The Willful Act

Regarding one's actions the axioms apply:

  • An act done by me, against my will, is not my act.1
  • An act does not render a person guilty, unless the mind is guilty.2
  • It is the same thing to commit an act as not to prohibit it, when it is in your power.3

These precepts of Law distill the intent to perform an act as a matter of will; one's motive. If there is no will, no personal act, no accommodation for another's act, then the act is unauthentic. If an act is beyond the ability of a person to prevent, he is neither culpable nor responsible to retract it.

For a person to retract an action, not his own, would be voluntary and considered an unfettered courtesy.


 References:

  1. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus.
  2. Actus not facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
  3. Idem est facere, et non prohibere cum possis. 

42 USC 666 Analysis

The RFRA applies to federal statutes, such as: 42 USCS 666, which, at first review, appears to mandate the use of a national identification number. However, Section (a)(13) specifies "Recording of social security numbers in certain family matters". This applies only to parents with child support judgments in effect, not all U.S. citizens.

Not only does this statute NOT apply to the citizenry, its focus is primarily to coerce the States into demanding Social Security Numbers from its constituents in exchange for tax funding. This amounts to mere extortion. If the States do not challenge on the part of their constituents, they misrepresent the interests of those constituents, regardless of how small the political enclave.

The federal government cannot prevent lawful citizens from obtaining state license privileges without due process, therefore no authority is given to withhold licenses from individuals exercising religious freedom.

To accuse all citizens of parental crimes without due process is to declare all American citizens "Enemy of the State" to usurp power to govern from the people.

American citizens cannot be made subject to child support enforcement procedures for crimes they have not committed; mandating unwarranted search and seizure of private information.

Subjection of all citizenry to 42 USCS 666(a)(13)(A) scrutiny:

  • Denies lawful license applicants fundamental rights and privileges.
  • Violates the rights of applicants with religious opinions in order for the State to receive Federal funds.
  • Ignores any standard of Probable Cause; license applicants are guilty before proven innocent, through a public demand for private Social Security information.
  • Cannot be justified as the least restrictive means of furthering ... compelling government interest.
  • Does not demonstrate the furtherance of any compelling governmental interest any more than searching every citizen's home.
  • Sanctions the license applicant as a lawbreaker, without indictment, proof of guilt, or probable cause. Only those citizens, which have a judgment of parental misconduct, are required to submit an SSN for State scrutiny. No law requires citizens to submit to judgment and punishment for crimes that they did not commit.
  • Does not provide reasonable means to accommodate the applicant's exercise of religion. There are less restrictive means available to determine whether an applicant has been judged for a parental crime.
  • Causes unecessary criminal activity, such as driving without a license, in order to survive. 

Judicial review of HHS decision not to exempt state from requirement that it collect social security numbers on drivers' license applications in order to receive federal funds for child support enforcement, is inappropriate, based on reading of 42 USCS §  666(d) exemption provision, because language indicates Congress placed exemption decision solely within HHS discretion. Mich. Dep't of State v United States (2001, WD Mich) 166 F Supp 2d 1228.

Freedom of Disassociation

In a religious accommodation case regarding the use of the Social Security Administration number as an identifier, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a Navy Chief Petty Officer who was unlawfully discharged after making a request to have a "Navy generated service number" issued as his Military Personnel Identification Number, in lieu of his Social Security Administration Number.

Read more...

This web site is provided for "information purposes" only and should not be relied upon as "legal advice". This information is provided for educational, speculative, and historical discussion only and merely constitutes opinion or personal perspective protected under the First Amendment. Nothing transmitted from this web site constitutes the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Nothing within this site is intended to unlawfully influence any attorney, litigant, or member of the congressional, judicial or executive branches, or to incite, coerce, extort, undermine or manipulate any governmental, individual, commercial or legal entity. Applicability of any legal principles or analysis discussed on this site or any of its pages may differ substantially in individual situations or in different states.

This web site, information providers, and web host have no control over, nor do they endorse, any external internet site, email, electronic document, or hard copy that contains links to, copies of, or references to this information.

This is not a commercial enterprise, nor is any information presented here to solicit funds or donations of any kind. Donations are strictly free will, for educational purposes and the furtherance of religious freedom.

Copyright 2011 Federal.