Do I need to respond to the American Community Survey?

Researched/Compiled by Benjamin D. Goss, MBA

THIS IS NOT A COLUMN FOR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE PRESENCE OF INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS OPINION BASED AND USED AT THE USERS OWN RISK.  SHOULD THE READER MAKE USE OF ANY OR ALL INFORMATION LOCATED HERE, THEY DO SO AT THEIR OWN FULLY ASSUMED AND UNDERSTOOD RISK.  THE PURPOSE FOR THIS ARTICLE IS TO PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF RELATED INFORMATION AND POSIT A POTENTIAL RESPONSE.  THE INFORMATION PRESENTED HERE IS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY AND HAS NOT UNDERGONE A LEGAL REVIEW FOR OPINION.

An American Community Survey 2010 survey recently arrived addressed to “RESIDENT.”  Who exactly is that anyway …

I researched the question regarding the highly invasive, and morally questionable content of the American Community Survey (ACS) 2010.  The following is some of the results from that research … which I put into a response and then used for my own response to the letter that was sent.

When dealing with employees or independent contractors hired by the US Census Bureau, please be sure to treat them with the dignity and respect that is due any human being.  Also, please keep in mind that they are only operating out of what they have been told is the truth, and in most cases have neither researched, nor are they familiar with, the issues at hand.  At all times, be respectful and polite.  If you make them mad, or offend them, they are far more likely to try and make things as difficult as they can for you.  The short answer that is somewhat addressed by the information below, is that despite the Title 13 assertions to the contrary, no citizen is bound by law to contribute anything beyond a simple headcount.  Any statements that broaden this are a gross misrepresentation of Federal law and authority granted it under the U.S. Constitution.

####

In accordance with HALE vs. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 (1946):

The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, the only information the U.S. Census Bureau is empowered to request is the “total number of occupants at this address.”

“Name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship, housing tenure, annual income, and other detailed questions” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

Therefore, neither the United States Congress, nor the U.S. Commerce Department, nor its agency the U.S. Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make detailed and personal information requests a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.

In addition, no individual RESIDENT of <<specific address>> can be subject to a fine.

• No individual person is specified as being responsible for answering the survey
• Because residents of a specific address may change, and no time frame is indicated on the American Community Survey 2010, it cannot be ascertained with certainty to who the survey is directed.
• No individual RESIDENT of <<specific address>> can be subject to a fine for basing their conduct on the U.S. Constitution as it supersedes any laws passed by the U.S. Congress.  Laws passed by Congress must first and foremost be Constitutional, and any law that contradicts or contravenes the framers intent is unlawful and therefore no citizen can thereby be reasonably bound.
• No individual of any address can be fined as the U.S. Census Bureau has failed to identify any specific responsible party, nor can they do so.  For them to identify a specific individual as responsible exceeds the bounds of their U.S. Constitutional Mandate and as well exceeds the bounds of their mandate under Title 13.

As indicated in Interstate Commerce Commission vs. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894) Supreme Court:

Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the U.S. Census Bureau], established by Congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, ―and it cannot be too often repeated, ―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and its employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life.

In a never overturned United States Supreme Court case RE Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250 Mr. Justice Field stated, and was upheld in the following:

… of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value ….

Title 13, statutorily protects all data collected. It cannot be given to any governmental agency, such as the IRS or FBI. It will be released after 72 years and can then be accessed for genealogy. The penalty for disclosure is a fine of $250,000, and/or 5 years in prison.  However, despite these statutory protections, disclosures have been made in the past including during World War II (1943), as well as for Arab Americans during 2002 and 2003.  THEREFORE, it is not reasonable to conclude that promises of confidentiality will be honored by the U.S. Census Bureau.  To date no individual at the U.S. Census Bureau has been called to account or held responsible for the release of information, which is a direct violation of U.S. Federal Law.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) lists the following cases as being specifically related to census issues (http://epic.org/privacy/census/):

• Dep’t of Commerce v. US House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999). The Supreme Court held that the current language of Title 13 required that statistical sampling could not be used for the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives.  The American Community Survey is specifically called a sample by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• St. Regis Paper Co. v. US, 368 US 208 (1962). The Supreme Court held that the company-retained copies of census reports could be subpoenaed and used against the reporting company in legal proceedings (so that the paper company was required to submit copies of their economic census forms to the FTC). According to some scholars, this can lower the business community’s confidence in the reporting system and jeopardized the Federal statistical system.
• US v. Little, 321 F. Supp. 388 (D. Del. 1971). The court found that information obtained by the census is strictly confidential under 13 USC § 9 and may not be used other than for statistical reporting and may never be disclosed in any manner so as to identify any person who has answered the questions.  Yet, disclosures have been made.
• US v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 21 FRD 568 (D.N.Y. 1958). This case regarded an antitrust action against a steel corporation, when the US Department of Justice wanted to receive Census reports from Department of Commerce for the investigation. Court stated that the protection of privacy of census information is so clear and compelling that there is no basis for making census records available in such actions.
• US v. Moriarity, 106 F. 886, 1091 U.S. App. Lexis 3634 (S.D.N.Y. 1901).
• In re FTC Corporate Patterns Report Litigation, 432 F. Supp. 291 (D.D.C. 1977). The court decided that Congress intended to protect “copies” of the Census report and not general information relating to Census results. The case was determined from assessments of the legislative history of 13 USC 9(a).

Problems with Constitutionality of American Community Survey 2010

While the U.S. Supreme Court has reviewed the Fourth Amendment as it relates to the Census 2000, and in previous cases, there has been no review of the constitutionality of the census as currently presented under the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment.  Specifically, RESIDENT(S) of <<specific address>> hereby assert that the American Community Survey 2011 is in violation of rights guaranteed under the FIRST AMENDMENT, FOURTH AMENDMENT, FIFTH AMENDMENT, NINTH AMENDMENT, & TENTH AMENDMENT.

• The American Community Survey 2010 is a violation of rights under the FIRST AMENDMENT in that no RESIDENT of <<specific address>> is a Secular Humanist (SH), yet the questions asked on the American Community Survey 2010 support the expression and furtherance of SH values, ethics, and belief system within the current expression of Federal governance.
• The American Community Survey 2010 is a violation of our FOURTH and FIFTH AMENDMENT rights in that it is an unwarranted and significant invasion of privacy without due process
• The American Community Survey 2010 is a violation of our NINTH AMENDMENT rights in that the U.S. Constitution ONLY enumerates a headcount specifically for the purpose of establishing the number of representatives for the U.S. House of Representatives.  To date, no specific challenge has been made against the American Community Survey 2010 under the Ninth Amendment.
• The American Community Survey 2010 is a violation of our TENTH AMENDMENT rights in that the U.S. Constitution neither limits nor specifies the extent to which the headcount can be conducted vis-à-vis the collection of additional data.
  

There are neither specific limitations nor declaration of the U.S. Federal Government’s right to collect additional statistical data beyond the need to establish representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Because it is not thus enumerated, the U.S. Federal Government has express constitutional challenges in the demand of collecting data as requested by the American Community Survey 2010 because:

• The declaration of the US Census bureau that “everyone in your community will be selected eventually” is simply inaccurate due to the massive impracticality of the assertion.
• The declared intent of the US Census Bureau is to continue to randomly sample households for data collection on an ANNUAL basis for “accurate, timely, comparable information,” and not on its constitutionally authorized decennial basis.
• The American Community Survey2010 violates the religious beliefs of some as regarding the survey in its entirety, thus making the assertion of violations and civil penalties for a failure to comply with the survey as being a law that cannot be equally applied to every man or woman in the United States.  The only result then is that any penalties assessed would violate the standard of equal application of law to all and result in religious discrimination.
• “In [only] 21% of the cases, an unannounced, personal visit from a Census Bureau representative follows in a final attempt to get the American Community Survey completed. Often more than one visit takes place” (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-acs-american-community-survey.htm).  Thus, there is no equality in the application of purported Title 13 compliance enforcement.

Confidentiality & Privacy of American Community Survey Cannot Be Guaranteed

Despite statutory promises for penalties for disclosure of census data, the guarantees of the security and privacy of information are not reasonable.  They cannot be reasonably guaranteed now, or in the future, by the US Census Bureau, due to the following pieces of evidence:

1. During World War II, it has now been confirmed, that the US Census Bureau released information to other Federal government agencies requesting names and addresses of Japanese-Americans. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=confirmed-the-us-census-b)
2. The U.S. Census Bureau itself supports the release of information located in their database under an Census Bureau suggested repeal of sections of Title 13.  If the U.S. Census Bureau is willing to talk about the release of some information, then they cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the database in its entirety.  (http://fcw.com/articles/2011/09/13/census-bureau-public-address-database-release.aspx).
3. On September 22, 2006, Alan Sipress of the Washington Post reported that 1,137 laptops had either been lost or stolen from the U.S. Department of Commerce, “including nearly 250 from the Census Bureau containing such personal information as names, incomes and Social Security numbers, federal officials said yesterday.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101602.html).

The US Census Bureau has no statistically verifiable manner in which it can demonstrate that no resampling, re-identification, or survey response doubling may take place (http://epic.org/privacy/census/).  As a result, the overall quality of the survey and information provided thus is degraded.  Because statistical sampling cannot be guaranteed in terms of its accuracy, nor in its confidentiality, the overall usefulness of the data is limited at best.

To date multiple U.S. Federal Agencies have either requested access or attempted to use What Census Bureau data for their own purposes.  This includes but is not limited to the Internal Revenue Service (1983), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service a division of U.S. Treasury Department (1943), and the Department of Homeland Security (2002-2003) which now comprises multiple agencies of the U.S. Federal Government.

CONCLUSION TO AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 2010 RESPONSE

RESIDENT(S) of <<specific address>> hereby rebuts the addressed interrogators Title 13, Section 141 presumption of authority for personal information collection for Census 2010, as specified in the American Community Survey 2010, due to the following apparent Title 13 violations:

• Inability to guarantee with absolute certainty the security and confidentiality of any responses.
• §6(c) restrictions on process;
• §195 restrictions on Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 & Amendment 14, Section 2 process;
• §241 failure of request process;
• §301(a), §303 & §307 lack of authorization to collect information;
• §302 lack of authorization for Chapter 5 or Chapter 7 implementing regulations;
• And, the apparent personal violation of Chapter 1, Subchapter II, §23(c) restrictions on presumptions of Chapter 9 authority.

THEREFORE: The RESIDENT(S) of <<specific address>> hereby retain all rights and privileges under the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 9^th, and 10^th Amendments, and respectfully decline to respond to any questions other than what has been previously provided in accordance with the constitutional mandate to take a headcount.

As was previously provided, and now reasserted herein there are <<##>> persons with permanent residence currently listed as <<specific address>> as of the date of original inquiry.

Continued demands for response beyond the constitutionally mandated headcount are a gross misrepresentation of Federal authority, and constitute unwanted harassment and an invasion of privacy. RESIDENT(S) of <<specific address>> request that you immediately cease and desist any and all demands for the completion of the American Community Survey 2010.

ANY future contact from ANY member, representative or agent of the US Commerce Department, the US Census Bureau, and any associated offices, bureaus, or agencies MUST be preceded by the submittal of the completed, signed questionnaire found in APPENDIX A of this letter.

Respectfully Submitted this 29^th Day of October, 2011

RESIDENT(S) of <<specific address>>

SAMPLE (editable) WORD DOC included Resident Response to ACS 2011 – generic <<This is not a document that has been legally reviewed.  USE AT YOUR OWN RISK>>

This American Community Survey 2010 response researched multiple websites including, but not limited to:

1. http://epic.org/
2. http://epic.org/privacy/census/
3. https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/margo/www/govstat/integrity.htm
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101602.html
5. http://www.toad.com/gnu/census.html
6. http://fcw.com/Articles/2011/09/13/Census-Bureau-public-address-database-release.aspx?p=1
7. http://fcw.com/articles/2010/06/17/florida-census-cloud-computing.aspx
8. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-acs-american-community-survey.htm
9. http://www.wisegeek.com/do-i-have-to-respond-to-the-acs.htm
10. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/us/politics/20census.html
11. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2011/acs-workshop-2011.aspx
12. http://www.truthistreason.net/how-to-legally-refuse-to-participate-in-the-census-survey
13. http://freetoassemble.com/comment/374
14. http://www.gao.gov/decisions/other/289852.htm
15. http://www.dailypaul.com/50362/are-you-required-by-law-to-fill-out-the-census-survey
16. http://radioviceonline.com/the-american-community-survey-do-you-have-difficulty-dressing-or-bathing/
17. https://ask.census.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/781
18. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/09/BAHB1BUGN3.DTL
19. http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/2007/12/american-community-survey.html
20. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2744
21. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul192.html

For a complete listing of websites send an email to a ben@gunsreligion(dot)com

You can have an excellent response that says “no” to the US Census Bureau and the American Community Survey 2010.