Tag Archives: Oklahoma

Update on my lawsuit to stop mandatory biometric ID and an urgent plea for your help TODAY!

Kaye Beach

June 25, 2014

I know my blog posts have been few and far between these days.  You know how I like to tell and I look forward to being able to tell you everything and begin posting frequently and freely again.

(My small talk news is that I am proudly working at a great local vape store! I only applied at one store and that was because of the owners and crew’s commitment to activism and helping smokers choose a safer alternative.   I am excited to be helping others make the transition from smoking to vaping as I have done after almost 30 years of smoking.  I am enjoying this work immensely and will be posting more on this soon!)

I am writing this post in order to  bring you up to speed on my lawsuit in Oklahoma opposing mandatory biometric identification in order to be issued a state driver’s license or ID card and make an urgent request for your support.

If you wish to contribute to my legal fund online through Paypal.com Here is the link: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/send-money-online  All you need is my email, which is axxiomforliberty@gmail.com
 By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

Biometric ID

‘Biometric means “measurement of the body.”  This is technology is used to measure aspects of an individual and transform this personal data into digital code for the purpose of identification.  With biometrics, your body IS your ID.

Biometric identification creates a perfect connection between our bodies and information about us.  It is also used to control access to places, services and goods and it is being implemented around the world through deception, coercion and stealth.  Industry experts predict that within five years, the majority of the world’s population will be enrolled into one or another biometric identification scheme.’ (Dec. 9, 2013, AxXiom For Liberty http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/help-me-stop-mandatory-biometric-id/)

I was honored to be interviewed by Oklahoma Journalist, Patrick McQuigan recently. (OK Woman battles ‘mandatory biometric’ required for drivers’ licenses  19-Jun-2014 )

And as I explained to Mr. McGuigan;

“I filed a lawsuit against this policy in the first place because I believe it is a violation of my right to freedom of religion, as well as my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, both of which are protected under Oklahoma law,”

(Press Release from the Rutherford Institute: Rutherford Institute Challenges Oklahoma’s Mandatory Biometric Photo Requirement for Drivers’ Licenses As Infringement of Religious Freedom)

City Sentinel June 25 2014

I was also very pleased and surprised to see my story make the front page of the City Sentinel today. I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. McGuigan for delving into my story.

Recap As some of you may be aware, I began my battle back in the summer of 2011.  Yes, the wheels of justice do indeed move slowly — especially in comparison to the rapid expansion in the use of the biometric technology.

In 2011, my driver’s license came due and because of all I had learned about the nature of biometric ID and my Christian faith, there was no way I could voluntarily and passively accept biometric enrollment. I had worked hard to gain a thorough understanding of the policy and technology behind the collection of our biometric data and I learned that this biometric identification system is not merely a state level nuisance, or even simply a reviled national identity system.  This is a global system of identification and financial control.   It will apply to everyone.  Right now, the people of the world are well on their way to total global enrollment.  I am determined not to be one of them!  Furthermore, I intend to prove that this is a violation of our rights as individuals so that we can protect these rights!

Regardless of our political or religious persuasions, a great many people oppose mandatory biometric enrollment and they do so on a variety of grounds.  The common thread is preserving individual freedoms. We must not allow ourselves to be trapped in this unbearably intimate, body-based system of government control!

In the spring of 2011, I was cited for driving without a valid license and with the help of my lawyers, I fought that citation in city court.  The Norman City Attorney, apparently reluctant to try and settle such a serious matter in a city court, dismissed my case.

Still, without a valid license or government issued photo ID, the normal duties of life become very difficult.  Purchases, banking, health care, travel and more, become extremely challenging and in the future, these things are intended to become impossible without a government issued biometric ID.

The state of Oklahoma patently refused to consider my religious objections and issue a non-biometric license and since I am certain that I have a right to freely live my life and follow my faith without having to submit the measurements of my body to government databases, my battle could not stop at a city court dismissal.   Ultimately, my lawyers filed a lawsuit on my behalf against the state to protect my right to religious freedom and against the unwarranted collection of my biometric data.

(Petition filed on Sept. 21, 2011 http://constitutionalalliance.org/xfiles/Constitutional-Alliance_Kaye-Beach_Petition-Suit-as-Filed.pdf  If you would like to read more about the beginning of this battle, please see My Real ID Reckoning, June 28, 201)

We are NOT criminals!

In a recent interview with local FOX news affiliate, I explained to the Reporter that one of the benefits to being a law abiding citizen is that we get to go about our business without having the government constantly looking over our shoulders, monitoring, evaluating and controlling our lives. When we are arrested, we are fingerprinted and our digital mug shot is captured along with scads of other personal information.  These details are entered into a database allowing the government to keep track of criminals and suspects for the purpose of protecting public safety.  Now, at the DMV, we are fingerprinted and this along with our digital ‘faceprint’ and biographical information is captured and stored for use with facial recognition technology. This data, like criminal data, is also used to keep an eye on us.  Tell me, where is the benefit of being a law-abiding citizen when we are all treated as criminals and suspects?

I am, of course, somewhat limited in what I can say but to bring you up to speed on my lawsuit here is what I can share;

June 18, 2013, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which is a pre-trail motion that presents the undisputed facts of my case to the judge asking that based on these undisputed facts that the judge rule in my favor. Page 1-10 lists 36 statements of undisputed facts.  The rest of the petition is legal justifications and exhibits.  I encourage everyone to read pages 1-30. (Motion for Summary Judgment, June 18, 2013, http://constitutionalalliance.org/xfiles/Kaye-Beach_Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-as-to-Count-1_6.19.13_reduced.pdf )

Then there were depositions.  The state had its opportunity to thoroughly question me about whatever they wished and I had to answer each of their questions honestly upon my oath.  Likewise, my lawyer had the opportunity to perform a deposition on the state.

On April 1st, 2014, the state responded to my Motion for Summary Judgment and made a counter motion. The series of documents that comprise the state’s response is publicly available on the Oklahoma State Court Network which I have copied and pasted here for your convenience.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / FOR SCANNING PURPOSES, DOC SPLIT INTO 3 PARTS / PART 1: MAIN PLEADING THROUGH EXHIBIT 2 (PAGE 59 OF TRANSCRIPT) Document Available (#1024392582)
04-01-2014 CNOTE - 15174229 Apr 2 2014 8:19:59:360AM - $ 0.00
PART 2: EXHIBIT 2 (PAGE 60 OF TRANSCRIPT) THROUGH EXHIBIT 6 / DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1024392578)
04-01-2014 CNOTE - 15174230 Apr 2 2014 8:20:32:300AM - $ 0.00
PART 3: EXHIBITS 7-10 / DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1024392574)

 

As you can see, the state’s response was a lengthy one – nearly 300 baffling pages.

My legal team’s response to the state’s response filed on June 17th, at a total of 31 pages, is relatively short and sweet – as the truth tends to be.

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Document Available (#1025965247)

So where are we now?

Very Close! The state will have an opportunity to respond once again and then this Motion for Summary Judgment should go before the District Judge.  It should be 60 days or less till the Judge sees and rules on this pre-trial motion.  I believe that the law is clear and that my rights are being violated.  I believe my Counsel has done an excellent job in stating my case.

“Kaye Beach’s lawsuit, is the only substantial challenge to government mandated biometric ID, to my knowledge, that exists anywhere in our country.”–The Constitutional Alliance

We are very fortunate that my legal challenge attracted the attention of the Rutherford Institute, a nationally respected civil liberties organization. I count this organization as the ‘best of the best’ when it comes to protecting the rights of all in our country and John Whitehead has long been a personal hero of mine. I am so grateful that the Rutherford Institute is providing their experience and support in my lawsuit

My personal attorney is Benjamin Sisney, a man that I have great faith in.  He has a heart for this case and has worked diligently in representing me every step of the way.  I truly believe that I could not have better representation in this case than Ben Sisney and know that my case is in the best of hands.  It is important for you to understand how strongly I believe in my Attorney because this leads me to my purpose for writing to you today.

My excellent legal representation is not free

Right now I have an outstanding balance of about $17,000 for the hard work Mr. Sisney and his firm has done on my behalf and that balance must be paid up and quickly!  I must honor my debt to these good people as they deserve to be paid for their labors.  In my past fundraising efforts, you have come through for this cause and even though I know that money is tight for all, I am counting on you again.

I am on a very short timeline to get this debt cleared and am pleading for your help to get it done. 

For those who think that this issue is too complicated or somehow does not apply to them personally, please pay attention to John Whitehead’s (President of the Rutherford Institute) quote that Patrick McGuigan chose to include in his article about my case. (In bold below)  I think it neatly pins the crux of the problem with mandatory biometric ID, to the wall.

Whatever one’s belief systems — whether a person views a biometric ID card in the form of a driver’s license or other government-issued form of identification as the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same — ultimate control by the government,”

Read more

If you support my effort to stop mandatory biometric enrollment, please, share this message with others and give as generously as you can today!

“As more and more of us are enrolled it is safe to predict that the balance of power that exists between the people and their governments will correspondingly shift further away from the people and towards government.  History shows us that, unerringly, that such power will be abused and the window of opportunity to resist this system of human identification and control is closing.”

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/help-me-stop-mandatory-biometric-id/

Here is how to contribute:

You may make a donation online through Paypal.com Here is the link:

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/send-money-online  All you need is my email, which is axxiomforliberty@gmail.com

By US mail, you can send a check or money order to; Kaye Beach P.O. Box 722381 Norman, Oklahoma, 73070 (Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)

Thank you for all you do for freedom!

 

Kaye Beach

 

 

 

Oklahoma Property Rights Protection Bill or Property Rights Destruction Bill?

 

little house

Kaye Beach

May 1, 2014

As promised from the start, HB 2620 which is supposed to prohibit cities from mandating vacant property fees and registration, and HB 3363 which defines “abandoned buildings” as a public nuisance, have been combined. The title for the new version of HB 2620 remains “Protect Property Rights Act”  (Call me cynical but such titles of bills always make me think “PATRIOT ACT”)

There are some grave issues with this measure but for now I am only going to address the first portion.  (I will post the about the rest of it before this weekend in over)

The reasoning for merging the registry ‘ban’ bill (HB2620)  with the abandoned property definition bill (HB3363) is so that owners of property with ‘bad’ vacancies CAN be targeted, forced to register and accrue a variety of fines and fees which if not paid will result in a lien being placed on their property.

Both bills were passed by the House and sent to the Senate (Hb3363 with title off) HB3363 was not heard in the Senate but was combined with HB 2620 after the bill was passed by the senate.

What we have now is a mess that is due to be heard in the House General Government Conference Committee  next week.  I am almost certain that our legislators will not pass this monster of a bill in anything resembling its current state but you never know….and I am concerned enough about it that I am going to begin squalling now rather than taking the ‘hide and watch’ approach and end possibly up regretting that later on.

The first portion of the committee substitute for HB2620 is supposed to prohibit municipalities from implementing mandatory fees and registries for real property.  Rep. Steve Martin, the House author,  says he wants to  protect property owners from onerous and expensive city mandates such as the recent OKC vacant property registration ordinance which he feels goes too far.

Residential properties that are vacant for 30 days must register the property with the city.  If your property is,  at a minimum, 1. vacant  and 2. water and electric has been shut off for more than 60 days, you are required to pay a $285 fee and an annual renewal fee of $190.  It doesn’t matter if the building is entirely up to code.  If those two conditions apply, your property is designated a “vacant property” that requires you to pay for some special attention from the city government.  Read more about OKC’s new vacant property registry here

I agree with the House author of HB 2620 that state intervention in municipal actions that violate city residents’ right’s is appropriate.  However, it is doubtful that the current language will survive to passage of the bill.

For one thing, it is too broad. As currently written this measure would not only nullify all existing vacant property registries and fees but also other existing registries such as for storm shelters which allows rescuers to find and search all shelters in the aftermath of a disaster. Not only will the cities vehemently oppose such a measure, citizens might as well.  Whether or not you agree with the premise that there should be no mandatory registries of real property, understand that the bill is not likely to survive to address the stated goal of halting vacant property registries when written this broadly.

More concerning than what may appear to be merely a stubborn stance on principle (which I usually don’t criticize) is that numerous statements made by the bill’s authors clearly indicates that they do not really oppose all “registration of real property” as the bill states but simply mandatory registration of otherwise perfectly maintained property that happens to also be vacant.

‘Treat also sponsored House Bill 3363, which defines abandoned buildings and how they should be handled by a city. He said he could merge the two bills to help better define what is an abandoned or vacant building. Treat also said Oklahoma City’s fee requirement will not reach those it is intended for – improper property owners’ Link

Its going to be a real trick to separate these proper and “improper” owners, I’m afraid.  In fact, it will be impossible to pass such a measure that will not inevitably harm what you and I might classify as good property owners.

When you consider the fact that state law already allows for the city to deal with “improper” property owners which are those whose use or neglect of their property harms the general right of others, you might wonder what it is we are missing here.   Protecting our rights is precisely the purpose of government in the first place and they are well-seasoned to the task.  City government has broad police power to intervene anytime the rights its residents are threatened furthermore, city governments in this state also have specific statutory authority abate common public nuisances. (See Title 11 )  So what problem do we have that is so new and extraordinary that we need to grant cities some brand new powers?

I don’t agree that some vacant property registries are necessary or proper and think It would be a grave mistake for the state legislature to further burden  property owners with such registries or fees at all.   

Registration is not necessary as cities already know where the problem properties are and how to contact the owners. For example, this is from a 2013 City of Norman Council Oversight Meeting where the issue of a vacant property registration was discussed.

‘Ms. Leah Messner, Assistant City Attorney said locating the property owners is not an issue’

It is important to note that city, state and federal properties are exempt from enforcement of such city ordinances. Government properties (even the ones that may have been taken fro you for being an ‘improper’ owner) can sit happily vacant for as long as the government wants them to with no penalty.  As noted by the Norman assistant City Attorney, banks can be exempt and the outcome of recent federal lawsuit indicates that federal mortgage holders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also exempt from such city ordinances.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Exempt From Chicago Vacant Building Ordinance

 However, there are no exemptions for the average property owner or financially struggling individuals.  When the Norman Assistant City Attorney was asked if there were any exemptions from a vacant property registry and the attendant fees for low-income property owners her answer was simply “No

It is easy to see why property owners might feel that vacant and abandoned property programs are open to abuse and possibly a racket that will result in an even greater transfer of wealth from the ordinary citizen to government and their cronies.  In fact, in cities across the nation where vacant and abandoned property programs like the one Oklahoma City is apparently embarking on,  are well advanced, there is plenty of evidence that such fears are complete warranted.

Here is what I’m afraid might happen;  if the HB 2620 is amended at some point prior to final passage to protect only perfectly pristine vacant properties  registration and fees wouldn’t it also, by omission, bless city ordinances to mandate registration of any other vacant properties?  This would end up being a case of the exception that swallows the rule.

I guess the question is do you support subjecting property owners (except for the government and big banksters) to more bureaucracy, fines, fees and risk of having their property taken?  Do we have a right to own property that is vacant?

If you think we do have the right to really own our private property then you might want to encourage the members of the  General Government Conference Committee  to be careful and not allow HB2620 to be amended to turn a what is supposed to be a property rights protection measure into a property rights destruction law.

All vacant property registries should be prohibited.

The rest of the measure is an utter nightmare and deserves it own separate post which will go up sometime this weekend.

Okla. Stop HB2904! Would classify e-cigarettes as tobacco product, lead to higher taxation

rlc

Kaye Beach

Feb. 25, 2014

Oklahoma Vapors phone calls, emails needed today to stop HB 2904

HB 2904 is scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary committee today at 3PM.

HB 2904 by Rep. Ownbey would define electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product opening the door to higher taxation on vapor products.

Please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee members and ask them to please vote NO on HB 2904!

Tell them to keep lifesaving vapor products accessible and affordable for smokers.  (Copy and paste email addresses below)

Vaping is NOT smoking and vapor products should not be treated like tobacco cigarettes

Here is my email to House Judiciary committee members:

Dear Representative,

I am a 30 year, pack a day smoker.  I have failed at every attempt to quit until I tried a personal vaporizing device.  I have not touched a cigarette in over six weeks.  I consider this technology to be a literal lifesaver for myself and other smokers.

HB2904 opens the door to higher taxation on electronic cigarettes.  This is wrong! We should keep vapor products accessible and affordable for smokers so that more people may improve their health and longevity.  Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco and are estimated to be 99% safer than smoking.

Please vote NO on HB 2904!

You can call House Judiciary Committee members at House Switchboard 800-522-8502 and 800-522-8506.  (Just ask for the Representative you wish to speak to and the operator will connect you)

Chair Rep. Osborn, Leslie 

Vice Chair Rep. Stiles, Aaron

or Email them in one blast by copying and pasting the emails below.

House Judiciary Committee Members:
leslie.osborn@okhouse.gov; aaron.stiles@okhouse.gov;  ; scott.biggs@okhouse.gov; jon.echols@okhouse.gov; randy.grau@okhouse.gov; scott.inman@okhouse.gov; dennis.johnson@okhouse.gov; fred.jordan@okhouse.gov; stevemartin@okhouse.gov; charles.mccall@okhouse.gov; mark.mccullough@okhouse.gov; richardmorrissette@okhouse.gov; tom.newell@okhouse.gov; bensherrer@okhouse.gov; emily.virgin@okhouse.gov ; cory.williams@okhouse.gov

Oklahoma Vapers call to Action Calls, E-mails needed in support of SB 1892

Kaye Beach

Feb. 17, 2014

**Update**  Feb. 18, 2014  The bill is SB1892 not SB1852 as I had listed.  Sorry about that.

SB 1892 passed the Senate Finance committee today  but due to a minor snafu the title was stricken.  The bill will have to go to conference committee for title to be restored.  If all that sounds confusing, the bottom line is that it will end up before the committee and have to be voted on again.  This should happen shortly and so if you didn’t get your calls or emails in, it wouldn’t hurt to do so now.

Will update again as soon as there is any movement on this bill.  Thank you!

SB 1892 will be heard in the Senate Finance Committee tomorrow morning at 10:30 AM in Rm 535

Call or email the Senate Finance committee members tonight or first thing tomorrow morning and tell them to vote YES on SB 1852!

Electronic cigarettes and vapor products are NOT tobacco and should not be categorized as such.  SB 1852 defines “vapor products’ separately from tobacco products and does not allow vapor products to be taxed like tobacco products.  This is GOOD!  It keeps the safer option of ‘vaping’ accessible to more smokers who have been unable or unwilling to quit smoking.

Briefly tell the committee members how you or your loved ones have benefitted from using a personal vaporizing device.  Ask them to vote YES on SB 1852 and thank them for their time.

Here is the Oklahoma Vapor Advocacy League’s Alert on SB 1852.  (Find out more about OVAL at http://ovalok.org)

oval alert sb 1852

You can email the Senate Finance committee members in one swoop by copying and pasting their emails as provided;

mazzei@oksenate.gov; Brinkley@oksenate.gov; Aldridge@oksenate.gov; dahm@oksenate.gov; david@oksenate.gov; fordj@oksenate.gov; halligan@oksenate.gov; johnsonc@oksenate.gov; jolly@oksenate.gov; mcaffrey@oksenate.gov; simpson@oksenate.gov; sparks@oksenate.gov; treat@oksenate.gov

You can call the Senate Finance committee members by dialing the Senate Switchboard and asking to be connected to the Senator you wish to speak with.   Senate switchboard (405) 524-0126

Senate Finance Committee Members are as follows:

Senator Mike Mazzei – Chair
Senator Rick Brinkley – Vice Chair
Senator Cliff Aldridge
Senator Nathan Dahm
Senator Kim David
Senator John Ford
Senator Jim Halligan
Senator Constance Johnson
Senator Clark Jolley

Senator McAffrey
Senator Frank Simpson
Senator John Sparks
Senator Greg Treat

Clearing the Air on the Oklahoma E-cigarette War

Kaye Beach

Feb. 11, 2014

Recently I wrote an article for The Oklahoma Constitution on the politics and money behind the e-cigarette bans in our state.

Many credible health experts have also noted a curious imbalance regarding the claims made by some public health advocates about
e-cigarette health dangers. . . .  Judging from the reaction to the sudden spate of prohibitions on vaping in our state, the public t buying the hype either. What most people want to know is,  why are they being banned? Who is being hurt by the use of an electronic cigarette? . . . This innovative technology is not a threat to public health but is a grave threat to the entire multi-billion tobacco industry as it exists today.

. . .You’ll find TSET grant funding everything from OETA to bike racks, but let’s look at the “Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control” incentive grants that are driving the vapor bans.

You can read the article ‘Clearing the Air on the Oklahoma E-cigarette War’ in its entirety  at The Oklahoma Constitution.

Also, you may want to see this rebuttal to the OK. State Dept. of Health’s alarmist e-cigarette advisory. FINAL OSDH rebuttal 2 9 2014

And if you haven’t done it yet, subscribe to The Oklahoma Constitution!

Oklahoma Bill to Stop Unconstitutional NSA Actions!

SB 1252 nsa

Kaye Beach

Jan. 28, 2014

SB 1252 The Fourth Amendment Protection Act by Sen. Nathan Dahm has been assigned to the Rules Committee.  Read more about SB 1252 here and you can read the bill (SB 1252) here

The bill must receive a majority vote to pass and your support can make the difference.  Specific action items are provided below.

A nationwide coalition, Nullify NSA, has formed in an effort limit NSA surveillance abuses through state legislation.

Nullify NSA website http://nullifynsa.com/

Nullify NSA on Facebook

The most important part of SB 1252 would bring a halt to the practice of  NSA intelligence being used to investigate people on matters unrelated to national security and then cover up the source of the information as was revealed by Reuters a few months ago.

(Reuters) – A  secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation  to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.. . .documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin – not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from  prosecutors and judges.  Read more

That revelation was responsible for the outburst from one outraged Oklahoma Republican at a Town Hall meeting that went viral last August.

Apparently OK Congressman Lankford was less than fully informed about some of the NSA’s programs that were being reported on, along with documentation, by the news media.  His audience, however,  was informed and Rep. Lankford’s seeming denials of what was known produced some understandable consternation.

Shortly after being challenged about the NSA’s activities at the Town Hall meeting, Rep. Lankford issued this statement:

“As a Member of Congress, I expect to receive accurate and complete information from a federal agency when requested. It is absurd that the
intelligence community was not completely forthcoming in its answers about classified government programs misusing Americans’ private information.  An agency that cannot fully answer questions asked by a  co-equal branch of government can expect significant structural changes and stringent oversight in the future.”

SB 1252 would put a stop to the NSA secretively passing on information collected  about Oklahomans without a warrant.

With the Fourth Amendment Protection Act in place (SB 1252), defense attorneys will be able to challenge data gathered without a warrants and passed on to state or local law enforcement.  Such data would be excluded as evidence. Judges will be obligated to disallow data gathered without a warrant.

“We know the NSA is sharing unconstitutionally gathered information with state and local law enforcement agencies – and it has nothing to do with keeping us safe from terrorists. This should offend every American who cares about the Constitution,” Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey. “Oklahoma may not be able to stop the NSA from vacuuming up the data, but it can darn sure make it as useless as a three dollar bill to state and local cops.” Read more

Nullify NSA provides the following Oklahoma action items to support SB 1252 in Oklahoma:

Oklahoma Action Steps

On January 6, SB1252 was prefiled by Sen. Nathan Dahm. This bill would big steps forward to protect Oklahoma residents from unwarranted surveillance (learn about it here).

STATUS – SB1252 has been assigned to the Rules committee where it will need to pass by majority vote.

YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW. It doesn’t matter where in Oklahoma you live, take these actions today.

1. Contact the Committee Chairman.  Be strong but respectful. Ask her to promptly move SB1252 forward to a hearing and vote in the committee. Ask her to vote YES on SB1252

AJ Griffin (405) 521-5628 griffin@oksenate.gov

2. Contact all the other members of the committee. Again, be strong but respectful. Ask them each for a YES vote on SB1849. If they say they’re opposed, ask them why. If they’re undecided or will not commit to a YES vote, let them know you will be following up in a few days after they have a chance to consider it.

Rob Johnson (405) 521-5592 johnsonr@oksenate.gov
Don Barrington 405.521.5563 barrington@oksenate.gov
Cliff Branan (405) 521-5543 branan@oksenate.gov
Kim David (405) 521-5590 david@oksenate.gov
Eddie Fields (405) 521-5581 efields@oksenate.gov
John Ford (405) 521-5634 fordj@oksenate.gov
Jim Hlligan 405.521.5572 halligan@oksenate.gov
Constance Johnson (405) 521-5531 johnsonc@oksenate.gov
Clark Jolley (405) 521-5622 jolley@oksenate.gov
Ron Justice (405) 521-5537 justice@oksenate.gov
Bryce Marlatt 405.521.5626 marlatt@oksenate.gov
Al McAffrey (405) 521-5610 mcaffrey@oksenate.gov
Jubar Shumate (405) 521-5598 shumate@oksenate.gov
Frank Simpson (405) 521-5607 simpson@oksenate.gov
John Sparks (405) 521-5553 sparks@oksenate.gov
Rob Standridge (405) 521-5535  standridge@oksenate.gov
Gary Stanislowski 405.521.5624 stanislawski@oksenate.gov
Charles Wyrick (405) 521-5561 wyrick@oksenate.gov

3. Call Back – any NO or UNDECIDED – in 3-4 days. Ask if they’ve had a chance to review the legislation and what their opposition might be. Comment below or contact us at info@offnow.org with any information you get.

4.  on Twitter?  Retweet

5. Write a letter to the editor. Look up your local newspaper and submit a letter to the editor voicing your support for SB1252. Following strong legal principles, it’s essential that Oklahoma no longer help the federal government spy on all of us. Passing SB1252 will make that happen.

http://offnow.org/oklahoma/

‘Vape Ban Warning’ Issued for 26 Oklahoma Counties

super cell 1

Kaye Beach

Jan. 25, 2014

Feb 11, 2014 UPDATE: On Feb. 10th the TSET apparently decided to revamp their entire website and all of the informative links below were rendered dead.  THANKFULLY the Internet has a very long memory and all links were restored on Feb 11th via The Wayback Machine.

 

An electronic cigarette or personal vaporizer (affectionately known by its fans as a ‘vape’) is a battery-operated device that heats a liquid containing nicotine (but not always) and various flavors to produce,  not smoke, but vapor, thus eliminating tar and toxins associated with burning tobacco cigarettes.   Thousands of Oklahomans have switched from smoking to vaping, potentially improving their health and longevity.

The good news about this safer alternative to smoking is being clouded by a potent mix of financial and political interests making conditions ripe in 2014 for potentially disastrous vaping bans and other dangerous political phenomena such as unreasonable taxation of vaping products.

Oklahomans should be advised that the political environment may turn treacherous at any moment.

At 4:59  PM CT AxXiom for Liberty’s Nanny State Prevention Service has issued a Vape Ban Warning for the following Oklahoma counties:

vape ban watch

The previous  state-wide Vape Ban Watch is now upgraded to a Vape Ban Warning for these counties.

TSET funds at work

Residents of these twenty-six Oklahoma counties are advised to expect a whirlwind of TSET funded anti-tobacco coalition agitation at the city level, accompanied by media saturation of anti-electronic cigarette propaganda, local political maelstroms, and SWAT (Students Working Against Tobacco) team activation.

Immediate city level organization is necessary to  protect life and property from dangerous government overreach.

Don’t wait until the vape ban is on top of you – take your  big government precautions now!   

Oklahoma TSET Communities of Excellence In Tobacco Control

Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control FY 13 budget: $6 million (Source: TSET Program Fact Sheet)

A Vape Ban Watch means that conditions are favorable to the formation of e-cigarettes and vaping bans.  85% of Oklahoma has been under the Vape Ban Watch since last fall when the same political influences that threaten areas in 2014 produced damaging bans in Oklahoma communities such as Shawnee, Ada and others.

Sporadic outbreaks of vaping bans and e-cigarettes prohibitions this fall prompted vigilant vapers and other Oklahomans leery of the nanny state  to take action on impending bans.  Oklahoman’s may feel overwhelmed by sudden storms produced by the explosive combination of cold cash and hot air but as the residents of Tahlequah demonstrate, citizen preparedness and quick action can save the day.

Be proactive.  Call your city council member now and tell them that TSET bribes are not a good reason to ban vaping!

Please remain vigilant.  Under normal circumstances, community health coalitions are relatively benign and even helpful entities but when fueled by tobacco settlement funds granted by the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust, these entities can coalesce becoming supercells that produce twisted efforts that can devastate opportunities for Oklahomans to improve their personal health.

tobacco free coalitions TSET

Right now these coalitions are primed to start firing off  Vaping Bans in cities that fall under the 26 county (highlighted in green pg 31-33)Vape Ban Warning area.

Detail is as follows:

These twenty-six Oklahoma counties are part of a ‘Communities of Excellence’ coalition/consortium and are  eligible for TSET Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control funding for  fiscal year 2014.

In 2014, flush with tobacco settlement cash extracted from predominately low-income smokers, the TSET has doubled the grant funds available to communities as part of the Healthy Communities Incentive Grant for Tobacco Control.

If you live within one of these twenty-six  counties, chances are good that your city will be targeted by one or more TSET funded anti-tobacco groups operating in your area in over the course of this year.  TSET has set aside 4.1 million dollars in 2014 just to fund the anti-tobacco coalitions that you will find agitating for the Vape Bans.  (Page 3 http://www.ok.gov/tset/documents/RFPCXTC_1_Nov_25.pdf )

‘Additional grant money of $42,000 would be granted to Choate’s group as part of TSET’s Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control.

An amount of $200,000 is received annually by her group from the tobacco settlement.

She emphasized that it is not money that motivates them to push ecig ban.’

(Reported by North West Watch http://www.northwestwatch.org/news/speculations-that-money-push-council-to-ban-ecigarettes/)

These health related coalitions work within our communities to promote public health education and policies that many of us welcome and support but the TSET and it’s partners have decided to focus in on eradicating the imaginary scourge of e-cigarettes and are funding the coalitions to be the tip of the spear in this misguided effort.  Given the well established and devastating effects of smoking, redirecting health activists’ efforts away from this and other pressing health concerns can only be described as perverse.

turning point coalition e cigarette

Coalition applicants must develop work plans to address five (required) Core Indicators defined in TSET’s 2014 Request for Proposals (RFP) for Communities of Excellence in Tobacco Control funding. (Page 24 http://www.ok.gov/tset/documents/RFPCXTC_1_Nov_25.pdf)

Required “Core Indicator 1″ is a city-wide tobacco-free policy which is defined to include e-cigs/vapor products.

CI red lined

Pg 25 http://www.ok.gov/tset/documents/RFPCXTC_1_Nov_25.pdf

Oklahomans fed up with the ever encroaching nanny-state would do well to inform themselves by spending a little time perusing the TSET’s website http://www.ok.gov/tset/    (Well, not so much now since they have removed MANY public information links!) You should get to know these coalitions that are getting their paychecks and marching orders from TSET while professing to represent ‘the community’ and thus YOU!

Each of the twenty-six  counties eligible for TSET tobacco control grants in 2014 are listed below.  They are linked with their respective TSET funding pages that identifies the lead coalition as well as their most recent yearly and cumulative total TSET funding to date.

Coal
End Advisory.
When the political weather heats up, stay tuned to AxXiom for Liberty, we’ll keep you advised.

Ohio says no to Real ID citing concerns about biometric collection, facial recognition

frt cctv

Kaye Beach

Dec. 16, 2013

Ohio is the first state to reject the federal Real ID Act solely on the basis of the biometric (facial recognition) collection.

(Read Biometrics 101 -Your Body is Your Id)

When people really understand that the mass collection of biometrics on ordinary people turns all of us into suspects and transforms our rights into privileges, sensible people will reject it.

State officials balked at the “one driver-one license” rule and at being required to store and share copies of personal documents, such as birth certificates, said Joe Andrews, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Public Safety…The objection is that it’s not acceptable in many circles in Ohio to do facial recognition on everyone who comes in to get a license,” http://www.dispatch.com//content/stories/local/2013/12/06/state-pulls-plans-to-comply-with-federal-id-law.html

Ohio had been set and ready to go with Real ID but when residents and legislators got a whiff of what Real ID with its facial biometric requirement was really about, they weren’t so happy.

 After Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
quietly added a facial recognition capability to the
Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway
, which gives government officials unified access to databases for their browsing pleasure, state residents became a tad creeped out that they’d been conscripted into an ongoing police line-up. Link

The actuality of harm to our rights inherent in mandatory biometric ID is beginning to become apparent.  Compared to a few years ago, it is now much easier for the people and their legislators to see what this technology is and how it is being used and they are taking issue with it.

Recently Missouri legislators completed an investigation into privacy violations of Missouri residents and found that the state’s Department of Revenue has  continued implementation of the federal Real ID Act in spite of state law prohibiting it.

Mo. House Committee Releases Report Accusing DOR Of Breaking 2009 Anti-REAL ID Law

 “The Department of Revenue adopted a system of scanning and retention of source documents,” Cox said.  “They acquired and they spent considerable money in obtaining biometric information on citizens, they adopted the central issuance of driver’s licenses, and finally adopted what’s sometimes referred to as Level Three security, which is also a feature of (the) REAL ID Act, according to the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.”

But the federal government says it still intends to force the Real ID Act on the states.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NSCL)
Oct. 2013

REAL ID Enforcement on Its Way

In a recent meeting with NCSL, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) confirmed it is on schedule to announce, later this year, a timeline for the phased-in enforcement of the federal REAL ID Act.

There will likely be four to six phases, with each phase focusing on the use of  REAL ID-compliant IDs in different settings, such as to board commercial aircraft.

Each phase will consist of three steps: 1) signage regarding the upcoming enforcement, 2) verbal warnings of enforcement and 3) hard
enforcement.

Full enforcement of REAL ID is expected to begin
in two to three years.  Approximately 21 states are expected to already be in full compliance when DHS releases the timeline this year.

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/TRN-Oct2013.pdf

While the stealth national/international biometric ID has remained largely hidden from mass awareness, that is going to change.  More and more citizens and legislators will become aware of the reality of mandatory biometric ID being forced upon the American people and we can expect that this reality will create a new wave of battles.   It won’t be a moment too soon though because the fact is that all states are collecting digital facial images suitable for use with facial recognition technology which means you can kiss your privacy, autonomy and religious freedom goodbye unless its stopped.

I am engaged in my own battle against mandatory biometric ID right now.  I want to know if I have the right NOT to be enrolled into this system of biometric identification and financial control.  Many would benefit from a favorable ruling in my lawsuit and I am asking for your support to help me win my case.

Please help me stop mandatory biometric enrollment by making as generous a contribution to my legal fund as you are able to today.

If you wish to donate to my legal defense fund, you may do so online  through Paypal.com
By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

(Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)
Thank you and God Bless,

Help Me Stop Mandatory Biometric ID!

Facial Recognition black white

Kaye Beach

Dec. 9, 2013

My name is Kaye Beach.  If you don’t know me, here is the short story;  I’m an ordinary woman, a Christian, a mom, and a wife.  I was a small business woman for about 20 years but for the last six years I have been an activist with one mission – to stop mandatory biometric ID.

I have filed a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma to challenge the requirement of my biometric data in exchange for a state driver’s license.  I believe that this requirement is a violation of my right to religious freedom and my right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures both of which are protected under Oklahoma law.  (You can read my Motion for Summary Judgment here)

Biometric means “measurement of the body.”  This is technology is used to measure aspects of an individual and transform this personal data into digital code for the purpose of identification.  With biometrics, your body IS your ID.

Biometric identification creates a perfect connection between our bodies and information about us.  It is also used to control access to places, services and goods and it is being implemented around the world through deception, coercion and stealth.  Industry experts predict that within five years, the majority of the world’s population will be enrolled into one or another biometric identification scheme.

The simple truth is that all of us are being enrolled into a single, global system of identification and control that links our bodies through biometrics to our ability to buy sell and travel (and more!)

My lawsuit is based on the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and Article II Sec. 30 of the Oklahoma constitution, our state’s reiteration of the Fourth Amendment which says we have a right to be free of searches and seizures without just cause. When it comes to biometric ID, It makes no difference whether you are a Christian who is preaching the Gospel, an activist protesting injustice, or merely an ordinary person trying to work and feed your family – mandatory biometric ID means ultimate control by government.

Information is power.

As more and more of us are enrolled it is safe to predict that the balance of power that exists between the people and their governments will correspondingly shift further away from the people and towards government.  History shows us that, unerringly, that such power will be abused and the window of opportunity to resist this system of human identification and control is closing.

In the US, enrollment is being accomplished largely through state driver’s license and ID cards.  For example, the current Immigration reform bill seeks to build upon the existing DMV biometric databases and use our biometrics to control our ability to work for a living.

And as Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has testified,

‘The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) database represents the most robust effort to introduce and streamline multimodal biometrics collection.  FBI has stated it needs “to collect as much biometric data as possible . . . and to make this information accessible to all levels of law enforcement, including International agencies.” Accordingly, it has been working “aggressively to build biometric databases that are comprehensive and international in scope.”’

The state biometric DMV databases are the foundation for corporate and government tracking and control. This is why I am fighting the state’s mandatory biometric ID but I need your help in order to win.

The Constitutional Alliance writes, “Kaye Beach’s lawsuit, is the only substantial challenge to government mandated biometric ID, to my knowledge, that exists anywhere in our country.”

My lawsuit is challenging the compulsory nature of biometric ID.  I want to know – do we have the right NOT to be enrolled?  That is the question that has not been asked, that must be asked in a court of law, and this is why I am asking for your help.  We have one more deposition to complete and then the case should proceed on to the courtroom.  My legal representation is not free and my case will only go forward if people are willing to support it.  I need to raise $20,000 for my legal fees in order to keep my agreement with my legal team and keep my case moving forward.

There are no longer any technical or political barriers to implementing this unprecedented system of global identification and financial control. The only obstacle now is you and I. 

If you want to help me win this first, crucial fight against mandatory biometric enrollment I ask you to please consider contributing whatever you can, to my legal fund.

If you wish to donate to my legal defense fund, you may do so online  through Paypal.com
By US mail, you can send a check or money order to;
Kaye Beach
P.O. Box 722381
Norman, Oklahoma, 73070

(Please make the check out to “Kaye Beach”. You may write “legal defense fund” in the memo section of your check or money order)
Thank you and God Bless,

Kaye Beach

Follow the developments in my legal case at http://constitutionalalliance.org

Contact me at AxxiomForLiberty@gmail.com

Mary Fallin: Stroke of the Pen, Law of the Land?

fallin 11

Kaye Beach

Oct. 10, 2013

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.” –Paul Begala, political  advisor to President Bill Clinton, on executive orders. (Source: The New York Times, July 5, 1998)

On Tuesday the Journal Record published an article that caught my eye;

Fallin reverses agency rules process

“An executive order, quietly issued by Republican Gov. Mary Fallin, is changing the way state agencies develop new rules and policies” http://journalrecord.com/2013/10/08/fallin-reverses-rules-process-capitol/

The word ‘quietly’,  in regards to government actions,  is always a sure hook.

Governor Fallin’s Executive Order 2013-34 was filed on Sept. 10, 2013.

What the Executive Order says is that upon filing a Notice of Rulemaking Intent with the Office of Administrative Rules, the agency should simultaneously file a copy of the complete text of the proposed rule to the Governor and the appropriate Cabinet Secretary.  Further, if within 45 days either the Governor or the Cabinet Secretary disapproved the Proposed Permanent Rule then said proposed rule cannot be adopted.  Period.  End of sentence.

The Journal Record explains;

Before the  order, if a state agency needed a rule change, its officials took the proposal to a member of the Legislature for consideration. Lawmakers and agency representatives negotiated the rule. Often a rule was authorized via joint legislative resolution during the legislative session. Under the state’s administrative procedures act, both the Legislature and the governor had the authority to override a rule or policy change made by a state agency. http://journalrecord.com/2013/10/08/fallin-reverses-rules-process-capitol/

This executive order, however,  appears to go against the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act which clearly states that the “Legislature reserves to itself” many rights regarding the rulemaking process.

Six specific rights reserved to the state legislature regarding the rulemaking process are enumerated in the Act but  these two stand out the most;

3. The right and responsibility to designate the method for rule promulgation, review and modification.

And

5. The right to disapprove a proposed rule or amendment to a rule during the legislative review period independent of any action by the Governor by a concurrent resolution.

This executive order removes those rights reserved to the state legislature regarding agency rulemaking with one stroke of the Governor’s pen.

I wonder if the Legislature will mind being having their authority removed by Executive Order?  Can Oklahoma statute simply be erased simply by the Governors decree?

Should be interesting.