Preparing for the 2010 Census

TO: Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke,

I am writing to you to exhaust my administrative remedies. I may need to schedule an administrative hearing once I have been provided with the information that I am seeking below.

If I am going to be require to fill out a census form, then I will need to check to see if the Office of Management and Budget has approved the form, and more importantly, the requirement for the form to be filled out. This requirement is set forth in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

My concern is that there appears to be a statutory requirement to fill out a census form at 13 USC 221. However, when I look at the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, I can find no corresponding entry for this penal statute. According to the federal Administrative Procedures Act and Federal Register Act, this means that the statute has no "general effect" and cannot "affect substantive rights."

Please do not tell me that the forms have been approved by OMB. Please provide to me a list of the forms and their corresponding OMB control numbers so that I can research this matter for myself.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this important matter.

Does Marxism/Socialism Qualify as a Religion?

One of the results of the establishment of the Church of England was the official persecution by use of government force of other religions, especially Jews and Roman Catholics. One of the main reasons that people from Europe settled in the Colonies was to flee the government-imposed Anglican Church.

The people who settled the Colonies and established the United States recognized that a government-imposed religion was contrary to free religious thought. The 1st Amendment that was eventually ratified provides not only for religious freedom, but freedom from this government-imposed religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

The first clause became known as the "Establishment Clause" and the second the "Free Exercise Clause."

I raise this issue because I (and others) believe that the imposition of Marxism and Socialism (Marxism "light") in America, constitutes the establishment of a civil religion that is violative of the Establishment Clause.

Is Marxism and/or Socialism a religion? In Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 212 (C.A.N.J., 1979), a federal District Court in New Jersey raised this very question:

A more difficult question would be presented by government propagation of doctrinaire Marxism, either in the schools or elsewhere. Under certain circumstances Marxism might be classifiable as a religion and an establishment thereof could result.

Unfortunately, the Court did not answer this question. The Court did, however, leave us with this dicta upon which to ponder:

Such signs might include formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organization, efforts at propagation, observation of holidays and other similar manifestations associated with the traditional religions. Of course, a religion may exist without any of these signs, so they are not determinative, at least by their absence, in resolving a question of definition. But they can be helpful in supporting a conclusion of religious status given the important role such ceremonies play in religious life.

Webster’s defines Marxism as:

the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society "marxism." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.)

Webster’s defines ‘dialectical materialism’ as:

"the Marxist theory that maintains the material basis of a reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.)

Because Marxism proclaims that “reality” is “constantly changing” then dialectical materialism is a Marxist theory that promotes an “ultimate reality” (See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 819, (U.S.Va.,1995)) or an “ultimate concern” for believers and followers which occupies a place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons according to the C.A. 7 in 1994.

A general working definition of religion for Free Exercise purposes is any set of beliefs addressing matters of “ultimate concern” occupying a “ ‘place parallel to that filled by ... God’ in traditionally religious persons.” See Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 1796, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970).

In TOWARD A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF RELIGION from the Harvard Law Review 91 HVLR 1056 it is clear that political philosophies can become civic religions.

Even political and social beliefs may be religious. Tillich suggests: “If a national group makes the life and growth of the nation its ultimate concern … [e]verything is centered in the only god, the nation ….” [FN91] This point has been variously made about “civil religion in America,” [FN92] Communism, [FN93] Marxism, [FN94] Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese militarism. [FN95]

[FN91]. P. TILLICH, supra note 66, at 44. [FN92]. Bellah, Civil Religion in America, 96 DAEDALUS 1, 1-9 (1967). See also Cousins, La Politique Comme Religion aux Etats-Unis, in RELIGION ET POLITIQUE: ACTES DE COLLOQUE ORGANISÉ PAR LE CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES HUMANISTES ET PAR L'INSTITUT D'ETUDES PHILOSOPHIQUES DE ROME, JANVIER 3-7, 1978 (forthcoming, 1978).

[FN93]. J. BENNETT, CHRISTIANITY AND COMMUNISM 87-88 (1970). See also J. MURRY, THE NECESSITY OF COMMUNISM (1932) (arguing that Communism is the world's one living religion).

[FN94]. See L. DEWART, THE FUTURE OF BELIEF 56-58 (1966).

[FN95]. See E. SHILLITO, NATIONALISM: MAN'S OTHER
RELIGION (1933).

Is there anyone who would disagree that Marxists believe (1) there is no God, and (2) that people should believe in Marxism rather than in a God? If so, then Marxism certainly qualifies as a "religion." Accordingly, because the people have freedom to believe or not to believe in any particular religion, should we not be free to believe in Marxism or not? I personally would not bemoan the right of a Marxist to believe in Marxism. Otherwise, I would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

The next question (to be addressed tomorrow) is whether the imposition, by use of government edict, of Marxism upon those of us who do not believe in Marxism would violate the "Establishment Clause."

Marriage Licensing - No Compelling State Interest

Here is a letter from my friend, Christopher, to his friend, Allen. Christopher forwarded this to me and I thought it to be appropriate for this blog.
======================

Hi Allen,

I checked with Dawn and she approved of giving her name. As I said I knew it would not be a problem.

I cut and pasted the information you requested from my current research on religion. Judge Adams' concurring opinion is very interesting. (See below)

By the way, on the issue of who can marry people in Nevada. This is an issue that has long been a concern of mine personally. I would NEVER get a license from the State to marry if I had to do it again. In fact I totally oppose all marriage licenses. I believe that marriage licenses are a violation of the separation between church and state. Churches cannot license the government so how can the government require a license for a religious minister to preform a religious ceremony? This is one of the main reasons why Patrick Henry became a revolutionary. Licensing ministers is antithetical to the American revolution. So why are ministers required to have licenses to marry people in Nevada? Why not license them to preach or baptize?

There are other less restrictive means available. I proved this when my son, Nicholas, was married in Colorado under the common law as Colorado recognizes common law marriages. We went to Colorado so he could get married there. We recorded the marriage at the County Recorder. They had to change their computer system to record it but they were happy to do so because of the Colorado Attorney General opinion on Common Law marriage.

http://www.ago.state.co.us/FAQ/CLM_FAQ.cfm.html

COMMON LAW MARRIAGE

A common law marriage in Colorado is valid for all purposes, the same as a ceremonial marriage. It can be terminated only by death or divorce. The common law elements of a valid marriage are that the couple (1) is free to contract a valid ceremonial marriage, i.e., they are not already married to someone else; (2) holds themselves out as husband and wife; (3) consents to the marriage; (4) cohabits; and (5) has the reputation in the community as being married. The single most important element under common law was the mutual consent of the couple presently to be husband and wife...

Nevada did not have marriage license requirements until the 1940s. Only in “Louisiana" was a marriage license possibly necessary in 1856 AD. Before that no State had marriage license requirements. Therefore the government of Nevada does not have a compelling government interest in marriage licenses or who preforms marriage ceremonies.

There is a great explanation of marriage in John Bouvier 1856 AD law dictionary:

MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.
2. To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, Able to contract, and have actually contracted. ...

Common law marriages are still recognized in many states. If a common law marriage service is preformed (it is not required) it can be performed by anyone. I performed my son's marriage ceremony with no license. We held the ceremony in Nevada at Sunset Park to celebrate the Common law marriage in Colorado. Therefore Nevada has to recognize a Colorado marriage without a license. So once again Nevada has no compelling government interest.

I believe that the marriage license requirements are nothing more than the unconstitutional establishment of a civic religion. And the Supreme Court was quite clear that such a civic religion is unconstitutional:

"The suggestion that government may establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds strikes us as a contradiction that cannot be accepted." Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577, 590, 1992

“[T]he State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’ Zorach v. Clauson, supra, 343 U.S., at 314, 72 S.Ct., at 684, 96 L.Ed. 954.” School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, 83 S.Ct. 1560, U.S.Md. 1963.

Marriage was a religious ceremony until licenses became required as a part of the New American Civic Religion.

This whole marriage license requirement is a scam. Government should keep its nose out of my religion and marriage is a part of my religion. Marriage licenses were founded on racism anyway as only mixed race couples in most states were required to get marriage licenses. The entire marriage license requirement is offensive to me.

Asking for a marriage license is like asking to be enslaved. Nevada is required by the irrevocable ordinance #2:

That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

To the best of my knowledge and research this requirement upon the Sate has never been enforced or litigated. How is requiring a person to get a license to marry someone a: "perfect toleration of his religious sentiment"?

I consider this irrevocable ordinance to be the Nevada Religious Freedom Restoration Act for Nevada as it increases the religious protections. This religious protection territorial ordinance is still "in force" as per Article 17, Sec. 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

Sec: 2. Territorial laws to remain in force. All laws of the Territory of Nevada in force at the time of the admission of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations or be altered or repealed by the Legislature.

The Irrevocable Ordinance has never been altered or repealed by the Legislature.

And of course a State has the right to adopt this right that is: "more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution.”

“The reasoning in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 - which held that the First Amendment does not . . . limit a State's authority to exercise its police power or its sovereign right to adopt in its own constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution.”
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)

Therefore there must be accommodation for anyone that does not have a religious preference to marry a person if any religious minister can do it. Even if a religious person does not want a licensed minister to perform the marriage then he should be able to do so himself. We started our own non-licensed religious organization to protect ourselves from such unconstitutional restrictions upon our free exercise. http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/ In other words this issue is VERY important to me. http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/21.27/
And to others like Pastor Matt Trewhella: http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/21.28/

I hope you win.

If you want any more help on this issue I would be happy to help. I have studied these religious issues for over a decade now and have written extensively on the subject of religious liberty.


In Malnak v. Yogi 592 F.2d 197, 212 (C.A.N.J., 1979) Circuit Judge, Adams wrote a thought provoking concurring opinion concerning what is and what is not religion when considering the establishment clause in which he stated:

"A more difficult question would be presented by government propagation of doctrinaire Marxism, either in the schools or elsewhere. Under certain circumstances Marxism might be classifiable as a religion and an establishment thereof could result."

See also:

91 Harv. L. Rev. 1056

Harvard Law Review
March, 1978
1056 TOWARD A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF RELIGION
Copyright (c) 1978 by the Harvard Law Review Association


Even political and social beliefs may be religious. Tillich suggests: “If a national group makes the life and growth of the nation its ultimate concern … [e]verything is centered in the only god, the nation ….” [FN91] This point has been variously made about “civil religion in America,” [FN92] Communism, [FN93] Marxism, [FN94] Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese militarism. [FN95]

[FN91]. P. TILLICH, supra note 66, at 44.

[FN92]. Bellah, Civil Religion in America, 96 DAEDALUS 1, 1-9 (1967). See also Cousins, La Politique Comme Religion aux Etats-Unis, in RELIGION ET POLITIQUE: ACTES DE COLLOQUE ORGANISÉ PAR LE CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES HUMANISTES ET PAR L'INSTITUT D'ETUDES PHILOSOPHIQUES DE ROME, JANVIER 3-7, 1978 (forthcoming, 1978).

[FN93]. J. BENNETT, CHRISTIANITY AND COMMUNISM 87-88 (1970). See also J. MURRY, THE NECESSITY OF COMMUNISM (1932) (arguing that Communism is the world's one living religion).

[FN94]. See L. DEWART, THE FUTURE OF BELIEF 56-58 (1966).

[FN95]. See E. SHILLITO, NATIONALISM: MAN'S OTHER RELIGION (1933).


Have a wonderful day Allen,

Christopher Hansen

Least Restrictive Means - means?

My friend Christopher sent me this note:

Can you think of all the possible enforcements that the Federal government could use that would be less restrictive (RFRA) than an indictment.

For example:

• Answer questions
• Administrative hearing
• Declaratory relief filed for by the government

Christopher and I use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 against the feds all the time. We are always looking at ways to expand the envelope. From Christopher's question, I think he is alluding to tax matters. In order to raise the religious issues before the IRS, I have to set up a Request for Determination Letter situation.

When dealing with the IRS, it is best to use the administrative procedure that is set forth in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 601. If the IRS uses the administrative procedure properly, the burden is placed upon the "taxpayer." In order to prevail against the IRS, one has to show that either the evidence that the IRS is using to make its "determination" does not support the determination made, or that the IRS failed to follow the proper procedure.

A synopsis of the procedure is found at §103. However, the detail of the procedure is found at §105.

Subsection (a) shows that the procedure applies only to "returns are filed in the office of the district director of internal revenue or the office of the director of a regional service center." As far as I can tell this would preclude this procedure from being applied to a situation where there is no return filed. Subsection (b) appears to apply in the situation where the IRS makes a return by the IRS under the authority of 26 CFR 301.6020-1. So, for filers and non-filers alike, the procedure set forth in §105 would appear to be binding upon the IRS. If you can show that the IRS violated this procedure, then it should be a slam dunk at Tax Court, or in the District Court if you pay the tax, file a claim for a refund, and get denied.

In the case of a non-filer, subsection (b)(2) would be binding upon the IRS:

A document (or set of documents) signed by the Commissioner or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer or employee shall be a return for a person described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section if the document (or set of documents) identifies the taxpayer by name and taxpayer identification number, contains sufficient information from which to compute the taxpayer's tax liability, and purports to be a return. A Form 13496, “IRC Section 6020(b) Certification,” or any other form that an authorized Internal Revenue Officer or employee signs and uses to identify a set of documents containing the information set forth in this paragraph as a section 6020(b) return, and the documents identified, constitute a return under section 6020(b). A return may be signed by the name or title of an Internal Revenue Officer or employee being handwritten, stamped, typed, printed or otherwise mechanically affixed to the return, so long as that name or title was placed on the document to signify that the Internal Revenue Officer or employee adopted the document as a return for the taxpayer. The document and signature may be in written or electronic form.

I have never seen a 6020(b) return that was signed -- ever. What I have seen is a rubber-stamped 1040 with no information on it whatsoever. This return can be obtained from the IRS using a Privacy Act request under the authority of 26 CFR 301.9000-1 &seq. I first request a copy of the Individual Master File, and then look at the Document Control Numbers and find the DCN for the substitute for return that I want to see. Heck, I just request them all.

None of the 6020(b) returns that I have ever seen have an amount on them. The rest of the documents mentioned in the above regulation will be part of the IMF for that year and the documents associated with the DCNs will be available upon request.

Next, I request an "Office Examination." "Office examinations are conducted primarily by the interview method." "During the interview examination, the taxpayer has the right to point out to the examiner any amounts included in the return which are not taxable, or any deductions which the taxpayer failed to claim on the return."

Before attending the office examination, I draft a "request for determination letter" so that I can argue the facts and law before the examiner and set up a requirement for the IRS to seek "technical advice" as outlined in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(b):

The consideration or examination of the facts relating to a request for a determination letter is considered to be in connection with the examination or consideration of a return of the taxpayer. Thus, a district director may, in his discretion, request technical advice with respect to the consideration of a request for a determination letter.

If I am going to raise an issue under the RFRA93, this is where it is done. One would have to put this on the record before the agency using the request for determination letter procedure. Then, after attending the office examination, the IRS must follow this procedure:

At the conclusion of an office or field examination, the taxpayer is given an opportunity to agree with the findings of the examiner. If the taxpayer does not agree, the examiner will inform the taxpayer of the appeal rights. If the taxpayer does agree with the proposed changes, the examiner will invite the taxpayer to execute either Form 870 or another appropriate agreement form.
-- 26 CFR 601.105(b)(4).

I don't "agree with the findings of the examiner," so I have to be informed of the appeal rights. This is where they generally trip up, because they don't do this properly. However, if they do properly inform me of my appeal rights, the next step is to insist upon the "request for determination letter" procedure.

While this is not part of the appeal process of which they will inform you, it is still a very important step in the administrative process. Notice that even though it appears that the request for determination is discretionary, this is belied by subparagraph (b)(5)(iii)(a):

It is the responsibility of the district office to determine whether technical advice is to be requested on any issue before that office. However, while the case is under the jurisdiction of the district director, a taxpayer or his/her representative may request that an issue be referred to the National Office for technical advice on the grounds that a lack of uniformity exists as to the disposition of the issue, or that the issue is so unusual or complex as to warrant consideration by the National Office. This request should be made at the earliest possible stage of the examination process. While taxpayers are encouraged to make written requests setting forth the facts, law, and argument with respect to the issue, and reason for requesting National Office advice, a taxpayer may make the request orally. If, after considering the taxpayer's request, the examiner is of the opinion that the circumstances do not warrant referral of the case to the National Office, he/she will so advise the taxpayer. (See subdivision (iv) of this subparagraph for taxpayer's appeal rights where the examiner declines to request technical advice.)

See, they recognize that this is part of the appeal rights, but they will never inform you of this procedure. This is a violation of the administrative procedure and should ultimately result in a finding by the Tax Court or by the District Court that the procedure was violated, sending this matter back to Examinations. Referring to subdivision (iv), one finds a pre-appeal procedure that has to be resolved prior to the formal appeal process of which one will be advised.

(b) The taxpayer may appeal the decision of the examining officer not to request technical advice by submitting to that official, within 10 calendar days after being advised of the decision, a statement of the facts, law, and arguments with respect to the issue, and the reasons why he believes the matter should be referred to the National Office for advice.
-- 26 CFR 601.105(b)(5)(iv)(b)

This appears to be a kink in the appeals process chain. Because they will not inform one of this pre-appeal process, then one can later argue that the IRS did not inform you fully of your appeal rights. Now, read (iv)(c) to see that the Chief Examiner has to inform you of his decision to deny your request for determination. One then has 15 days to inform the Chief Examiner as to whether or not one agrees with the denial. I don't agree with this denial, so the next part of the procedure must be followed by the IRS:

However, if he does not agree with the proposed denial, all data relating to the issue for which technical advice has been sought, including taxpayer's written request and statements, will be submitted to the National Office, Attention: Director, Examination Division, for review. After review in the National Office, the district office will be notified whether the proposed denial is approved or disapproved.
-- 26 CFR 601.105(b)(5)(iv)(c)

So, if you ask, they have to submit it anyway. I have never seen any determination ever come back from the National Office in these situations. However, if a determination does come back from the National Office, it has to come back within 30 days. If it does not, then this is a violation of the procedure.

If, after a study of the technical advice request, it appears that advice adverse to the taxpayer should be given and a conference has been requested, the taxpayer will be notified of the time and place of the conference. If conferences are being arranged with respect to more than one request for advice involving the same taxpayer, they will be so scheduled as to cause the least inconvenience to the taxpayer. The conference will be arranged by telephone, if possible, and must be held within 21 calendar days after contact has been made. Extensions of time will be granted only if justified in writing by the taxpayer and approved by the appropriate Technical branch chief.
-- 26 CFR 601.105(b)(5)(v)(a)

I have never seen such a conference scheduled. If they fail to schedule it timely, then this is a violation of the procedure. Also, during the pendency of this procedure, "the district office will suspend action on the issue (except where the delay would prejudice the Government's interests) until it is notified of the National Office decision." See 26 CFR 601.105(b)(5)(iv)(d).

Also, because they never inform you of your appeal rights with regard to this procedure, this becomes a violation of the administrative procedure if a request for determination letter is offered and they never send it in to the National Office. Again, the IRS will argue that this is not part of the "appeal process," but this is belied by the revelation that "A taxpayer is entitled, as a matter of right, to only one conference in the National Office unless one of the circumstances discussed in (c) of this subdivision exists." See 26 CFR 601.105(b)(5)(iv)(b).

Subsection (c), mentioned above, relates to the possibility that the National Office might change the results of the examination, which sends this matter back to the Office Examination stage.

Accordingly, if one requests an Office Examination and shows up with a Request for Determination Letter, the entire procedure set forth in subsection (b)(5) has to be followed or it becomes a violation of the administrative procedure. In such a case, I end up paying the tax, filing a claim based upon the violation of procedure, and when denied, sue in the District Court. I pay and sue because 90% of the time the Tax Court will rule against you, and 90% of the time the District Court will rule in your favor.

Religious Freedom Prevails Against Nevada Secretary of State

When one runs for public office as a third party or independent candidate, the establishment uses every opportutnity to quash the entire movement. If you are not a democrat or a republican, you can expect the full power of the state to be brought to bear against you in an effort to "convince" you not to run for office ever again.

When several of my friends and I ran for office in the last election cycle, we ran under the banner of the Independent American Party of Nevada. The procedure for declaring as a candidate involves signing a Declaration of Candidacy form, paying a fee, and then receiving the information about reporting campaign contributions and expenses. Folks like us do things a little differently, however.

First, the fee. In Nevada, I had to pay a $100 fee in order to run for the state assembly seat (the lower house in the Nevada Legislature). At the time that I originally tendered the fee, the price of silver was $12.50 per ounce. Accordingly, I took in eight (8) one-ounce silver dollars and tendered that as payment of the fee. The State Board of Elections (a division within the office of the Secretary of State) refused to accept this tender at anything but face value. Accordingly, I tendered ninety-nine (99) "dollars" denominated in Federal Reserve Notes, together with a one-ounce Silver Dollar. The point of this will be clear later.

Second, you have to sign all of the Declaration of Candidacy forms under penalty of perjury. Most people have no problem doing that, but folks like me do have a problem. Some, like me, have a religious objection to taking an oath. If you review Matthew, Chapter 5, James, Chapter 5, and 2nd Corinthians, Chapter 1, you will find a prohibition against swearing or the taking of any oath in any form. I always strike out that part of the oath or affirmation is objectionable to my faith and instead cite the only form of "oath" I can find in Scripture, Romans, 9:1. My friend, Christopher believes that one should not affirm under penalty of perjury, but should instead call the Lord as a witness as is found in 2nd Corinthians 1:23.

Third, you have to sign a form that says that you will comply with the requirements of the campaign contributions and expenses statutes and report those who contribute to your campaign and how those contributions are spent. However, we have a problem with this, first, because the forms require declaration under penalty of perjury (which is contrary to our faith), and second, to report what was accepted and spent as denominated in "dollars." My definition of a dollar is the same as that defined by Congress: a one-ounce silver coin. I do not receive any of those as contributions, nor do I spend any of those. How am I to fill out the forms if I do not understand what constitutes a dollar as required by the Secretary of State. Accordingly, as I am asked to fill out the form, I ask the representative of the Secretary what is meant by the term "dollar" on the form. What is the size, shape, color, substance, or any other meaningful characteristic of the form of tender so that I understand what is to be reported? Because I get a non-responsive response, I refuse to sign the form that says that I will fill out the C&E reports.

In Nevada, during and after the elections, there are a series of three C&E reports that have to be filed. In my own case, I write "zero" into each of the form fields, and report that I neither received nor spent any dollars denominated in silver or gold. At the bottom of the form, I strike out the declaration under penalty of perjury and replace that with the promise to tell the truth found in Scripture at Romans, 9:1.

Well after the reports are due, I get a letter from the Secretary that I did not fill out the forms properly and that I am being assessed a $5,000 fine for each improperly filed C&E report. After I wrote to him this letter, he never responded.

I have heard tell that the Secretary filed suit against me for my alleged failure to file the C&E reports for the 2006 election cycle, but I have never been served with that suit. However, my friend Christopher has been sued for the 2006 election cycle C&E reports, and the Secretary of State has been relentless in pursuing that suit. A couple of weeks ago, Christoper received a notice of deposition where he would be called to testify. He submitted a formal notice to the court and to the Secretary about the obligations of his faith with respect to testifying. The judge called a hearing and ordered Christopher to take an oath in a specific manner. What the judge was trying to do was to sabotage Christopher's case and force him to take a form of an oath or affirmation that was contrary to his beliefs. If Christopher were to comply with this order, then Christopher's case would then evaporate, as his main contention was one of religious beliefs and the judge was trying to establish that Christopher's beliefs were not sincerely held.

The judge should have known that he cannot do that. See Gordon v. Idaho, 778 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1985):

The First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that our procedural rules be interpreted flexibly to protect sincerely-held religious beliefs and practices. In Callahan v. Woods, 736 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir.1984), we set forth factors that courts must consider in determining whether a neutrally based statute violates the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion. We stated that the "government must shoulder a heavy burden to defend a regulation affecting religious actions." Id. at 1272. And we emphasized that it is "the 'least restrictive means' inquiry which is the critical aspect of the free exercise analysis." Id. The specific verbal formula offered by the district court was not the least restrictive means of assuring that Gordon testify truthfully at his deposition.

So, Christopher filed a Towbin motion to disqaualify the judge (Towbin Dodge, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark 112 P.3d 1063, 2005) on the grounds that the judge exceeded his clearly defined powers in light of Gordon. Christopher then attended the depostion and refused to take the oath in the manner ordered by the Court. He stuck to his beliefs and the attorney for the Secretary of State buckled under the pressure.

Christopher told me yesterday that the attorney for the Secretary of State has offered to dismiss the lawsuit.

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.