Archive for the ‘legislation’ Category

BTC- 4:00 PST – We just had an update from vlogger 4409 out of Scottsdale, AZ who reported that this statute includes immunity to criminal justice retaliation against wrongful arrest and conviction by police when they are performing arbitrary terry stops in search of illegal immigrants. This is a really bad bill. It has rolled up the agenda to try national identity and a checkpoint police society in one fell swoop.

Real ID up for a vote in Arizona house
c/o Campaign for Liberty

A true anti-freedom bill, an Arizona version of REAL ID, is to be voted on in the Arizona House of Representatives by the Committee of the Whole (COW, in other words the full house) TODAY, WED, MARCH 17, 2010.

Do not be fooled by the title, or even the good intentions of the bill or its sponsors, this is BAD for freedom, Arizona, and the country. Do not be fooled by their platitudes of opposing REAL ID, National ID, or whatever other name they try to hide it behind.

Short version: among other serious problems, this bill allows a LEO to detain a law abiding American indefinitely whom they cannot verify via US Dept Homeland Security, with full indemnification for the LEO and his/her agency.

Papers Please.

The areas of concern are indicated below in red font and underlined.

And remember exactly how low the court’s have deemed “reasonable” suspicion to be.

Taken from the bill language found here

Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:


11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any legitimate contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).


How do you know if some is illegal?

The only way to verify if someone is here legally is to check their immigration

How do you check?

This is described further in this bill below. I will highlight red .

What is 8 USC 1373c?—-000-.html

c. The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection.

D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.

E. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:


Read the above carefully.

There is NO RESTRICTION for ANY government official ANYWHERE in the state of Arizona for checking national id except for the specified purposes below. So, let’s look at those……..

1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.


Any government official anywhere in Arizona may check EVERYONES “immigration status” (i.e. national id data profile) for ANY benefit, service OR LICENSE (this is REAL ID/national id!) Again, how do you check immigration status? You get the ID of the person and run it against “immigration” (i.e. Department of Homeland Security REAL/PASS ID databases.)

2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.


The above describes a domicile/address data reconciliation process with the US Department of Homeland Security (“immigation”) for EVERYONE’s home, legal or illegal!

For example, among many other things, this would create a positive link between drivers’ license addresses, one’s home and 4473 forms which you fill out when you buy a gun. Among other things, such as improving the integrity of the drivers license as a national id, it creates a gun purchase registration capaibility at the federal government level.

3. Confirming the identity of any person who is detained.

Analysis: note the above in conjunction with an analysis comment below

4. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.

G. A person may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order any of the following:

1. That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.

2. That the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G and remit the civil penalty to the department of public safety, which shall establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission appropriation. Monies in the special subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.

I. A law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section to which the officer may be a party by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency, except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

To contact your State Rep:


BTC Exclusive – Language to HB 234, Utah’s state bill to opt-out of Real ID, was amended recently as a concession to gain Gov. Herbert’s signature. The amendment, authored by Senator Margaret Dayton, limited the state bill’s ability to prohibit all future national identity programs from consideration in the State of Utah. Future federal identity legislation, like the proposed Schumer-Graham bill to approve national biometric worker ID cards, would not be excluded from considerations in the amended version of the bill.

The bill, if passed as amended, would close the door on any future implementations or benchmark compliance movements in Utah. The issue of license benchmark compliances were debated during the bill’s passage through the House, according to sponsor Rep. Stephen Sandstrom. Citizens opposed to Real ID and similar legislations balked at some of the bill’s language, doubting the bill’s ability to stop incremental movements forward to implement the use of RFID and subsequent databases.

“There is nothing in the current [license] code to [move forward with RFID, databases], ” said Sandstrom, who says the bill would opt-out Utah of any future compliance with the Real ID Act, but not of future programs involving national identity.
License holders who possesss cards which comply in part with the Real ID Act program will not have to return to the DMV to get a different license once the bill is passed. For instance, Utah license holders with benchmark compliant bar codes won’t return to long lines to renew or replace licenses for new IDs without barcodes. Utah licenses with the barcodes also won’t be moved to the next step of being incorporated into a national to international database aggregate set forward by the Real ID program.

Associated Press – February 18, 2010 7:45 PM ET

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) – State agencies would be forbidden from complying any further with the federal Real ID Act under a measure the Utah House has approved.

The move could mean that the state’s residents won’t be able to board airplanes or enter federal buildings in the future.

The Real ID Act was launched after the 2001 terror attacks to make driver’s licenses more secure, so that eventually all driver’s licenses would have several layers of security features to prevent forgery.

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, an Orem Republican, contends those security features could eventually lead to the government tracking its citizens.

House Bill 234 was approved 68-3 on Thursday. It now advances to the Senate.

Government Must Provide More Information on Campaign to Give Telecoms Retroactive Immunity

San Francisco – A judge ordered the government Thursday to release more records about the lobbying campaign to provide immunity to the telecommunications giants that participated in the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the records be provided to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) by October 9, 2009.

The decision is part of EFF’s long-running battle to gather information about telecommunications lobbying conducted as Congress considered granting immunity to companies that participated in illegal government electronic surveillance. Telecom immunity was eventually passed as part of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) of 2008, but a bill that would repeal the immunity — called the JUSTICE Act — was introduced in the Senate last week.

“Today’s ruling is a major victory for government transparency,” said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. “As the court recognized, it was unlawful for the government to deny Americans access to this information in the midst of the debate over telecom immunity last year. We’re pleased these records will now be available to the public as Congress considers the JUSTICE Act.”

EFF has been seeking information about the telecom lobbying campaign under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) since 2007, as news reports detailed an extensive and expensive lobbying campaign seeking immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in unlawful surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. Officials at the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were vocal supporters of the immunity proposals, working closely with telecoms. Using the FOIA, EFF asked the DOJ and the ODNI for any communications between the agencies, members of Congress, and telecom companies related to lobbying for telecom immunity.

The DOJ and ODNI argued that the records requested by EFF were protected by FOIA exemptions covering agency deliberations and other privileged communications. But in today’s order, the judge ruled that as the communications were with Congress and lobbyists, the exemptions did not apply. The judge also found that the identities of telecom representatives who lobbied for immunity could not be kept from the public on privacy grounds.

“Today’s ruling shows that aggressive use of the Freedom of Information Act is necessary to challenge government secrecy,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. “We cannot allow the government to drag its feet in making relevant information available to the American public.”

EFF also represents the plaintiffs in Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit brought by AT&T customers accusing the telecom of violating their rights by illegally assisting in widespread domestic surveillance. In June of 2009, a federal judge dismissed Hepting and dozens of other lawsuits against telecoms, ruling that the companies had immunity from liability under the FAA. EFF is appealing the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, primarily arguing that the FAA’s immunity provision is unconstitutional in granting the president broad discretion to block the courts from considering the core constitutional privacy claims of millions of Americans.

For the full order:

For more on the litigation:

For more on the JUSTICE Act:

BTC Exclusive
Most H1N1 flu vaccination will be made available sometime during October in the U.S.

We spoke with Bob Dwyer, a district coordinator and citizen advocate for the Liberty Preservation Association of Massachussetts (Mass LPA) to update us on the status of S.2028. The bill is currently still in the Ways and Means committee. MASS LPA is composed of grassroots citizen advocates who are confronting their local lawmakers about the Constitutionality of S.2028. We asked him about his organization’s recent actions and the effort to stop Massachussetts from becoming a precedent setting state for both pandemic tracking and mandatory administration of a flu vaccine. Dwyers group organized to confront State legislators on issues of Constitutionality. They interpret S.2028 to be a mandatory or coercive vaccination law for their state.

We learned earlier, S.2028, potentially would criminalize State citizens for not taking the flu shot with imprisonment and fines of up to $1000 a day. In addition to taking time out to speak to us about the bill and local opposition to the mandates.

Dwyer explained that the State of Massachusetts is distributing 2 types of flu shot: a seasonal flu shot which has been tested extensively and the H1N1 flu shot. The Sanofi-Pasteur Fluzone seasonal Flu shot, expected to be distributed nationally in October, contains the poisonous and damaging natural element, Mercury or mercury derivatives and the H1N1 virus itself. We will be asking the makers of these H1N1 vaccines if they have started adding a nano technology developed by VeriChip to vaccines distributed to hospitals in the United States for intended injection during flu season.

If you have taken this brand of flu vaccine and are suffering from symptoms of Guillain-Barre Syndrome(GBS), which attacks the nervous system and afflicts basic motor functions, please call 1-800-VACCINE. GBS has no known cure, but symptoms can be lessened with treatment.

UPDATE 9/24 11:00 AM CST : The bill, sponsored by a local Senator Richard Moore, is still in the House Ways & Means Committee in Massachussetts.

According to this news report Tuesday, it appears S.2028, Massachussetts flu vaccine bill is on the Governor’s desk. The State law is considered unconstitutional by Judge Napolitano.

This report conflicts with Massachussetts ACLU, who reported the bill has not passed both chambers, Thursday 9/23.

THIS JUST IN from JP of NCard in North Carolina

Missouri lawmakers vote to reject federal Real ID Act
The Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY | Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday voted to direct the Department of Revenue to not comply with federal driver’s licens
e requirements.

The federal Real ID Act, passed in 2005, requires states to collect and verify certain information about applicants for driver’s licenses and state I

D cards. It was passed in response to national security concerns after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But some Missouri lawmakers argue Real ID is an unwelcome intrusion into privacy and requires several new technologies that could increase the risk of identity theft.

The Senate voted 32-0 Wednesday to advance the bill to Gov. Jay Nixon. The bill was previously passed by the House. If Nixon signs the legislation, Missouri would join 12 other

states that have enacted similar anti-Real ID laws.

That’s a pretty strong statement right there that the federal government should back off,” said Rep. Jim Guest [featured right], R-King City, who has sponsored the measure for several years.

Real ID requires that driver’s licenses include the holder’s full name, birth date, gender, license number, digital photograph, principal address and signature as well as tamper-resistant security features. The law also sets standards for verifying a license applicant’s identity and citizenship.

States have until the end of this year to meet the federal requirements but could get an extension until May 2011.

At that time, citizens in noncompliant states would not be able to board federally regulated planes or enter federal buildings simply by showing their state driver’s licenses.

Some Missouri senators said they think the effective date will be pushed back to 2015 and that federal officials might not even implement the law.

“They are finding out that this is not the great program that the federal government deemed it was,” said Sen. Chuck Purgason, R-Caulfield.

During Senate debate, some lawmakers argued Real ID was a backdoor attempt to create a national ID card.
JP Continues with OP/ED here:
The Real ID bill is House Bill 361.

Keep up the Good Fight, We are still in the Fight in NC, will give you updates about PA when I get them.

This is a victory for everyone in the US fighting the Real ID.  Mo is a key state and this victory should help to ensure more victories in other states.

Visit Jim Guest’s web site