I spoke with the neighbor upstairs tonight. They told me that the Census Bureau rep who called did not ask for me by name nor did they give out any of my information or my name. The rep was told they did not feel comfortable speaking for me. No contact info was left but the number on caller ID is available in case I wish to use it.

I did some looking around the Net and read over much of Title 13 and was not able to find what gives the Census Bureau the authorization to request personal information from individuals who aren’t me. Likely the Secretary of the Department of Commerce can do whatever is necessary just as they can ask any questions they wish.

At 3:09PM today I receive a call from the head of the other family who lives above me in the building I rent. I’m informed that a representative of the Census Bureau had called them at 9:30PM Saturday night. Both on their cell phone and land line. The woman, apparently not our friend Edward Marcus, asked for them to provide her with information about me on my behalf. I had previously asked them that in case this were to occur not to even give them my name. I was told they hadn’t but will have to confirm this evening when I speak with them about the incident. I hope that not even my first name was given though it’s possible that it could have easily came out while discussing me. Worst case would be a last name.

My plan currently is to suggest that if a Census Bureau representative contacts them again to inform the rep  that they will not speak on my behalf and not to call back. The neighbor has the rep’s number so if they are told not to call back and do I will call and tell them to leave my neighbor alone.

I need to do some searching through the laws to see if what they are doing is legal. Not that they care I’m sure.

Today I came home to another personally delivered envelope from Mr. Marcus on behalf of the Census Bureau. It looks like it was placed in the second floor’s mailbox and they noticed it addressed to “Occupants of: APT 1.” The “APT 1″ written in pen. It was the same envelope Edward delivered the first time and that he failed to give me on when we had our face to face chat. It has the same US Census 2010 pamphlet as before [page 7 & 8] and the same general warning letter [page 3] but as you’d expect there are some differences. If you look at page 2 there is the Request for Appointment slip. On the one received today the top section is again blank, the Census Bureau Representative and Telephone number are the same but the remarks say:

I am following up on the survey you received in the mail and did not return. I have been to your home and you have refused to allow me to interview you either in person or on the phone. Title 13 of the US Code imposes Penalties for non response to this survey. It is a very brief interview you can do on the phone by calling me. If you do not reach me leave a phone number & a time to call back.

In addition there is a new page which reads:

Please cooperate in our survey which is helpful to determining the requirements of households in your area.

Every resident of the United States is obligated to participate in this survey and there are penalties involved for not co-operating.

The American Community Survey is conducted under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141 and 193, and response is mandatory. According to Section 221, persons who do not respond shall be fined not more than $100. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers from a fine of not more than $100 to not more than $5,000. The U.S. Census Bureau may use this information only for statistical purposes. We can assure you that your confidentiality is protected. Title 13 requires the Census Bureau to keep all information about you and all other respondents strictly confidential. Any Census Bureau employee who violates these provisions is subject to a fine up to $250,000 or a prison sentence of up to five years, or both.

Tricksy they are. This is why the whole “ignorance of the law is no excuse” statement is absolutely ridiculous. They thugs in Washington DC obviously wanted to raise fines so instead of going through existing law and replacing values they go and add a new one that trumps the old values unless the law explicitly says it doesn’t. So this TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 227 > SUBCHAPTER C > § 3571 Sentence of fine reads:

(a) In General.- A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.

(b) Fines for Individuals.- Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of-

(1) the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense;

(2) the applicable amount under subsection (d) of this section;

(3) for a felony, not more than $250,000;

(4) for a misdemeanor resulting in death, not more than $250,000;

(5) for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $100,000;

(6) for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $5,000; or

(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.

(e) Special Rule for Lower Fine Specified in Substantive Provision.- If a law setting forth an offense specifies no fine or a fine that is lower than the fine otherwise applicable under this section and such law, by specific reference, exempts the offense from the applicability of the fine otherwise applicable under this section, the defendant may not be fined more than the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense.

According to Section 3559 since in Title 13, Section 221 there is no classifying letter grade and no imprisonment is authorized, refusal or willfully neglecting to complete the questionnaire is an infraction. According to Section 3571 as shown above an infraction can carry a fine of not more than $5,000.

So it appears that ol’ Ed is trying to intimidate me. I had told him prior I was well aware of the Census law and knew my fine was not more than $100. Well it seems my criminal code knowledge was lacking. Not that this changes anything. In a similar case where two individuals, Russell Kanning and David Ridley, had been issued a fine from the federal government for distribution of handbills and refused to pay the fine they were imprisoned for a period of time. Dave for 4 days I believe and I’ve not yet tracked down Russell’s length though I’ve sent Dave an email asking for the numbers and any info he feels is relevant. You can find his story here, here, here and here.

I found TITLE 13 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 241 Evidence interesting:

When any request for information, made by the Secretary or other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, is made by registered or certified mail or telegram, the return receipt therefor or other written receipt thereof shall be prima facie evidence of an official request in any prosecution under such section.

Does this mean that the hand delivered requests can not be prima facie evidence? Not that they need to worry as they sent me two booklets, a postcard and a letter which they likely have receipts for or could make up if need be.

Also interesting is I finally talked with the occupants of the other apartment in my building and found that they had been contacted by the Census Bureau separately and filled out theirs and returned it several weeks ago. They also informed me that they had been looking for me (our friend Edward Marcus I’m sure) but had forgotten to tell me. What are the odds that both apartment addresses would be chosen or are they just lazy?

I’ll provide a PDF of the new documents tomorrow.

At around 6:05PM today, May 17th 2008, Edward Marcus rang my door bell. I unfortunately wasn’t prepared and was unable to record the conversation.

He told me he was here because “the Census Bureau had sent me a booklet that was never returned” and now he just needed to come in and ask me some questions. I stood in the doorway holding open the secondary screen door with my right hand and placed my left hand up on the door frame so he wouldn’t have any opening for which he could walk in. The conversation was very repetitive. He kept telling me that I needed to provide the info and I refused.

He told me “you can have your libertarian beliefs or whatever but you’re obligated by law to answer these questions.” I told him I was well aware of the law and that I had no plans of providing him any of the desired information. Eventually he asked me just to give him my name so he could “close out the account.” After several attempts to get him to explain exactly what it meant by “closing it out” he told me that when asking questions the person can decline to answer particular questions. That the main office wanted to know why I wasn’t answering their questions. I pieced together what he wanted to do eventually which was to get my name so he could just fill out blanks in all questions. After realizing he was trying to deceive me… trying to trick me into answering the questions I became all the more stubborn.

He again told me I was obligated not only as a citizen (which I’m not since the courts have ruled the State has no obligation to protect me, therefore I’m by definition a subject) but as a person living within the United States to provide the requested information. That it was the law. That it’s necessary. That it’s only every 10 years. That it’d only take a few minutes. That it was constitutional. That it was anonymous. It wasn’t some Big Brother thing. It was used by my congressmen to help allocate money for the roads and schools.

He became agitated and started telling me there were consequences for not participating. Said that they could send more bureaucrats to my home at night to try to get me to answer. That they could request me to show up to the New York office to explain why I am refusing to participate. That they could fine me. It seemed Ed wasn’t very familiar with the legal consequences. He said they could fine me thousands of dollars and perhaps worse. I told him I was well versed in the law and that Title 13, Section 221 says that I could be fined upwards of $100 for refusing to participate and $500 for lying. He then admitted he wasn’t aware of the exact punishments and just knew that he could be fined $250,000 for misusing the census data which he collects. That’s actually not true. It’s “not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” I knew that but I wasn’t interested in arguing with him about that too. I did notice however he was carrying the same hand delivered envelope which I received last weekend so I opened it and showed him where in the letter it said I was obligated and made sure he noticed that I had gotten the title and section correct.

After about 10 minutes Ed seemed to have had enough. I had made it abundantly clear that I was not going to provide him with the data he desired. I wasn’t going to give him my name and was fully aware of the consequences for doing so. He turned to leave and I thanked him making sure I knew my obligations and the consequences and wished him a good night. He didn’t seem to acknowledge my statements and just got into his SUV, put away his laptop, and drove off.

He didn’t leave me with the letter he had for me, didn’t say whether or not he would be coming back, if someone else would be visiting or if I’d be receiving a notice to appear in front of some bureaucrat at the regional office. I’m having fun with this whole situation… I hope they continue harassing me.

Download it here. Nothing all that exciting but good to have digital versions available.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html

The Constitution includes the phrase “[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Congress first met in 1789, and the first national census was held in 1790.

There was actually some debate about whether how and on what time table a census should have been held. In early 1790, several Congressmen argued against a census prior to the next election. Some in the Congress, who advocated an immediate census, noted that those who did not want one were the people from states which were generally regarded as being over-represented in the Congress based on the initial figures provided for in the Constitution. Others were concerned that the questions to be asked in the census, while others felt that more questions should be asked to get a better picture of the citizenry.

For example, on February 2, 1790, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire lamented that the question about profession would be hard for his constituents to answer, since some had three or four professions, depending on the season. Connecticut Representative Theodore Sedgwick, on the same day, wondered why the questions were not extended further - “The state of society could be ascertained, perhaps, in some degree, by observing [the] proportions.”

The final bill, Statute 2 of March 1, 1790, provided that census marshals be appointed, directed to “cause the number of the inhabitants within their respective districts to be taken; omitting in such enumeration Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colours of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age.” The act directed that the names of the heads of families be recorded, the number of white males sixteen and older, the number of white males under sixteen, the number of white females, the number of all other free persons, and the number of slaves. Failure of an assistant marshal to make a return, or to make a false return, was punishable by a $200 fine. Failure of a marshal to do the same was punishable by up to an $800 fine. The questions about profession, and other information Representative Sedgwick spoke of, were not made part of the final census. Census day was set at the first Monday in August, 1790. Failure to cooperate with a marshal or assistant was punishable by a $20 fine.

Today, the controlling law for the U.S. Census is Title 13 of the U.S. Code. There is a lot of census data collected in the United States today, such as economic figures, sales and production figures, and agricultural statistics. Still, the head count is the only part of the census that is called for by the Constitution. The code for the enumeration can be found in 13 USC 141. In this code, the census is directed to be taken in 1980 and every ten years thereafter, and that the count is to be taken on April 1. The returns must be completed within nine months for use in apportionment of representatives. The code also specifies a mid-decade census be taken in 1985 and every ten years thereafter. This count need not be a head count (sampling may be used) though the data cannot be used for apportionment.

The code, at §141(g), notes that “As used in this section, ‘census of population’ means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.”

There are fines for non-response and for false response as well, though the amount has risen from the 1790’s $20. Today failure to respond can result in a $100 fine; providing false answers is a more severe offense, and carries a $500 fine. Recent news reports, however, indicate that punishment for failure to respond is not usually enforced. The controlling section of the Code is 13 USC 221.

Today, all persons are counted as whole persons - the original census counted “other persons” (slaves) as three-fifths persons for the purposes of apportionment. This fractionalization was removed by the 14th Amendment. The Attorney General ruled, in 1940, that there were no longer any Indians in the United States who could be classified as “not taxed.” In the Constitution, non-taxed Indians are not counted.

In 2000, a group of citizens are suing the Census over the questions on the long form - a form sent to one out of every six households. Though the 2000 log form is 18 questions shorter than the long form in 1990, and the shortest since the 1940 census, distrust of the Census Bureau’s ability to keep the data private have many people up in arms about the questions. The suit challenges the ability of the census to ask all of the questions asked. The biggest problem for the suit is the Constitution itself: “[The Census] shall be made … in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct.”

The questions on the long form are there because of legislation duly enacted into law by the Congress and signed by the President. Though the ire of citizens is being directed at the Bureau, the Bureau itself says that the Congress is to blame. The Census Bureau is looking to find ways to collect the data on the long form in other manners, such as polling and sampling. Though there is a possible $100 fine for failing to file with the Census, the Bureau also notes that no one has been penalized for failing to file in the past. The fine is more of a psychological reminder of the importance of the census than a source of income for the government.

Advice to leave the form blank or to fail to fill it in may actually bring more of the government into your life than you want - unfiled and incomplete forms will be followed-up upon by actual census workers, either in person or by telephone.

The U.S. Census Bureau has a web site at Census.gov and also has lots of data about the 2000 Census.

The 2000 census data, along with data from other sources, has been compiled into a user-friendly web-based database by LocalCensus.com.

$20 huh? That’s pretty extreme for 1790. It’s nice to know that they don’t generally enforce the fine but why bother then really? If you don’t hear back from someone why not just pick another house? They are wasting their time (aka our money) by trying to hunt me down. I’m not going to respond.