|
By: David Deschesne
Editor, Fort Fairfield Journal
Fort Fairfield Journal, May 11, 2005
A certificate is a "paper establishing an ownership claim." -
Barron's Dictionary of Banking Terms. Registration of births began in
1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.
Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called
"warehouse receipts." The items included on a warehouse
receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which
governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage
certificate are:
-the location of the warehouse
where the goods are stored...(residence)
-the date of issue of the
receipt.....("Date issued")
-the consecutive number of the
receipt...(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)
-a description of the goods or of
the packages containing them...(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)
-the signature of the
warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent...(municipal clerk or
state registrar's signature)
Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as
"warehouse receipts" under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:
warehouse receipt. "...A warehouse receipt, which
is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is
often used for financing with inventory as security."
Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed
into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered,
certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order
to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out
with the Federal Reserve's banks. The "Full faith and Credit"
of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt.
That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that
debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an
efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end.
Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human
resources," that is.
Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began
on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest
bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head"
basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with
our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of
fresh new chattels to back it.
Additional Birth Certificate Research
Federal
Children
by Joyce Rosenwald
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth
"registration" or what we now know as the "birth
certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold
to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant
mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other
purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of
a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing
of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal
birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children."
This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now
legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal
government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing
license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up
to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for
"permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary
to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free
country."
Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into
family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records
were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official"
records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and
names of their children with the government of the state in which they are
born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you
that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as
proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United
States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been
mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.
In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of
the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their
states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the
Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of
Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such
faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That
foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in
home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit,
conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or
usage in the state from whence taken.
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.
The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The
state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and
appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth
certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly
trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years.
It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself
is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the
social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust,
allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is
true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our
children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now
designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop
born every year."
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the
administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to
enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was
unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield
sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th
amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of
the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as
the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no
burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the
State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state
taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that
Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of
the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without
their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the
Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..)
Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:
I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the
Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters
relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal
funds for the purposes of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in
Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED
REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT
MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A
MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people
of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is
nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal
appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF
BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE
REQUIRED.
By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary
powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act.
Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans
submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several
States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to
what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the
Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO
PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE
CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR
REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.
(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress
and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405;
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.
In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits
to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of
the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved
powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation
of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be
unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some
constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax
Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.
The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to
be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for
Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers
reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May
4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212;
Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559;
Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.
(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option
either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to
give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by
imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a
constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San
Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S.
529.
(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by
cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not
provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and
it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States
. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149;
Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.
The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found
in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up
government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to
tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be
upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has
changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as
human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants
us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or
legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal
jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could
never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected
public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include
serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the
federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when
making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be
treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes
they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and
health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let
them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it.
If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation
upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is
only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the
governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are
indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected
public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then
perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution
be written..........
|
|
|
