susan

hi,

perhaps this might be helpful info.

-susan
austin,tx
'unity through diversity'


> Since we are discussing census legalities, Nancy Johnson, a
> well-respected attorney who has defended many personal rights cases, has
> expressed the following legal opinion regarding the census:
> (This article can be found on-line at
> http://www.sierratimes.com/ednj032000.htm)
>
> Scream Loud ? But Not at Them
>
> Commentary By : Nancy Johnon - Legal Ranch
> Hand
> Attorney at Law
> Posted: March 20, 2000
>
> My husband and I have been talking a lot about
> the census. The prospect of
> answering those personal questions is for us that
> “line in the sand.” But
> in my lawyer’s obsession with seeking a legal
> justification, a means to
> fight injustice, I looked at the cases involving
> others resisting the census
> in the past.
>
> There are a handful of cases involving the
> census, and they date back to the
> early days of this nation. In 1901, the
> constitutionality of the government's
> asking of questions beyond mere numbers was
> challenged and upheld.
>
> “Respecting the suggestion that the power of
> congress is limited to a census
> of the population, it should be noticed that at
> stated periods congress is
> directed to make an apportionment, and to take a
> census to furnish the
> necessary information therefor, and that certain
> representation and taxation
> shall be related to that census. This does not
> prohibit the gathering of
> other statistics, if "necessary and proper," for
> the intelligent exercise of
> other powers enumerated in the constitution, and
> in such case there could be
> no objection to acquiring this information
> through the same machinery by
> which the population is enumerated, especially as
> such course would favor
> economy as well as the convenience of the
> government and the citizens.”
>
> U.S. v. Moriarity 106 F. 886, 891 (Cir. Court,
> S.C. N.Y. 1901) [Emphasis
> added].
>
> And from there it goes on. Most of the cases
> involve challenges to losing
> group rights, i.e. representation, and on that
> grounds have been successful.
> In fact, the planned use of statistical sampling
> in the 2000 census was
> successfully challenged on that ground. Clinton
> et.al., vs. Glavin,
> et.al., 525 U.S. 316 (S.C.t 1999).
>
> There has been one successful challenge to a
> conviction for the refusal to
> complete the form, but not based on the Fifth
> Amendment, which the 9th
> Circuit did not reach, or the Fourth
> (unreasonable search). It was a
> selective prosecution argument. The petitioner
> successfully showed that the
> only persons prosecuted were those who had
> vocally urged others not to
> complete the form. U.S. v. Steele 461 F.2d 1148
> (9th Cir. 1972). The
> enforcement discriminated against those
> exercising their first amendment
> rights and the conviction was reversed.
>
> But when the same argument was made in a case of
> resisting draft
> registration, the government’s “passive
> enforcement” policy was upheld.
> This was a policy of prosecuting only those would
> be registrants who reported
> themselves (or were reported by others) and then
> were “begged” by the
> government to register without success. (Tax
> resisters look out!) This was
> upheld as not being specifically targeted against
> those who exercised their rights.
> “No matter how strong their protest, registration
> immunized them from prosecution.
> Strictly speaking, then, the passive enforcement
> system penalized continued violation
> of the Military Selective Service Act, not
> speech.”
>
> Wayte v. U.S. 470 U.S. 598, 611 (S.Ct. 1985).
>
> The bottom line here is that the lawful means of
> resisting this
> unconscionable invasion of privacy are:
>
> ____________________________
>
> I am afraid that this law must be defied. It has
> happened before. When
> the civil rights protesters staged their sit-ins,
> they violated the law at
> that time. When sympathetic non-slaves sheltered
> "fugitive" slaves, they violated the
> law. And, horribly, when the Jews in Germany got
> on the trains to the
> concentration camps, to do otherwise would have
> violated Germany’s laws of
> the time.
>
> If this form is delivered to this household, I
> will not complete it. I
> make no suggestion as to what others should do,
> but I can only hope that
> enough people share my outrage that it will be
> impossible to prosecute us
> all.
>
> But I must advise against sending any letters,
> notices, partially
> completed forms or other correspondence back to
> the Census Bureau. J.J. is
> right ? you are safer to toss it in the garbage
> than to send some sort of
> protest or explanation. (I’ve always suspected
> the same goes with the
> 1040). The case of U.S. v. Wayte plainly allows
> them to target those
> persons who choose to engage them in debate, and
> U.S. v. Steele provides an
> argument for anyone selected on the basis of his
> public protest.
>
> Luckily, the fine is only $100, and the
> incarceration clause was deleted in
> 1976.
>
> We refused to take those cards at the grocery
> store. I would rather pay a
> few extra bucks than create a database on what
> foods we eat in our home.
> So the hundred bucks, unjust as it is, is by far
> the lesser of evils.
>
> Nancy Lord Johnson
>
> This website home address for Sierra Times is
> http://www.sierratimes.com/index.htm
>
> SierraTimes.com
> Publishing & Communication Associates
> A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.
> 1970 N. Leslie Suite 204
> Pahrump, NV 89041
> Office: 775.727.0627
> Fax: 413.581.5806
> A Nevada Corporation
>
> Articles & Editorials:
>
> We are receiving numerous requests to forward Sierra Times articles
> and editorials to other news outlets. Permission granted, but we ask
> all forwards to include the name of the author, and the URL for this
> site.
>
> All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials (except Vin
> Suprynowicz) are (c) copyright 2000 -
> SierraTimes.com