That doesn’t mean that this is the end of the road, though. It is simply a start. I’m sure that there are more individuals besides John Gilmore who have been directly affected by this. Like Gilmore, they will need to stand up and have the bravery to challenge these laws in court again and again until it becomes a higher priority for the Supreme Court to address. Perhaps Mr. Gilmore will volunteer to help fund these legal challenges.

Max

The SSN is a contract to enter public commerse, you become a taxpayer or in plain words you accept that you are responsible for the deficit and agrees to use FRNs as tender and you contract away your labour. In return you get to do business as a government agency by seting up your own public corporations and get limited liability and the social Servies will fund you.

The Official marriage license is another tricky contract which says that you give the ward of the child to the state and in return you get some tax-benefits. This contract is an extra-special contract which means you sign them with 2 parties. Your partner and the state and the state is the only one that can repeal the contract to be in eliglable.

Quite a scary system of deceaving communism. Because as you get a US. Citizenship through the birth certificate or immigration you become an agent of the government and so you are owned by the people like any other official who takes the oath of office.

This is not tinfoil hat shit. It is real.

The problem starts when you ACCEPT the social security number, this creates a fake “person” that becomes bound to the UNITED STATES. And no, there is no law that you must have a SSN. Yes i have a letter that says so from the Feds themselves.

Start reading.

Seems like he might have had a better case if he focused only on the issue of being shown the rules. Most people are not outraged by the ID policy but by the fact that the policy (in its entirety) can be kept from the public.

Then again there might be something to the TSA’s contention that that there are items in the security policy which if they were made public could be more easily circumvented.

Here is bar far the most relevant part of the initial decision:
“In support of his vagueness challenge, Gilmore relies principally on Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), in which the Supreme Court held that a California statute was unconstitutionally vague because it did not clarify the requirement that a person who loiters or wanders on the street provide “credible and reliable” identification when requested by a peace officer. Although the statute was struck down because it was unconstitutionally vague, Kolender is easily distinguishable from the present case. The statute in Kolender, California Penal Code § 647(e), was penal in nature. In applying the void-for-vagueness doctrine to the statute, the Supreme Court stated that this doctrine “requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357 (emphasis added). Unlike the penal statute in Kolender, the identification policy here does not impose any criminal sanctions, or threats of prosecution, on those who do not comply.
Rather, it simply prevents them from boarding commercial
flights.”