Pearson Vue "illegal palm scans"Class Action Lawsuit!
A real life experience and constructive notice handed to a PEARSON VIEW TEST CENTER AFTER THEY REFUSED TO LET ME TAKE A TEST BECAUSE I REFUSED TO GIVE THEM MY PALM SCAN WHICH IS A HUGE VIOLATION OF MY PRIVACY | CIVIL RIGHTS! such participation does not constitute "acceptance" in contract law, because of the absence of full disclosure of any valid "offer," and voluntary consent without misrepresentation or coercion, under contract law. Without a valid voluntary offer and acceptance, knowingly entered into by both parties, there is no "meeting of the minds," and therefore no valid contract.
Most people believe that when an individual places their finger on a fingerprint reader to register their identity in a biometric system, an image of their fingerprint(s) Instead, the biometric matching software extracts and stores what is known as an identity template. In addition Do Citizens and Non-Citizen Have a Right to Refuse a #Biometric Palm Scan?
Requests of data and records from private business) to assemble a comprehensive citizen knowledge base and thus exercise covert control of society in general is a violation of individual privacy and proves to be a valid point.
I.this Constructive Notice that it is a direct violation of State of Arizona and United States Federal Law to refuse to:
(a) Restrict access to a citizens freedom to protect and exercise their constitutional right. If the party wanting to open the account does not provide a social security or palm scam, finger print, or a taxpayer identification
number; OR
(b) Refuse to provide your services to:
1. a client, or potential client, because the client or potential client does not provide a social security number or decline any type of bodily scans/images or a taxpayer identification number, OR Palm Scan
II. You personally, and the Institution you represent, may be liable for damages and attorney's fees to the person or persons issuing this Constructive Notice.
III. In accordance with Section 1 of Publication L.93-579, also known as the "Privacy Act of 1974," and Title 5 of United States Code Annotated 552(a), also known as the "Privacy Act," you are being informed of the following:
"The right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United States. You may maintain in your records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose required by stature or by executive order of the President of the United States."
Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974 specifically provides that 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 number or decline any type of bodily scans/images."
"Right of privacy is a personal right designed to protect persons from unwanted disclosure of personal information..." CNA Financial Corp. v. Local 743, D.C., Ill., 1981, 515 F. Supp. 942, Ill.
"In enacting Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, Congress sought to curtail the expanding use of social security number or decline any type of bodily scans/images by federal and local agencies and, by so doing, to eliminate the threat to individual privacy and confidentiality of information posed by common numerical identifiers." Doyle v. Wilson; D.C. Del., 1982, 529 G. Supp. 1343.
Under the heading Disclosure of Social Security Number, Section 7 of Pub. L. 93579 which inherited to provides that:
"(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 number or decline any type of bodily scans/images."
The 1976 amendment to the Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C.A., Sec 301 et seq., 405(c)(2)(i, iii), states that there are only 2 instances where social security number or decline any type of bodily scans/imagess may be demanded: Taxes and recieving public benefits
V. In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, whenever an agency fails to comply with the law, the party wronged may bring a civil action in the district court of the United States against such agency. Should the court determine that the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or wilful, the agency shall be liable to the wronged party in an amount equal to the sum of:
1. Actual damages sustained, but in NO CASE NOT LESS than $1,000
2. The cost of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees. read more
