28 votes

South Carolina public school entry requires I.D. scan: I did not comply period!

I had a required IGP (Individual Graduation Plan) meeting for my rising sophomore at the high school today. I knew in advance that a new I.D. scanning system had been installed in our district's schools for "background checks" before school entry is permitted.

I had already "not consented" at the middle school and received some odd looks but my meeting there was kept in the front office so as to avoid my need to be scanned. I was unsure if the high school would be willing to compromise in this manner so I loaded up with pocket Constitutions, a Benjamin Franklin quote ("They that would sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither and will lose both") and my "evidence" that I was not a criminal (my state notary seal [requires a background check by the SC Secretary of State] and proof of election to SCGOP).

When I entered the school office I was told to scan my I.D. I told them "I don't consent". Obviously I was the first "non-criminal" to object and they called in the big guy, the principal, to try to persuade me. The principal told me it was "only" a check to see if I was a sexual predator.

Basically this is what went down: I was invited into the principal's office. I told the principal straight up front that I was not a criminal (and proved it to him) and that my objections were not due to my concern of being "exposed" but rather my insistence that my 4th amendment rights not be violated by unreasonable, non-cause searches. I asked him to "show me the law" that I was required to be I.D. scanned in order to enter a public school. He told me it was not law but policy. I reminded him that "policy is not law" and that the I.D. scan was illegal search under the 4th amendment. I also mentioned that the supposed idea that these background checks are "only" about sexual predators was ludicrous seeing as how if I give up my driver's license #, i.e., "consent", any background check could be performed without my knowledge and that with the government shown to be untrustworthy with Social Security and Veterans databases, I did not like the idea that there system could potentially be hacked and background searches done for political reasons. I told him I had brought him some pocket Constitutions and put the stack on his table. I quoted Benjamin Franklin "liberty or security" to him and gave him the print version of the quote.

I asked the principal how far was enough to "stay safe"? I asked what happens when low credit scores become criteria for "rejecting passage" into schools as low credit scores have criminalized many from attempts at jobs, bonding and other legally necessary associations. I asked him when they would be installing the "naked body scanners" and have TSA gropedowns. How far was he willing to take it for "safety"? I assured him that "TSA type" searches were becoming more and more utilized and would certainly make their way into the school system.

I asked about school registry for next year, seeing as how I will not be allowed into the school to register my child. He was unable to answer that question since I apparently am the only parent in the entire district who has refused the scan.

I reminded the principal that he had more chance of being struck by lightening twice than being killed by a terrorist. I reminded him that he had more chance of being killed by an 18 wheeler than by a terrorist and why didn't we have a moratorium on 18 wheelers etc etc. I asked him how the "home of the free and brave" had become cowering ninnies afraid of the boogeyman. You could see the look of "WTH" in his eyes with a hint of amazement.

I did not freak out, was calm and secure in my "civil disobedience". I was not threatened or harassed and my child's meeting was held in the front office. The guidance counselor even gave me a thumbs up when I reiterated that my refusal to be scanned was on the principled ground of civil liberties.

As soon as I was out of the principal's office, his door was closed and I heard him on speakerphone undoubtedly calling the district office to holler "OPT OUT" on me.

But I made my stand against the injustice of "showing my papers" and I lived to tell about it. Perhaps I planted some seeds of Liberty while I was at it. :)

UPDATE: So far I have an argument against the school on grounds of the Bill of Rights 1 (right to "assemble" with other parents in school functions), 3 (see Griswold v Connecticut: if abortion seekers retain "privacy", so should parents of school children/equal protection under the law), 4 (illegal/fraudulent, unreasonable, non-cause search), 5 (held to answer with no presentment of indictment, no due process, deprived of "liberty"), 6 (charged without "ascertainment of law"), 8 (cruel and unusual punishment = "discrimination" based on refusal to scan), 9 (denied and disparaged rights retained by "the People") 10 (restriction of liberty is a "power not delegated to school districts").

Furthermore, the school district is committing fraud since they do not up front tell a parent that they DO NOT "HAVE TO" scan their I.D. Since it is not a law, but policy, it is not a requirement under law. To not tell parents they have an option to "opt-out", the school district is committing fraud. Additionally, the district is in violation of its own "policy" of "non-discrimination".


I've been through a few phases since I've last addressed this so in a nutshell here's the deal:

My state senator contacted the SC AG and the unofficial word is that the school has the right to i.d. per the SCOTUS. Today we are filing a formal request for "official word" and answers to all of my questions concerning the illegal search. The senator asked that I only submit a few questions...I told him that IMO (and not mine only) that the school had violated 8 of 10 of the Bill of Rights so there were many questions. He stated he did not want to confuse the AG's office. I told him that if all my questions "confused them" then I needed their job and they needed mine. He said I had a good point and to send all the questions. I await a formal/official reply from SC AG, Alan Wilson (Joe's son). More on this story as it comes in...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Proud of You!

Butterfly! You Rock for Liberty!

I'm sure that you are aware

that their actions are just early precursors of what is to come.
They will corral all the "low hanging fruit", that will simply kow-tow to their control, and that will show them where their "problem people" are.
Then, the "problem people" will be targeted for special attention, to put heavy pressure on them to conform.
If this is not successful, then ways will be found to incarcerate or kill the non-conformists.

These people operating these systems are your mortal enemy. They actually do intend to enslave or kill you, and they think they are doing the "right thing", because they are brainwashed.

This is VERY serious, and I applaud your standing up for yourself and your family. But they are just beginning, and they don't plan to let anyone get in their way. You have to be ready for some unsavory retaliation by them.

They can kill me but they can't eat me.....

well, they can eat me but I promise I won't taste good!! >:|

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer


because "Nobody knows the trouble I've seen" LOL ;P

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

That is my FRIEND !

You are an amazing woman; and a true patriot. You set an example to all

You took the time; you went prepared; you knew what you faced and stood like Joan of Arc against "the man". Ok, it was a policy and not an illegal law; but you did it !

LOVE you and all you have done !

Hey C!

So great to see you here!! Try out the search function here and you can find anything your little liberty heart desires to research. You'll love it! :)

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Good for you!

I've learned so much from all of you over the last three years! I'm so proud of this "movement" and stories like this give me the inspiration to keep on keepin' on.

Similar experience

happened to me quite a few years back. There was a planned field trip. I live in Massachusetts. School sent home flyer asking for parent volunteers to go with their child to New England Aquarium. Now keep in mind I would have just been escorting my kid, no one else's. I filled out the form saying I would attend. Then I get another form asking or my SS# so they could Cori me. Also on this form was a Mass General law they passed. I looked up the law and no where did it say anything about taking your kid on a field trip. I called the school and spoke to the principal. I told her I looked up the law and felt they misinterpreted it, and expanded the definition. First of all I'm going to be with big group, so It won't be unsupervised, and second I have unsupervised access to my kid 365 days a year. The principal gave me the usual line of BS about safety. I told her I would not give the school my SS#, and in fact if she checked my GD's records I didn't give the school her SS# either because it's none of the schools business. I hung up and called the Department of Ed. The lady I spoke with agreed with me and said they are expanding the def and I should not be expected to be cori'd she also made a very interesting point. She asked when the field trip was and I told her three days. She said they would not have time to get it completed in time for the trip. Told me to have the principal call her. I called the principal back and she had a major attitude and said that wonderful word It's our POLICY. That word always made the hair on my neck stand up. I really got her pissed when I told her she would not have the time to do the Cori anyway. She said it would be on file for any future trips. I had had enough and told her to call the women at the Dept of Ed. She said n other parents had a problem. I said those other parents have a big problem if they can't recognize when their right to privacy is being violated and I would be showing up for the field trip and if she wanted she could call the police and try to have me escorted out. She was not happy but I did take my GD on the field trip. I attempted to talk with some other parents and they of course were fucking Zombies and gave up their SS#'s and were very happy that the school took safety so seriously.

Good job

I couldn't even keep my cooperative face on to ask for a receipt for the information I dropped off today. I just don't do well with bureaucracy in the best of circumstances and as soon as someone tries to block me out of laziness I just can't pretend I'm still cordial.

Defend Liberty!

(No subject)

Great work!


1. "citizens of the United

1. "citizens of the United States" have no Right to assemble on Federal land.
3. Griswold v conn was regarding a PRIVATE activity, not a public activity...private activity is protected, but once it leaves your body, or you leave your house, the expectation of privacy is gone.
4. there is no unreasonable search at federal buildings
5. no due process is required for privileged, avoidable acts.
6. I dont believe you were "charged"
8. not cruel to require "members" of a "privileged group" to use their "identification" cards.
9. "citizens of the United States" are not the "People" that the Bill of Rights refer to.
10. School land is Federal Land, and as such, the Constitution DOES NOT APPLY there.

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

WITH THIS SAID, I would continue to fight to at least get them to admit what I have stated above. If you file a claim with the State, you will see that it will be dismissed because of a failure to state a claim with which relief can be granted.

The Bill of Rights is for State Citizens, NOT "citizens of the United States", they have INFERIOR rights.

Someone sent me this the other day, and despite the hat, this guy is EXACTLY right:


3 My wallet

(which carries my i.d.) is not considered "private"? Not considered "part of my house" when away from home?

6 I was "charged" and technically so was anyone else who may ever have their children enrolled in the school. Since we may all be "sexual predators", we must prove our innocence over guilt.

10 Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District said "The Court explained that neither "students [nor] teachers shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker remains the leading case on students' constitutional rights in public schools. Now, I see that "students and teachers" were covered under this ruling, so "obviously" this should also "cover" "parents of students".

jb I get what you are saying yet I'm probably somewhere more in the middle. For you to say, in essence, "there's no way you can beat them at their own game, with their own rules", seems very defeatist (while it may be mostly true). That attitude transferred onto our quest for Dr. Paul to be President would = defeat right? Isn't Dr. P trying to "beat them at their own game"? Am I anymore "wrong" to try to "beat them with their own rules" than I would be if I "undid myself" and used a completely different set of rules to try to beat them?

I may not (but I should) have them on the Constitutional issues as you've tried to show me, however I have caught them violating their own policy of non-discrimination, which is double bad for sure under EEOC, ("parents 'employed' as 'human resources' of the school").

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

FIRST, I have NEVER said that

FIRST, I have NEVER said that you cant beat them at their own game!!!

What I am saying is this:

If you want to be a pilot for the Airforce, the Airforce can REQUIRE you to provide them with nearly any document they want...and they can require you to 'check in' with an I.D. card.

I know public schools may seem different, but they are really not.

The Tinker v. Des Moines case agrees with me by relying on the 14th Amendment, (which applies to Federal citizens) for due process instead of the 5th Amendment, which applies to Citizens of the states.

    1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 393 U. S. 505-506.

Why not the Due Process clause of the 5th?

These people sought protection under the 14th Amendment, and therefore were treated as Federal citizens. The Court therefore applied the "incorporated Amendment", the Federal Constitutions first Amendment clause for Federal citizens, and thereby made a ruling, establishing as 'civil law' that students can wear armbands.

The first Amendment that Federal citizens use, is different than the First Amendment for State Citizens:

See Federal First Amendment:

    AMENDMENT [I.] 2
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
    religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
    of grievances.

NOTE the Semi colon after "thereof", not in the original AS ADOPTED? This is used to separate WHAT Congress "shall not make laws" for and what they may not merely 'abridge'. This allows them to 'make laws for' freedom of speech, press, assembling, petitioning the Govt.

now see the REAL 1st Amendment:

The point is, the 1st Amendment in the CONSTITUTION for the UNITED STATES are civil amendments created by law, not the Organic Constitution.

Furthermore, Im not saying that you cant 'win' Im saying that you forfeited your human rights for civil rights when you signed up at that school, and therefore have 'inferior' rights subject to their control...if they decide to let you 'win' then you establish a civil precedent.

For more info see:


    The guidelines herein are based on the GPO Style Manual (2008 edition)

    "►Unless a bulleted item is a complete sentence, do not use periods, semicolons, or “and.” By
    ending each item with a semicolon, and ending the second-last item with a semicolon and “and”,
    you end up with a very long sentence."

    ►►Use a semicolon when you need something stronger than a comma but not as final as a period.
    Example: “It cannot depend simply on extraordinary and talented individuals; rather, it needs to
    become routine at the city level.”
    ►►Use semicolons to separate items in a series that contains commas. Example: “The problem
    can be divided into three components: overall trend; seasonal, daily, weekly cycles; and random
    ►►Use a semicolon to connect two clauses when there is no “and” between them.

    "America – Do not use as a synonym for the United States."

Didn't say you did :P

I said "in essence".

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Fair enough...Im truly not

Fair enough...Im truly not trying to bring you down on your fight! I wish EVERYONE would...I am merely pointing out HOW they can win.

Take the health care bill for example, I don't like it a bit, and I think it seems unconstitutional, but I do believe it will be upheld because of technicalities.


good luck and keep us posted.

No no thank you for your input

I absorb all "your stuff" jb. And I did understand what you said yesterday about "why" Tinker v Des Moines was successful on the side of the students.

It's just disappointing to have to keep recognizing that even if we think we have a grasp on "law", that we really have all been (double and triple) scammed and are still not operating in "true reality". How ridiculous to have to jump through hoops with things that "seem" straight forward or even "common sense" from the heart.

You had me thinking of this song yesterday:

When illusion spin her net
I'm never where I want to be
And liberty she pirouette
When I think that I am free

Peter Gabriel - Solsbury Hill

I bet if I had you around to pump my head full of "the real law", I'd be hell on wheels!! :)

Paul McCartney and Wings - Helen Wheels

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Keep in mind, the only reason

Keep in mind, the only reason we have to "jump through hoops" is because we entered the hoops in the first place...the Amish arent jumping through hoops, (not that I agree with their philosophy) they are living about as free as one can expect, they are never drafted, they dont have drivers licenses, they dont go to public schools, they dont have credit, and on and on.

It was our desire to have things that led us into the maze of hoops.

So when a private business

So when a private business such as an radiology office wants to scan my driver's license, I have a case for opting out? At any rate I did refuse and left the business. I'm guessing I will run out of doctors or similar medical offices to go to sooner or later as the office told me that the federal government was now requiring this of all medical type businesses.

I only wish I had been as prepared as SCButterfly that day.

"Private Business" is a term

"Private Business" is a term that barely exists in America. All businesses that have a license of any kind to operate are "public business", and as such, they have regulations of all kinds. That being said, a business can not deprive you of a service for refusing to provide a "license", especially if the Social Security number is required for the drivers license, as most states are.

The Privacy Act of 1974 states:

''(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.

The Radiology office is probably a corporation which is a quasi-governmental agency


Title 42 U.S. Code, section 408(a)(8) states:
"[Whoever] discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

If the Drivers License has the Social security number in the card, they can not demand to scan it. BUT, if you are requesting some type of benefit that "requires it by law", for example "free healthcare", then you may be required to submit it to receive that benefit.


So in order to meet my child's teachers

I need to denounce my US citizenship????? OY!!!

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer


    Legal Dictionary

    Main Entry: res·i·dent
    Pronunciation: 're-z&-d&nt
    Function: noun
    : one who has a residence in a particular place but does not necessarily have the status of a citizen —compare CITIZEN 1, DOMICILIARY — resident adjective
    Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I think you're missing my point...when you asked the Federal (and STATE) Government for permission to go to their School, they had you fill out forms, this was the Registration process.

In South Carolina there are some "mandatory requirements" for enrollment:

    South Carolina School Enrollment Requirement
    Under South Carolina state law, children must be six years old on or before September 1 to enter first grade. An exception is made for children who have completed first grade in another state that has a different age requirement. To enter kindergarten, children must be five years old on or before September 1. Only children who have completed kindergarten in another state that has a different age requirement are exempt.

    Parents who do not enroll their children in a public or private kindergarten are required by law to sign a waiver to that effect. Children who will be five years old on or before September 1 must enroll in a public or private kindergarten program unless the parent or legal guardian signs a waiver or chooses to home school their child under the guidelines of South Carolina law. Waiver forms are available at your local school. By state law, students must be in school from age five to 16.

    Bring the following for registering your child: (* required) (-- suggested)
    *Birth certificate
    *Shot Records
    *Three proofs of residency (rental agreement, utilities bills etc., housing letter if on post)
    * On post schools also require PCS orders, social security cards, & custody
    documentation from non biological parents.

So, the School now PROPERLY presumes that you are a "resident"...which does NOT mean what you think it means...for example


    the term "resident of South Carolina" shall expressly include all persons authorized by the United States Department of Justice, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, or the United States Department of State to live, work, or study in the United States on a temporary or permanent basis who present documents indicating their intent to live, work, or study in South Carolina.


    In reaching this conclusion, I find that S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-210's use of the term "resident" means "legal resident" or "domicile." I recognize that a corporate "domicile" in one state does not preclude residency in another state. See International Mill. Co. v Columbia Transp. Co. 292 US 511, 78 L ed 1396, 54 S Ct 797 (1934) (a corporation may be domiciled in one state and resident in another since its legal domicile in the state of its creation presents no impediment to its residence in a real and practical sense in the state of its business activities). However, here, in deciding the intent of the General Assembly's use of the term "resident," the more persuasive view is that for property tax purposes the term means the state where the corporation has its "domicile."


    “[N]o person shall be considered a resident for
    purposes of this chapter unless such person is either
    a United States citizen or an alien with legal
    authorization from the U.S. Immigration and
    Naturalization Service.
    ” Ga. Code Ann §


    “Residence and Citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States; and a mere averment of residence in a particular State is not an averment of Citizenship in that state for the purposes of jurisdiction." Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 143

    “Of course the terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important” [252 U.S. 60, 79] (La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465, 470 , 39 S. Sup. Ct. 160)...TRAVIS v. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. , 252 U.S. 60 (1920)

In short, a "resident" is someone who is NOT a Citizen of South Carolina, but is ONLY there temporarily...think of a hospital and the post graduate student doing his or her "residency" at that hospital. He or she will not be there permanently, because they are only a 'resident'.

You made a declaration when you entered the school, and now you are wanting out of the Contract. This is EXACTLY what I have been talking about for years. READ THE LAWS FIRST.

You already Consented to give up your Rights by declaring that you and your kid are FEDERAL citizens, 'residing' in one of the States of the Union. You are an "Alien" with regard to South Carolina Constitutional protection.

I dont know S.C. law, but here in California the State admits it, you are either a "Citizen of a State" or you are an "Alien"

    Persons in the State not its citizens are either:
    (a) Citizens of other States; or
    (b) Aliens.

Therefore, a "citizen OF the United States" would be an "Alien" in California...why is this important?? Because "Aliens" cannot question the Constitutionality of statutes:

    An alien has no right to raise the question whether a statute is violative of Const. U.S. art. 4. Sec 2. declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.
    In re Johnson's Estate, 73 P 424 (1903).



I have to say you and The

I have to say you and The Oracle have really turned a light on in my head. The big boys have been at this for years and have found every loop hole they can out of the Constitution. Once you consent to their version of the rules by coming into their house, they've got you. I know that's pretty simplistic, but I need some time to better understand the mess we're in before I can explain it with more finesse.

you understand completely. If

you understand completely.

If you sign your name under penalty of perjury that you are :
"a really nice guy that likes Ron Paul"

it may be important to know what all of those terms are defined as in the accompanying document.

For example:

For the purpose of this analogy the term "nice" shall be construed to mean dopey where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this contract.

the term "guy", for the purpose of this section includes, terrorist, loser, deadbeat, rapist, and scofflaw.

"likes" means "to eat" or " to consume"

The term "Ron Paul" may be construed to include feces for the purpose of this analogy where such term is not specifically defined otherwise.

This happens ALL THE TIME!!

Indeed! I'm overwhelmed with

Indeed! I'm overwhelmed with all of this fine print.

Funny ghostie

Long ago, you used to say "Take things always by the smooth handle".

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Some times good ol' righteous indignation...

comes in handy! Well done! (#3 could be used against the TSA as well)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

It's become a very sick country.

There's no other way to put it really. I don't know where I'm living anymore. Home of the unfree slave and the coward (not brave) drones who do not think. It really brings home how ludicrous it is to think these administrators will even allow our children to think, much less learn!!

Hats off to you, SC Butterfly.


for grappling with law.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

wow, you did not comply !

but i bet you comply with the IRS. I never complied with that extortion racket that funds the destruction of our beloved republic. Please everyone stop paying into the maddness now. cut off your cable too.