Pennsylvania State Representative
December 8, 1998
Dear Representative/Senator-Elect Waugh:
As you may recall, you assisted me about a month ago with a matter involving
the Bureau of Driver Licensing. Specifically, you apparently asked them to
respond to my requests regarding the Privacy Act of 1974 and their solicitations
for a social security number, which they thankfully did. I promptly responded
to their letter by providing them the nearest thing to a waiver as I could obtain.
Your office received a copy of that letter. Unfortunately, I still have not heard
from them as of this writing as to whether or not I will now be permitted to
obtain a Pennsylvania driver's license.
Since then, I have come into possession of a copy of a letter that was sent
from the Social Security Administration to a person in a similar circumstance
as myself that tried and failed to secure a Pennsylvania Driver's License some
3-4 years ago. Please find a copy of that
letter enclosed. I have removed the name and address of the addressee to
respect the privacy of this person. This letter, dated February 1995, confirms
my suspicion that the waiver that section 1510(f) of the Pennsylvania Vehicle
Code requires me to provide, (the one allowing me to not have a Social Security
Number) does not exist.
I believe this letter should resolve once and for all that the waiver
requirement of 1510(f) is null and void.
With that issue resolved, the only thing remaining is for me to provide some
form of "positive identification" beyond my (now expired) Maryland driver's
license. According to the letter I received from Ms. Bickley, the purpose of
requiring positive ID is to attempt to eliminate fraud. I am uncertain whether
she is referring to fraud in terms of granting licenses to unsafe drivers or
whether it be fraud in terms of the separate identification purpose that
licenses also serve. I suspect it is the latter, as I doubt the Social
Security Administration only issues social security numbers to safe drivers.
Sir, as indicated on earlier correspondence, I have no desire to obtain a
social security number. For very similar reasons, I have no desire to obtain
a government-issue identification card. All I wish to do is to be able to
continue to drive as I have for the past 17 years, without fear of harassment,
intimidation, fines, vehicle seizures, arrest, etc. from the commonwealth. In
my life I estimate that I have driven a total of approximately 225,000 miles.
In that time I have caused only 1 accident, which occurred within my first year
of driving and even then there were no injuries. In addition, I had 1 accident
involving a deer and suffered 1 accident caused by another driver. The only
moving citations I received outside of the above accident 16 years ago are 1
speeding ticket and 1 speeding warning. It should be apparent that I am a
very safe driver.
Many people believe that driving is a privilege, not a right. I do not
believe this is accurate, as it suggests that one may drive or not drive
based on any indiscriminant whim of the commonwealth. Surely you'll agree
that the commonwealth is obligated to recognize driving as a right for anyone
who has demonstrated an ability and interest in driving safely, and who has
not demonstrated willful disregard for the safety of others or proven to be
any more dangerous than the average driver. I hope you would agree with me
that the equal protection doctrine would prohibit the commonwealth from
denying anyone with my driving history access to our roads and highways
without uniformly outlawing driving for no less than 65% to 95% of the
current driving population.
All things considered, let me suggest the following legislation be introduced:
As a reminder, I am continuing to drive under the Privacy Act of 1974, without
any state-issued driver's license whatsoever. Please note that I have notified
the Pennsylvania State Police of my activity, and I'm glad to say I have had no
communication with them whatsoever. They will receive a copy of this letter.
Regrettably, I have had a similar level of communication with the Bureau of Driver
Licensing. Even in the one letter I have received, the director of the bureau,
Rebecca Bickley, made it clear she was not responding to my inquiries, but only to
yours. While she did present phone numbers for me to call, I will not attempt to
resolve this issue over the phone. Since this is a potential legal matter, I hope
you'll understand my requirement that all communication be in writing. Since this
apparently is not agreeable to the bureau, I must consider you to be my point of
communication with the state concerning this issue. I am very grateful for the
prompt action you took on my letter of October 23, 1998.
By way of relief in this matter, please inform me what the Bureau of Driver
Licensing intends to do in response to my situation. Will they accept my
application for a driver's license or not? I would like to remain in
communication with you as you transition to the Senate as this matter requires.
Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Cornelius J. McIver
Enclosure: Letter from the Social Security Administration, February 28, 1995.
Cc: Bureau of Drivers Licensing
Cc: Pennsylvania State Police
The Bureau of Driver Licensing eventually responded to this letter.
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.