Time: Wed Nov 13 10:16:14 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SSN's and Privacy
Cc:
Bcc: Alfred Adask, Arizona Daily Star, Art Bell, Bernie Oliver, Bill Van Mastrigt, Byron Wine, Chris Wilder, Dean Hines, Denver newspapers, Electra Briggs, Harvey Wysong, Jean-Pierre Weingarten, Jim Harnsberger, Jim McCall, Joe Newman, Marcia A. Armstrong, Mark Nordbrock, Nancy Lord, Neal Kelsey, Neil Nordbrock, Reed Harris, Richard Ginn, The Arizona Republic, Tucson Citizen, TV stations, Vern Holland, William Cooper
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:11:16
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: SSN's and Privacy
>Bcc: liberty lists
>
> Disclosure of social security number. Act Dec. 31, 1974,
> P.L. 93-579, Section 7, 88 Stat. 1909, provided:
>
> "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or
> local government agency to deny to any individual any right,
> benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such
> individual's refusal to disclose his social security account
> number.
>
> "(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection
> shall not apply with respect to --
>
> "(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal
> statute, or
>
> "(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any
> Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a
> system of records in existence and operating
> before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was
> required under statute or regulation adopted prior
> to such date to verify the identity of an
> individual.
>
> "(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which
> requests an individual to disclose his social security
> account number shall inform that individual whether that
> disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or
> other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will
> be made of it."
>
>
>Comments by Paul Mitchell follow:
>
>Congress deliberately failed to codify this statute in Title 5 of
>the United States Code. You will find it embedded at the end of
>the historical notes within the Privacy Act. When a government
>employee was sued for violating this Act, he asserted ignorance
>of the law as his defense. The court upheld this defense, thus
>creating an important exception to the general rule that
>ignorance of the law is no excuse. My reading of this decision
>is that the court was giving silent judicial notice to the fact
>that Congress actually "hid" the law; thus, the court's holding
>did not really overturn the maxim (ignorance is not excuse); it
>merely recognized that fraud vitiates everything, even the most
>solemn promises. I have taken this statute and reduced it down
>to the size of a standard credit card. Then, I laminated it in
>plastic and saved it in my wallet. Later, I gave it away to an
>attendee of one of Lynne Meredith's seminars; the attendee was
>mostly incredulous that such a law even existed. It is very easy
>to make another one. I prefer to take a photocopy right out of
>the law books, and to laminate that photocopy. Try it! It is
>always very powerful to witness these laws yourself, at the local
>county law library. Take this email message down to the
>reference librarian, and see if s/he can locate it for you. The
>Privacy Act can be found in the reference volume which lists
>statutes by name. Good luck!
>
>Paul Andrew Mitchell
>November, 1996
>all rights reserved
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail