Time: Wed Nov 13 10:31:55 1996
To: Vern Holland
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SSN's and Privacy
Cc:
Bcc:
>From: tab@hollyent.com
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:14:02 -0700
>Subject: SSN's and Privacy
>To: pmitch@primenet.com
>
>================[ Distributed Message ]================
> ListServer: TAB (Take America Back Mail List)
> Type: Not Moderated
> Distributed on: 13-NOV-96, 10:14:00
>Original Written by: IN:pmitch@primenet.com.
>=======================================================
>
>
> 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
>
>===========================================================
>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com
>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state
>===========================================================
>
>
>
>========================================================================
>To subscribe: send a message to the Tab@hollyent.com
>with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE to
>remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
> email: Not Moderated@hollyent.com or listmgmt@hollyent.com
>For information about this system and its lists email: info@hollyent.com
>========================================================================
>via: Holly Enterprises 602-922-1639 - www.hollyent.com
>
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail