the SSN requirement.  If you are
stopped by a law enforcement officer for non-compliance with these statutes,
the officer will make a determination regarding the applicability of these
statutes based upon the information that you provide.  If you were to be
issued a citation, you would have the opportunity to present the
constitutional issues you have raised before a judge.  This would be
appropriate since the judicial system has jurisdiction to determine the
legality of your position.

Individuals requesting documents or vehicle and driver license records
information may do so by contacting:

Custodian of Records
Department of Motor Vehicles
Office of Information Services
P.O. Box 944247 - Mail Station D - 146
Sacramento, CA  94244-2470

There is a charge for vehicle and driver license records as well as for the
copying of any documents requested.  The Information Services section requires
payment before sending any documents.

Further correspondence regarding this issue is not warranted.

Sincerely,

<Scribbled Initials>

PUBLIC INQUIRY UNIT
RM:gt

Enclosures


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


    As you can see, the DMV is evasive and self-righteous.  "RM" refers to the
highways as "ours" several times.  The author of the FOIA request didn't like
the response in the least.  Seeing, "Further correspondence regarding this
issue is not warranted," was enough to get furious over.  Also the fact, that
they did not answer any of the four questions stated in the original request.

    Here is a copy of the author's response to the less than adequate response
from the Department of Motor Vehicles, Inc.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                         November 4th, 1993

Frank S. Zolin
Director
Department of Motor Vehicles
PO Box 11828
Sacramento, CA  95853

Dear Mr. Zolin,

I received a reply to my request for jurisdiction in a letter dated October
19th from your PUBLIC INQUIRY UNIT, simply initialed "RM".  None of the
documents requested in my letter were included, nor was any explanation as to
"why not" offered.  The sections of the Vehicle Code referred to as "included"
with the reply were not found.  Therefore, the paragraph arrogantly stating
that "further correspondence regarding this issue is not warranted" is a bit
premature.

In my previous letter I requested any document in your possession that
authorized jurisdictional authority over a CITIZEN of the Republic of
California, with the lawful status of a CITIZEN, not as a FICTION under the
14th Amendment, and not engaged in commerce on the highways.  Lets not play
meaningless word games, I do not want to know what authority you claim to have
over DRIVERS, PERSONS, OR RESIDENTS.  I want to know what authority you claim
to have over CITIZENS of the state of California.  Can you site one statute
which extends an expressed authority to your agency to require a CITIZEN to
obtain a LICENSE to travel on the highway?  The DMV is not a "competent
authority" authorized by the SOVEREIGNTY (common law) to issue a license.
SEND ME A COPY OF THE STATUTE YOU RELY UPON TO REGULATE CITIZENS!  I am not a
creation of the legislature nor an "alien slave" operating within a municipal
subdivision of the FED, but a CITIZEN of the Republic.

The response of "RM" stated that if I was issued a citation, I would have the
opportunity to present the constitutional issues before the judge since the
judicial system has jurisdiction.  We all know that such a citation brings the
action before the MUNICIPAL COURT, which is NOT a court of record, and is in
fact a FICTION created by the legislature.  They do NOT exercise the JUDICIAL
POWERS of the state, and they do NOT even have CONTEMPT POWERS.  Thank you,
RM, for the useless legal advise, but you must now that the Supreme Court said
that, "CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS CAN ONLY BE MADE BY A BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT IN
PERSON."  To be a claimant, I would have to be the plaintiff, in the proper
venue.

With respect to "RM", who was too much of a coward to even sign his name:

    In 1946, at the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi defendants claimed they were
    innocent of wrongdoing because they were following orders consistent with
    their nation's laws.  The prosecution argued that "there is a higher
    duty."  The judgement affirmed "The fact that the defendants action
    pursuant to the order of their government or of a superior shall not free
    them from responsibility."  THE DEFENDANTS WERE EXECUTED!

    John Quincy Adams wrote: "Our political way of life is by the laws of
    nature, of nature's God, and of course presupposes the existence of God,
    the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just
    and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society
    and of government."

    In 1772, Samual Adams wrote: "The legislative has no right of absolute,
    arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people, nor can mortals
    assume a perogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and
    therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone."

    The author of our freedom, Thomas Jefferson writes: "Rightful liberty is
    unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around
    us by the equal rights of others.  I do not add 'within the limits of law'
    because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
    violates the rights of the individual."

Since I claim and place as a bar between us my Constitutional and unalienable
rights, you resort to statute violates the LAW OF GOD, for which you will
answer in time, and the very moral foundations upon which the nation was
conceived.  While you may feel politically justified, the statutes which
violate my rights are indeed VOID AS IF THEY WERE NEVER PASSED (Maybury v.
Madison).  the stand you take is a perversion of justice, and an exercise of
jurisdiction you have not establish outside of fiction.  SUBSTANCE CANNOT
TOUCH FICTION, ficto est contra veritatem.  I am a Child of God and a Citizen
of the Republic.  Send me a copy of the law that grants your agency authority
over a CITIZEN!

Remember you are an employee.  Please extend me the courtesy, this time, of
signing your name in reply.

Sincerely,

<Name Removed>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


    We are still waiting for a reply.  Guess they can't find the law.

    More information concerning Traveling by Rights is available on DnA
Systems.  Please refer to sixth-column/sovereign.citizen.information on DnA
Systems or any bbs that carries ColumNet.


[EOF]