Problem applying for RefPay and request for religious accommodation

Vince,

I am writing to inform you that I am requesting a waiver of the $3.00 fee for the association to send out a check in order to pay me for my services. If you need to bring this before the Board of Control, then I would appreciate being able to participate in that hearing.

I just went to the RefPay site and started the registration process. On the second page, I would have to provide a social security account number, but I have never applied for one of those because of my deeply held spiritual beliefs and training.

Technically, in order to participate in RefPay, I have to open a new bank account. The issue here is that ever since the Bank Secrecy Act was amended with the USA/PATRIOT Act provisions, the promulgated regulations created an absolute requirement for banks to acquire an SSAN from new customers before opening a bank account.

Personally, I believe this provision to be both unconstitutional and contrary to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. However, I am not in a position to sue the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in a suit, as such a suit would have to be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. I simply cannot afford the travel associated with such a suit.

Ultimately, because of my religious beliefs, I will be unable to participate in the RefPay system. It is not that I do not choose to participate, I am being prevented from participating due to the restrictions placed upon opening an account.

Accordingly, I ask that the Board approve a waiver of the $3.00 check fee based upon an accommodation of religious beliefs. I believe this is the least restrictive means for SNOA to accommodate my beliefs, as the "system" is unable to make such an accommodation and is thereby preventing me from participating in RefPay.

Thanx,

Brad Lee Barnhill

Vince wrote:
> Dear Soccer Officials,
>
> As the start of the new school year is now upon us, we want everyone to
> know of a few important changes that are taking place within the organization.
>
> Recently, we traveled to Salt Lake City and met with the founder of
> Arbiter Sports. We wanted information on many aspects of the Arbiter
> including Ref-Pay, a quicker and easier way to pay our officials.
>
> We discussed all of the aspects of Ref-Pay, not just with the founder of
> the Arbiter, but also the founder of Ref-Pay. The Arbiter informed us
> that the association would be the ideal fit for Ref-Pay due to the way that
> the association is currently structured.
>
> Myself and association Treasurer Sheila brought all of this information
> to the rest of the Board of Control and we had much discussion on this
> subject. After looking at all of the benefits that Ref-Pay would bring
> to our association, the Board of Control has decided to go forward with
> the new Ref-Pay system immediately, starting with the fall sports that
> just started. At this time, we will still be paying our officials once
> per month. The first pay day using the new Ref-Pay system for Fall
> Sports will take place on Sunday, October 4th.
>
>
> Ref-Pay is pretty simple:
>
> On the fist Sunday of every month all of your officiating fees from the
> previous month will be transferred to your Ref-Pay account, which will
> be linked to your Arbiter account. At that time, you can immediately
> transfer your money into your checking account, basically direct
> deposit, you can also transfer your money onto a Ref-Pay MasterCard
> debit card in which you must sign up for and receive through Ref-Pay. It
> is a debit card that can be used just like your current banking debit
> card. If you do not want to use the direct deposit debit card options,
> you can sign up and have Ref-Pay send you a check, but that will cost
> you $3.00 per month. Other than the $3.00 fee to have a check sent to
> you, Ref-Pay is totally free of charge to you as an official and to the
> association as a whole.
>
> Here are some of the benefits to you while using Ref-Pay:
>
> 1. Protects your personal and financial information
> 2. Eliminates chances of checks being lost or stolen
> 3. Saves you time and money
> 4. Gets you paid in a fast, easy and secure manner
> 5. Eliminates mail transit and check processing time
>
>
> By going to the Ref-Pay system, the association will no longer have to send
checks
> in the mail which will save the association money with postage charges.
> It will also save the association money on purchasing checks and other
> additional fees that we currently have associated with the way we
> currently handle our payroll.
>
> The Board of Control has also decided that we must pass these
> savings on to you, the members. For the first time in a long time, and
> maybe ever, the Board of Control has decided to lower your game fee
> assessment effective immediately. Your game fee assessment will be
> reduced from 8% to 7%. The financial situation of the association over
> the last year has improved, so even due to the recent reduction in games
> set by the NIAA and the state of the economy that we are dealing with,
> we feel that there are ways to save the association some money, and when
> these savings take place, we feel it is important we pass them along to
> you.
>
> Over the next few weeks we will be providing much more information on
> Ref-Pay, along with specific instructions and details that you will
> need. You can go to refpay.com <http://refpay.com/> at this time to look
> over the information that is provided on their site.
>
> Also, we appreciate all of the positive feedback received with the first
> on-line Association Newsletter. Gaylon has now completed the August
> edition. If you have any feedback or information that you would like to
> go into the newsletter you can email Gaylon
> at -redacted- . The August edition is ready
> to be viewed at:
>
> -redacted-
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Vince
> President

Making Application for a New Rental House Without an SSAN

The economy has been bad for everyone. Like everyone else (excepting those who work for the government or for Goldman-Sachs) we are struggling to make ends meet. Technically, we are both "under employed" as neither of us has a job in our respective fields, and we have to make do with my two part time jobs. Even that has been getting worse, as one job has reduced the number of hours that we can work and the other reduced both the hours and the pay rate. We are doing everything we can to reduce costs. We even went on diets to cut the grocery budget.

We are at the end of our lease in this house, so it made sense to see if we could downsize our accommodations and get a reduction in rent. Even a reduction of two hundred per month can be the difference between eating and "having to diet." We spent the past week looking at all of the houses in this area with this and that criteria and a max rent that is two hundred less than we currently pay. There were very few options that would not overcrowd us into a place that was way-too-small. However, we found a really nice place that would meet our needs (actually, a couple of them, but the first choice was rented out from under us by a matter of hours), and decided to take the trek down to the property management office to make application.

It gets harder and harder to try to work within the "system" when you have no Mark of the Beast Foretold. The SSAN is everywhere. It's on every form. Generally, we write "Citizen - NONE *" in the space and annotate the "*" with "42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i) and Rev: 13: 16-17"

You would think that setting up utilities would be a major problem, but it is really easier than you would presume. Here is how we did it when we first moved to this town.

However, we know that when we fill out the rental application, there is really no way for anyone to do a credit check without The Mark, and so they will balk and it becomes contentious. We even go so far as to draft a cover letter to the application and provide quite a bit of documentation in preparation to having no electronic credit history. At the very least, the property management company can simply make six or seven phone calls to check our references and if they needed a fax back from the contact, they would be able to get it.

The last time we were rejected by a property management company, we sued under the federal Fair Housing Act (and the state's analog) and ended up amicably setting that case.

This time, we tried a new strategy: We would offer to pay the first six months of the lease in cash if they would cut the rent on the house by fifty bux per month (that's f$50, not s$50). When the owner accepted that offer, we handed over the application. Yes, there was a strange silence while the leasing agent read the annotation to the SSAN field. Yes, there was a discussion about not having SSANs because of our religious beliefs. But then, the leasing agent simply said, "Well, if you pay the entire year in advance, there should be no problem." And that was that.

We handed her the bulk of the year's rent in cash. This was unusual, because most property management companies will not accept cash, only certified funds or a money order. However, they took the cash and did not ask us to fill out an SAR.

Perhaps an SAR is unnecessary in this context, because it technically was not a banking transaction. So the owner was happy, the property management company was happy, and we were very happy.

Now all we have to do is to move all of the utilities.

AAHCA 2009 - 2nd Objection: You Can't Really Retain Your Old Coverage

You can peruse the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 at your own convenience. Other than the fact that this legislation is utterly without any constitutional authority, I have been looking it over and here is my second objection:

Folks point to Section 102 to show that it allows folks to maintain their current coverage, but this is a smokescreen, when you actually read the entire section. I will put my comments in braces {}, so you can see what I mean:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. {No new enrollment into existing plans will be allowed by anyone who is not already covered by that plan.}

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day. {New enrollment is allowed only for dependents.}

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1. {The insurer has to freeze the plan and cannot make any changes to the plan.}

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner. {Insurers cannot single out a specific person without affecting all people in this risk group equally.}

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

(1) GRACE PERIOD-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121. {Here we see there is a five-year-plan whereby the insurers must alter their plans so as to cover the items listed in the "essential benefits plan." I talked about this in the last post. What this means that no matter what your plan currently covers, if it does not cover what some bureaucrat believes is "essential," then your insurer will be forced to cover it.}

(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following: {Here, they are essentially grandfathering existing government-issued health plans.}

(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).

(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.

(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.

In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division {Except to the extent that an already existing government plan is not up to snuff.}

(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division. {Any existing plan is OK until after the end of the five-year-plan, when all plans will be forced to conform.}

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan. {If you are not covered by an employer plan, then you have an individual plan. In this case, any new individual plan has to be "approved" and contain the "essential benefits package" of things that most folks don't need but will be forced to pay for.}

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage. {There is list of items in this other act that are not deemed to be part of the health insurance coverage and can be priced separately.}

The lesson is that you cannot really keep the coverage you have now, because insurers are going to be forced to include the "essential benefits package," even though you and I don't believe that we need these benefits, which will drive up the cost of these private plans. If the price of these private plans is forced high enough, then employers (and individuals) will cancel those policies and force people to purchase the same type of "essential benefits" from the "Public Option."

Medicare and Medicaid are already bankrupt or fast approaching bankruptcy. The above requirements will force everyone to become part of the same utterly bankrupt system.

AAHCA 2009 - 1st Objection: You Have to Pay for What You Don't Need

You can peruse the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 at your own convenience. Other than the fact that this legislation is utterly without any constitutional authority, I have been looking it over and here is my first objection:

Section 122 defines the "Essential Benefits Package." At subsection (b), we find:

(b) Minimum Services To Be Covered- The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

Mandating specific benefits only raises the prices for everyone. I object to paying for other peoples' substance abuse. If they abuse substances, let them pay for it. Subsection (8) is so nebulous as to be void for vagueness. I object to being forced to pay for services that are not defined, or could change at the whim of some bureaucrat. Vaccines are a clear danger to those who are duped into taking them and if I do not want any vaccinations for me or mine, that is my own business. Bachelors and women over the age of 50 have no need for maternity care or well-baby and well-child care. Only those people needing those services should be billed for it.

That is why we have private policies, so that you can choose the type of coverage you want and pay for just the coverage you need. While inclusion of these services in an "essential benefits package" may reduce the costs for those that would use these services, it most certainly will raise the costs for people who don't need them. This is not what Obama or the Democratic majority promised me.

Frankly, health insurance policies should be like term life insurance policies: A fixed rate over a twenty or thirty year period that covers only catastrophic losses. Add to this a deductible limit schedule and I can choose whether I want to be liable for up to $1k, $2k, or $5k in medical expenses. Peter Schiff's father sold such policies for $25 per year. Now, that's affordable health insurance.

In final analysis, the petitioners' sole reliance is the thesis that efficiency depends upon morale, and morale in turn upon assurance of security for the worker's old age. Thus pensions are sought to be related to efficiency of transportation, and brought within the commerce power. In supporting the act the petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as 'old age security,' 'assurance of old age security,' 'improvement of employee morale and efficiency through providing definite assurance of old age security,' 'assurance of old age support,' 'mind at ease,' and 'fear of old age dependency.' These expressions are frequently connected with assertions that the removal of the fear of old age dependency will tend to create a better morale throughout the ranks of employees. [295 U.S. 330, 368] The theory is that one who has an assurance against future dependency will do his work more cheerfully, and therefore more efficiently. The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is in any just sense a regulation of interstate transportation. If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.

- Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R. Co., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)

Forcing me to pay for something that I don't need is patently unconstitutional.

It's Not a Crime If "We" Do It

The "Royal We," that is.

Our government ... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. ~Louis Dembitz Brandeis

I was watching The Closer tonight. The episode was entitled "Maternal Instincts." Within the story is another story: Deputy Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson commits a crime, and will never be prosecuted for it.

In California, the locale of The Closer, it is a misdemeanor "punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year" to intercept a communication between two people unless all of the parties have given consent. See Cal. Pen. Code 632(a).

Notwithstanding the above, Brenda directs Buzz (the independent contractor A/V guy), to surreptitiously place an audio/video recording device into a hospital room so that she can eavesdrop on the victim and her niece, Charlie. Stumpy and I immediately looked at each other and said, "That's a crime."

Later on, in Chief Pope's office, Brenda, Chief Pope and Captain Taylor are discussing that Brenda will not be able to use the tape because it is "fruit of the poisonous tree." No discussion about the fact that a crime had just been committed by the police. No talk about official reprimand for violating either the law or official policies, just a conversation about how she will have to get the information independently from some other source.

In the next scene, Brenda goes home and coerces Charlie to sign a statement, or she will send the tape to Charlie's parents.

Another example was on tonight as well in this week's episode of Raising the Bar. A gang leader in prison was stabbed by a young man who was in prison awaiting trial (the charges against the young man were later dismissed). Here, the ADA made a "deal" with the gang leader to testify against the young man. The deal was to reduce the life sentence to 10 years.

This is clearly bribing a witness:

N.Y. Pen. Law § 215.00 Bribing a witness.

A person is guilty of bribing a witness when he confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a witness or a person about to be called as a witness in any action or proceeding upon an agreement or understanding that (a) the testimony of such witness will thereby be influenced, or (b) such witness will absent himself from, or otherwise avoid or seek to avoid appearing or testifying at, such action or proceeding.

Bribing a witness is a class D felony.

Note well that there is no exception in the statute whereby a public prosecutor is authorized to "confer any benefit upon a witness." Notwithstanding the above, research about decisions surrounding a public prosecutor offering deals to witnesses reveals that the courts have decided that no bribery has occurred because this is a "time honored" practice among prosecutors and the legislature did not intend that this "common" practice be curtailed.

Is it any wonder that the people are starting to rise up against such lawlessness?

Freedom Watch daily?

If you are like me, you tune in to Freedom Watch every Wednesday. If I can't make it, I watch the repost of the show on YouTube.

Word on the street is that Freedom Watch is going from a weekly hour long online show to an every weekday 30 minute online show.

The likely time slot will be from 4:30pm to 5pm Eastern time every Monday through Friday.

The most likely start date for the updated Freedom Watch is September 14th and it looks like it will broadcast from a brand new studio.

This is great news and signals another step toward having the show on the Fox News TV channel.

Email your support!

It is now more important than ever to submit your feedback about the show. During the weekend rebroadcast on Fox News Radio the Judge requested sending your feedback emails to strategyroom@foxnews.com with “Radio” in the subject line.

US v. Kahre - What's the Verdict?

Christopher called me about an hour ago. He tells me that the verdict is in regarding the USA v Kahre case here in Las Vegas. The jury has only deliberated for a day and a half and there are over 100+ counts. Christopher's brother, Joel (an defense attorney in this case), believes that this means acquittal! Christoper is on his way down there now to find out what's what.

As I write this, I do not know what the verdict is. However, I do have some musings that I would like to share with you regarding the central issue in this case.

I personally believe that the federal reserve notes that people carry around in their wallets are not "dollars".

What matters is the definition of a "dollar"

[T]he term "dollar" means money, since it is the unit of money in this country, and in the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes or bonds or other evidences of debt. The term also refers to specific coins of the value of one dollar. (27 Ohio Jur pp. 125, 126, § 3), (United States v. Van Auken, 96 US 366, 24 L ed 852) - American Jurisprudence, Volume 36, § 8

and

dollar. The legal currency of the United States; State v Downs, 148 Ind 324, 327; the unit of money consisting of one hundred cents. The aggregate of specific coins which add up to one dollar. 36 Am J1st Money § 8. In the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes, bonds, or other evidences of debt. 36 AmJur. 1st Money § 8. - Ballentines Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition (1969)

Next, we look at the definition of the term "federal reserve note"

federal reserve note. The paper currency in circulation in the United States. The notes are issued by the Federal Reserve Banks, are effectively non-interest-bearing promissory notes payable to bearer on demand, and are issued in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000. - Black's Law, Second Pocket Edition (1996)

So, if "federal reserve notes" are promissory notes, and promissory notes cannot be "dollars," federal reserve notes are not dollars. The government witness in the Kahre case testified as much.

Next we have to address the issue: "other than money." Supposedly, these legal tender gold and silver non-numismatic coins are somehow something "other then money," when in fact it is the federal reserve notes that are not dollars. I suppose the question really becomes whether federal reserve notes are money. While I will admit that they can be used as money, they are not, in fact, money. They are evidence of the national debt.

So, if I am being paid in money whose face value is fifty-dollars, what am I supposed to report as income to the IRS? That's what this case is about.

Christopher just called and reported that the jury came back with a mix of acquittals and guilty verdicts for each of the four defendants excepting Kahre, who was convicted on all counts. The US Attorney requested that all of the defendants be taken into custody pending appeal, and the judge denied that motion. There is a report that Kahre said that his life was over, anyway, and that the judge remarked, "I assure you Mr. Kahre, your life is not over.” Wonder what that means.

In any event, this matter will be appealed to the 9th circuit and then on to the Supremes. We have to know what a dollar is if we are going to report income in dollars.

Here is an update: Kahre Convicted on All Counts

TSA's "Secure Flight" Notice is a Sham

A notice from TSA was brought to my attention this morning. I am surprised I had not seen this before today, as I am well-studied on the issue of having to show government-issued identification in order to board a domestic flight.

The "Secure Flight" program is supposed to keep people from being falsely denied boarding because they are on some government "watch list." Actually, the article that brought this notice to my attention contains some anecdotes about an affliction "suffered" by TSA agents that I will call watch-list-confusion-syndrome.

The TSA notice announces that:

"When fully implemented, Secure Flight will require all airlines to provide a passenger’s name as it appears on the government issued ID they plan to travel with, date of birth, gender, and redress number (if applicable)."

The "redress number" is a number that is issued by the TSA to a person after a hearing that clears someone whose information falsely identifies them as being on the watch list. It allows someone to fly when their information matches someone on the watch list.

The more important item here is that people are now "required" to provide their birth date to the airline when the flight is booked and that this birth date has to match the information on the government-issued identification with which the person boards the flight.

Of course, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that anyone show any identification to the TSA when they fly. The "penalty" for failure to produce identification to the TSA is Secondary Security Screening. As far as I am concerned, it is far quicker to be shunted over to the first-class lane and suffer secondary screening than to wait in the snake with all of the conformists.

The TSA Notice infers that they have implemented regulations that require the airlines to collect this information. However, when you search the Code of Federal Regulations for the term "Secure Flight" all that comes up is:

For: ""secure flight""

Total Hits: 8

[1]

((LIST OF AVAILABLE CFRS ONLINE))

Size: 68881 , Score: 1000 , TEXT

[2]

[2008] 49CFR1507.3-- Sec. 1507.3 Exemptions.

Size: 37173 , Score: 1000 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY

[This is a privacy act exemption so that folks cannot get their records from the TSA]

[3]

[2008] 49CFR1507-- PART 1507_PRIVACY ACT-EXEMPTIONS--Table of Contents

Size: 37682 , Score: 998 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY

[This is a privacy act exemption so that folks cannot get their records from the TSA]

[4]

[2008] 49CFR1507-- PART 1507_PRIVACY ACT-EXEMPTIONS--Table of Contents

Size: 37682 , Score: 998 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY

[This is a privacy act exemption so that folks cannot get their records from the TSA]

[5]

[2009] 14CFR417 App E-- Sec. Appendix E to Part 417--Flight Termination System Testing and

Size: 218919 , Score: 121 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY

[This subpart contains public safety requirements that apply to destroying space flight launch vehicles]

[6]

[2009] 14CFR417-- Subpart E_Ground Safety

Size: 622625 , Score: 110 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY

[This subpart contains public safety requirements that apply to destroying space flight launch vehicles]

[7]

[2009] 14CFR417-- PART 417_LAUNCH SAFETY--Table of Contents

Size: 784194 , Score: 107 , TEXT , PDF , SUMMARY

[This subpart contains public safety requirements that apply to destroying space flight launch vehicles]

Nothing about government-issued identification, birth dates, or anything of the sort.

Apparently, the information is to be collected by the airlines and then sent to the TSA through some kind of electronic access, and then the flight can be booked. I would presume that if one is not on the watch list, or if someone's name not similar to any name on the watch list, that one can simply forego providing either government-issued identification or a birth date.

Testilying

Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.
- I.F. Stone

It never ceases to amaze me when the Minions of the Beast circle the wagons and perjure not only their oaths of office, but an oath to tell the truth when they testify. It is so common that there is term describing it: Testilying.

In Stumpy's suit, there were not only lies, not just damn lies, but bald lies, told by every government witness.

The assistant prosecutor cannot tell the truth if it were to save her own life. Here is a list of what she testilied to at trial: She did not get angry. She did not lunge across the conference table. She did not slap her hands on the table. She used foul language, but did not admit what she actually said. She did not have the court clerk's file in the conference room with her. She did not throw documents that were supposed to be filed into the clerk's file into the trash.

Part of the evidence that the judge in this case did not allow was testimony or evidence that a few months after the assault, at a court hearing in the criminal case, the AP denied having access to the videotape of the airport incident. Stumpy had sued the airport authority to secure a copy of the tape and was getting stymied by the attorney for the airport authority. Several months after the AP said there was no way she could get that tape, the attorney for the airport authority handed Stumpy the videotape and begged her to dismiss her FOIA suit.

The bailiff testilied that he was in and out of the conference room, when he was there the entire time. He testilied that he did not recall the conversation being heated (as he did at the deposition), or any of the cursing or lunging or yelling by the AP. He further testilied that if any of those things had happened in his presence, he would have remembered them.

We resisted having the court administrator testify, as he was not a witness to any of the events surrounding the assault. He was allowed to testify about court procedures. He testilied that it was impossible that the court clerk would refuse to file a document when presented at the window. He testilied that it was impossible that the AP could take the case file from the clerk's office and have that file in the conference room. He denied that he was present in the courtroom when Stumpy told the judge that the AP had thrown documents in the trash that Stumpy had wanted to file, but could not because the AP had the file. He testilied that he was ordered by the judge to retrieve those documents.

And you dutifully pay your taxes to ensure that these fascists can do the same to you and yours.

The solution: Pass legislation that every public building have video cameras installed into every room. No audio, just video. This way, we can monitor what they do. After all, we pay them to do it, we should be allowed to see how their time is spent while they spend our taxes. Also, enact legislation that people who want to bring personal audio recording devices into public buildings be allowed to do so with proper notice to the "authorities." I would have loved to see a copy of a video of the AP screaming at Stumpy.

Audio and video recording equipment are the new firearms in this war against tyranny.

Stumpy v The World - Trial: Day 1

Stumpy called me at 2:30p pacific this afternoon to report.

The defense tried various motions in limine to exclude evidence. One of the motions was to keep the jury from hearing that the defendant used the F-bomb in the context of the attack on Stumpy. Also Stumpy brought to the Court's attention that some of the exhibits on the defendant's exhibit list had already been stricken at the motions in limine that had been heard months ago. Stumpy won all of these motions.

The next part of the procedure was to voir dire the jurors. She struck some jurors that expressed that they had close friends or relatives that were public officials. Some jurors were stricken by the defense when they voiced an opinion that they were intolerant of foul language. Win some, lose some. There was one guy who complained that his back hurt and that he was mad that he even had to be there, and the judge struck that juror for cause. Overall, there were some jurors she would have like to have that were stricken, but overall, she was satisfied.

She said her opening statement went well. No objections from the other side as to its content, so I guess the time we spent together on it last night was a success.

She called the defendant up to the stand and pretty much established that she did not know, did not remember, did not recall much of anything, except she did admit to using the F-bomb and that her use of the F-bomb was unprofessional. Our contention is that the defendant said, "I don't have to answer any of your f-ing questions." The defendant testified that she said, "This is not your f-ing show."

Also, the defendant admitted that she did not know what a demand for a bill of particulars was, that she told the judge at the hearing immediately following the assault that she did not have a duty to answer any of Stumpy's (f-ing) questions, and that the judge had in fact ordered her to answer Stumpy's (f-ing) questions. Stumpy tried to impeach her testimony to show inconsistencies with her prior testimony at the deposition, but she is not as adept at that as I am, and she was not satisfied with her own performance. I'll bet she did better than she thought she did.

There were a couple of objections made by the defense attorney where the judge just looked at him as if he were a boob (wonder why) and just before the judge opened his mouth to overrule the objection, the attorney withdrew it.

Next, the bailiff who was present in the conference room testified that he was not in there all the time and that he did not hear the use of the F-bomb, did not see that Stumpy had jumped out of her seat and bolted to the door of the conference room, or that the defendant had yelled, "Put her in the box." OK, so it doesn't help us, but it also doesn't help them. On cross, the defense attorney asked whether he would have remembered if any of those things had happened, and the bailiff testified that he would have, but on re-direct, Stumpy got him to admit that he may have not been in the conference room at the time those events took place.

Then Stumpy's mom got on the stand to establish that she heard a commotion in the conference room, that Stumpy ran out of the room and was upset (if not hysterical), had told her that the defendant swore at her (not hearsay because it was an excited utterance), and that she heard the defendant direct the bailiff to "put her in the box." She testified that these things caused fear and hysteria in Stumpy and that she only later calmed down for her court appearance.

Stumpy then got on the stand and related her story: That she and the defendant had a discussion about the demand for bill of particulars, that the defendant became agitated and angry and lunged across the conference table at her, bashing her fists on the table, and exclaiming that she did not have to answer any of Stumpy's f-ing questions. Stumpy testified as to her fear of being hit by the defendant and that she jumped out of her seat and bolted to the door and sought refuge at her mother's side. That the defendant had repeatedly shouted, "Put her in the box," and that she had been afraid that the bailiff would arrest her for some unknown reason, and incarcerate her in some kind of holding cell.

Stumpy testified that she this incident had caused her to fear ever being alone in a room with a public official and that she would never go into a room alone with a public official ever again. She testified that she had trouble sleeping for a while due to this incident and that she would be unable to trust any other public official without a friendly witness present.

The prosecution rested and the court adjourned for the day. I think it went pretty well.

Stumpy is now taking a rest and we will probably get back together later tonite to discuss the expected motion by the defendant for a directed verdict, the defense's attempts to make a person who wasn't present for any of the incident relevant (presumably for character), the defense's case in chief, closing arguments, and jury instructions.

Musings on Air Travel

I put Stumpy on a plane this morning bound for Michigan. We don't have the usual identification, so we got there early so she would be able to deal with the Air Nazis and still make her flight.

It should be easier to get onto a plane now that Steve Bierfeldt has sued DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in the USDC for the District of Criminals.

Bierfeldt and others have been unlawfully detained for either not having "acceptable" identification or they have some "suspicious" items on them (other that weapons or explosives). The TSA likes to play Twenty Questions with folks like this and will essentially deny boarding to anyone that challenges the procedure.

A Personal Odyssey member had some problems boarding back in May. I corresponded with him with respect to his predicament, and let the matter drop, as I was not prepared at that time to pursue all of the research necessary as to whom to sue, what the nature of the suit should be, and the venue of the suit.

Bierfeldt's suit is against the DHS Secretary, in the USDC for the District of Criminals. This answers the first and the third question, but not the second. What is the cause of action?

Bierfeldt's suit is essentially one for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. He is not seeking monetary damages (as he would have to first file a Tort Claim pursuant to the US Tort Claims Act), just a simple declaration from the judge as to whether he has to submit to questioning that has nothing to do with whether or not he is carrying weapons or explosives, whether the TSA agents' actions were arbitrary and capricious, and to order Napolitano and the Minions of the Beast she directs to stop harassing him when he is traveling by air.

I will be following this suit closely to see how it proceeds. I suggest you do the same.

Congress does not want to debate health care

My mother-in-law went to Rep. John Dingell's "town hall meeting" and reported:

Absolutely. The goons at John Dingell's town hall meeting were permitted to come in early through another door and held up their signs for the support of the Death Care bill. They were outnumbered by Americans who stood in line inside and outside the building. There were two nonproductive sessions. Dingell did NOT read the bill.

This is not a town hall meeting. This is directed debate or preaching to the choir. This morning, she was on the phone talking with my wife and reported that people could not orally ask questions. The questions could only be asked in writing. This vets out a true debate.

They don't want to debate, they want to impose. They want to spend an extra $1T per year (source: Congressional Budget Office) on this boondoggle, when the budget is already $3T.

It's August. Your Congressional Representatives are coming home to roost. If or when they announce town hall meetings, be sure to (1) arrive very early, (2) cover all the entrances, (3) wear clothing that does not announce your political views, (4) have a poignant question already drafted.

Stumpy v The World - Trial - August 11th

Next week, on Tuesday, August 11th, Stumpy goes to trial. This time she is the "prosecutor." Who is the defendant? The defendant is an assistant prosecutor who assaulted her at a pre-trial conference in a criminal case where Stumpy was charged with standing next to a wall at the airport.

Actually, the charge was MCL 750.170 (disturbing a lawful meeting). After that fateful meeting, the prosecutor added a charge, MCL 750.81d(1)(A) (resisting, obstructing or assaulting a police officer). These charges were dismissed without prejudice by the assistant prosecutor when she realized that we had secured the videotape from the airport checkpoint that showed Stumpy did nothing that could be construed as disturbing anyone (except the cops that wanted to see her ID), and that she was herself assaulted and battered by police officers.

The original complaint named the assistant prosecutor, four cops, six TSA agents, the airport authority, the TSA, and an attorney that was withholding the videotape of the incident at the airport that ended in Stumpy's arrest. Thirty months later, and after all but one of the thirty-nine counts and all other defendants dismissed, trial will center on whether people are going to believe Stumpy or the government lawyer she is suing.