« January 2010 »
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
and now, Benton?
Economy, what's left of
General politics
general rant/rave
Kennewick Illegal
Legal actions
Richland illegal
Seattle illegal
WA Illegal
WA media anti 2A bias
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Dave's 2A Blog
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Census information and nonsense
Topic: General politics

 I recently read a media account that there was a $5000 fine for refusing to give Census information. Figuring that was the typical crock-o-crap from the Leftist media, I decided to digest Census law.

 NOT Census opinion.

So, without further ado- USC 18. Its the law, just read it.

1.) The Census is to take data (NOT STATISTICS) on how many Citizens are due Representatives (NOT SENATORS) for apportionment of representation on the Federal level.

The home of Census law is USC Title 13:





§ 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100. [so much for 5000]
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
and what must be answered, else they cannot afford to prosecute you for <=$100 ?


" § 141. Population and other census information

(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the “decennial census date”, in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.
(b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States. "
[ tabulation of population, and that implies of voting age]
" (g) As used in this section, “census of population” means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing. "
subpart (a) limits the Census to population to apportion Representation, so the size of your house doesnt mean diddley squat. Houses dont vote. 
CRITICAL POINT - the remaining Subsections (I,  IV, V) APPLY TO BUSINESSES. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RESPOND TO RELIGION QUESTIONS, although the Law provides for questions to religious ORGANIZATIONS (your church etc). Unless you are a church, no need to answer. The other Subsections deal with INTERIM census which 2010 is not.
The bulk of the Code relates to administration of the Census and Bureau, NOT YOU.
There is phone/internet to check identity of a Census taker:
BTW, you are NOT required to respond to a collection of information that does not bear a valid OMB Control Number:

§ 3512. Public protection

  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if—
  (1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
[NOTICE it says "collection of information" NOT PAPER FORM. ANY collection...] 
such as:

"OMB 0596-0146

To: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this collection is 0596-0146. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 4 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, and gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information"

 Also see:
See their scam at:
   The purpose of this information is to help you protect yourself from identity and financial fraud. Its good to answer Census data to apportion Representation, thats what our Constitutional system is about.
 IT IS NOT about people that think a badge gives them authority to ask anything they want.
Fun with Census workers.
1.) Take their photograph. If they have nothing to hide, they wont mind (where have you heard that reasoning before?). If they are scammers, they'll run away.
Photograph their ID if it looks suspect. If they get nervous when you photograph them, CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY.
If they are scamming, and you have no photographic or tape evidence, theres not much the Police can do.
2.) tape record your conversations. I do. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST TAPE RECORDING AN OPEN CONVERSATION. The law is against "wiretapping" which is defined as a third-party INTERCEPTING a TELEPHONE conversation. That means tampering with a phone system to, without the first and second parties knowledge and consent, to record THEIR conversation.
3.)  THEY ARE REQUIRED BY USC 44 TO ADVISE YOU OF YOUR OMB CONTROL NUMBER RIGHTS. If they dont, send them packing and file a complaint with the Census Bureau.
3.) CLOSELY read any paper form or computer screen they want you to enter info on, or they want to enter info in. DEMAND to see the OMB control number, especially if they want to enter data into a computer. The form they enter it on MUST have an OMB control number or you DO NOT have to answer. Then verify the control number.
Its taken all day to crunch something around in my head, actually something I DIDNT see. Somethings missing.
I went searching on both the Census web site and the Internet for the OMB control number for the Census. Not only isnt there an obvious OMB number, but THERE IS NO OMB.
Recall recently that SOBama took the OMB away from DoC and put it under the White House:
 I went searching the internet for the OMB Control Number for the 2010 Census. Cant find one. The only relevant link I did find was this:
There doesnt appear to me to be anything since.
No Control Number on the Census web site.
Back on the WhiteHouse site, this link appears:
Theres appears to be an interesting contradiction there in Chapter 2, p. 9 - that the reason for the PRA is to minimize TIME burden on the Public- implying or stating the time needed to complete Federal paperwork.
Also, in Chapter 4, p. 18, Census is under DoC in 2008. It isnt now. What happened in between?
There appears to be a website for looking up OMB control numbers:
"The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that agency information collections minimize duplication and burden on the public, have practical utility, and support the proper performance of the agency's mission."
Theres no obvious place on the reginfo website to lookup control numbers.
This doesnt seem to be going anywhere does it? No, not unless we READ the PRA- go back up this Blog entry and follow the Cornell Law link and READ the PRA Code in USC Title 44 CHAPTER 35 SUBCHAPTER I § 3512

The purpose of the PRA is to PREVENT Agencies from inventing invasive paperwork that is not authorized by CONgress. IT has nothing to do with how much time is required to complete it (or internet site forms, the form isnt the question at the moment).
USC is law, from the US House of Representatives, it has authority (or should have) over ANY Federal Agency. Does it not appear to you that Obama is attempting to circumvent the PRA by attempting to bring Census around behind the system? Why?
Theres something much more troubling when we follow the link to Herr Klintons E.O. 12866, which states two extremely disturbing things:
"Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.
(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only
such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people."
"(b) The Office of Management and Budget. Coordinated review of agency
rulemaking is necessary to ensure that regulations are consistent with applicable law, the President’s priorities, ..."
"(d) ‘‘Regulation’’ or ‘‘rule’’ means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency. It does not, however, include:..."
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM- The Executive Branch has/intends to usurped the authority of both Congress and the Judicial.
Read back through the trail of E.Os, see what falls off the radar in 1985? See what Clinton repealed?
Links to EO 12866 
Repealed E.Os:
Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Order:

(a) "Regulation" or "rule" means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does not include:"
 Notice that in 21498, there is NO MENTION of making or interpreting LAW, the context is only of Agency regulation:
"Section 1. General Requirements. (a) There is hereby established a regulatory planning process by which the Administration will develop and publish a Regulatory Program for each year. To implement this process, each Executive agency subject to Executive Order No. 12291shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) each year, starting in 1985, a statement of its regulatory policies, goals, and objectives for the coming year and information concerning all significant regulatory actions underway or planned; however, the Director may exempt from this Order such agencies or activities as the Director may deem appropriate in order to achieve the effective implementation of this Order."
The phrase "agency subject to EO 12291" implies that only the Agencies are subject to the law making/interepreting process.
Klintons EO 12866 changes that context by throwing the previous EOs out:
"Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.
(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only
such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law,
or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures
of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public,
the environment, or the well-being of the American people."
"Sec. 5. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal government, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person."
See how the language is softened, the applicability only to Agencies is moderated to "its just an intent.."
Now they are going to decide the "well being of the Public?"
Must go think this over. 

Posted by Dave at 11:25 AM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 27 January 2010 9:24 PM PST

View Latest Entries