Tag Archives: Oklahoma

Okla. REAL ID Study, Kaye Beach’s Testimony


Kaye Beach

Nov. 20, 2015

On Nov. 18th there was a public study  held at the Oklahoma state capitol on the issue of REAL ID.  Oklahoma is under pressure to implement the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

The meeting was held by Rep. Lewis Moore and Rep. Bob Cleveland.  Many Oklahomans expected to follow the meeting online.  They were disappointed.  I am posting testimony of the speakers so that those who are interested can be informed on the proceedings.

Yesterday I posted Howard Houchen’s public testimony which I drew from an audio recording made of the hearing.

I was the second speaker in the lineup and spoke in opposition to REAL ID.  I am not transcribing my comments but am posting my written statement that I prepared.  My oral statement very closely followed my written testimony.

The next post will be on the testimony that was presented by former state representative Charles Key.

Additionally, I will transcribe the remarks of Department of Public Safety Commissioner, Michael C. Thompson as well as the discussion that transpired at the meeting.


Here is my written statement:


Testimony for Public Hearing on REAL ID

Oklahoma State Capitol

Nov. 18, 2015


Kaye Beach


Thank you Chairman and members of the committee for holding this study and for inviting me to speak today. My name is Kaye Beach.  I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Constitutional Alliance, a national organization formed primarily to inform individuals and legislators about the threats to liberty posed by mandatory biometric identification.

I will keep my comments brief but I am submitting more in-depth documentation electronically for the record.  This information will also be posted online at the top of my website axiomamuse.wordpress.com.

I am here today to advocate on behalf of myself and other Oklahomans who are opposed to mandatory biometric identification policies such as the one currently instituted by the Department of Public Safety and also as is required by the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

I am personally most concerned about the mandatory collection and retention of our biometric data but I will also touch on another requirement of REAL ID that policymakers must be aware of when weighing their options.

For those that may not be aware, Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses and ID cards are biometric ID’s  

{“You probably noticed that they take your index fingers but you may not have noticed, because it didn’t seem any different, that they are also collecting a high resolution digital image which is collected in a biometric format”}

The state Department of Public Safety has been collecting finger and facial biometrics since at least 2004. Oklahoma’s mandatory biometric identification policy has created a clash of conscience for some Oklahomans of faith, including myself, and has opened the door to unprecedented surveillance, which affects every one of us.

When we talk about privacy often what we are really talking about is power.  The limit of our privacy is defines the limits of policy.

Believe it or not, the facial biometrics actually present a greater risk to our privacy and personal liberty that a fingerprint does.

Facial recognition is the most commonly used form of what Laura Donahue, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, has termed ‘Remote Biometric Identification” which, according to Donahue, gives the government the ability to identity multiple people,  in public,  at a  distance, without their knowledge or consent and importantly, to do so in a continuous and on-going manner.

Professor Donahue did an exhaustive research paper in 2012 on the growing number of federal programs that are developing their ability to use remote biometric ID and legal and social perils this technology presents.

donahue examples biometric programs

(Source: Technological Leap, Statutory Gap, and Constitutional Abyss: Remote Biometric Identification Comes of Age, Laura Donohue, Georgetown University Law Center, 2012)


Professor Donahue takes great care to emphasize that with remote biometric ID “The level of intrusiveness represents something different in kind—not degree—from what has come before.”

‘A GPS chip may reveal where the car goes, but the verification of personally identifiable information… is more invasive in its direct and personal link to a specific individual.’

Professor Donahue’s research backs up materials distributed by the FBI in 2010 that showed facial recognition technology being used by authorities to identify, investigate and track individuals in public.  This sort of surveillance, while not pervasive yet, is more than just a theoretical risk.  It is being done.

NLETS, the International Justice and Public Safety Network, has a vested interest in using biometric data so you wouldn’t expect them to present an extreme view as to the privacy concerns relating to its product one of its newer products which is the interstate sharing of biometric photos.

NLETS is the conduit for sharing the biometric data collected by the DMV as is required by the REAL ID ACT.

In 2011 NLETS released an eye-opening report, ‘Privacy Impact Assessment Report for the Utilization of Facial Recognition Technologies to Identify Subjects in the Field’ which focuses on facial recognition field identification tools that use DMV images.”

According to NLETS there are many types of privacy risks surrounding the use of facial recognition technology and the report openly acknowledges that using this technology will hinder our ability to be anonymous, which, and is according to NLETS,  an “important right in a free society” 

NLETS also informs us of another basic truth, but it’s one I get raised eyebrows over when I say it.  NLETS says that ‘As an instrument of surveillance, identification increases the government’s power to control individuals’ behavior.’

And NLETs also warns us of what is probably already obvious

‘…facial recognition systems, in combination with the wide use of video surveillance across the country, would be likely to grow increasingly invasive over time.’

We can’t know how exactly the federal government will use it but we do know that for facial recognition technology to work as a mass surveillance tool, a good database of biometric photos from previously identified people – is required.  All states are collecting photos in a biometric format making our state DMV databases a potential mass surveillance goldmine.

The state has a responsibility to protect this data but the REAL ID Act requires participating states to relinquish control over this sensitive data by connecting our state DMV database to a nationwide network.  What happens to our accountability mechanism?  So, who do we hold accountable when our biometric data is lost, stolen or misused, if the state has signed on to REAL ID?

The Dictator Clause in REAL ID

There are actually FOUR Official Purposes defined in Sec. 201 of the REAL ID Act.

You may have heard about the first 3 official purposes which requires you to present your REAL ID when;

  • Entering certain federal buildings
  • Boarding a commercial airliner
  • Entering a nuclear facility

The media has let us down by not asking tough questions and as a result, the threat of enforcement has been wildly overblown. In reality, the enforcement of the three official purposes will effect very few people.

REAL ID Enforcement Facts 1 page 11 12 15

It’s the fourth official purpose that is the real wild card.  The fourth official purpose requires you to present a federal REAL ID for:  “any other purpose established by the Secretary of Homeland Security”

This allows the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security to tack on additional purposes that require a REAL ID in the future without any input from the people or congress. DHS has made it clear by that additional purposes will definitely be considered and that these additional purposes can be added solely at the DHS Secretary’s discretion.

–A mandatory biometric ID is indispensable for anything that the government wants to monitor, ration or control and once they have it – they will use it.

How can our state seriously consider Real ID compliance when doing so explicitly means agreeing to give a federal bureaucrat so much power over the state and its citizens?


Last point- It is important that we understand that biometrics do not establish a person’s identity.  The common refrain is that we need biometric ID so we can know that a person is who they claim to be. But that is not how it works.

We may be many things to many people but the fact remains that it is our birth certificate which establishes our legal identity.  The biometrics are added after the fact and our identity card can only be as good as the foundation upon which it rests.

Take for France’s for example.  France has issued app. 6.5 million biometric passports yet an estimated 500,000 to 1 million of them are worthless because they are based on fraudulent breeder documents

EVVE, Electronic Verification of Vital Events, is service available to the states, that electronically validates (or invalidates) both birth and death records without exchanging any personal information. It is the best system available for authenticating our foundation documents.

Guess how many states are actually using this system?

Answer: Only 1 state and it’s not Oklahoma. 

I am not enthusiastic about a whole lot of scrutiny on everyone’s papers but doesn’t it make more sense to scrutinize a person’s documents before you resort to scrutinizing their body?

Let me be quick to add, that there is no perfect ID, not one that a free society could tolerate anyways.  It is technically possible to implement a literal womb to tomb biometric ID but it would have to be affixed to the actual body rather than on a flimsy document that could be lost or stolen.  That would be pretty airtight but also horrible. Although it is true that some people do bad things with their privacy it is also true that sometimes the ability to shed your legal identity is a matter of life and death.

Requiring biometric ID for ordinary, law abiding people is unnecessary, too risky and just plain wrong. It should stop.

If REAL ID is fully implemented in this state, we will be subject to more government intrusion and control over their daily lives.

If we implement REAL ID, the state government must cede some jurisdiction and thus its power.  The state will be less able to act in its citizens’ behalf and the citizens lose the ability to hold their government accountable — Why would we sign up for this?  What is the benefit?

The decision of our state legislators made reject REAL ID in 2007 was a sound one. We should stick with it.



‘It’s going to get out of your control Oklahoma’ Howard Houchen testifies on REAL ID

Howard Houchen a

Kaye Beach

Nov 19, 2015

Yesterday Rep. Bob Cleveland and Rep. Lewis Moore held a public meeting making further study on the question of whether Oklahoma should repeal its 2007 prohibition of participating in the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.

The meeting was held in the new House conference room at the capitol which is a large comfortable conference room with modern sound and video equipment which is important as many Oklahomans who are unable to travel long distances or take a day off of work, expected to be able to access this meeting online.  Unfortunately, the meeting was not available online.

Anyone  who turned to media outlets to find out what happened were likely  disappointed as the majority of reports consisted of nothing more than briefly restating talking points about REAL ID enforcement, reinforcing fears by reminding the public that they won’t be able to fly in a year without a REAL ID.  (Which isn’t true and was covered at length in yesterday’s meeting.)

The study was an interesting one that brought to the fore quite a bit of new information and issues which have not been publicly discussed before.

After the meeting yesterday while casually communicating on social media, I asked Howard, who was there and testified, what he thought was the most important information that came out of the meeting.

Here was his take on it (I did change the formatting of his reply for easier readability):

There were more than one.

  1. The admittance, finally, by DPS that it CURRENTLY possesses a Facial Recognition Database.

  2. The confirmation by US Congressman Steve Russel’s rep that REAL ID requirements for air travel will NOT BE enforced till 2020.

  3. That admittance into Federal Bldgs for virtually all the reasons almost all of us would have to visit one will NOT BE restricted if someone does not have a REAL ID compliant ID.

  4. That NO ONE could answer the question how REAL ID can/should/will make us safer.

  5. No one could seem to even guess at how much this will cost.

I admit that am hardly an unbiased observer of the proceedings but I do have the audio recording of the event and am entirely capable of transcribing the audio.  I will do my best to give you an accurate summary of what happened at the REAL ID Study yesterday.

Testifying in opposition to REAL ID was Howard Houchen, who earned his Masters Degree in National Security Studies, myself, Kaye Beach, and former Oklahoma state Rep. Charles Key, who authored the 2007 House legislation to prohibit REAL ID.

Also present and on the agenda to speak was the Commissioner of Public Safety, Michael Thompson, Captain Randy Rogers OHP, Director of Driver License Services Jeff Hankins.

In this post, I am going to cover the testimony of the first speaker, Howard Houchen.

Howard Houchen began by explaining that his degree includes a focus on Homeland Security and back in 2001 while he was working on his degree, the big question was how our country would balance security and civil liberties.  He says that within a few years it became apparent to him that our government had chosen to throw civil liberties by the wayside citing the REAL ID Act of 2005 as a major indicator.

Quoting well know security researcher, Bruce Schneier, Houchen tells listeners “If you think technology can solve your security problems you don’t understand the problems and you don’t understand the technology.” 

While he agrees that the original intentions behind REAL ID were noble, Houchen says it has morphed into something else entirely citing, for example, that the mobile biometric technology is a 32.8 billion dollar industry and that the biometric technology industry across the board is worth an untold amount of money.

Houchen says biometric ID is “a data grab” and explains that the UK sought to implement a national biometric identity system in 2006 and scrapped in 2011.  He says that according to many members of Parliament the effort was nothing more than a costly folly, noting that in addition to the system providing no increase in security that could justify the cost, it was also rejected as an unwelcome intrusion into people’s personal liberty.  According to Houchen, other countries are having issues with their biometric identification programs as well including Israel, whose program is voluntary.

Then speaking loudly and clearly, Houchen states, “There is something that is being missed with REAL ID…and that is the fact that the biometrics that are collected as a part of the REAL ID Act ARE going to be shared.  . .  that is a part of the federal REAL ID Act.”  Further explaining Houchen says, “They are going to be shared so that they can be compared, without yours and my consent, by the way.”

Houchen takes issue with this on the grounds of the Fourth Amendment which guarantees us the right to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures.

“What happens when the biometrics are breached?” asks Houchen. Who then tells the panel about his experience as one of the 21 million Americans who had their most personal information hacked in the recent federal OPM breach, revealing that additionally that he was among the 5.1 million subset of victims of this hack that had their fingerprints stolen as well.

The OPM is offering victims three years of identity theft protection, which according to Houchen, is of little use.  “Biometrics once stolen is not like a social security number, it’s not like a password, it’s gone forever, warning that, Oklahoma might have, right now, a good secure system to keep those biometrics but it’s going to get out of your control Oklahoma, because you have to share those biometrics.” 

Houchen explains that he has lived and traveled abroad extensively including countries where, at the time, it was very dangerous for Americans all of which and more was in his OPM file.  We don’t know for sure who hacked the OPM but the federal government suspects the Chinese. Houchen expressed concern about future travel, especially to Russia, since his personal information was hacked.

Houchen ends by saying, “I believe the Oklahoma legislature can and should end this employment of poor civic hygiene by forcing yet another, no-choice, federal solution on Oklahomans.  We demand and deserve a choice.”

The reference to civic hygiene comes from another oft cited quote made by security guru, Bruce Schneier who said, “It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state.”


Important! REAL ID Study at the Okla. State Capitol Wed. Nov. 18th at 9AM


Kaye Beach
Nov. 12, 2015

The REAL ID Study is finally confirmed!

A public meeting has been called to give legislators and constituents the opportunity to ask questions about the REAL ID Act.

The REAL ID meeting  will be held at the Oklahoma capitol on Nov. 18th at 9am in Room 206.

I am grateful to Rep. Bob Cleveland and Rep. Lewis Moore who took the initiative and made the arrangements for this important meeting.

I am very honored to have been invited to speak about REAL ID at this meeting. I will be speaking alongside two men I admire greatly –  former state Rep. Charles Key (who was the House author on our state’s REAL ID prohibition law) and my good friend, Howard Houchen, award winning K95.5 KITX AM radio show host.

The reason for the sudden interest in this decade-old federal law is that two state Senators have vowed to repeal the Oklahoma law prohibiting the state’s participation in the controversial REAL ID Act.
You can read the state statute prohibiting participation in REAL ID here

Biometric ID is problematic enough but the REAL ID Act compounds the privacy, security and liberty issues of what is,  at the moment still a state held biometric identification database. The REAL ID Act requires all state DMV database to be connected which means the data will be accessed and used widely probably in ways many of us have not even imagined.

If you are an Oklahoman who has questions about REAL ID, it is critical that you attend this meeting.


fbi biometrics

Oct. 26, 2015

Kaye Beach

The conversation surrounding the supposed impending enforcement of the federal REAL ID Act is so muddled that it is virtually impossible for anyone to develop an informed opinion on the matter. I am trying to help by providing documentation that will put to rest a few of the elementary aspects of REAL ID so that, hopefully, we can have a productive discussion about the matter.

To my mind, there is a few things about this federal law that we should understand before making a decision about whether or not our state should commit to it. For instance, we need to understand that REAL ID is a biometric ID and what the implications of moving the population en mass to this form of identification  are. Many seem to be confused about the difference between biometric ID and RFID so I want to write a post about that. We should also be aware that REAL ID requires the linking of our state databases and the is also an open ended aspect of the Act that we need to consider. There is much more to the REAL ID ACT but these are the items that come to my mind most immediately.

In my last post I addressed only one issue – are our Oklahoma state drivers licenses and ID cards biometric ID‘s? The answer is YES and you can take a look at the some of the sources of that information here.

In this short post, I am only going to address one subject as well.


The Federal REAL ID Act of 2005 REQUIRES that a digital facial image be captured from each driver’s license and ID card applicant.

These images must to be captured conformant to an international biometric format standard enabling the use of facial recognition technology and global information sharing.

The National Conference of State Legislatures is a trusted policy think tank that advises state legislators about a variety of policy matters. In 2014 the NCSL did a policy brief on REAL ID. Here is what they say:

NSCL REAL ID biometric


A digital facial image is required by the REAL ID Act.

202 facial image DHS PIA 2007

Link: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_realid_1.pdf

Buried in a pile of REAL ID rules is a notation that mentions a bit of technical information regarding the digital facial images that are required by the Act that reveals that the image is collected as biometric data (as opposed to just a simple photograph)

ICAO 9303 Real ID Rules 2007

And more from the Department of Homeland Security on how this biometric data is intended to be used.


Link: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy_pia_realid_1.pdf

These are just a few sources that verify that REAL ID is indeed a biometric ID but in the spirit of trying to keep things simple, I am trying to provide just just enough information to put the question to rest.

real id is biometric id

Here is a one page PDF of this info in case you would like a copy of these sources.

Now we know that our current ID cards and driver’s licenses are biometric ID’s and that the federal REAL ID is also a biometric ID.

My next posts will cover the difference between RFID and Biometric ID and some of the implications of biomtric identification and what the difference is between having a state level biomertric ID vs. a federal one.

Is my Oklahoma Driver’s License a Biometric ID?

ok dl

Kaye Beach


I admit that I am astonished to discover that many people in the Great State of Oklahoma do not yet understand that their Oklahoma state driver’s license and ID cards are biometric.

I am not really surprised anymore when I find that sometimes people don’t care, but I am really shaken up when I find that they don’t know.

Here is the problem, we cannot begin to have an intelligent and informed discussion about the pros and cons of biometric ID (for ordinary law-abiding people) if we do not even understand that we are currently being subjected to it – And we MUST have this conversation!

The faces of more than 120 million people are in searchable photo databases that state officials assembled to prevent driver’s-license fraud but that increasingly are used by police to identify suspects, accomplices and even innocent bystanders in a wide range of criminal investigations. . . . But law enforcement use of such facial searches is blurring the traditional boundaries between criminal and non-criminal databases, putting images of people never arrested in what amount to perpetual digital lineups. The most advanced systems allow police to run searches from laptop computers in their patrol cars and offer access to the FBI and other federal authorities.’ (Source: The Washington Post, June 17, 2013 State photo-ID databases become troves for police)

The current uses of biometric ID on the population is pretty tame compared to the planned and possible uses of the technology in the future. Right now we are blindly blundering ahead without looking at where we are headed.

Biometric simply means measurement of the body. Fingerprints, digital photos, iris scans and DNA are all examples of biometrics.

Explainer: PDF What is Biometric ID graphic FINAL

Every couple of years we hit another REAL ID deadline set by the Department of Homeland Security and the news media explodes with sensational stories about how ‘soon’ we will not be able to fly or enter federal buildings. (To put it simply, there is no danger of any serious disruption for most people any time soon.)

I guess I shouldn’t view these roving deadlines with such dread but instead look at them as an opportunity to educate people on the issue because, at least for a short time, because they are terrified of being inconvenienced, they are paying attention to this policy that otherwise lurks in obscurity.

I am addressing just one fact in this post:

Oklahoma’s state driver’s licenses and ID cards ARE biometric ID’s

You must submit to a fingerprint scan and facial biometric captured in order to receive a driver’s license or ID card in this state.

Oklahoma biometric driver’s licenses made their  public “debut” in 2003-4


2004 OK Biometric license

In 2010, the Department of Public Safety documents technical information regarding their collection of biometric data including the size of finger and face biometric template files and the size of its “facial recognition database” (See page 3 and 4)

DPS 2010 rfi facial rtecognition database

None of this is hidden or a mystery of any sort.  in fact, the Department of Public Safety is quite open about some uses of its biometric ID. Like for instance, the fact that if you have your face and finger with you, you can get a replacement license without any documentation of your identity.

How? Because with biometrics, your body is your ID.

DPS memo biometrics

Biometric data, especially facial biometrics,  is extremely sensitive information that can be used to accomplish a great deal of surveillance and control over our personal affairs. It is important that we know what it is, who has it and how it is being used.

Downloadable 1 page explainer

Oklahoma’s Driver’s License is a Biometric ID docx

REAL ID Fright Fest 2015, Oklahoma Edition

Headlines 2015

Kaye Beach | Oct. 6, 2015

The headlines are scary.

Vaguely worded policies issued by the federal Department of Homeland Security and sensational headlines have allowed misconceptions about the actual consequences of not having a REAL ID to grow.

The very worst possible consequences of not having not having a REAL ID card are actually quite minimal.

To refresh your memory- the REAL ID Act was passed with little to no debate in Congress in 2005 as a rider to a ‘must pass’ military and disaster relief funding bill.  The most controversial portion of the law imposes federal standards upon state driver’s licenses and ID documents.  And contrary to media reports, the REAL ID Act does require the collection and digital retention of every driver license applicants’ biometric facial image.  This fact is acknowledged by the National Conference of State Legislatures as well as other policy professionals so you don’t have to take my word for it.


The biometric and other personal information is required to be shared among the states and is accessible to the federal government.
The consequences for having a REAL ID are far more disturbing than the consequences for not having a REAL ID  which can be summed up like this; Someday, if you do not have a REAL ID compliant driver’s license or one of the umpteen acceptable alternatives, the TSA will look you up in their database to make sure that you are really you and you may be subject to a secondary screening which generally means you will be asked to either go through the naked scanner or get a pat down and they will look in your bags. That’s about it so why are we being treated to this over the top fright fest?
Because fear is one of the only tools DHS has to get the states to comply

Jim Harper at Cato explains:

Right now, the Department of Homeland Security is sending out emissaries to tell state leaders that their residents might soon feel the TSA’s wrath. State motor vehicle bureaucrats and pro-national ID groups are joining them in the effort to herd state leaders over the national ID cliff.
But the threat of TSA enforcement is an empty one. REAL ID “deadlines” have come and gone many times. No state has ever come into compliance with REAL ID. No state will be in compliance in 2016. And the TSA will not begin a program to prevent Americans from traveling by air.

The adoption of the REAL ID standards is (by law) is voluntary for the states. This is not a mandate so implementation can only be accomplished gradually by persuading (or intimidating) the states into compliance. Since the law is so controversial (not to mention convoluted and costly!) states have little incentive to adopt the REAL ID standards.
No one really seems to want a REAL ID — unless they think that the consequences for not having one might be dire.

“. . .by requiring Real ID-compliant licenses to board commercial aircraft, the law could put a lot of public pressure on states to issue licenses that meet its standards.”
Source: USA Today, Real ID is slowly changing state drivers’ licenses, Jan. 22, 2014

Oklahoma has been granted an extension by the Dept. of Homeland Security. An extension means that the state’s driver’s license and ID cards will be accepted just as if the ID was fully REAL ID compliant.
From the Dept. of Homeland Security, REAL ID Enforcement in Brief:
“Individuals holding driver’s licenses or identification cards from these jurisdiction may continue to use them as before.”
The jurisdiction referred to are states where their licenses have been “(1) determined to meet the Act’s standards; or (2) that have received extensions.”

This means that Oklahoma ID’s are acceptable for flying, entering specified federal buildings and entering a nuclear facility, 3 of the four “official purposes” that will require a REAL ID.  There are FOUR official purposes that require a REAL ID but I have yet to hear the media cover the fourth purpose even once.

The REAL ID final rules require a REAL ID complaint driver’s license or ID card for certain specified “official purposes” (defined in Sec 201 of the Act.)
#1 Entering Federal facilities
#2 boarding a Federally-regulated commercial aircraft
#3 Entering a nuclear power plant
#4 Any other purpose established by the Secretary of Homeland Security
(Real ID Final Rules http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-01-29/pdf/08-140.pdf)

The fourth official purpose is what a good friend of mine refers to as the “dictator clause”  It means just what it says.  The Secretary of Homeland Security can add any other purpose he or she wisher.  No congressional review – no nothing.  Would it bother you if you were required to present your biometric national ID for say….ammo?

That fourth purpose could come in handy for just about anything that needs to be monitored, rationed or controlled.  Ask Oklahoma media to cover THAT!

The DHS will be reviewing the progress of states that have received extensions this month. I predict that Oklahoma will be granted another extension.

On Dec. 29, 2014, the Dept. Of Homeland Security extended the deadline for enforcement upon states that have an extension or are deemed compliant with REAL ID until Oct. 1, 2020. Oklahoma appears to exempt from enforcement until 2020.

In the worst-case-scenario, one where the DHS refuses to grant our state and extension and we become subject to enforcement in order to board a plane “no sooner than 2016,”  it’s still not going to be a big deal for Okies.

Not once has it been publicly asserted by the Department of Homeland Security or the TSA that not having a REAL ID compliant license would ever be a basis for denying a person the ability to board a commercial aircraft or that a U.S. Passport is the only accepted alternative to REAL ID
Clarifying statements have been made by DHS officials though, they just aren’t the ones that make the headlines.
For example, Darrell Williams, former Senior Director, Office of State Issued ID Support, Department of Homeland Security, testified before a Congressional subcommittee that there are a variety of identification alternatives to a REAL ID and that not having a REAL ID compliant license will not prevent a person from boarding a plane. He went on to say to say that even individuals with NO FORM OF ID at all can still be permitted to fly.

Williams TSA REAL ID

Mr. Williams as the former Director of the REAL ID program for the Department of Homeland Security with (which directs the Transportation Security Administration) is very familiar with the policies of both agencies. No publicly available official statement on the matter of REAL ID and boarding a federally regulated commercial aircraft refutes Mr. Williams’ testimony.

Here is the TSA’s list of preferred ID documents:
• Driver’s licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
• U.S. passport
• U.S. passport card
• DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
• U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
• Permanent resident card
• Border crossing card
• DHS-designated enhanced driver’s license
• Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
• Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
• HSPD-12 PIV card
• Foreign government-issued passport
• Canadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
• Transportation worker identification credential

Here the TSA goes into a bit more detail regarding its identity verification procedures:

“TSA prefers that passengers use an acceptable ID at the checkpoint and only publishes the acceptable forms of primary ID, such as a driver’s license and passport on its website. However, we understand that, due to extenuating circumstances a passenger may not have an acceptable form of ID when attempting to travel on a commercial aircraft. Therefore, TSA has alternate means to verify identity in order to allow a passenger to travel and may rely on a variety of government-issued documents, commercial databases, and other agencies to verify passenger identity. The alternative means to establish identity are not published on the website in part because TSA prefers that passengers use acceptable ID.

The TSA website informs passengers that, if they do not have acceptable ID, they can alternatively provide additional information and undergo additional screening in order to be cleared. Specifically, the website informs the public that: “If you are willing to provide additional information, we have other ways to confirm your identity, like using publicly available databases, so you can reach your flight.”
(TSA response to congressional inquiry Aug. 7, 2014

No one is going to have to get a passport or be barred from flying due to the REAL ID Act.

Sparks Real ID

This press released today by the Oklahoma Senate certainly sounds dire.

Can you imagine if people were unable to enter the Social Security office?  What if you were asked to appear in Federal Court and you don’t have a REAL ID?  What would happen?

Apparently nothing.

REAL ID Act of 2005 Implementation: An Interagency Security Committee Guide
Aug 2015, Interagency Security Committee
“…there is no requirement to produce a REAL ID Act compliant ID to enter a Federal facility for accessing health or life preserving services (including hospitals and health clinics), law enforcement (including participating in law enforcement proceedings or investigations), participating in constitutionally protected activities (including a defendant’s or spectator’s access to court proceedings, access by jurors or potential jurors), voting or registering to vote, or applying for or receiving Federal benefits…”

According to the Department of Homeland Security
REAL ID does NOT apply to the following:
• Entering Federal facilities that do not require a person to present identification
• Voting or registering to vote
• Applying for or receiving Federal benefits
• Being licensed by a state to drive
• Accessing Health or life preserving services (including hospitals and health clinics), law enforcement, or constitutionally protected activities (including a defendant’s access to court proceedings)
• Participating in law enforcement proceedings or investigations

There is too much fear, uncertainty and doubt being pumped out by the media and state officials for me to address in just one post so expect more posts soon.  Until then – don’t let them scare you!

Four Reforms to Note in Oklahoma Personal Asset Protection Act SB 838


Kaye Beach

Sept. 20, 2015

Sen. Kyle Loveless is the author of SB 838, the Personal Asset Protection Act which would give more protection to innocent property owners from the practice of civil asset forfeiture.   It is a good bill but to my dismay, I keep running into misconceptions about the measure.  Legislation is a little tricky to read and often, the media does not break them down very well.

In this post, I will show you the bill and point out the four major reforms it would accomplish.

A tiny bit of background first.  Civil asset forfeiture allows the government to take property that they assert to have been gained or used in the commission of a crime.

There is a difference between civil and criminal asset forfeiture.

Civil Forfeiture
Civil forfeitures are based on the unlawful use of a property irrespective of an owner’s culpability. Civil forfeitures followed the rules of civil procedure.

Criminal Forfeiture
Criminal forfeitures are subject to all the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards available under criminal law. The forfeiture case and the criminal case are tried together. Forfeiture counts must be included in the indictment of the defendant which means the grand jury must find a basis for the forfeiture. At trial, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read more

Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture does not require a conviction. In fact, the person who has their property taken under civil asset forfeiture may not even be charged with any crime.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Over a five-year period, law enforcement officials in 12 Oklahoma Counties seized more than $6 million in cash, almost $4 million of which was taken without any criminal charges…
Records indicate that of the $6.1 million dollars taken, only $2.1 million was seized from people who were actually charged with a crime, meaning more than 65 percent of the cash seized was taken without any criminal charges being filed.
Read more

Some legal experts would like to see asset forfeiture ended with few exceptions but most states aren’t willing to simply banish the practice. In the meantime, important reforms can and should be made.
Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice offers five recommendations for states who are will not summarily call a halt to asset forfeiture. He recommends that states:
1. Place seized revenues in neutral funds
2. Increase the standard of proof for seizure to require “clear and convincing evidence” of a crime,
3. move the burden of proof to the government,
4. Make the tracking of seized assets more transparent,
5. Eliminate “equitable sharing” arrangements.


SB 838 by Sen. Loveless would accomplish three out of those five reform recommendations (plus one more important one that is not on Bullock’s list )

I have heard some people say  that the only thing that this bill does is take the proceeds gained through civil asset forfeiture away from the police and give them to the state.   It’s not true.

I find four substantial reforms in SB838 in addition to removing the profit incentive for civil asset forfeiture.

1) SB 838 requires a conviction before property can be taken by the government
2) SB 838 puts the burden of proof on the government taking the property.  They have to prove guilt rather than the individual being threatened with the loss of their property having to prove innocence
3) SB 838 raises the amount of evidence required for the government to take the property
4) SB 838 increases due process by providing trial by jury to all who are involved in an asset forfeiture claim by the state.

If removing the direct profit incentive by moving the funds gained through asset forfeiture to the state’s general fund as proposed by SB 838, seems problematic to you, Sen. Loveless has gone on record stating that he is open to other methods of putting a buffer between the profit and the agency seizing the property.

So, let’s take a look at the actual bill, SB838

Remember, when reading amendatory legislation such as SB 838,  only the underlined or stuck though language is new (the changes being proposed by the bill) the rest is just a recitation of current law.

The very first thing SB 838 does is require that there be a conviction before taking a persons property by adding the language “upon a person’s conviction”

upon CONVICTION sb838

Currently there is no qualification that the property is subject to forfeiture only after a conviction. (That is why it is called civil as opposed to criminal asset forfeiture)

If SB 838 became law, The property could still be seized if the officer or agency has a reasonable suspicion that there is criminal wrongdoing associated with it however,  a criminal conviction would be required before property could be taken (forfeited).

As I read it, this bill would end civil asset forfeiture. All asset forfeitures would have to be criminal.

The next thing the bill does is strikes the portion of  existing law that puts the burden of proof on the individual having his property taken.

sb838 removes burden of proof from the individual

The third thing that SB838 does is increase the amount of evidence required for the government to take a person’s property.

SB838 would require “clear and convincing evidence” to be established before your property can be taken by the government.

cc sb838

Currently the standard for the state taking ownership of your property is by a “preponderance of the evidence” which means simply that if there is one feather weight of evidence that lends more than 50% certainty that plaintiff’s (in this case, the state) version of events is true, then they can take your cash or property from you.

“Clear and convincing evidence” raises the bar and affords much better protection to the innocent property owner.

The fourth reform in SB 838 is the addition of the right to a jury trial for any party to a forfeiture action.  It is my understanding that currently, there is no right to a jury trial in civil cases  involving less than $1,500.

jury trial
This language will afford greater due process in civil asset forfeiture cases.

The remainder of SB 838 deals with removing the direct profit incentive by requiring that the proceeds from asset forfeiture be moved to the state’s general fund. Currently the proceeds go directly to the agencies that forfeit the property and the concern is that this incentivizes civil asset forfeiture.

In my opinion, this bill simply affords Oklahomans the basic justice that those who have not run up against a civil asset forfeiture claim, think they already have.

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.

04-01-2014 CNOTE 15174229 Apr 2 2014 8:19:59:360AM $ 0.00
04-01-2014 CNOTE 15174230 Apr 2 2014 8:20:32:300AM $ 0.00


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.


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.”


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


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