Tag Archives: john whitehead

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 https://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.”

https://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

 

 

 

Advertisements

2011 Growing the Surveillance State

Kaye Beach

Jan 5 2012

This excellent article covers some of the most disturbing developments over the last year that impact our civil liberties,  GPS tracking, drones, the TSA’s antics and more.  I selected just a few sections that I think are particularly important  You can read the entire article, 2011: A Civil Liberties Year in Review, by John Whitehead  here

 

More powers for the FBI. As detailed in the FBI’s operations manual, rules were relaxed in order to permit the agency’s 14,000 agents to search law enforcement and private databases, go through household trash, and deploy surveillance teams, with even fewer checks against abuse. FBI agents were also given the go-ahead to investigate individuals using highly intrusive monitoring techniques, including infiltrating suspect organizations with confidential informants and photographing and tailing suspect individuals, without having any factual basis for suspecting them of wrongdoing. These new powers extend the agency’s reach into the lives of average Americans and effectively transform the citizenry into a nation of suspects, reversing the burden of proof so that we are now all guilty until proven innocent. Thus, no longer do agents need evidence of possible criminal or terrorist activity in order to launch an investigation. Now, they can “proactively” look into people and groups, searching databases without making a record about it, conducting lie detector tests and searching people’s trash.

Patriot Act redux. Congress pushed through a four-year extension of three controversial provisions in the USA Patriot Act that authorize the government to use aggressive surveillance tactics in the so-called war against terror. Since being enacted in 2001, the Patriot Act has driven a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments – the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments – and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act has also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience are considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state.

Terrorism Liaison Officers. In another attempt to control and intimidate the population, the government has introduced Terrorism Liaison Officers (TLOs) into our midst. TLOs are firefighters, police officers, and even corporate employees who have received training to spy on and report back to government entities on the day-to-day activities of their fellow citizens. These individuals are authorized to report “suspicious activity” which can include such innocuous activities as taking pictures with no apparent aesthetic value, making measurements and drawings, taking notes, conversing in code, espousing radical beliefs, and buying items in bulk. With the Director of National Intelligence now pushing for a nationwide program, you may soon see these government-corporate agents in a town near you.

Fusion centers. TLOs report back to so-called “fusion centers” – data collecting agencies spread throughout the country, aided by the National Security Agency – which constantly monitor our communications, everything from our internet activity and web searches to text messages, phone calls and emails. This data is then fed to government agencies, which are now interconnected – the CIA to the FBI, the FBI to local police – a relationship which will make a transition to martial law that much easier. As of 2009, the government admitted to having at least 72 fusion centers. A map released by the ACLU indicates that every state except Idaho has a fusion center in operation or formation.

Read more

What Ever Happened to REAL ID?

Kaye Beach

Sept 23, 2011

What did ever happen to the REAL ID Act?

In a word-NOTHING.

Remember when roughly half the states in the US said NO! by passing either a law or resolution against participating in DHS’s national ID program?  Most of us assume that “no” means “no” and breathed a sigh of relief when so many states took a stand against it.

“. . .many state motor vehicle departments are quietly doing the work to meet the law’s initial 18 benchmarks.” http://tinyurl.com/4rgrv87

The fact is that  little has changed.

The world is being enrolled into a single global system of identification and financial control.
One’s body is now directly linked to the control of financial transactions through biometric ID, an international ID system that uses computers to automatically identify individuals based on unique physical characteristics, such as a facial image. Facial recognition and digital fingerprinting are common forms of biometrics.  Almost all states and nations now use biometrics to identify their residents.  From Your Body Is Your ID

On Tuesday Sept. 21, 2011 my legal council filed suit against the state of Oklahoma for the violation of my religious freedoms and right to privacy (Okla. Constitution Article II Sec. 30) on my behalf.   You can read the petition as filed here (top left)

I have watched with dismay as comment after comment in response to the  news of this lawsuit express surprise even outrage that Oklahoma is collecting biometrics as they then wonder if their state is doing the same.

The answer?  I know of no state that is not doing so.

Real ID and that little gold star on your driver’s license

Here are two updates on the ever forward march of Real ID across the US.

Public Safety to launch STAR I.D. pilot project

Sept. 22, 2011

Alabama will launch a pilot project Oct. 3 for a new, secure form of identification created to comply with the REAL-ID Act of 2005.

The Alabama Department of Public Safety has developed the STAR I.D. program, with STAR standing for Secure, Trusted and Reliable.

The IDs will be available at driver license examining offices in Montgomery, Autauga and Chilton counties as part of the pilot project. There will be a statewide launch at the start of the year.

Read more

Connecticut about to begin controversial ‘Real ID’ program | The Connecticut Mirror

Sept. 22, 2011

Connecticut launched a campaign today to publicize how to obtain a driver’s license that meets the stricter verification standards of a federal “Real ID” law passed in 2005, but never implemented in face of objections from two dozen states.
How to create a global, biometric system of identification;

To create a global biometric system, states and nations must:
1. Enroll their citizens (DL/ID cards, passports, national ID, school ID, etc.)
2. Adopt international standards for documents, photos and data sharing
3. Link databases for global information sharing, global ID-tracking and surveillance

Read more

Find out more about REAL ID and Biometric Identification

Rutherford Institute Challenges Biometric Photo Requirement for Oklahoma Drivers’ Licenses

9/21/2011

Rutherford Institute Challenges Biometric Photo Requirement for Oklahoma Drivers’ Licenses, Demands Religious Accommodation

NORMAN, Okla. — The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an Oklahoma woman who has been denied accommodation of her sincerely held religious objection to having a high-resolution biometric photograph used on her driver’s license. In filing suit against the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS), Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that the state’s demand for a biometric photograph as a condition of being licensed to drive violates Kaye Beach’s rights under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Rutherford Institute’s complaint in Kaye Beach v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety is available here.

“Whether a biometric ID card in the form of a driver’s license or other government-issued form of identification is the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same—ultimate control by the government,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “As Kaye Beach’s case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized.”

In March 2011, Kaye Beach applied to renew her driver’s license with the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Upon learning that the biometric photographs used by DPS are stored in a database that is managed and accessed by international organizations, Beach repeatedly voiced her religious objection to the practice and asked to be allowed to use a low-resolution photograph for her license. Kaye Beach subscribes to the Christian belief, detailed in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, that Christians must not participate in a global numbering identification system.

Although Beach met all other requirements for renewing her license, DPS refused her request for an accommodation of her religious beliefs, as well as her offer to submit to a low-resolution photograph for her license, insisting that the state law does not provide for alternatives or exemptions. As a result, Beach was not permitted to renew her driver’s license. Consequently, Beach has also been deprived of common benefits and services that hinge on possessing a valid driver’s license, including the ability to acquire prescription medications, use her debit card, rent a hotel room or obtain a post office box.

In filing suit in the District Court of Cleveland County, Okla., attorneys for The Rutherford Institute allege that DPS’ refusal to accommodate Beach’s religious beliefs and grant Beach a license violates the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act. Institute attorneys point out that the state’s requirement of a biometric photograph does not serve a compelling state interest and that the state has other means for furthering any such state interest. The lawsuit also alleges that the use of Beach’s biometric photograph violates her right of privacy as guaranteed by Okla. Const. Art. II, § 30. Attorneys Eileen Echols, Jonathan Echols and Benjamin Sisney of Echols & Assoc. are working with the Institute in its defense of Kaye Beach’s right to religious freedom.

http://www.rutherford.org/

The FBI: Going Rogue

By John W. Whitehead
2/14/2011

________________________________________-

The minute the FBI begins making recommendations on what should be done with its information, it becomes a Gestapo.–J. Edgar Hoover

The history of the FBI is the history of how America–once a nation that abided by the rule of law and held the government accountable for its actions–has steadily devolved into a police state where laws are unidirectional, intended as a tool for government to control the people and rarely the other way around.

The FBI (then named simply Bureau of Investigation) was established in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt and Attorney General Charles Bonaparte as a small task force assigned to deal with specific domestic crimes, its first being to survey houses of prostitution in anticipation of enforcing the White Slave Traffic Act. Initially quite limited in its abilities to investigate so-called domestic crimes, the FBI slowly expanded in size, scope and authority over the course of the 20th century.

Read More

Red Light Cameras: Safety Devices or One More Step Toward a Surveillance State?

By John W. Whitehead
12/20/2010

Before Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, unleashed full body imaging scanners and enhanced pat downs on American airline passengers, she subjected Arizona drivers to red light cameras. In August 2008, Napolitano, then-governor of Arizona, instituted a statewide system of 200 fixed and mobile speed and red light cameras, which were projected to bring in more than $120 million in annual revenue for the state. She was aided in this endeavor by the Australian corporation Redflex Traffic Systems.

Two years later, after widespread complaints that the cameras intrude on privacy and are primarily a money-making enterprise for the state (income actually fell short of the projections because people refused to pay their fines), Arizona put the brakes on the program. And while other states–including Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Wisconsin–have since followed suit, many more municipalities, suffering from budget crises, have succumbed to the promise of easy revenue and installed the cameras. As the Washington Post notes:

A handful of cities used them a decade ago. Now they’re in more than 400, spread across two dozen states. Montgomery County started out with 18 cameras in 2007. Now it has 119. Maryland just took the program statewide last month, and Prince George’s is putting up 50. The District started out with a few red light cameras in 1999; now they send out as many automated tickets each year as they have residents, about 580,000.

In most cases, state and local governments arrange to lease the cameras from the Redflex Corporation, with Redflex taking its cut of ticket revenue first, and the excess going to the states and municipalities.

The cameras, which are triggered by sensors buried in the road, work by taking photos of drivers who enter intersections after a traffic light turns red. What few realize, however, is that you don’t actually have to run a red light to get caught. Many drivers have triggered the cameras simply by making a right turn on red or crossing the sensor but not advancing into the intersection.

Each municipality has its own protocol for what happens next, but generally, the photos are reviewed by Redflex, which then issues tickets to the drivers. And this is where your right to a fair and full hearing largely goes out the window. Indeed, while there is a system for challenging a ticket, it is often convoluted and onerous, with the burden of proof resting upon the driver. Even the courts have a tendency to view the cameras as infallible. According to the Washington Post, Montgomery County, in screening the tickets to mail out, has had to kick out 23,266 violations from May 2007 to June 2009 because No violation occurred/operator error. And 10,813 were tossed for reasons including power interruption and equipment malfunction.   Once in court, however, the drivers were invariably found guilty 99.7 percent of the time.

Read More

The Total Control Society Is Here: Iris Scanners

John Whitehead, founder and President of The Rutherford Institute writes;

“In the future, whether it’s entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris. Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years.”

~ Jeff Carter, CDO of Global Rainmakers

The U.S. government and its corporate allies are looking out for you – literally – with surveillance tools intended to identify you, track your whereabouts, monitor your activities and allow or restrict your access to people, places or things deemed suitable by the government. This is all the more true as another invasive technology, the iris scanner, is about to be unleashed on the American people.

Iris scanning relies on biometrics, which uses physiological (fingerprint, face recognition, DNA, iris recognition, etc.) or behavioral (gait, voice) characteristics to uniquely identify a person. The technology works by reading the unique pattern found on the iris, the colored part of the eyeball. This pattern is unique even among individuals with the exact same DNA. It is read by projecting infra-red light directly into the eye of the individual.

Read More

Raising Up an Orwellian Generation

By John W. Whitehead
10/11/2010

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face–forever.–George Orwell

When my granddaughter was a baby, she was blissfully unaware of the fact that she was under constant surveillance. Between her doting parents, her equally doting grandparents and a baby monitor that was always turned on and tuned in, there was little she could do that went undetected. When dealing with a precocious infant, such constant watchfulness is undeniably a good thing. However, I can’t help but wonder at what point and at what age such surveillance, especially outside the home, stops being beneficial and starts teaching young people that they have no right to privacy. When does concerned supervision become subtle indoctrination geared toward meek acceptance of a totalitarian society?

Modern technology now makes it possible for roaming digital eyes to keep young people under observation from the moment they step foot on a bus until they arrive home. In fact, schools both small and large have littered their hallways, classrooms and even buses with surveillance cameras. Yet that’s not all.

The majority of schools today have adopted an all-or-nothing lockdown mindset that leaves little room for freedom, individuality or due process. Metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs and pat-down searches have become commonplace, while draconian zero tolerance policies characterize as criminal behavior the most innocuous things, such as students in possession of Alka-Seltzer or a drawing of a soldier. A handful of schools have even gone so far as to require students to drape Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags around their necks, which allow school officials to track every single step students take. So small that they are barely detectable to the human eye, RFID tags produce a radio signal by which the wearer’s precise movements can be constantly monitored.

Read More