Traveling or "Driving" a Car: Right or Privilege?

Last Modified on Wednesday, November 29, 2000

Background: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has refused to accept my application for a driver license because I have no social security number. Below is a chronicle of events and correspondence describing my attempts to obtain a driver license.

Obtaining a driver license is the only thing I have not been able to do here in Pennsylvania without a social security number. I moved to Pennsylvania in 1998, and was able to do everything else without a number. But Pennsylvania has been steadfastly holding on to fascist principles, even after being shown how there own laws are inconsistent and out of touch with the provisions of federal law.

I now "drive" (or travel) with no state-issued driver license, since my previous out-of-state license expired. Here is a chronicle of events that have transpired.

To join a mailing list for announcements of "Life Without a Number" (LWAN) updates to this site, visit my guestbook and fill it out, or just send me an email.. Of course, email addresses are not released to any third parties or anything like that.

August 14, 1998 Drivers License	I was formally denied a Pennsylvania drivers license today for not providing a social security number.  I put on my monkey suit (I always dress for the occasion to garner as much respect as possible -- people, being what we are, will be more likely to hear me out that way) and went to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and brought my money order for 24 bucks, my Maryland drivers license, a copy of Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, and a copy of my 2nd letter from the SSA verifying that government agencies are required to comply with the Privacy Act.  My strategy, instead of claiming I don't have a number, is to attempt to force them to comply with the Privacy Act. I won't tell them I don't have a number until their request for a number is brought into compliance with federal law. Until they do, I am not required to respond to their request for a number. My theory is that this is a good first line of defense against enumeration, since it would stand to protect those with SSNs as well as those without, regardless of one's religious perspective. (If those of us without numbers only try to use exceptions to the current law to suit the minority of us who have no numbers, then they'll still run over 99% of the population with numbers, and we non-enumerated will get run over with them, I would think.)  Once they comply with the Privacy Act, if they are somehow able to do so, then I won't have a number.  The guy I spoke to was nice.  I was cordial and our conversation was quiet and polite.  I gave my Maryland license and produced a money order for the proper amount.  He asked for a social security card.  I produced for him a copy of Section 7 of the Privacy Act and section 42 USC 408 (a)(8) showing it was a felony offense to compel the disclosure of a social security number in violation of the Privacy Act.  He said driver's licenses are privileges and therefore he was not "compelling" disclosure.  He later produced the Pennsylvania statute "authorizing" their request, so I pointed out that this was Pennsylvania statute, not federal statute, and that he needed to provide federal statute. He then gave me an 800 number to call the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, office where he claimed they could possibly provide the federal statute.  I asked if there was anything other than a social security number that I did not provide that prevented him from processing my application. He reiterated that he needed a current out of state driver's license, 24 bucks and either an SSN or a taxpayer identification number. At that time he did point out that there was a religious exemption.  I assumed he was referring to those certain religious organizations that have been in continuous existence since December 31, 1950 or thereabouts as outlined in Title 26, but perhaps there's more there. I'll inquire more about that, when & if it becomes appropriate.  I got his name and title.  He gave me a copy of the Pennsylvania Driver's Manual containing the reference to the state statute.  He was a little surprised that I gave him a copy of the Privacy Act and the letter from the SSA.  On my way out I was pleased to notice he was reading them over.  One lesson:  I should have requested the actual driver's license application.  That would probably provide good information.  Having been formally denied a driver's license, I now get to appeal administratively. I want to be as nice as I can be about this whole thing, not making anyone mad, or, if possible, even embarrassing people.  Either of those things is an impediment to education, communication, and cooperation.  If the National ID and the new world "odor" is to be stopped, I think we need to make friends of those in government. Most of those in government are just normal people that don't know any better.  We'll see.
August 19, 1998 Drivers License	I kicked a letter out to the PA Bureau of Driver's Licensing challenging their refusal to give me a driver's license. We'll see how they respond.
September 21, 1998 Drivers License	I mailed out a follow-up letter to the Pennsylvania's Bureau of Drivers Licensing. I have received no response to my August 19, 1998 letter, so I wrote another one with stronger language, and had my signature notarized. Again I sent it Return Receipt requested. That receipt was returned indicating delivery took place on September 24, 1998. Time to consider contingencies in case they still do not respond.
October 24, 1998 Drivers License	I still have not heard anything from the license bureau, so I wrote a letter to my state representative. Hopefully he'll compel the License Bureau to respond. (Usually that's what elected officials do in this type of situation).
November 2, 1998 Drivers License	I finally got a letter today from the Bureau of Driver Licensing. Apparently I was correct about elected officials getting government departments to respond. The Director of the Bureau made it clear she was not responding to me, but rather to my Representative. She quoted federal law, but clearly didn't even know how to do it properly. She's apparently not too familiar with the federal code. The letter goes on to state that I must provide a waiver from the federal government permitting me to "to not have a social security number", and that I must submit that waiver to the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania office in advance of visiting the license bureau. The provision of law she refers to is Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 75, "Vehicle Code". Here's the citation of the law she relies on to require a waiver from me.
November 6, 1998 Drivers License	This is my response to the previous letter from the Bureau of Driver Licensing. The letter consists of several parts: I underscore the error of her federal cites; I point out that they are in routine violation of the Privacy Act; I state that I have no SSN, and show that I am allowed to not have an SSN; I submit a waiver (as per PA law), and challenge them to find something wrong with it; I show I am not allowed to have a Tax ID number; I demand some relief from them I warn them that they will be held responsible for any damages I receive. I also copied this letter, complete with all enclosures, to the state police. In some respects, I'd prefer to NOT do that since it could serve as a confession and be used against me in the future, but I thought it would be good to show PA that I mean business, and that I'm not afraid. And while it might serve to hurt me, it might also serve to protect me in the event I'm stopped on the road, in showing that I'm in no way attempting to skirt the law, but rather am making a good faith effort to abide by it. It's my hope that any officer that considers taking action against me will think twice before doing so, as well he should. I'll carry a copy of this letter with all enclosures with me as I drive as my new "drivers license".
December 8, 1998 Drivers License	I've received no response from the License Bureau as a result of my November 6th letter. so it's time to write again. I'm not going to bother writing to the license bureau again, as it appears to be a waste of time, but I will cc: them. A few weeks ago I came across a letter that was sent to someone that tried about 3 or 4 years ago what I'm trying now. This person wrote to the Social Security Administration and asked about the federal government waiver that Pennsylvania Law (Title 75, Section 1510(f)) refers to (the one I'm supposed to submit that "allows me to not have a Social Security Number"). This letter proves there is no such waiver. In the letter to my representative, I've done the following: I refer to the above letter (I enclosed it) as proof that the waiver they ask for doesn't exist; I point out that today's driver's licenses serve dual purposes: a document licensing driving activity and as a form of identification; I state that I don't want any government issue identification any more than I want a social security number, that I just want to drive without being harassed or arrested. I state my driving history, and show I'm a safe driver; I state that the "equal protection doctrine" prohibits the state from preventing me from driving without outlawing driving for most others in the state, and bring into question whether driving is a privilege or a right. I recommend new legislation be enacted to fix this problem. (I doubt my idea will be given much credibility, but hopefully it will make people stop and think). I demand to know whether or not the License bureau will accept my application for a license. As before, I copied this letter, complete with the enclosure, to the Pennsylvania State Police and the Bureau of Driver Licensing. In the mean time, I'm starting to hear more and more from visitors to my web site and on various listservs that I don't need a license to drive, and that getting one is an act of surrendering one's rights to the state. Some of it makes sense, and I'm slowly looking into this. So far have not seen any proof either that licenses are NOT required to drive, but on the other hand I've not seen any proof that states (PA at least) have jurisdiction to pass laws requiring them. It's well known that governments may only pass laws regarding things over which they have jurisdiction. Then again, the PA Vehicle Code, at least on the surface, does appear to mandate licenses for any & all who drive. Of course if PA can pass laws requiring non-existent waivers, I suppose they're equally capable of passing laws without proper jurisdiction. It is true that the PA "Vehicle Code" is not law. It's merely a copy of various excerpts of laws that pertain to driving and road use (it's proper name is "Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes"), and it may not be complete. If it should be true that licenses aren't required to drive --IF it's true-- then the state has helped to perpetuate a fraud. How likely is that? On a totally unrelated note, if you're not prepared for Y2K, you might want to get prepared. It might not be anything, in which case, no harm done. But if it is something, you'll be very glad you took the time and expense, and may even regret not being even more prepared than however much you were.
December 22, 1998 Drivers License	Great News! I got a response today from my state representative (actually senator-elect now)! It's actually not addressed to me, it's addressed to the Director of the License Bureau, and it asks her to respond to my last request as to whether or not they will accept my application for a license. This is a very good letter, in that it virtually eliminates one option the bureau might want to take, which would be to completely ignore me. If they were to do that now, I would have a very strong case to show a judge, whether it be for driving without a license or seeking damages in civil court. I am REALLY curious with what I'll get next. Could it be "first and goal" now? Merry Christmas!
December 28, 1998 Auto Insurance	Got a call today from my auto insurance agent. He wanted to know why they still don't have a driver's license number on file for me. He's a real nice guy & I've been doing business with him for some 5 years. He expressed a serious amount of empathy for me on the SSN disclosure issue, though I didn't quite tell him I had no number. I'm going to send him a copy of all correspondence and let him have some time to think before reacting. Their policy is to not renew insurance plans with people that have no licenses. For me that would be July 17th. I'm going to try to persuade them to make an exception. In my favor, I have been enjoying a "good driver discount" and "first accident forgiveness" with them for the past 4 years straight. The stakes are high here because if my insurance is not renewed, then I won't be able to get my car inspected (an annual event for all registered cars in PA), which means I'd be driving without a license in a car with expired tags. That would increase the chances of a an encounter with police, which is something I'd rather not have. Of course, the broader implication is that anyone I might have an accident with would be covered only by the clothes on my back, but I'm a pretty safe driver, & have not had an at-fault accident in half a lifetime, so perhaps that's not likely to happen. But I prefer to have standard car insurance.
January 12, 1999 Drivers License	I got a letter today from the Bureau. It appears to be a very carefully crafted response. Check it out. Any guesses as to how I'll reply?
January 13, 1999 Drivers License	Wow. Two letters in two days. This one is from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). They responded to my letter addressed to the Bureau on November 6th, because I carbon copied that letter to the Governor, and he forwarded it PennDOT, and they forwarded it to some "Office of Chief Counsel". Guess I'm dealing with the pros now. Check it out. This letter is rather strong handed, with some presumption sewn into it. The author of this letter has not yet received the copy of the letter from the SSA regarding the waiver requirement.
February 1, 1999 Drivers License	I starting to gain some insights regarding driver licenses. Are they really documents that prove we know how to drive, or is there more to them than that? I think there is a lot more to them!
February 5, 1999 Drivers License	I sent two letters out today. One letter to the License Bureau and the other to the Department of Transportation. I told the License Bureau that their letter was ambiguous because it did not state clearly whether or not they would accept an application for a license without a social security number. I thought about mailing in an actual application with payment to force them to act one way or the other, rather than trying to get them to say what they would do, but decided against it. I obtained a copy of the application form, and I was REAL uncomfortable with what I would sign my name too. My main problem with it was that anyone signing it swears under penalty of perjury that all facts are correct. Usually such statements include the phrase "to the best of my knowledge and belief", but not this one. In theory, one could be prosecuted for information s/he honestly believes is correct, but is not. If the affidavit of revocation for the SSN application should, at some future date, be deemed by any court to be non-binding, signing that without putting an SSN down this could get me in trouble. While I have confidence in the affidavit, I don't have equal confidence in the judicial system, and since I've really nothing to gain by taking the risk, I'm not inclined to try. It might be different if I thought they would accept the application, but they won't. One of the rules of "warfare": Avoid unnecessary risk. The letter to the Department of Transportation is more interesting. In response to his January 8th letter, I counter on a number of points, and claim that their demand that I get an SSN as a condition of obtaining a license to be extortion, if there is no law making such requirement. I like this letter.
February 14, 1999 Drivers License	I sent two more letters out today. The first letter was to my insurance agent, following up from his phone call to me on December 28th, 1998 (described above). The insurance company has to choose between endorsing the state's practice of discrimination and risking a lawsuit from a very good customer, and insuring an unlicensed driver that could, conceivably, start driving like a raving lunatic and accumulate all kinds of tickets for driving infractions without them knowing it. (Obviously if I started driving like a lunatic, they would find out about it in short order). I imagine this letter will spend some time in their legal department. I copied this letter to my state rep. The second letter is to my state senator. This was basically a cover letter that I used to send him the updates of the PennDOT & the insurance company correspondence, but I decided it was time to get a statement from him. I'm very curious as to his response, as I can't imagine him telling me that I'm shouldn't be allowed to drive, and any defense of the commonwealth would imply that. I really should bring my state representative in on this as well. He just took office.
March 3, 1999 Drivers License	I got a response from my February 5th letter today from PennDOT. The Chief Counsel engaged in what I believe is extortion*. He passed me off to his assistant, that neither qualified nor redacted the statement I took as extortion. Neither did he address the fact that I had no SSN. It's almost as if he doesn't know that I have no number. Responding to him will be fun. In paragraph 5 of this letter there are two legal problems. Can you find them? Email me before I respond to it if you think you know what they are. *UPDATE, April 2, 1999: I no longer believe that "extortion" is what the statement really was. It is misrepresenting the law, and he is unlawfully denying me something unless I do something the law doesn't require me to do, but since he's not told me to hand over property to get a license, I don't think that "extortion" is the right term. I should have done more careful research, but live, learn & keep moving.
April 2, 1999 Drivers License	I mailed off my next letter to PennDOT. I sense the end is drawing near in this administrative pursuit. I am 98% convinced that they will not budge without a court order. The only thing left to do is build myself a nice legal "fort" that I can protect myself in for the almost inevitable day when the ship hits the sand and I'm face to face with a trooper or judge that demands to see my "papers". I've made a stronger effort to keep this letter readable. The natural temptation is this kind of correspondence is to make every sentence 100% legally accurate, but often (as I've seen in other correspondence) the result is something that is confusing to someone that's not familiar with the legal concepts. Since these letters could end up being handed to a jury one day, they should be easy to understand as well as legally accurate. Because of that, and to give them fewer "escape routes" in replying, I've decided to drop the Privacy Act issue, and keep the letter focused on the most compelling legal arguements, and save the moral arguments for my elected officials. In this letter I'm presenting constitutional grounds which "proves" that no state law can make the application for an SSN a requirement for any purpose whatsoever, that people with SSNs may well be required to reveal those numbers for particular purposes, but unenumerated persons cannot possibly be compelled to obtain numbers for any state purpose at all. I must credit Larry Becraft for tipping me off on the limits of the delegation of power between state & federal governments. (I picked it up on one of his videos. He is one energetic speaker & attorney. I highly recommend him & his videos.) These are the 2 flaws I see in paragraph 5 his February 25 letter: Running checks on license applicants to see if they are guilty of crimes basically amounts to "guilty until proven innocent". All license applicants are presumed guilty first, which flies in the face of our most basic legal premise. Granted, it is presumed that driving is a privilege, in which case such an exception might be okay....if it's really a privilege. For that reason, I've demanded in this letter to know the constitutional or other provision that authorizes the state to regulate driving. By running checks to see if an applicant has committed driving crimes in other states, PA is essentially enforcing out-of-state driving laws. What if PA's legal intoxication level was 0.10%, and Maryland's was 0.08%. A Maryland driver caught with a 0.09% BAC would be convicted of drunk driving, and he would not be allowed to get a PA license even though he would not have been guilty of driving drunk under PA law. Suppose Ohio's legal intoxication level was 0.12%. An Ohio driver caught with 0.11% would not be charged, but unlike the Maryland driver, he would be allowed to get a PA license, even though he was drunk by PA legal standards, and more drunk than the Maryland driver. While I obviously agree that drunk people should not be driving, the legal fact remains that PA can only enforce PA law within the state of PA. Period. My next project will be to investigate the history of the driver licensing laws in PA. Who really needs a license to drive, anyway? The Vehicle code seems to require it of anyone, but if so, why is there no jurisdiction given to the state in the PA Constitution? Are licenses really only required for commercial driving activities?
April 14, 1999 Political Solution?	I sent a follow-up letter to my State Senator. I never received a response from him on my February 14, 1999 letter. You know it's pretty bad when your elected officials won't even tell you what they think!
April 26, 1999 Drivers License	Response from PennDOT. We are obviously well in to the spinning wheels phase, as this response is basically just a re-iteration of the alleged requirement that the only people that can get licenses are those that have SSNs, and more explanation about how PennDOT can't do as efficient a job without requiring SSNs. I don't see any legal principles in his letter. He did respond to my demand for jurisdiction, but all he provided was a PA Supreme Court case. He alluded to an "Administrative Branch of Government" having constitutional power to regulate driving. Read on.
May 12, 1999 Auto Insurance	My insurance company sent me a notice that they intend to non-renew my auto insurance, because I have not given them a driver's license number. It's not a letter, just a form, and the explanation reads: We requested you provide us with your Pennsylvania driver's license number. To date, we have not received it. Since we cannot properly rate or underwrite your policy because you are in violation of Pennsylvania law, we are not renewing your Automobile Policy. As explained on the form, I will have the "Pennsylvania Insurance Department" review this action and attempt to have it blocked. I will post my letter, contesting my insurance company's authority to make the determination that I am in violation of PA law. The form indicates I have 30 days to do this. I have no idea of what legal authority the PID has to review or correct this action. I believe that appealing IRS tax assessments to a so called "tax court" is usually/almost always a bad idea, so I'll be careful to not waive my rights in this "appeal". I'm really not to concerned about this, as I have at least one lead on alternate insurance. That one is only liability (won't cover my jeep's damage) but will cover damage & injury I might cause others. It's a membership contribution based "insurance-like" coverage, where no one pays any "premiums" until someone has an accident, (very similar to Save-A-Patriot's insurance-like coverage against illegal IRS seizures) and there is no "insurance fund" to draw on, so it might not be approved by PennDOT. Then again, PennDOT is basically forfeiting any authority they might have to object, and this "insurance-like" coverage, after enrollment fees, has been running only about 80-100 bucks a year/car. It's what insurance used to be in the old days, a far better plan that encourages responsible driving, and doesn't reward people for wrecking their own car.
May 27, 1999 Driver's License	Pressing on, here's my response to PennDOT. I've answered his reluctance to believe I have no SSN, and have illustrated more clearly the unconstitutional nature of their requiring people to apply for SSNs. I told them I don't contest the benefits PennDOT realizes in utilizing SSNs, so they can stop talking about that. I also introduce the conflicting status of driving as a limited "right to the road" verses a privilege, quoting from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case he introduced, and asked at what point this right becomes a privilege. Again, I demanded to know the nature of the jurisdiction that Pennslyvania relies upon to bar me from the road. I defended myself from his claim that my last letter was facetious. Finally, I asked what was required of me to convince PennDOT to accept my application for a license without an SSN, and if there was nothing I could do to sway them, that I would discontinue my efforts to secure a license through administrative means if they just make it clear, in writing, that nothing I do will make them change their minds.
June 6, 1999 Auto Insurance	I requested the Pennsylvania Insurance Department review the cancellation of my auto insurance. Here's the letter.
June 12, 1999 Auto Insurance	The Pennsylvania Insurance Department reviewed the non-renewal, and affirmed it (They did it really fast). Here's the letter.
June 12, 1999 Political Solution?	Here's a rather chiding letter I sent to my state senator. It appears that seeking the assistance of legislators is not always effective in this cause.
June 18, 1999 Auto Insurance	I mailed in my appeal of the non-renewal of my auto insurance to the Pennsylvania Insurance Department.
June 23, 1999 Auto Insurance	My appeal is honored, and the hearing is set for early August. Since I requested the hearing, I am the appellant, which means the burden will fall on me to prove wrongdoing on the part of my insurance company and/or the state employee that initially "reviewed" the non-renewal action. My insurance company probably does not have to prove that I'm driving illegally. Just like people who petition the tax "court" at the suggestion of the IRS & thereby make the IRS the defendant in the case, I have done the same to my insurance company, and so I must carry the burden of proof.
June 28, 1999 Political Solution?	My state senator finally got motivated enough to write me, but he completely missed the point. He fails to address the issue of what people without SSNs are supposed to do. Therefore, this letter is not relevant to the issue, but here it is. I could write back, but there's no point.
July 4, 1999 Traffic Stop	Well, what could be more fitting on independence day than to get pulled over by the police (for alleged speeding) and get cited for "driving on an expired license". I didn't get arrested and the officers (3 cruisers came) were quite polite as they deprived me of 1 hour of my time and my right to drive. The incident occurred in Maryland, not Pennsylvania, which puts an interesting twist on the matter. They chose not to cite me for driving without a license. Instead, the citation reads driving on an expired Maryland license. I did record the entire stop, with the knowledge and consent of the 2 officers that spoke with me. (I'm in the habit now of keeping a hand held tape recorder in the car). That's worked out very well. I received 2 citations, "speeding" and "driving with an expired license". I didn't get arrested, but neither did they let me continue my way. Instead some friends came and drove me out of the area. The court date should be set in a few weeks. Maryland gives 15 days to pay the fine, and if not paid, a court date will be set automatically. I'm going to court, and I plan to ask lots of questions. Update: Court date set for the end of September 28, 1999.
July 8, 1999 Auto Insurance	Good News! I've discovered (with the help of others) a company that offers responsible coverage (but that is not true "insurance", per se) that will cover me & my jeep even though I have no license. This organization recognizes driver licenses for only being legally required for commercial driving. However, they are not an "insurance company" per se, due to how it operates. Rather they are a co-op, where members are billed in direct relation to the number of claims. Furthermore, It appears that Pennsylvania does respect this organization as "financial responsibility", so I should be able to continue to have my jeep registered with the state for as long as I want.
July 9, 1999 Driver's License	I got a response from PennDOT, finally. In my last letter to them, I gave them the option of answering additional statements common sense appeals or just flat out stating that there was nothing I could do to get them to accept my application without a license. They apparently chose the latter. This letter marks the end of my attempts to work with the system via administrative means.
August 3, 1999 Affidavit of R&R	Some time ago, I was given the citation of Hershey vs Commonwealth by PennDOT. It was a Pennsylvania case where Mr. Hershey, in a similar position as I am in now, decided to sue Pennsylvania to obtain a driver license without giving them an SSN. Here is my opinion of that case. In light of the precedent set in the Hershey decision, I filed an affidavit with the Social Security Administration revoking my signature from the application for a social security number. This affidavit is designed to address the often heard pro-government argument as to whether records kept at the SSA are legally binding on the persons they describe. While I have already filed an affidavit revoking my signature from the social security application about a year & a half ago, that affidavit was primarily geared toward the filing of income taxes, and was sent to the Secretary of the Treasury. There's nothing at all wrong with that affidavit, it's perfectly sound. But in light of the case history I'm up against here in Pennsylvania, I thought it would be prudent to underscore additional facts. I won't reproduce the affidavit verbatim, as I don't want anyone to simply copy and use it without knowing what their doing, but you can review the facts themselves, which I'll make available as a matter of freedom of speech/press. Here it is.
August 5, 1999 Auto Insurance	My appeal hearing, challenging my insurance company's non-renewal of my policy, was today. I went with a friend, and represented myself against my insurance company that hired a legal firm to represent them. This hearing was not a judicial court of law. It was merely an administrative hearing, which means the "judge" was not a judge at all, but an employee of the state (a hearing officer) to hear both sides and render a decision. She was not wearing a black robe as a judicial officer would. It was relatively informal. A victory here would force my insurance company to continue my auto insurance policy even though I have no driver license. There was no decision rendered at the hearing. I expect to be informed of the results by mail. I didn't think my chances were very good of winning until a few days before when I discovered that Pennsylvania law provided that the burden of proof to substantiate the non-renewal rested with the insurance company, even though I made the appeal. Furthermore, they had to show that the non-renewal was specifically authorized by the law governing non-renewals. I discovered that the law only authorized non-renewals for suspended and revoked licenses, but did not authorize non-renewals for people that have no driver license. Call it a loophole or whatever you want, but it's the law. Stay tuned.
September 29, 1999 Traffic Court	In a rather eye-opening experience, I was "convicted" of driving on an expired license. Here's a certified district court audio recording of the trial. I have several options. I have not paid the fine, as I believe it is purely voluntary in my particular case, since I have no license that could be suspended. I could appeal, which would have advantages in terms of "practicing" law (in the truest sense of the word), but suffers the disadvantage of openly agreeing that the original trial was, in fact, valid. I could file a "Motion to Vacate Judgement" seeking to throw out the "judge's" conviction on very reasonable grounds. I could file some paperwork showing that the judge was, in fact, not a District Court Judge (due to his deficient oath of office) and attempt to force the State of Maryland to either disprove my assertion or bring a "new" real trial in front of a real judge. Or, I could do nothing -- pay no fine, and get ready to play snail-mail pong when the State starts to send me letters begging for money, which could have the benefit of discouraging any private collection agency from purchasing the alleged debt from the State. Quite frankly, that last option has a nice ring to it, but some combination is probably what I'll do.
October 15, 1999 Affidavit of R&R	I got a response to my second Affidavit of Revocation and Rescision. It was from my "good friend" Charles Mullun of the SSA's office of public inquiries, and he sent me the same canned letter he sent almost exactly 2 years ago! It's still a response, and I have to defend my affidavit from it.
October 16, 1999 Maryland License	The fallout from the "trial" incident convinces me that I do not understand the nature of traffic offenses or the nature of the "courts" which try them. It's very possible that there is more to a driver license than I presently understand as well. All considered, I decided I need to go back, not to driving school, but driver license school, and just like social security numbers and income taxes, forget everyhing I ever thought I knew about licenses and start afresh. I now have the assistance of one who is quite knowledgeable about this area of law, and who has repeatedly won traffic court cases involving licensing/registration, and this person has graciously agreed to school me. I'll post what I learn & understand here.
October 28, 1999 Maryland License	I returned my Maryland Driver license back to the Maryland MVA, with an affidavit that terminates my driver license relationship with Maryland. Now there should be no question that I have no Maryland driver license (as opposed to an expired Maryland License).
November 15, 1999 Auto Insurance	I received the decision on the administrative auto insurance hearing of August 5, 1999, where I contested my insurance company's non-renewal of my auto policy because I have no license. The department ruled against me using so-called "case law". Should I have lost the case? You be the judge. Read my argument, the law, and the final decision, and decide for yourself. I am largely unaffected by the loss, since I have obtained coverage through a private co-op organization. Though it is not true "insurance" due to the method in which it operates, it is apparently sufficient to satisfy Pennsylvania.
December 6, 1999 Affidavit of R&R	My second affidavit of R&R sent to the SSA got me a canned letter identical to one I got almost exactly 2 years earlier. Since it was a defacto rebuttal to my affidavit, I composed an answer to the rebuttal, and sent it off to the SSA. It's quite exhaustive, and I also attacked the statements made in the SSA's canned letter. (Anyone else receiving that canned letter might be interested in what I came up with).
May 12, 2000 Maryland License	Okay, the vacation is over. I never did pay the traffic fine from last September, but instead surrendered the expired license back to Maryland. and braced for letters & threats from Maryland's MVA about paying the fine. To this date, there has been not a peep from them. Since it's not smart to leave questions unanswered, I located, copied Maryland's version of the Federal Freedom of Information Act (known as Maryland Public Information Act or PIA). after taking about 1 or 2 hours to read/study it, I composed a PIA request to force the MVA to give me a copy of all records they have which pertain to me. I didn't mention anything about the fine -- first things first. I just want to see the records. Here it is!
November 6, 2000 Maryland License	I had an incident with a Maryland state trooper in the middle of the night. It ended without incident but was still unlike anything I had every experienced from a police officer before.

Updates:
Police encounter ends without incident
Epilog

For the most up-to-date information, visit my guestbook to be added to the "Life without a Number" mailing list. Those on the mailing list generally receive first notification of new developments, as I only update this web site periodically.

All information presented here is done so under the protection of the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and article I section 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, as established in the famous trial of William Penn in August 1670, and contrary to the unlawful instructions given by most American judges, in addition to judging the facts of a case, juries also have the right and duty to pass judgement on the law (meaning they may acquit a violator of the law if they believe the law in question is unconstitutional, immoral, just plain stupid, or if the penalty is deemed too harsh). Juries are also lawfully free to vote according to their conscience, above all other considerations.