Social Security: Mark of the Beast!

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)
Translate this Page!

mobpreviousbutton.jpg (2648 bytes) mobnextbutton.jpg (2403 bytes) mobtablebutton.jpg (3326 bytes)


Appendix C


Citizenship is a complex issue, and many volumes have been written on the subject.  Citizenship and residency and domicile are lawyer weasel words that are made deceptively complex in order to prevent you from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. 

Christ bestowed upon us a Kingdom, where we are prohibited from exercising lordship over others.  Luke 22:25-29   "And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves. But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me,"

We already have a Citizenship.  Philippians 3:20   "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ," Ephesians 2:19  "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"


We are a holy nation according to 1 Peter 2:9-10”

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy."

Notice that Paul got in trouble whenever he used his government citizenship

Here are the basics of government citizenship: You do not need to be a citizen, but if you are a citizen, there are only two kinds of citizenship: state citizenship and federal citizenship.  Those who reside in federal territories or receive federal benefits are federal citizens.  "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government..." (Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383).  Citizens give up natural rights in exchange for political privileges.  State citizens have political rights, such as the right to run for President, and such as the protections acknowledged by the first eight amendments.  Alternatively, Federal citizens cannot have political rights.  Federal citizens are subjects on the federal plantation.  Example: only state citizens can become President, no one from a federal territory, such as Washington DC, can run for President.  Again: territories such as Washington, DC are outside the US.  Again: Federal people cannot have political rights, and cannot run for President. 

If you don't understand this yet, I'll try to explain the chain of command.  State citizens created state governments.  State citizens are masters of their servants.  An association of these servants (who once called their association "The United States in Congress Assembled") became your federal government.  Your Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 granted your federal servants exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia.  I repeat: exclusive legislation in all cases.  DC residents and Fourteenth Amendment citizens are subject to the servants of the servants of the state citizens.  They are not state citizens.  These servants and sub-servants cannot grant rights.  Rights do not come from servants.  You cannot be granted rights you already have. 

Appendix D covers the distinction between the term "person" and the term sovereign.  You had all the birthrights of a sovereign.  I want to introduce you to the sovereign power that you gave up when you consented to be governed.

Sovereignty is delegated from God to you, and it is up to you to keep it. 

After the Revolutionary war, Ben Franklin led a delegation to negotiate the Treaty of Paris, which was signed September 3rd 1783.  This document is what gives America the right to exist.  King George signed over to all Americans the rights of the sovereign, except those that he retained.  All Americans understood, at that time, exactly what power they had. 

US Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9,20 (1829):

"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative."

The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): 

"The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named.  Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people.  The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound."

Read that again.  That's right!  Your birthright means you are not bound to statutes that take away your rights.  Unless, of course, you signed something to give up your birthright. 

[Aside: notice the phrase “shall not be bound” is similar to other Republics, such as the historical account in Acts 22:29 that a Roman officer cannot bind a Roman citizen.  Notice that the word “bind” is used in the Bible to refer to a mark that is both on hands and foreheads.  Deuteronomy 6:8, Deuteronomy 11:18, Proverbs 7:2-3.  Now notice that the word ‘pledge’ as in a pledge of allegiance means to bind.  Strong’s H2254.  A pledge of allegiance is an oath to be bound, and is symbolically a mark on your hands and forehead.] 

Even the very definition of Liberty means you cannot be regulated.  Study the terms Liberty and Liberties in the Law Dictionary.  Another Example: the US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399: The term Liberty “... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary..."

If this doesn't describe your liberty, then perhaps you signed something to give up your rights.  Notice that protecting public interest is not a function of government, at least according to your Supreme Court.  Your government was instituted among men to protect the rights of the innocent.  PROTECTING PUBLIC INTEREST IS CONTRARY TO PROTECTING RIGHTS.  Ben Franklin said that those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither.  Thomas Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty must be periodically fertilized with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Conclusion: the federalists have been given exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC.  There are no sovereign rights in Washington DC. 

Ephesians 4:14-15 (KJV)   "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:"

Colossians 2:20 (KJV)   "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, ... "

Continuing with the topic of federal jurisdiction:

The Presidency is an office of servitude, not an office of authority.  Unless, of course, you signed something to make you subordinate to his authority. 

The story that I think best contrasts today's esteem of servants with the true nature of servitude is the story of Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration.  President Jefferson was sworn into office, and went home to his boarding house for lunch.  All seats at the table were occupied, and no one offered their seat to the civil servant, so he ate his inauguration day lunch alone in his room.  

I'll quote from his inauguration speech later. 

The next time you are filling out a form that asks you to check a box, don't be so quick to confess that you are a US citizen.  (And don't be so willing to waive your right to privacy, fill out confessions, take perjury oaths, or greed after whatever worldly recognition that the form offers).  Without a confession, you might be able to retain basic human rights, such as the right to own property and the right to earn wages. 

Article IV of the Articles of Confederation extended privileges of citizenship to mere inhabitants, with this phrase: 

"... the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states" 

The  Articles of Confederation uses phrases in which nouns are not capitalized proper nouns, and never use the preposition "of", examples:

·         "states in this union"

·         "free inhabitants"

·         "free citizens"

The US Constitution omits references to free, and uses phrases with proper capitalized nouns, and often use the preposition "of":

·         "Citizen of the United States"

·         "Inhabitant of that State"

·         "Resident within the United States"

·         "People of the several States"

·         “residents of the same state”

The 14th amendment created a type of federal "citizenship" which is analogous to ownership.

In your Constitution prior to the fourteenth amendment, the word Citizen was ALWAYS capitalized: Article 1, section 2 (twice), Article 1 section 3 , Article 2, section 1, Article 3, section 2 (five times), Article 4 section 2 (twice) and the 11th amendment (twice).  But, it is NEVER capitalized in the five occurrences within the 14th amendment.  Congress did not forget the proper use of English.  One refers to the proper title of the government's Master.  The other is a word for government property.  Which one are you?

The 14th amendment created a new class of citizenship.  Originally intended for the 4 million freed slaves who had no means of support, it allowed for federal ownership of those who needed federal entitlements in order to survive.  As previously explained, it “is an absurdity" to think that your Constitution would ever be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals.  Under your Constitution, welfare for individuals is not possible without ownership (because welfare is the responsibility of owners, church and family).  This is Biblical. 

Equal protection under the law ?

Lawyers will tell you that the 14th amendment was the great equalizer.  They will tell you that your rights to equal protection under the law come from the 14th amendment.  They will then ask you why you would question such strong protections? 

Compare the following two quotes that acknowledge equal protection under the law:

The 14th Amendment section 1, "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... "

The 5th Amendment "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." 

The US Supreme Court in 1878 case of Davidson v. New Orleans stated that your Constitution is not redundant.  They mean different things.

Recommended reading on the topic of the 14th Amendment: 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266.

Another topic.  The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the 14th amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94)  "The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'  The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

Do you owe direct and immediate allegiance to your servants?  

Another Topic. The term "citizen" as used in government laws

In Powe v. U.S., 109 F.2d 147, 149 (1940)  the court determined what the term `citizen' means in federal statutes.  Notice that the term `citizen', when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens:

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout.  In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."

U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

"A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other."

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks, 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:

"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense...  It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution..."

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 S.Ct 617, 626:

"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122:

 "... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."

(Read that again.  Pay attention.  CITIZENS IN THE US ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT.  What part don't you understand?)

“The terms resident and citizen are not synonymous” Shaffer v. Carter, 252 US 37, at pages 78-79.

“The classification citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress” US v. Anthony, 24 Fed 829 (1873).

125 Fed 322, 325:

"The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:

"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

The US Supreme Court in Twining v. New  Jersey, 211 US 78 (1908):

“The first eight Amendments are restrictive only of National action, and, while the Fourteenth Amendment restrained and limited state action, it did not take up and protect citizens of the States from action by the States as to all matters enumerated in the first eight Amendments.”

The US Supreme Court in Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520:

 "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

That's right!  the US Supreme Court says that fourteenth amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights.


State Citizens have their same rights in all the states because your Federal Constitution in Article 4, section 2 guarantees that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."  

The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of state citizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: "The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other..."

Colgate v. Harvey then concluded that the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms are not guaranteed to 14th amendment citizens.

Merely reciting which kind of citizen you are, is admissible by anyone taking you to federal court. Be careful about checking a box on a form claiming US citizenship.  Example:  The US Supreme Court in Urtetiqui v. D'Arcy, 34 US 692: 

"Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant's behalf."

Your Constitution Article 4, section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens of each state.  K Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123:

"There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State"

That's correct!  If you claim to be a US citizen, you are claiming that you are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of a State Citizen (a right guaranteed by Article 4, section 2).  You are not protected by your Constitution.  You have no rights.  Like Esau, you sold your birthright. 

Hebrews 12:16: See to it that no one is profane, like Esau, who flippantly sold his birthright.

If you are a citizen, it is because you have voluntarily submitted to the dominion of your political community.  Whether you like it or not.  No matter how evil.

US Supreme Court in the 1875 case U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

"Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong.  They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights.... The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government."

A Christian, however, would not consent to be governed.  He already has a King.  He already has a citizenship.  Philippians 3:20  (NIV): "But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,"   We ARE a nation, according to 1st  Peter 2:9.

United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873):

"The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment.  They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions."

Notice the terminology "enter into society" in the 1798 U.S. Supreme Court case Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386:

"The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence.  The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of the legislative power will limit the exercise of it.  This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit..."

And notice the same terminology in Andrew Jackson's second inauguration speech March 4, 1833:

"Constantly bearing in mind that entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty...”

Again notice that citizens have given up a share of liberty, whereas non-citizens keep their rights.

Have you entered into a society that uses a vote to determine the morality of abortion, sodomy, divorce, usury, pornography, and property seizure?  You paid your fair share for these abominations.  Jesus told us not to have dominion over others.  Christians would

·         depart from iniquity (2nd Tim 2:19) and

·         come out from among them and be ye separate (2nd Cor 6:17), and

·         be not partakers (Rev 18:4) and

·         seek citizenship in heaven (Phil 3:20, Eph 2:19, Heb 11:16, etc),

·         agree with adversaries quickly (Matt 5:25 ), and

·         "And be not conformed to this world..." Romans 12:2, and

·         rather be wronged 1st Cor 6:7, and

·         judge not, and love their enemy. 

None of these are possible for someone who is trying, with a vote (or a gun*), to force perverted values on others, or to exercise dominion, or to force others to provide for them.  

*(Aside: Ballot and bullet and bully are etymologically the same word.  They all refer to rock throwing.  Examples:  President Lincoln 8/26/1863 said "Among free men there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet."   Another example: The apostle Paul, admits that before he was converted he stoned to death the saints.  He confesses in Acts 26:10 "When they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.")

State governments were originally founded on Biblical principles.  Here in these United States, or any other Republic, the citizens are the higher power of Romans 13:1.  The civil servants who daily blaspheme God are not the higher powers ordained of God.  They are a terror to good works. Romans 13:1 (KJV): “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."  Romans 13:3 (KJV)  "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil."  The same principles that require you to obey lawful government require you to punish tyrants.

Here are Citizenship issues for the advance student who wants to do some research:

I’ve found coincidences that seem related to the 14th amendment. 

First, The 14th amendment  says that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US, and Social Security Act section 205(c)(2)(b)(i) lists indigent children and immigrants as the only ones who can qualify for Social Security Numbers.  Note that the words “including children” may be construed to exclude all non-children.  For the advanced student: try to find proof that the word “children” in this section of the Social Security Act refers only to government wards. 

Second, there are ASSIGNED Social Security Numbers and ISSUED Social Security Numbers.  Compare SS Act section 205(c)(2) with 20 CFR 422.103 through .104, and 26 CFR 31.6011(b) and (c).

Assigned Social Security Numbers

Issued Social Security Numbers

Are always called Account Numbers

Are never called Account Numbers

Are not for children (in neither SS Act nor SS regulations)

Are for children (SS Act only)

Are not for children (regulations only)


Internal Revenue Code section 6109(d), (I’ve added the emphasis): “The SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER ISSUED to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.”

Search as much as you want, but you won’t find an issued account number.  Yet, this is what your tax law wants.  Every April 15th, you swear a perjury oath to the federal god that you have a number that does not exist. 

There is one last topic to consider.  The word “enumerated” as used in the Social Security Act.  The Social Security Administration has stated on their web site :

“The process of issuing Social Security numbers is called “enumeration,” and over the years it has been one of the most interesting topics involving Social Security.”

Now, here is the legal definition of ENUMERATED:

The term is often used in law as equivalent to “mentioned specifically,” “designated” or “expressly named or granted”; as in speaking of enumerated government powers, ITEMS OF PROPERTY, or articles in a tariff schedule...


mobpreviousbutton.jpg (2648 bytes) mobnextbutton.jpg (2403 bytes) mobappendixbutton.jpg (3341 bytes) mobtablebutton.jpg (3326 bytes)

NOTICE: Steven Dudley Miller, editor, is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related items Belligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel related
AntiShyster MagazineVideo
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom-School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and
defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as
there is no charge for things presented. site relies on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct;
use the service in any way, or manner, that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;
damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone's use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as
we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the site or material contained within.

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable information about you when you visit the site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve our Web site design and our online presence.
Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like: the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed; the time of your visit to the site; the pages you visit on the site; the amount of time you spend on each page of the site and referring site information. In addition to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared with Google. For more information on Google's privacy policies, visit:
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."

Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2019
All Rights Reserved