The Honorable Judge James E. Bradberry
United States Magistrate
101 25th Street
Newport News, Virginia

Dear Honorable Judge James E. Bradberry,

 I need assistance.  The mandate of my religion prohibits me from identifying with
the number of the beast cited in Revelation chapter 13.  My religion also mandates that I
obey every ordinance of men.  I received by revelation and illumination of the scriptures
that the universal identifier number system of this country (as well as cooperating
countries) is the specific fulfillment of the prophecy in Revelation.  I therefore cannot
participate in such a system, loving not my life even unto death.

 I have done much research as to my legal rights in America to not identify with
the number of the beast and yet live within the law.  I have communicated my faith to the
Commissioner of Social Security as well as the Internal Revenue Service and other
interested agencies.  I am committed to being a good citizen with a lifestyle that is
beyond reproach.  I have paid more taxes than I owe to ensure any accusation that I am a
tax evader can be quickly dispelled.  My motive is to be obedient to the Lord and to
glorify the name of Jesus Christ in my respect for persons and government, and for living
a pious lifestyle in all things.

 Though there is no law in the states or the United States that mandates my
participation in Social Security and other like programs, I am not being permitted to live
without it.  There are laws that have been written to protect me from persecution but it
seems everyone to whom those laws apply are wantonly and totally ignoring those laws.
So this is why I am writing to you for assistance.

 Thursday, December 3, 1998, I was in Winn Dixie on Nickerson Boulevard in
Hampton, Virginia.  First Coastal Bank is located on those premises.  I heard an
announcement over the store loudspeaker that said (paraphrased) "First Coastal Bank is
now offering free checking..."  There was an invitation to participate in their free
checking.  I went to the counter and applied for a checking account.  They checked my
identity on two forms of identification and they conducted a background check to verify
the validity of my forms of identification and to show I was not a credit risk.  They did all
this knowing I did not have a Social Security Number because of the prohibitions of my
faith.  When it came time to assign me a checking account, they called another office to
see how to do it without a Social Security Number.  The person they called, Laurie
Phillips (Retail Officer) said I was not allowed to have a checking account without
obtaining a Social Security Number and they had no choice in the matter because of
Federal regulations.

 I told Laurie Phillips that United States statute 93-579 says they must state which
law gives them permission to ask me for a Social Security Number.  If they did not do so
they were in violation of the law.  She told me they were not the government and the law
did not apply to them.  I told them the law did apply because they are a highly regulated
organization with a close nexus with the government since they are performing a power
as an entity in our national banking system on behalf of congress due to the provisions of
our Constitution.  I cited a case where a utility company was ordered by writ of mandate
to give service to a customer who did not provide a Social Security Number.  The court
said the privacy act applied due to the close nexus between the organization's function
and that of the government.  I told Laurie she and the bank were in violation of Public
Law 93-579 in not citing which law gave them permission to ask.

 I went ahead and told Laurie Phillips the statute that gives them permission to ask
for a Social Security Number is in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31.  I told her the
privacy act requires them to tell me if disclosure of a number is voluntary or mandatory
and that should depend on the statute cited as permission to ask for disclosure.  Title 31
says the bank must ask for a Number if the bank pays over $10.00 of interest or dividends
per year.  The statute does not make disclosure mandatory, it is voluntary.  If the person
declines to give the number (the reason for declining is not even necessary) the bank
need only document the person's name and mailing address and have it available if the
Internal Revenue Service asks for it.  The statute was written in compliance with the
Privacy Act.  Disclosure of a number (& obtaining a number) is not mandatory.  I said,
(loosely quoted) "I waive the privilege of receiving interest on any amount in the
checking account.  There is no statute that gives you permission to ask for a number since
I will not be receiving interest or dividends above ten dollars per year."

 The Privacy Act was written and enacted due to the people's concern over the
encroachment of governmental control and interference with individual liberty regarding
privacy and the knowledge certain religious teachings specifically prohibited
participation in such an universal enumeration system that would prohibit persons from
engaging in activities essential for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  In keeping
with the jurisprudence intended of our founding fathers, the government has a
responsibility to not create a system of commerce that excludes a person solely on the
basis of their allegiance to the teachings of their faith that were codified nearly two
thousand years before that same government was given powers to regulate commerce.
They no doubt have a right to ensure the system of commerce is orderly, but they cannot
use the excuse of a policy that is neutral on it's face but undoubtedly discriminatory or
persecutionatory in practice.  If the applicable laws are adhered to in their spirit and
intent, I, my posterity and those of my religious class will be able live in this free society
without suffering undue persecution and hardship.  Given all of this, I ask you to consider
the events that took place after I explained the law to the First Coastal Bank Retail
Officer.

 I was told by the Laurie Phillips that I should call back at another time or wait for
a letter from them.  I told her I desperately needed a checking account, I was in
compliance with the law, they were not in compliance with the law, they offered free
checking on a public announcement, I should not be excluded on the basis the allegiance
to my faith and I would not leave until I obtained the checking account offered or until an
Officer who is accountable for making policy decisions tells me your bank refuses to
allow me a checking account.

 As I waited at the desk, Keith Slattum, First Vice President of First Coastal Bank
telephoned me.

David Alan Carmichael -  Hello!
Keith Slattum -  Hello, Mr. Carmichael?
David Alan Carmichael - Yes sir!
 - Pause
David Alan Carmichael - Mr. Slattum.  Do you know what you are calling me about?
Keith Slattum - Yes, you want us to give you a checking account but you refuse to give
your Social Security Number.
David Alan Carmichael - Mr. Slattum, I did not refuse to give a Social Security number, I
cannot give a Social Security Number, it is impossible for me to give a Social
Security Number, I am prohibited by my religion from having, obtaining or
identifying with such a number.
Keith Slattum - Then Mr. Carmichael, we cannot and it is impossible for us to give you a
checking account.
David Alan Carmichael - What law gives you permission to ask for a number.
Keith Slattum - We are done speaking about this Mr. Carmichael.  This conversation is
over.
David Alan Carmichael - Do you know you are in violation of Federal law?
Keith Slattum -   Mr. Carmichael, I have to ask you to leave the premises.
David Alan Carmichael -  How do you spell Slattum and what is you address if I want to
correspond with you?
Keith Slattum -  S-l-a-t-t-u-m and our address is 2101 Park Avenue, Virginia Beach,
23451, Suite 400.
David Alan Carmichael -  What is your title?
Keith Slattum -  First Vice President.
David Alan Carmichael -  Thank you Mister Slattum.  Good-bye.
Keith Slattum - Good-bye.

 Your Honor,  Mr. Slattum clearly and deliberately violated United States Public
Law 93-579.  Mr. Slattum, as an officer (principal) of First Coastal Bank, is accountable
to United States positive law and his violation is actionable as a criminal offense.  His
refusal to comply with PL 93-579 and C.F.R. Title 31 both constructively and actually
discriminate against me on the basis of religion.  What must be done to file charges
against Mister Slattum for wantonly violating United States statute?  What must be done
to enforce First Coastal Bank's responsibility under the law to not exclude me from
engaging in an administrative function subrogated to them by the United States that is
necessary for livelihood and liberty and closely knit to my natural rights?

 Your honor, if I and my children are excluded from participating in the nation's
banking system because the banking system is designing itself to exclude us, we will
surely die.  I see more and more reports of the cashless society that is being engineered
by our government in cooperation with the world banking system.  That will require us to
have a bank account or we will not be able to live.  Person's in Congress no doubt
believed the Privacy Act would preclude the system excluding person's like me, my
children and those of my religious class.  If the laws written to secure liberty and
maintain our free society are not enforced, then let us please remove the tenets of our
confession that tout this country as free; market our armed forces as those intended to
secure commerce above liberty; and allow the monuments of those who sacrificed their
lives for freedom turn to dust.

 Sincerely and in great travail,
 
 

David Alan Carmichael