What’s
the Hold Up Oklahoma? Woman
Waits to Learn the Fate of Her
Religious Freedoms While Life
becomes More Complicated Day by Day.
Anyone who follows the work of the
Constitutional Alliance is aware
that one of our members, Kaye Beach,
is embroiled in a legal battle that
pits the states desire to collect
and share personal biometric data
against an individual’s right to
religious freedom.
This woman has been without a valid
driver’s license since Feb 28,
2011. She is suing the
state’s Department of Public
Safety over the unwarranted
collection of her personal biometric
information as a condition for being
granted a state driver’s license
or identification card.
Read ‘My
Real ID Reckoning’ by Kaye
Beach
In a little over a year Kaye
has come to realize that she is
taking up this fight not a moment
too soon as she is increasingly
denied access to more and more
places and things that she used to
take for granted. Prescription
medication, for example, has been
denied her under new rules in place
in the state of Oklahoma that
pressures pharmacists to ignore
their better judgment and deny a
long standing client like Kaye, her
legitimately prescribed medications.
Fortunately Kaye is still permitted
to buy antibiotics but cough
medicine? No way. Not
without a “government issued photo
ID”. Her birth certificate won’t
suffice for identification purposes.
So what is so special about a
government issued photo ID? In
a word-biometrics. Any
government issued photo ID contains
the biometrics of the holder.
Visit www.constitutionalalliance.org
to read the petition/lawsuit filed.
In the upper left hand corner
of our web-site you will see a
"block" titled "Kaye
Beach petition/suit as Filed".
Click on the "block"
and you can read the petition/suit.
There are two "causes of
action" within the suit filed
by Kaye Beach. One is
specific to a religious exemption
that pertains to the religious
rights and thus freedom of
Christians http://essexuu.org/okstat.html
The second cause of action
pertains to the rights of all
citizens and is based on Article II,
section 30 of the Oklahoma
Constitution
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Article_II,_Oklahoma_Constitution
(Article II, section 30 is consistent
with the Fourth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution)
Kaye Beach is being
represented by Oklahoma attorneys
Benjamin Sisney and Jonathan Echols
of Echols and Associates in Oklahoma
City as well as by the highly
regarded Rutherford
Institute. Her
Oklahoma attorneys have spoken
publicly about attempting to work
out a settlement agreement with the
Attorney General's office.
Based on recent public statements we
know that no such settlement has yet
been reached. Kaye and her
attorneys have also made clear that
they would not put the case on hold
indefinitely while continuing
to try to reach a settlement.
Interestingly
the Department of Public Safety's
legal representative is the Attorney
General of Oklahoma, Mr. Scott
Pruitt. I say interestingly
because the Attorney General is on
record as being a strong advocate of
protecting religious freedom.
"During Pruitt's early years in
the State Senate, Scott introduced,
and was able to pass the Religious
Freedoms Act. Through Scott’s
leadership, Oklahoma became among
the first group of states to pass
this type of act that makes it more
difficult for a government to burden
an individual's practicing of his or
her faith, even in the public
square." http://www.scottpruitt.com/Issues.html
Recently Mr. Pruitt was a
co-host for a Republican
presidential candidate forum.
He was asking questions of the
candidates that centered on states'
rights and other Constitutional
issues and my impression of him was
very positive. I think that as
Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt
represents the state of Oklahoma
with the highest degree of decorum
and professionalism. All
things considered, it is difficult
to imagine that this Attorney
General is responsible for the delay
in protecting Ms. Beach’s
religious freedoms.
Again I ask-what is the hold
up?
The next step in this lawsuit
will be the "Discovery"
phase and a first Discovery motion
is expected to be filed very soon.
I am told that Discovery
documents are, unfortunately, not
made public. While I don’t
know exactly what will be contained
in the Discovery document I am
familiar with Kaye Beach’s case,
Oklahoma law and I have also done my
homework about Discovery motions
and based on this can surmise what
we might expect the motion to
cover. http://evidence.uslegal.com/discovery/oklahoma-discovery-law/
I expect anything that has to
do with DPS's use of biometrics will
be requested. Further I would
expect Kaye Beach's attorneys to
request the authority under which
DPS is mandating that all Oklahoma
drivers be enrolled into a global
system of identification that
directly links their body
(biometrics) to their ability to
buy, sell and travel.
(For an overview of biometrics
including a definition I refer you
to a one page document "Your
Body is Your ID" http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/filemgmt_data/files/Stop%20Real%20ID%20Coalition%20-%20Your%20Body%20is%20Your%20ID%20-%202011_0915.pdf
As part of the Discovery
motion, the Oklahoma Department of
Public Safety would be asked to
“admit” certain facts that form
the basis for the case such as the
fact that they do require driver’s
license applicants, specifically in
this case, Kaye Beach, to submit
their biometrics before issuing her
a license. Also, the fact that
Kaye is a practicing Christian who
holds certain specific religious
beliefs based on scripture would be
an essential fact that the DPS would
be asked to affirm or deny. According
to Oklahoma legal procedure, the DPS
(Department of Public Safety) will
have 30 days to comply with this
Discovery motion unless they ask the
court for an extension and receive
additional time to comply with the
Discovery motion.
For a very brief analysis of
why Christians would object to
global biometric enrollment I refer
you to http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/filemgmt_data/files/Stop%20Real%20ID%20Coalition%20-%20Religious%20Objections%20to%20Biometric%20ID%20-%202011_0904.pdf)
Is the hold up in this case
coming from the Oklahoma Department
of Safety?
Over a three year period there
was legislation introduced in the
Oklahoma legislature by State
Representative Sally Kern, State
Representative Charles Key and
former State Senator Randy Brogdon
to this end. Specifically,
legislation known as the
"Biometric and Social Security
Number Religious Exemption
Act", HB2943, led to
discussions involving Representative
Kern and DPS’s legislative
liaison, Major Rusty Rhoades. Major
Rhoades told Representative Kern
that he was speaking in his capacity
as DPS's legislative liaison when he
said "they supported the
right of the people to make the
choice about being able to opt out
of providing their biometrics based
on religious grounds."
("Press Release dated 26 May
2010" http://www.ok-safe.com/Non-Partisan-Oklahoma-Voter-Guide.htm)
To this observer, it would
seem that DPS would not need 30 days
to comply with this Discovery motion
because they had ample time to
consider the issue when they were
engaged in lengthy discussions with
Representative Kern, Representative
Key and former State Senator Brogdon
for over three years. In
addition, Kaye Beach very
pointedly dealt with the DPS when
she ensured that she had exhausted
all administrative remedies with
this department before she ever
filed the lawsuit in the first
place.
I am truly perplexed by what
appears to be foot dragging in
regards to wrapping up this case by
the state of Oklahoma.
In a time where every state
has been hit hard by the weakened
economy, is it now DPS's position
that state money is best spent
fighting against the religious
freedom of Christians? If so,
what has changed in the last couple
of years? Why the sudden
reluctance to let go of biometrics.
It is also not as if biometrics
actually establishes a person’s
identity in the first place- they do
not. It is the breeder
documents such as birth certificates
that are used to establish an
individual’s legal identity.
Recently PBS aired a program
titled "The Real CSI".
You should listen to the
judges who have come to realize that
what they were told by so called
"experts" about the
accuracy of biometrics, especially
fingerprints, is not true. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/real-csi/no-forensic-background-no-problem/
There is not a day that goes
by that an individual or a person
who represents a group or
organization does not call me or
email me about the Real ID Act 2005
and/or mandated biometric
enrollment. I cannot advise
people on legal issues or what path
they should pursue in their
objections to biometrics or RFID and
the retention of SSN's in state
Department of Motor Vehicle
databases. I do, of course, offer
options that I am aware of that
concerned people may want to pursue.
Recently I was asked by an individual
who is a state director for a
national organization to
provide a detailed analysis of the
Real ID Act 2005 and within that
analysis explain why Real ID is not
dead as some have asserted. (The
document I provided is available on
our web-site) http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/filemgmt_data/files/Real%20ID%20is%20a%20Symptom.pdf
As of today the national
organization in question has NOT
changed or modified their assertions
that Real ID is dead. I would
be less than honest if I did not
admit to my frustration not just
with this national organization but
with other individuals including
some pastors and other groups and
organizations over their failure to
be more assertive in their
objections to Real ID and
specifically mandated global
biometric enrollment.
Even should the Real ID Act be repealed
or delayed again in implementation
it would NOT change anything without
state legislation the Constitutional
Alliance has available.http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/filemgmt/index.php
Scroll down the page you are directed
to and you will find the legislation
along with summaries of the two
pieces of legislation (Multi State
Sovereignty Driver's License Act and
Multi State Religious Exemption).
Is Real ID Dead? Every
day almost articles such as this can
be found on the subject of state
implementation of Real ID.
Texas
one step closer to Real I.D. Act
May 8, 2012
AMARILLO, TEXAS -- More
identification is now required in
order to apply for a Texas driver
license or identification card, and
this new change has brought the
state closer to complying with the
controversial Real ID Act.
Governor
Nathan Deal, Georgia Driver Services
To Launch A More Secure ...
May 8, 2012
Secure ID also places Georgia in
compliance with the Federal Real
ID Act of 2005. . .
I wonder at times if those who
have proclaimed Real ID is dead
would agree with people who live in
states whose driver's
licenses have "gold stars"
on them. The citizens who live
in states with gold stars on their
driver's license would certainly not
agree that Real ID is dead because
they know that the gold star
indicates that their state is in
material compliance with the Real ID
Act.
As I said earlier, even if
Real ID is repealed or never
completely implemented, how would
that help the people who live in
states where citizen's personal
information including biometrics
have already been collected? Do
people really believe their
respective state Department of Motor
Vehicles will just get rid or delete
the information that has already
been collected?
To be fair, many individuals
including pastors have spoken out
against Real ID and mandated
biometric enrollment. Some of
these same people have contributed
to Kaye Beach's legal defense fund.
If you wish to contribute to
this landmark effort against
mandatory collection of our
biometric information, you may do so
by sending a check or money order
to: Kaye Beach, P.O. Box
722381, Norman, Oklahoma, 73070
(please write legal defense fund in
the memo section of your check or
money order). For those
who wish to use a credit card
through PayPal here is a link to her
Legal
Defense Fund
I can only pray that more
people begin to understand that
mandated biometric enrollment is the
linchpin to total control over
people. Is there one person
who would argue we have not allowed
our elected leaders to put in place
a surveillance society? How do
you reconcile a surveillance society
with a free society? The
answer is you cannot. This is
why Kaye Beach's lawsuit is so
important and why I am asking;
“What’s the hold up
Oklahoma?!”
Thank you,
Mark Lerner
God Bless these United States of
America, the greatest country on
earth
