Leitgeb Suing State of South Carolina Over Social Security Number Requirement to Receive Drivers License.

I am taking on our socialist/fascist government regarding the Social Security Number, or as some of us like to refer to it, the Socialist Slave Number. SSN No For those of you who know me know how much this whole concept offends me. This was a labor of love. I made it a point to put down on paper all those thoughts that were jumbling around in my head. While the initial writing took only hours, producing a 79 page document that I could submit as a lawsuit required better than 240 hours. That is almost two months of my life, but hey, somebody has to do it.

As a Christian, I am aware of the prophecies concerning the mark of the beast (a mark that enables one to buy and sell), but even ignoring the scripture's warning, people should be alarmed. The Social Security Number is offensive to every American principle; it is offensive to freedom.

As Thomas Paine once expressed, "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government."

All these arguments are laid out in my lawsuit (provided here as a pdf). (Please note that it is a larger file, approaching 20 megabytes.)

For those of you who believe that I am off the deep end, you should take a look at the following bill sponsored by Michael Pitts, South Carolina Representative.

H4470

This bill shows that I am not the only one anticipating the loss of liberty that the Federal Government will impose on us through the use of the Social Security number. After a brief conversation with Representative Pitts (SC Representative of the Greenville Area), I have concluded that we are basically on the same page. The only question that remains is whether we will be successful in this cause through the courts or through the legislature.

You can listen to an explanation of my lawsuit by going to Liberty News Radio. Liberty News Radio. After clicking on Show Archives you will find my interview under the 2nd hour of October 21st for the Liberty Round Table.

Unfortunately, living without a Social places an extra burden on me and my family. I have decided that it is a waste of time to seek employment with any of the larger more established companies. I have effectively become a second rate citizen. I am beginning to imagine what it might have been like growing up as a Jew in Nazi Germany around the 1930's. Their rights were not taken away from them in a single hour. It was a gradual process, judging from the movies I have seen. The Germans could not have handled a full-scale revolt, so they removed one right at a time.

I can only imagine that the very first loss of liberty the Jews at the time experienced was prejudice in the courts. I can only imagine a Jewish lawyer coming home to dinner and telling his wife, "If only I did this, or said that, then I would not have lost the case." All the while, he could only suspect the vastness of the prejudice that was organizing against him." All the while, his friends and neighbors assurred him that he was paranoid.

In the meantime, I must resolve myself to working for a substandard wage. The corrupt establishment has successfully placed the label of 'outlaw' on my lapel. For the moment, I must resolve myself to accepting the charity of others and accepting those smaller jobs from individuals who are sufficiently plugged into the system that they can still maneuver.

Fortunately, there are a few that have walked this path ahead of me who are willing to teach others. They explain the ins and outs of living the life of an outlaw.

From my reading of Jeremiah, I learn of the many parallels between that society and ours. More on this later.

A special thanks to David Carmichael (www.Christianliberty.org) and Aaron Bolinger (http://www.nvcca.net/media.html) for their contributions.

Posted Mid-October 2010


Update Mid-November 2010

I received my answer to my complaint against South Carolina this mid-November. For their first defense (the first 4 pages), they deny just about everything except their own names and the action of denying me a license. For the next 24 defenses (the next 8 pages), they give all the reasons why they are immune, why my lawsuit is frivolous, why I was grossly negligent in applying for a license, and why they can't be held responsible for any of their actions. I welcome anyone to look at their answer and tell me if I am misleading you. Defendant's Answer (4.5megs). Please pray with me that if this nation is going to continue to allow our public servants to be immune from scrutiny and civil lawsuit, that these public servants will soon find out that they are not immune from God's judgement! Anathema Maranatha!


Update Early December 2010

The Defendants have motioned the South Carolina Courts to dismiss the lawsuit at the same time that they opened the lawsuit in Federal Court. (The defendants paid the $350 fee!) Their motion was granted.

I am not sure if this move is positive or negative. In reality, the case belongs in Federal Court because I reference Section 1983 of US Code, but I pray that this does not give the State of SC an unfair advantage.

This is my response to the required Rule 26.01 interrogatories of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Notice my answer to the question #2 where I am asked, "Jury or Judge Trial?" I firmly believe that this case (and many others like it) is not going to be won by being nice. Professional? Yes, but not nice.


Update Mid January 2011

I have just mailed two addendums to the Defense Attorneys. These outline in detail how S.C. and its DMV is engaged in fraud! The first addendum shows in detail how the DMV violates numerous laws because they fail to properly identify to the applicant if the Social Security Number is voluntary or mandatory. The second addendum shows in detail a bulletin sent out the Insurance department stating that all insurers MUST verify a valid SC license before issuing an insurance policy when in fact this is not required by law.


Update Early April 2011

Recently an acquaintance/friend of mine was imprisoned. His crime? Not paying several tickets for driving without a license. The reason he does not have a license is because, like me, he opposes identifying himself with a Social Security number. I look at him and I see my future. In hopes to free my friend from this persecution, I have made a motion for a stay of execution for his behalf. I argue that if he had the options 6 months ago that he will have at the end of this lawsuit, he would never have been incarcerated.


Update Mid April 2011

Today I followed through with a Request to Join Bob Fondry as a co-plaintiff. This is a bit of a long shot. The final date to modify the original Complaint was in March. I argue that this date should be modified because of the concept of "tolling." Tolling means that you are forgiven time that you are in prison and do not have access to legal assistance."

This month I received the Defendants' answer to my interrogatories. What a scam! This is what I have come to expect from government lawyers. Can you say obfuscate? I have made a motion (for the second time) to compel the Defendants to answer my questions.

I also received the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In order for a motion to dismiss to succeed, it has to be a clear cut case where there are no disputed facts and the only issue on the table is a matter of law. The Defendants have made a desperate attempt. They focus on my religious objection to the Social Security Issue. The problem is for them is that I am already aware of the prejudice that exists out there against Christians and their beliefs. My religious objection is only about 15% of the original complaint. The following is my Response to their Motion to Dismiss.

I am almost complete with my own Motion to Dismiss. In my arrogant opinion, I will once again run rings around them logically (and legally). I can't wait to finish it up and send it out.



"Today's federal government is too big, too powerful, and too expensive because it is doing things beyond the scope of the Constitution. This is foolish and it is dangerous." —newly elected Georgia Rep. Paul Broun .

Any government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. (researching)