Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

[Goldhedge]

Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

The information below explains how a fictitious “alter ego” of the real you exists. The fictitious version of you has been created in an effort to justify acts that would be unlawful if applied to the real you. Government documents show the United States went bankrupt in 1933. Operating government on credit requires enormous collateral. Government itself produces no wealth. Flesh and blood people do. Your “strawman’s” life and property have been pledged as collateral1 for government debt!


The Birth Certificate

Since the early 1960′s State governments, themselves legal fictions as indicated by full caps, have issued birth certificates to “persons” using all-caps names. This is not a lawful record of your physical birth, but a legal fiction indicated by the use of all-caps. It may look as if it’s your proper name, but that’s impossible since no proper name is ever written in all-caps. As you will see, the Birth Certificate is the government’s created legal instrument for its legal title of ownership, or deed, to the personal legal fiction they have created.One factor to recognize, before going any further, is the governmental use of older data storage from the late 1950′s until the early 1980′s. As a “leftover” from various Teletype oriented systems, many government data storage methods used all-caps for proper names. At first, this may have been a necessity of the technology at the time, not a deliberate act. Perhaps, when this technology was first being used and implemented into the mainstream of communications, some legal experts saw it as a perfect tool for their legal fictions. What better excuse could there be?

However, since local, State and Federal offices primarily used typewriters during that same time period, and Birth Certificates and other important documents, such as Driver’s Licenses, were produced with typewriters, it’s very doubtful that this poses much of an excuse to explain all-caps usage for proper names. The only reasonable usage of the older databank all-caps storage systems would have been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in bulk, including payment checks, which the governments did frequently.

Automated computer systems, with daisy wheel and pin printers used prevalently in the early 1980′s, emulated the IBM electric typewriter Courier or Helvetica fonts in both upper and lower case letters. Shortly thereafter, the introduction of laser and ink jet printers with multiple fonts became the standard. For the past twenty years the only rational excuse for the government to use all-caps is if older data is still stored in its original form and has not been translated due to the costs of re-entry. But this does not excuse the entry of new data, only “legacy” data. In fact, on many government forms today, proper names are in all-caps while other areas of the same computer produced document are in both upper and lower case. One can only conclude that the use of all-caps when printing a proper name is no mistake.


Birth information is collected by the state and turned over to the U.S. The all-caps fictitious corporate entity is then placed into a “trust”, known as a “Cestui Que Trust”. A cestui que trust is defined as: “He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another; The beneficiary of another.” Cestui que use is: “He for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held by another. The cestui que user has the right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession, as well the duty of defending the same, reside in the other.”

Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States which acts as the “Debtor in Possession.” We are designated by this government as human “resources” or human “capital“. You may have noticed that all “personnel” offices have been converted to “human resource” offices. The government assumes the role of the Trustee while the newborn child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. Absent the fraud involved, legal title to everything the child will ever own is vested in the government. The government then places the Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the “guardians.” The child may reside in the hands of the guardians until such time as the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state then goes into the home and removes the “trust” from the guardians. At the age of majority, the parents lose their guardianship.

All Christian births used to be recorded in the family Bible only. The reason for instituting the Birth Certificate is so the state can claim title to your person. It is a common law principle that says what one creates one may control. Via your state issued Birth Certificate in the name of your all-caps person you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal, State and local governments. This legal maneuver is compounded further when one obtains a driver’s license, marriage license or a Social Security Number. You have no Rights in state-approved birth, marriage, or even death. The state claims the sovereign right to all legal fiction titles it creates.

And it doesn’t end there.

The creditors of the United States were getting nervous by the mid-1960′s. President Nixon had to collateralize more debt. He settled upon a plan to quietly set aside huge tracts of American land with their mineral rights in reserve to cover the outstanding debts. But the American people were already angered over the Vietnam “war”. Nixon couldn’t very well admit that he was parceling out huge chunks of the United States to holders of U.S. debt. So, he invented the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and passed draconian environmental laws which served to grab land with vast natural resources away from the owners and lock it away, proving to the holders of the debt that Americans are not drilling, mining, or otherwise developing those resources. As the government sinks deeper into debt, it grabs more and more land, declares it to be a “wilderness,” “heritage river,” or “wetlands” area. There are various other designations, but the end result is the same: The People may not use the land. In many cases they are forbidden to set foot on it.It is not about conservation, it is about establishing collateral. YOUR land is being stolen by the government and used to secure loans the government really had no business taking out in the first place. Given that the government cannot get out of debt, and is collateralizing more and more land to avoid foreclosure, the day is not far off when the people of the United States will be told that they are no longer private citizens with private property rights but mere tenants living on another’s property. This day will arrive swiftly if Americans give up their firearms.

http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/your-birth-certificate-life-is-pledged-as-collateral/

[Goldhedge]

As a side note: the only way the government can gain control over you like this is with your consent.

How do they accomplish this feat? You volunteered for it.

How did you 'volunteer' for it?

Contracts...


"What 'contracts' you say?

Birth certificate - your parents voluntarily obtained it
Marriage License (http://goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?5651-To-whom-are-you-married-%28by-contract%29&p=46902&posted=1#post46902) - you voluntarily applied for, paid a fee and received
Driver's license - you volunteered that you are a driver in commerce
SSN

to name a few...


Ignorance of the law is no excuse and the government has no duty to inform you of 'the law' they are using.
Once you reach the age of majority (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a023.htm), 18, it is assumed that you have the ability to understand.
You are of legal age and are responsible for your actions.

[Goldhedge]

INSTRUCTIONS: 0.6. How the IRS traps you into liability by making you a fiduciary for a dead "strawman"

1. A constructive trust is created when you are born. The trust document is your Birth Certificate. Many birth certificates says "Informant"� below the signature for the witness. This is the government informant who is a witness for the state of the creation of the constructive trust.

2. Within the constructive trust that is created when you are born:

2.1. You are the "Trustee"� of the trust. The trustee must always be a natural person and he acts as the fiduciary for the Beneficiary.

2.2. The "Beneficiary"� is your "all caps strawman". For instance, if your name is "John Doe"�, then your strawman's name is "JOHN DOE"�. Your strawman is literally dead, but he is still considered as a "legal person"�. This strawman is simply what people in the legal field refer to as a "res"�. A "resident" is simply a legal person called a "res" that is "ident"-ified within a given jurisdiction, and not necessarily someone who physically lives in that jurisdiction. In the case of a "taxpayer" under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39), that place is the District of Columbia:

Res. Lat. The subject matter of a trust or will. In the civil law, a thing; an object. As a term of the law, this word has a very wide and extensive signification, including not only things which are objects of property, but also such as are not capable of individual ownership. And in old English law it is said to have a general import, comprehending both corporeal and incorporeal things of whatever kind, nature, or species. By "res," according to the modern civilians, is meant everything that may form an object of rights, in opposition to "persona," which is regarded as a subject of rights. "Res," therefore, in its general meaning, comprises actions of all kinds; while in its restricted sense it comprehends every object of right, except actions. This has reference to the fundamental division of the Institutes that all law relates either to persons, to things, or to actions.

Res is everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status. In re Riggle's Will, 11 A.D.2d 51 205 N.Y.S.2d 19, 21, 22. The term is particularly applied to an object, subject-matter, or status, considered as the defendant in an action, or as an object against which, directly, proceedings are taken. Thus, in a prize case, the captured vessel is "the res"; and proceedings of this character are said to be in rem. (See In personam; In Rem.) "Res" may also denote the action or proceeding, as when a cause, which is not between adversary parties, it entitled "In re ______". [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1304-1306]

2.3. The "Grantor" or "Creator"� of the trust is the Government. It creates the "res" of benefits and rights that constitute the body of entitlements you have under the law.

3. Anyone who is a "Trustee"� is treated in law as a "fiduciary"� for the strawman. All government or financial documents you sign containing the name of your strawman you are signing as his "fiduciary"�.

4. Your decision to act as the fiduciary for the "strawman" is a voluntary choice. Any taxes for which the strawman is liable therefore become voluntary, because you didn't have to "volunteer" to act on behalf of the strawman.

5. You can un-volunteer to act as the fiduciary for your "strawman"�. The process known as "UCC Redemption"� allows you to gift the "benefits" or "privileges"� but not the "liabilities"� of your strawman to a natural person, who can be either you or someone you know. You may have heard of the term "identity theft"�. UCC Redemption essentially amounts to "identity gift"�.

6. According to the Statutes at Large, 53 Stat. 9, Section 312(a):

(a) FIDUCIARY OF TAXPAYER-Upon notice to the Commissioner that any person is acting in a fiduciary capacity such fiduciary shall assume the powers, rights, duties, and privileges of the taxpayer in respect of a tax imposed by this chapter (except as otherwise specifically provided and except that the tax shall be collected from the estate of the taxpayer), until notice is given that the fiduciary capacity has terminated.
[Statutes at Large, 53 Stat. 9, Section 312(a)]

You can see the above statute yourself at:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Fiduciary.pdf

7. IRS Form 56 is the vehicle by which you indicate to the IRS the status of any fiduciary relationships that you might be involved with. You can also use this form to terminate fiduciary relationships.

8. Your "strawman" is what we call your "statutory interface"� to the commercial world. If you completely abandon your strawman, you will not be able to function within the commercial world. You cannot therefore completely abandon your strawman because you might starve to death! However, if you gift the "liabilities"� of your strawman without gifting the "benefits"� or "privileges", you can outsmart the system.

9. The Internal Revenue Code is an indirect excise tax on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity which is either a corporation or a partnership created under the laws of the federal but not state government. In fact, the term "income" is defined by the Constitution only as the "corporate profit" of this corporation. A partnership is a form of "corporation"�. Income tax on the privilege of doing business as a corporation as measured by the profits of the corporation . See section 5.6.5 of The Great IRS Hoax for further details on this subject.

10. Corporations are "citizens" under the Internal Revenue Code. Corporations are also beneficiaries of a trust. The trust document is the corporate charter that created the corporation under an act of the legislature. The trustees are the officers of the corporation.

"A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only."

[19 Corpus Juris Secundum legal encyclopedia, Corporations, §886]

11. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a U.S. person is the only proper subject of the tax code and that person is a corporation. That "U.S. person"� is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30). 26 CFR §301.6109-1(b)(1) identifies this "U.S. person"� only as an "it" and not a "he"� or "she"�. Such a person can be either a resident alien or a citizen residing in a territory of the United States.

26 CFR - CHAPTER I - PART 301

§ 301.6109-1 Identifying numbers

(b) Requirement to furnish one's own number --

(1) U.S. persons. Every U.S. person who makes under this title a return, statement, or other document must furnish its own taxpayer identifying number as required by the forms and the accompanying instructions.

12. When you file a form 1040, you are basically indicating to the government under penalty of perjury that you are either a trustee or an officer of a foreign/alien corporation that resides in the federal zone. The PDF Form 1040 says in the upper left corner that it is only submitted by "U.S. individuals". An "individual"� is either an "alien"� or a "nonresident alien"� under 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3). Since "nonresident aliens"� file the PDF Form 1040NR and since you didn't attach an IRS Form 2555 to your 1040 that you did file indicating you were a "U.S. citizen"� under 8 U.S.C. §1401 who is living overseas, then the only type of "U.S. individual"� you can be is an "alien"�, which is synonymous with a "resident" under 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii). This "alien" is living inside the federal zone and is subject to federal laws and police powers. The W-4 form you mistakenly filled out and submitted to your employer indicated in the upper left corner that you were an "employee"�. The term "employee"� is then defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) as a "public officer" of the United States government, which just happens to be a corporation under 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A).

13. The federal government only has jurisdiction over "foreign commerce"� under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Taxation internal to states of the Union is a plenary power reserved exclusively to states of the Union under the U.S. Constitution Amendments 9 and 10. See sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.11 of the Great IRS Hoax.

14. The strawman is identified in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p. 880 as "demsonans":

"demsonans-sounding the same or alike. Having the same sound. The term applied to names which are substantially the same, though slightly varied in the spelling, as Lawrence and Lawrance."

15. Your "strawman"� is therefore a "corporation"�, and "corporations"� are the only types of entities that the federal government is authorized to tax under the Constitution.

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/0.6HowIRSTrapsYouStrawman.htm

[Goldhedge]

DYODD

The United States Corporation and the Strawman

In 1871 the United States incorporated in England and therefore became an English corporation under the rule of the Crown (Rothschild). As you see, corporations are not governments and can only rule by contracts through corporate copyrighted policy. How can a corporation ever have authority over you?* By contract! ONLY BY CONTRACT!

Today The United States is a District of Columbia corporation. In Volume 20: Corpus Juris, Sec. § 1785 we find "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State" (see: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287). Since a corporation is a fictitious "person" or entity (it cannot speak, see, touch, smell, etc.), it cannot, by itself, function in the real world. It needs a conduit, a transmitting utility, a liaison of some sort, to "connect" the fictional person, and fictional world in which it exists, to the real world.

LIVING people exist in a real world, not a fictional, virtual world. But government does exist in a fictional world and can only deal directly with other fictional or virtual persons, agencies, states, etc. *In order for a fictional person to deal with real people there must be a connection, a liaison, and a go-between. This can be something as simple as a contract. When both "persons," the real and the fictional, agree to the terms of a contract, there is a connection, intercourse, dealings, there is a communication, an exchange. There is business! *But there is another way for fictional government to deal with the real man and woman: through the use of a representative, a liaison, and the go-between. Who is this go-between, this liaison that connects fictional government to real men and women? It's a government-created shadow, a fictional man or woman ... with the same name as ours.

This FICTITIOUS PERSON was created by using our birth certificates as the MCO (Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin) and the state in which we were born as the "port of entry". This gave fictional government a fictional PERSON with whom to deal directly. This PERSON is a STRAWMAN.

STRAMINEUS HOMO: Latin: A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. This definition comes from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th. Edition, page 1421. Following the definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO in Black's we find the next word, Strawman. STRAWMAN: A front, a third party, who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purposes of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term "strawman" as: 1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.* 2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction.

The Strawman can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a nonentity. The Strawman is a "shadow", a go-between. For quite some time a rather large number of people in this country have known that a man’s or woman's name, written in ALL CAPS or last name first, does not identify real, living people. Taking this one step further, the rules of grammar for the English language have no provisions for the abbreviation of people's names, i.e., initials are not to be used. As an example, John Adam Smith is correct. ANYTHING else is not correct. Not Smith, John Adam or Smith, John A. or J. Smith or J. A. Smith or JOHN ADAM SMITH or SMITH, JOHN or any other variation. NOTHING, other than John Adam Smith identifies the real, living man. All other appellations identify either a deceased man or a fictitious man: such as a corporation or a STRAWMAN.

Over the years government, through its "public" school system, has managed to pull the wool over our eyes and keep us ignorant of some very important facts. Because all facets of the media (print, radio, television) have an ever-increasing influence in our lives, and because media is controlled (with the issuance of licenses, etc.) by government and its agencies, we have slowly and systematically been led to believe that any form/appellation of our names is, in fact, still us: as long as the spelling is correct. WRONG!* [N. of E.: The author refers here to the correctness of the form of writing our names from the legal perspective.]

We were never told, with full and open disclosure, what our government officials were planning to do and why. We were never told that government (THE UNITED STATES) was a corporation, a fictitious "person". We were never told that government had quietly, almost secretly, created a shadow, a STRAWMAN for each and every on of us, not only in the US but in the entire planet, so that government could not only "control" the people, but also raise an almost unlimited amount of revenue —so it could continue not just to exist, but to GROW. We were never told that when government deals with the STRAWMAN it is not dealing with real, living, men and women. We were never told, openly and clearly with full disclosure of all the facts, that since June 5, 1933, we have been unable to pay our debts. We were never told that we had been pledged (and our children, and their children, and their children, and on and on) as collateral, mere chattel, for the debt created by government officials who committed treason in doing so. We were never told that they quietly and cleverly changed the rules, even the game itself, and that the world we perceive as real is in fact fictional and it's all for their benefit. We were never told that the STRAWMAN —a fictional person, a creature of the state— is subject to all the codes, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc., decreed by government, but that WE, the real man and woman, are not. We were never told we were being treated as property, as slaves (albeit comfortably for some), while living in the land of the free —and that we could, easily, walk away from the fraud.

WE WERE NEVER TOLD WE WERE BEING ABUSED!

There's something else you should know: Everything, since June 1933, operates in COMMERCE! Commerce is based on agreement, contract. Government has an implied agreement with the Strawman (government's creation) and the Strawman is subject to government rule, as we illustrated above. But when we, the real flesh and blood man and woman, step into their "process" we become the "surety" for the fictional Strawman. Reality and fiction are reversed. We then become liable for the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Strawman, relinquishing our real (protected) character as we stand up for the fictional Strawman.

So that we can once again place the Strawman in the fictional world and ourselves in the real world (with all our "shields" in place against fictional government) we must send a nonnegotiable (private) "Charge Back" and a nonnegotiable "Bill of Exchange" to the United States Secretary of Treasury along with a copy of our birth certificate, the evidence, the MCO, of the Strawman. By doing this we discharge our portion of the public debt, releasing US, the real man, from the debts, liabilities and obligations of the Strawman. Those debts, liabilities and obligations exist in the fictional commercial world of "book entries", on computers and/or in paper ledgers. It is a world of "digits" and "notes", not of real money (gold and silver) and substance. Property of the real man once again becomes tax exempt and free from levy as it must be in accord with HJR-192 (House Joint Resolution 192).

Sending the nonnegotiable Charge Back and Bill of Exchange accesses our Treasury Direct Account (TDA). What is our TDA? Let's go to Title 26 USC and take a look at section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii), $1,000,000 limitation: "The aggregate amount treated as acquisition indebtedness for any period shall not exceed $1,000,000 ($500,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return)."

This $1,000,000 (one million) account is for the Strawman, the fictional "person" with the name in all caps and/or last name first. It is there for the purpose of making book entries, to move figures, "digits" from one side of ledgers to the other. Without constant movement a shark will die and quite ironically, like the shark, there must also be constant movement in commerce, or it too will die. Figures, digits, the entries in ledgers must move from asset side to debit side and back again, or commerce dies. No movement, no commerce.

The fictional person of government can only function in a fictional commercial world, one where there is no real money, only fictional funds... mere entries, figures, and digits.

A presentment from fictional government —from traffic citation to criminal charges— is a negative, commercial "claim" against the Strawman. This "claim" takes place in the commercial, fictional world of government. "Digits" move from one side of your Strawman account to the other, or to a different account. This is today's commerce.

In the past we had addressed these "claims" by fighting them in court, with one "legal process" or another, and failed. We have played the futile, legalistic, dog-and-pony show —a very clever distraction— while the commerce game played on.

But what if we refused to play dog-and-pony, and played the commerce game instead? What if we learned how to control the flow and movement of entries, figures, and digits, for our own benefit? Is that possible? And if so how? How can the real man in the real world, function in the fictional world in which the commerce game exists?

When in commerce do as commerce does, use the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? The UCC-1 Financing Statement is the one contract in the world that can NOT be broken and it's the foundation of the Accepted For Value process. The power of this document is awesome.

Since the TDA exists for the Strawman —who, until now, has been controlled by government— WE can gain control (and ownership) of the Strawman by first activating the TDA and then filing an UCC-1 Financing Statement. This does two things for us:

First, by activating the TDA we gain limited control over the funds in the account. This allows us to also move entries, figures, and digits ... for OUR benefit.

Secondly, by properly filing an UCC-1 Financing Statement we can become the holder in due course of the Strawman. This gives us virtual ownership of the government-created entity. So what? What does it all mean?

Remember earlier we mentioned that a presentment from government or one of its agents or agencies was a negative commercial claim against the Strawman (and the Strawman's account, the TDA)? Remember we told you entries, figures, and digits moved from one side of the account to the other, or to a different account? Well now, with the Strawman under our control, government has no access to the TDA and they also lose their go-between, their liaison, their "connection" to the real, living man and woman. From now on, when presented with a "claim" (presentment) from government, we will agree with it (this removes the "controversy") and we will ACCEPT IT FOR VALUE. By doing this we remove the negative claim against our account and become the "holder in due course" of the presentment. As holder in due course you can require the sworn testimony of the presenter of the "claim" (under penalty of perjury) and request the account be properly adjusted.

It's all business, a commercial undertaking, and the basic procedure is not complicated. In fact, it's fairly simple. We just have to remember a few things, like: this is not a "legal" procedure —we're not playing dog-and-pony. This is commerce, and we play by the rules of commerce. We accept the "claim", become the holder in due course, and challenge whether or not the presenter of the claim had/has the proper authority (the Order) to make the claim (debit our account) in the first place. When they cannot produce the Order (they never can, it was never issued) we request the account be properly adjusted (the charge, the "claim" goes away).

If they don't adjust the account a request is made for the bookkeeping records showing where the funds in question were assigned. This is done by requesting the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax Return for this claim. Since the claim has been accepted for value and is prepaid, and our TDA account is exempt from levy, the request for the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax Return is valid because the information is necessary in determining who is delinquent and/or making claims on the account. If there is no record of the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax Return, we then request the individual tax estimates and individual tax returns to determine if there is any delinquency.

If we receive no favorable response to the above requests, we will then file a currency report on the amount claimed/assessed against our account and begin the commercial process that will force them to either do what's required or lose everything they own —except for the clothing they are wearing at the time. This is the power of contracts (commerce). We should also mention that no process of law —"color" of law under present codes, statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc. — can operate upon you, no agent and/or agency of government (including courts) can gain jurisdiction over you, WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. You, (we) are not within their fictional commercial venue.

The Accepted for Value process, however, gives us the ability to deal with "them" —through the use of our transmitting utility/go-between, the Strawman— and hold them accountable in their own commercial world for any action(s) they attempt to take against us. Without a proper Order, and now we know they're not in possession of such a document, they must leave us alone ... or pay the consequences.

Yes, this process IS powerful.* Yes, it CAN set us free from government oppression and control.

When you read the above article about the STRAWMAN, you would understand better that you do not own anything because everything was "bought" by this fictitious entity created by the UNITED NATIONS. They created the strawman, they own it. The strawman is your name in all caps. You think it is you, but it isn't. You are only an "authorized signature" for it. Look at your checkbook, it has many lines, all of them are solid but one. The line where you sign your name, look at it very closely, it looks like a dotted line, is not even straight like the rest of the lines. Blow up this line and you will see that there are words written in the line, Voila: "AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE". They even hide this from you. You do not own your checking account either, it is in the name of the straw entity, you are only an authorized signature. And you thought that Communism was bad because people didn't own anything, everything belonged to the state, right?. At least people there knew, here they do not even tell you, it is a frivolous lie.

The whole system was created to have you in slavery, "modern slavery" of course. All of the countries in the world have adopted the same bank system, they all have "strawmen" since 1934. If you were born before this date you can see that your birth certificate is capital and lower cases. For people born after this year the name will appear in all caps, your strawman was born, not you. Remember on the story of the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy found three people. The first guy was a lion, he lived in fear, this represents "We the People" always living in fear. Then she found a tinman, it had no heart, like the banksters, they do not care if you loose your house, if you live on the streets, if you have no food, as long as they accomplish their goals. And, finally, she found the strawman, and remember what he didn't have: a brain. Strawmen have no brain, they are stupid, and that’s why you need a "lawyer" to defend you in court, because for them, you have no brain.

Please forward this in an email. Everybody must know about this. If we unite we are stronger. Remember we are more than them.
They are a small group. We can still do something about it. If you stay still and do nothing they win. Remember we are all One unto God. Let’s be GOD again!

http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/the_matrix_the_federal_reserve_the_banks_and_the_s trawman.htm

[bing]

Three houses on my street are "Republic of Texas". They have been telling me about this for years. Al, the revered leader of the group, just got out of prison on a three year bit for income tax evasion and just went back for two more years for forgery. Issuing forms drawn on his birth certificate to pay off all debt. (In this case, tickets for issuing their own drivers licenses, license plates, insurance etc.). Not saying it isn't true, but beware. "They" will get tired of you sooner or later and squash you like a bug.

edited to add:

and thats exactly what the judge told him. "You may pay a 250 dollar fine and leave now." "But I've done nothing wrong" "Then you have gone past being a nuisance and are now committing crimes. I sentence you to two years".

[Goldhedge]

Yeah, I understand. I only post stuff for recreational abusement.

Amusements, I find interesting on the net....DYODD

================================================

Ray Cox > Sui Juris Law - The Self Governing

Are you a Living, Breathing, Eternal Spiritual Being, experiencing this Hologram, or, are you part of the Hologram itself?

When you were Born, the STATE (not State), Created a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (a fiction claim of ownership of the value the HOLOGRAM IMAGE OF YOU might produce), which you did not sign, date, or put your seal upon, but those working for the STATE claim you agreed, by placing your FOOT PRINT on the document.

When no one made claim of this CERTIFICATE CLAIM of value, within 45 days, another CERTIFICATE was made, the BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and this CERTIFICATE was used to make the SALVAGE CLAIM against the CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH that had not been claimed. You did not participate with that instrument either, and it was still just a CLAIM OF VALUE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE HOLOGRAM BEING, and although that HOLOGRAM BEING was named using the same letters used in your name, they were all UPPERCASE, as the FICTION HOLOGRAM has to be, to distinguish it from the Living Being.

This FICTION ENTITY is not you, never was you, never will be you! It is a HOLOGRAM, a DEAD PIECE OF PAPER! That CERTIFICATE was then issued an Insurance Policy, which you did not pay for, and was Monetized, which you did not participate in either. You did not deposit that FICTION VALUE, nor did you know it was possible to even be done. You did not trade the instruments created from these Documents, open accounts, account for losses, move the monies, or in other words, you had nothing to do with the creation, growth, or management of these CERTIFICATES, and in absolute fact, these documents, and FICTION CLAIMS are not yours, were not yours, will never be yours, and to Claim otherwise is a FRAUD, and since these DOCUMENTS are traded Internationally, you would in that case be violating International Banking Law, and are facing Criminal Charges for that Fraud.

So, it is not your BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and you have no right to make claim of it, and there is no description of the Idiocy, of attempting such a claim, which would only prove to the FRAUD that you are their HOLOGRAM, and STRAWMAN. DO NOT BE SO STUPID, AS TO ATTEMPT TO TIE YOURSELF TO THE HOLOGRAM FICTION!

[silverblood]

There is no true consent in any of those examples you gave. The truth is that the oligarchs put a gun to your head and force you to live according to their rules. The sad thing is, most people are unaware of the gun, and most of the few who are nevertheless back the State's use of force against them. False contract or no, everyone has a right to resist aggression.

[bing]

Goldhedge, I wasn't trying to argue with you, merely stating what happened to my neighbor. The last fourteen years, he has spent most of sitting in the county jail. (When he wasn't in prison). What Silverblood said, but you may well spend the rest of your life locked up. My wife lived under martial law for nine years. We are well aware of the implications.

[AGG]

To Counter the Birth Certificat ownership idea; I give you the Pennsylvania constitution.

Section 1 . Inherent Rights of Mankind
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 3. Religious Freedom
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

Section 25. Reservation of Powers in People
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article (article 1) is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

Consider the 'high powers' to be that of individual religous freedoms / responsibilities of God's laws and are extant from general powers of govornment. Consider that 'stateism' is a 'ministry' of Sec 3.

The article you sited seems correct in that freedom, independance and liberties are contracted away with our (often coerced or compelled or defrauded) participation. But much of this is done at age of majority; not birth. Otherwise, the religious freedoms and moral accountability granted and required by the Creator and recognized in State Constitutions (Pa's for example) would be voided.
In 1998, the U.S. Congress also passed (in Public Law) the International religious freedoms Act which basically repeated section 3 of Pennsylvania's Constitution.

Barnabus, in his writings after the desolation of Jerusalem and the favor shown to those who remained through the persecutions by Nero and the Jews, by their excape across the Jordan River to Pella; wrote that the people should not cease from meeting together as if they were already sanctified (forever) due to the power shown in their favor and the fear of God that it would have instilled in all the world. He wrote that they should guard more than ever against contracting with the govornments and thus remain sanctified from 'the world' and establish the self and associated govornment of the kingdom of God (the creator).

This is noted for 'in house' understanding and application in accordance with the wisdom of Electric Amish.

[minimus]

Section 25. Reservation of Powers in People
To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article (article 1) is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

Consider the 'high powers' to be that of individual religous freedoms / responsibilities of God's laws and are extant from participation in statist govornment in accordance with the correct interpretation/application of Romans 13. Consider that 'statism' is a 'ministry of Sec 3.



Out of context the reference to "higher powers" might seem to mean "individual religous freedoms / responsibilities of God's laws" but in context it means exactly what it written i.e., "To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated,..."

This means transgressions of appointed government officials, appointed by we the people.

[Goldhedge]

But much of this is done at age of majority; not birth.

Correct observation.

Ask any adult "What is the age of majority and what does it mean?" and see what the answer is.

Ask any child the same thing.

If you get more than 10% knowing I would be impressed....

The problem is they don't teach a thing about law in this regard.

The 'age' most teens look forward to is 21 when they become an
adult and can drink themselves silly.

Ask them what a Promissory Note is and what it means.

Ask them where money comes from.

These are concepts that should be common knowledge by the age of majority, don't you think?

[AGG]

Out of context the reference to "higher powers" might seem to mean "individual religous freedoms / responsibilities of God's laws" but in context it means exactly what it written i.e., "To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated,..."

This means transgressions of appointed government officials, appointed by we the people.http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

I can see your point and thanks for the clarification; but I think it means a similar idea; with 'the high powers' in this instance being those 'delegated' by the people; and those things in article 1 (individual religious [or moral, political] freedoms & free birth status both among article 1) being 'excepted' out of the 'general powers' of govornment.

I think that I was reading 'delineated' for 'delegated' and "against' for "of" and that the 'high powers' were those of God which 'the people' recognized; with individual religious liberty and free birth status among them. But the effect remains similar.

[AGG]

To follow this up a little:
The 14th amendment states that those born (or naturalized) in the U.S. (and subject to its [congresses] exclusive jurisdiction) are citizens of the U.S.

But the states constitutions declare: All men are born equally free and independent.

Is it not evident then that the 14th amendment 'birth citizenship' is referring to those born in a federal territory over which congress was given exclusive jurisdiction? This exclusive jurisdiction was likely given to congress through the influence and persuasion of certain people within the foundational group.

When those free-born in a State become political U.S. citizens subject to congress it must come after age of majority and through uncoerced, frauldless conscription (naturalization) or freely, fully informed, uncoerced and uncompelled contract as Goldhedge has stated.

Addressed to Goldhedge.

Could you elaborate on what a 'promissory note' is.
Also what do you think is meant by 'endorsing' the back of a check?

[Goldhedge]

Just found another link.

The National Council on Identity Policy
Legal History: Birth Certificates & Identity
idhistory.NCIDPolicy.org

The National Council on Identity Policy (NCIDP) was born of the struggles of one tenacious survivor of domestic violence and stalking. The NCIDP continues her work with the help of many. Read more about the NCIDP...
~
This is a page from the NCIDP "A Brief History of Identity" collection. These pages are intended to provide a context for understanding the development of legal principles regarding identity information as it continues to bear upon modern legal governance of identity information. This is an extract of a history of this subject highlighting those aspects that enhance understanding of why the laws of today are such as they are, and how they came to be that way. These pages are intended to cast important perspective upon relevant law, but are not intended as a comprehensive sociological study of these subjects.
Throughout most of history, by custom and tradition, an ordinary individual's declared name was the extent of identity information used to describe a person. There were no Social Security Numbers, Drivers' Licenses, Passports, voter registries, deed polls, credit reports....
Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).
Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.
* Birth Certificates *

In England, where English Common Law arose, even into modern times a birth certificate is not given official regard as an identity document, although the novel phenomenon of demanding it as such has very recently arisen parallel with this same novel trend in the U.S. [and has led to a 2004 statute in Britain authorizing issuance of new birth certificates in some cases, despite its official status as NOT being an identity document]. Indeed, the early advent of birth certificates bore no impact upon the ability of an individual to change identity at will, initially being devoid of identity information specific to any individual, and the complete and universal disregard for their existence in daily business and life prevented their existence from infringing upon that right. That is, birth certificates were not solicited for any purposes except later in contested inheritances of noble titles, and so their rare existence did not disclose the existence of any former identity of an individual, and such information remained strictly private throughout life.

Presently, in U.S. law, a birth certificate continues this legal tradition and does not dictate an individual's contemporaneous legal identity, and is Constitutionally prohibited from doing so. (Marbury v. Madison (S Ct., 1803); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); Harman v. Forsenius (S Ct., 1965); Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (S Ct., 1989); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.; Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); et al.). In order to make any use of a birth certificate subsequent to birth in proper accordance with the rule of law, it is necessary for states to issue new birth certificates to an individual upon identity change, and without cross-reference to any prior identity information or certificate, at the sole direction of that individual. Failure of any agents of the state to do so constitutes felony violations of law. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1001, 1028, et al.).

The concept of the birth certificate appears to have derived from customs among nobility, where it was originally applied strictly among nobility. It was a determination of a putative heir to a noble title, and the role of this certification was to ensure the ongoing lineage of that particular noble title. Acknowledgment and acceptance of a child as an heir by a noble family was optional, and at the discretion of the noble head of household. Such 'certifications' were issued directly by heads of noble households as acknowledgments of a potential heir and inheritance right of that heir, and could be issued or revoked at any time by that noble (the putative heir could be disowned) to any individual able to fulfill the duties of the role of heir to that title, even an individual biologically of another lineage (the noble could adopt any child or adult as an heir).

During later times of increasingly stringent patrilineal patriarchy, family noble lineage became predominantly patrilineal (passing from patriarchal head of household to patriarchal heir), and gender role associations by such certifications slowly emerged. The right to inherit noble titles also came to be determined more formally in the order of seniority of potential heirs, giving rise to an interest in determining the order of the acquisition of a potential right to inherit, later becoming more stringently the order of birth (hence documentation of dates of birth, and increasingly consistent issuance of such certifications at birth).

In other words, the 'birth certificates' were certifications of noble lineage and inheritance right that came to be based upon reasonably demonstrated ability to properly fulfill the social role expectations of a patriarchal heir to a family lineage. Any heir without such acknowledgment was not a noble patriarchal heir, and therefore was not documented by such certification. In short, the ancient legal role of a 'birth certificate' was more akin to the modern legal role of a will for noble titles (and the estates associated with those titles). But, again, to ensure the ongoing lineage of that particular noble title. This is why, to this day, the stigma of an 'illegitimate', or 'bastard', conception is so extreme, and nearly on par with feminizing epithets directed at putative males.

Such 'birth certificates' were also not originally in the form of paper documentation, but in symbolic form, such as a grant of right to wear a noble family crest or shield or other symbols on armor or clothing, or go into combat under the standard or banner that represented the noble family, with the putative heir granted the greatest leadership authority (second to the nobleman patriarch himself) under that standard or banner. In these early forms, there were no representations of identity information specific to the individual heir, but only familial information and the putative rights of inheritance to familial noble title. Modern birth certificates sometimes retain vestiges of these early traditions in the form of disclosing parental identity information on the face of some birth certificates.

In general, a putative heir had ongoing opportunity to earn acknowledgment of paternity and masculinity (patriarchal suitability), and the right to inherit, from the putative paternal nobleman throughout life, and could even re-earn it again subsequent to being disowned. Later, when the system of nobility was banished from the U.S., this control over "birth certificates" at law was transferred from the patriarchal nobleman to the free individual, conforming it to the same standard (dictated exclusively by the individual) as for identity change dating to earlier times when name was the full extent of identity. (Marbury v. Madison (S Ct., 1803); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); Harman v. Forsenius (S Ct., 1965); Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (S Ct., 1989); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); et al.). Consequently, by common law within the U.S., the power to issue, withdraw, change, reissue or entirely omit a birth certificate is entirely at the discretion of the individual described by that birth certificate. This individual power clearly remains wherever and to whatever extent legislatively enacted laws, pursuant to case law, have not abrogated.

However, it is this history of determination of worthiness for inheritance of a noble title that leaves, to this day, a most profound social shaming in being deemed an 'illegitimate' or 'bastard' child.

In time, as churches gained power relative to the aristocracy, and influence over that aristocracy, blessings from the church for potential heirs came to be sought by the nobility. Church records of these blessing may have become the first iterations of birth certificates to resemble the modern form of them. Gradually, as church power continued to grow and England became a religious state, these church birth and baptism records evolved into the status of, and then eventually were issued by, the government. Still, to this day, certificates of baptism by a church or mission retain the same weight of common law and documentation of birth as a government issued birth certificate, and the statutes of many jurisdictions enumerate that equity of weight in various forms and parts.

In time, too, issuance of such certifications spread to commoners, first as a novelty practice as is still routinely issued by hospitals (note that if issued clerically, as may occur at a religious hospital, such certificate may also bear the same legal weight as can be given certificates of baptism).

Eventually, the idea emerged that widespread, consistent issuance of birth certificates could aid governments in estimating the number of individuals that might be available to be conscripted into military service for the conduct of wars, as well as might be subject to direct taxation. Here again, the interest was in documenting putatively masculine individuals for potential conscription, and little concern was held for the documentation of anyone who was other than male. In time, then, efforts began to apply the concept of birth certificates more and more broadly in society, beyond the nobility; and the evolution of how birth certificates have been used (and misused) may be the quintessential example, spanning scores of centuries, of the phenomenon often referred to as "mission creep".

Without a system of nobility, and having a secular government by design, the optional nature of birth certificates became universal in the U.S. after the American Revolution. Indeed, issuance of "birth certificates" at birth, in the fashion that we understand them today, was irregular and even rare within the U.S. until the late-Twentieth Century, spearheaded by efforts of the U.S. Department of Public Health that were initiated in the McCarthyist wake of World War II.

Thus, the first generation in this country to be issued state birth certificates at birth with any hint of regularity, the Baby Boom Generation, are only now recently retired or nearing retirement, and state-issued birth certificates remain an extremely novel and legally/Constitutionally tenuous practice. Certainly such practice must conform to the Constitution and must not impair the rights of individuals to be known exclusively by any chosen identity "as if held from birth", even where any statutes have attempted (perhaps illegally and unconstitutionally) to infringe upon the common law rights of individuals to directly dictate (as a self-determined individual free of the dictates of nobility) the contents of such birth certificates at will. (Marbury v. Madison (S Ct., 1803); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); Harman v. Forsenius (S Ct., 1965); Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (S Ct., 1989); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.; Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); et al.). That is, even where statutes may have attempted to authorize state regulation of birth certificate content and exclude the traditional direct dictation of it by individuals, the state must still conform such content to the identity information chosen at will by an individual to comply with the second legal power over such content held by individuals, which is the Constitutionally protected right of individuals to be known exclusively by any identity that may be chosen at will and "as if held from birth".


One fun fact of law, very quirky (to our modern thinking), result of this history is that, to this day, unless an original-issue birth certificate enumerates that a child was born a male child, the child is considered "other than male" at law.

Eugenicist ideals (here predating even the coining of the term "eugenics") for the concept of "biological determinism" further held that to be biologically male, a putative male must be fully biologically able to sire (impregnate a woman with) a child. Any reproductive deficiency whatsoever that prevented a putative male from that capacity rendered the individual less than fully male, legally "other than male" – unable to carry on the noble family lineage. Indeed, with patriarchal ideals at their peak, to successfully sire only female children threatened the putative male's standing as such. This is why, to this day, no epithets are more profoundly insulting and damning for a putative male than feminizing epithets.

Remember: The origin of the birth certificate was to ensure the ongoing lineage of given noble titles. Consequently, an infertile, or incapable putative male who might be unable in any way to carry out this duty to reproduce and provide their own heir were consequently unfit as heirs themselves, and swept into the category of "other than male".

It was thusly that men came to be profoundly invested in blaming women as "barren" to explain their failure to produce an heir, regardless of the biological facts involved. To this day, it is profoundly damning to a woman to be identified as "barren".

Since the U.S. eliminated the system of nobility, that means that in the U.S., all birth certificates that don't document "male" are lumped together, at law, as "other than male". Thus, birth certificates listing "female" are legally indistinguishable, in regards to gender, from any birth certificate lacking a gender designation or the complete lack of a birth certificate entirely, and are superfluous.

This legal standard continues to apply in the U.S. However, because identity is at law is wholly self-recognized and self-determined, the birth record determining gender or any other aspect of identity is merely a historical footnote of its best guess at birth and predating the individual's capacity to make and express those self-determinations. [See Overview of Identity.]

Although this legal fun fact appears to be reasonably well known to the modern U.S. legal profession, it receives little attention as it may not be very significant given the apparent overall Constitutional and modern legal irrelevance of the information to which it applies (gender). Since identity is, in purest form, a sense of self, and its appropriate representation can ONLY be self-determined and self-selected, we know that in practice and at law, the gender identity spectrum involves innumerable variations and potential categorizations. [See Overview of Identity.]

At law, the effective result is that the requirement for proving oneself to society as male has been obviated and replaced with the less burdensome requirement that one need only prove oneself male to oneself. Sociologically and psychologically, however, this burden to prove oneself masculine to society remains apparent in schoolyards and sports arenas across the country and around the Westernized globe.

Notably, U.S. military regulations through much of the latter half of the 20th century were often based upon, or at least interpreted to convey, these eugenicist ideals for biological determinism, and any slight deficiency of reproductive capacity was cause for discharge (medically unfit for service). In practice, these regulations appeared to be largely unenforced upon most servicepersons with minor 'deficiencies', unless they were deemed to be 'transgendered', at which point the same deficiencies overlooked for most members were used to discharge the so-called 'transgendered' members. [Also see the Case Study: DSM V page.]

Note that birth certificates without gender designation often, historically, happened in regards to children born with Congenital Variations of Sexual Development (CVSD), or in any case where the child was not putatively a male. [For more on CVSD, see the Case Study: DSM V page.]

Note also that many children born with Congenital Variations of Sexual Development (CVSD) subsequent to the rise of McCarthyist fascism were arbitrarily designated "male" or "female" at birth, despite their obvious clinical ambiguities, and often were surgically altered or mutilated shortly after birth in an attempt to achieve conformance to that arbitrary designation. This is a historical anomaly, whereas throughout most of history indeterminable gender at birth was widely recognized and accepted, and the practice of such arbitrary designation was not supported at law (in other words, a falsification of the record), or necessitated at birth due to wide recognition that such determination could not be finalized so early in life.

Indeed, it wasn't until 1999 that the Social Security Administration deleted notation on application forms for Social Security Cards that providing any gender information was entirely optional and that the field could be left blank. Throughout the history of the Social Security Administration, until 1999, where those applications solicited gender, the application forms made clear that providing that medical information was completely optional and could be omitted. It is unknown what new Public Law went into effect in 1999 that is purported by the Social Security Administration to have mandated this new intrusion into the privacies of individuals, and any such data recorded prior to 1999 can reasonably be presumed inaccurate and/or unsubstantiated. The new post-1999 forms also do not accommodate other intermediate gender designations, and so data records subsequent to 1999 can be reasonably presumed to be falsified routinely regarding any individuals with any Congenital Variations of Sexual Development, similar to many post-McCarthysist birth certificates.

The return of gender equality at law in the latter Twentieth Century, and equality among heirs regardless of the order of their birth, in inheritance, rendered gender designation and recording of dates of birth on birth certificates legally moot, relegating that information to the realm of personal and private, protected medical information. Although the case remains that only male gender designation on a birth certificate confers legal status as a male, and all others are "other than male", the designation no longer bears upon inheritance, and so it's presence, and the record of the date of birth, on such certificates of lineage is superfluous and not supported by law. In that venue, such information has become an unnecessary intrusion into the private sphere of individuals. It may be that the very existence of birth certificates is superfluous and moot at law. (Olmstead v. U.S. (S Ct., 1928, Brandeis dissenting opinion later asserted and ratified, by: Griswold v Connecticut (S Ct., 1965); Miranda v Arizona (S Ct., 1966); US v Katz (S Ct., 1967); Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (S Ct., 1989); Hill v Colorado (S Ct., 2000); et al.)).

A final note about age: The old adage, "you never ask a woman how old she is!", is custom stretching back through ancient history, and a matter of common law. The custom is related to the evolution of birth certificates and applicable to all who were 'other than male heir to noble title'. Indeed, at common law in the U.S., it applies to all who are 'other than male'. Moreover, since age has become moot even for males, given the equity of inheritance right among heirs regardless of birth order, it is likely just as applicable to those who do identify as 'male'.


http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html

[Goldhedge]

The National Council on Identity Policy
Legal History: Passports & Identity
idhistory.NCIDPolicy.org

The National Council on Identity Policy (NCIDP) was born of the struggles of one tenacious survivor of domestic violence and stalking. The NCIDP continues her work with the help of many. Read more about the NCIDP...
~
This is a page from the NCIDP "A Brief History of Identity" collection. These pages are intended to provide a context for understanding the development of legal principles regarding identity information as it continues to bear upon modern legal governance of identity information. This is an extract of a history of this subject highlighting those aspects that enhance understanding of why the laws of today are such as they are, and how they came to be that way. These pages are intended to cast important perspective upon relevant law, but are not intended as a comprehensive sociological study of these subjects.

Throughout most of history, by custom and tradition, an ordinary individual's declared name was the extent of identity information used to describe a person. There were no Social Security Numbers, Drivers' Licenses, Passports, voter registries, deed polls, credit reports....

Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).

Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.

* Passports *
Passports originated as letters from the King or Queen requesting safe conduct for the bearer. These were not identity documents as we understand such today, but correspondences directed to any whom the bearer might encounter.

Such letters could be for domestic travel within the realm of the issuing monarch, directing all subjects of the realm to refrain from hindering the travels of the bearer, and provide aid as needed. These early passports were originally issued to agents of the monarch conducting official duties to better enable those agents to fulfill those duties, or to aristocrats, merchants, and travelers from foreign lands, if requested and granted. Common or average individuals generally never obtained or saw such documents. Domestic passports were issued to recipients regardless of the national origins or loyalties of the recipient.

These early passport letters could also be in a form for foreign travels, such that the issuing monarch requested free and unfettered passage be granted to the bearer, but without the weight of law outside that monarch's realm. As with domestic passports, these were generally issued for the conduct of official duties, or to aristocrats or merchants by request. Such foreign passports bore no weight of law outside the realm of the issuing monarch, but were intended, in part, as an assurance that there were no international hostilities involved in the business and travel being conducted. These foreign passports, then, could be taken to the monarchs of other realms and presented by the bearer in accompaniment to a request for a domestic passport, as above, which would then have the weight of law. Keep in mind that many such expeditions were often composed of many individuals, almost always bearing arms, even though only a singular passport may have been issued to the leader of the group. So, not only did the presentation of a foreign passport assure the neighboring monarchs that hostilities were not intended, but it also bore the slight risk that dishonoring such request might itself be construed as an act of hostility, or at least an insult, toward the monarch that issued the foreign passport presented.

Unless perceived as a hostile enemy combatant, travel across realms, through any nation, was essentially unhindered, regardless of such passports. Borders were not sealed, and any individual could cross any border at will, and travel across the lands virtually unrestricted. Entry into some fortress cities might not be permitted without some form of passport, but travelers would remain free to pass on to nearby towns, villages, and on down the roads toward their ultimate destinations. As above, there was no need for such passports for most common members of society.

Such passports were issued in the declared identity of the bearer, in accordance with any individual's common law right to be known by any identity of choice, but were not themselves identity documents. In fact, the U.S. continues to issue multiple passports to individuals, displaying different identities for use in different contexts, in continuing recognition of the shifts of identity that occur from context to context. The most well-known context for such multiple-identity issuances is for individuals with Jewish sounding names whose lives are endangered in certain areas of the world by virtue of their names sounding or being Jewish. Survivors of criminal & identity violence generally also need such multiple identity issuances.

Later, however, at the brink of the Twentieth Century vehement colonialism gave rise to rabid nationalism and repressive regimes across Europe and around the world, tinged with the early taint of fascist ideologies. This engendered a significant shift in the role and usages of passports, and passports began a rapid shift toward becoming identity documents, initially by the addition of photographs, and originating among the most oppressive of regimes.

The original intent of this transition into use of passports as identity documents was to keep people in those oppressive regimes - to keep people as prisoners within their own country. The idea was that intellectuals and potential conscripts alike would flee their oppression and, in the process, deprive the oppressive regime of its intellectual capital and military manpower.

Indeed, by their own thinking, borders wide open to individuals for travel and emigration/immigration may be the most effective, most efficient, and most peaceful defense against oppression and tyranny available to the world. Modern examination does, in fact, show us clearly that nations closing borders to the entry of peoples serves to enforce the tyranny of other nations regardless of the border policies of those tyrannical nations, nations and tyrannies from which those peoples might otherwise flee.

Shortly thereafter, World War I broke out, national borders were abruptly sealed in both directions, and passports became a matter of national identity issued only to citizens of an issuing nation. Adopted as a war security measure presuming every individual to be an enemy combatant, ostensibly to inhibit wartime spying activities, this military combat activity of sealed borders and nationalized passports vis-a-vis identity documents inexplicably never ceased in Europe after World War I ended.

Ultimately, this persistent and rabid militarized nationalism, and growing fascism, led directly to World War II.

As documents of national identity, passports became documentation of the right of the bearer to return to his or her own nation of origin after traveling abroad. In the U.S., passport requirements for travel abroad and return to the U.S. were initiated during World War I, dropped afterward, and then re-instituted again as a World War II wartime measure. Again, as inexplicably as for European nations in the wake of World War I, in the wake of World War II the U.S. militarization policy of requiring passports persisted, and remains to the present day. Consequently, as with birth certificates, it is again the Baby Boom Generation that was the first in the nation to see any regular requirement for passports imposed upon Americans by their own government.

This inherent presumption then, that every individual is an enemy combatant unless demonstrated otherwise, has persisted in Europe for the four score years since World War I. Meanwhile, in the U.S., this same presumption has persisted for the six decades and more since World War II ended.

The utter novelty of passport requirements within the U.S. begs close legal inspection. They quickly became extremely intrusive, demanding and displaying gravely private, personal medical data, such as date and place of birth, and gender, as well as a great deal more. Only sixty-something years after initiation of a wartime military protocol, that protocol has continued to be enforced and expanded, and the passports now co-opt more of the private and personal property (identity information) of individuals than ever. The arrival of biometric passports has gravely expanded the trade in the personal identity information of individuals, and has grossly undermined the constitutionally protected right to privacy of individuals, and particularly the privacy right to remain anonymous.

Tragically, this intrusion appears to have progressed largely unquestioned. Yet it turns on its head the founding philosophies of the U.S.

Notably, because the U.S. banished the monarchy and aristocracy, and transferred such powers of determination to each individual, the U.S. government lost the power at common law to issue passports. Consequently (in part), to this day, and because of the constitutionally protected rights of individuals themselves to travel unhindered, it remains unconstitutional for the U.S. government to issue or require national identity documentation to U.S. nationals traveling domestically. Indeed, the first wartime effort to require passports, initiated during the Civil War, was found to be constitutionally unsupportable and rejected as improper. Likewise, the novel issuance or requirement of similar documents issued by state or local governments remains a constitutionally tenuous and questionable practice.

http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_passports.html

[Goldhedge]

The National Council on Identity Policy
Legal History: Social Security Numbers & Identity
idhistory.NCIDPolicy.org

The National Council on Identity Policy (NCIDP) was born of the struggles of one tenacious survivor of domestic violence and stalking. The NCIDP continues her work with the help of many. Read more about the NCIDP...
~
This is a page from the NCIDP "A Brief History of Identity" collection. These pages are intended to provide a context for understanding the development of legal principles regarding identity information as it continues to bear upon modern legal governance of identity information. This is an extract of a history of this subject highlighting those aspects that enhance understanding of why the laws of today are such as they are, and how they came to be that way. These pages are intended to cast important perspective upon relevant law, but are not intended as a comprehensive sociological study of these subjects.

Throughout most of history, by custom and tradition, an ordinary individual's declared name was the extent of identity information used to describe a person. There were no Social Security Numbers, Drivers' Licenses, Passports, voter registries, deed polls, credit reports....

Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).

Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.

* Social Security Numbers *

Social Security Numbers (SSN's) (or more properly, Social Security ACCOUNT Numbers) were the product of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal plan that lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression of the 1930's. During the Great Depression, many in the nation were left abandoned and penniless by the mass failures of businesses. The private retirement funds offered by employers vanished, and retirees were likewise left abandoned and penniless too late in life to start a life of employment all over again.

Many people died.

FDR's answer was to create a government guaranteed program that ensured the good of the people directly, protected against any potential instability in the economy and in the business world. It was the nation's first concerted attempt to protect the well-being of the people in such a manner. By the time it navigated its way through the legislative process and Congress, this New Deal program became Social Security, and its scope had been reduced to coverage mostly for workers who became disabled or retired, and their dependents. Moreover, instead of direct permanent funding for the program by the Treasury, the source of funds was to be contributions made by employers and employees. In this compromise, then, the benefits became tied to an individual's work history, and there needed to be a way to track individuated accounts and the contributions to those individuated accounts. Thus, the Social Security Number was born.

At the birth of the Social Security Number (SSN), grave concerns about such a number becoming identificatory in nature predominated. Consequently, extraordinary care was taken in an effort to ensure against any potential for that kind of misuse arising.

In order to manage the individuated accounts, it was necessary for the government, the Social Security Administration, to receive individuated contributions from beneficiaries and their employers. This was an exchange of information between government and business unheard of in a nation of personal liberties and freedoms, and was only known of in fascist and totalitarianist regimes of the time. This was, understandably, unpalatable and a source of great revulsion over the program.

In order to mitigate the fascist implications and the identificatory potentiality of the Social Security Number, the law authorizing the exchange of information between the Social Security Administration and the employers was crafted very narrowly. First, the records of the Social Security Administration itself were essentially sealed, even against other government agencies. Then, employers were ONLY authorized to disclose the SSN itself to the Social Security Administration, in accompaniment to the payment of the individuated contribution. And, in return, the Social Security Administration was ONLY authorized to disclose whether or not the employer-reported number was a valid Social Security Account Number. NO OTHER INFORMATION COULD BE EXCHANGED between the government (Social Security Administration) and employers. No name. No date of birth. No gender. Nothing else. The transmission of information and funds, then, was little different from making a deposit into a numbered bank account - only the number and the funds were necessary.

This narrowly limited scope of exchange between employers and the Social Security Administration remains the rule of law to this day.

The only connections between the SSN itself and any other point of identifying information, like name, was in the sealed records of the Social Security Administration itself, and on the Social Security Card it issued to individuals. That printed and recorded name, in accordance with an individual's common law identity property rights, was whatever name the individual declared to be proper, and new cards with new names were issued on demand. [Note however, that as of approximately 2000, Social Security Administration literature began to imply that it would NOT honor legal name changes except in those cases where a court order was obtained. If this implication of the literature is, indeed, representative of an administrative shift in policies, the policies themselves remain unsupported at law and their enforcement then becomes illegal, criminal activity.]

The process was such that an individual would then present that Social Security Card, displaying the proper SSN and chosen name, to an employer. This meant that the process demanded that employers take on the role of state actors, which was almost as unpalatable at the time as the exchange of information between government and businesses. The duty for ensuring that earnings and contributions were properly reported and transmitted then fell to the employers, and it was made a felony for employers to misreport such information. To enable those employers to make such assurance, under penalty of felony crime, the law authorized and mandated that employers were to directly inspect the original Social Security Card itself and record the number directly therefrom.

Meanwhile, individuals themselves remained free to ignore the SSN, and were not required to obtain one. Nor were they penalized for not having an SSN or misstating an SSN, although later it was made illegal to use someone else's SSN. In fact, until very recently, it was a well-known fact of Federal law that you could purposely claim any nine-digit number you liked to be your SSN so long as it wasn't actually a valid SSN issued to someone else. This was a remnant of the narrow language implementing SSN's, and particularly of their optional nature, that persisted in the law. Claims that this has been changed at law have appeared in recent literature, but in every case such claims appeared without identifying the Federal Public Law that enacted such a change. Without examination of whatever Public Law might have implemented this new constraint upon individual privacy, it would seem unlikely to be enforceable in any case where the solicitation for the SSN was fraudulent, such as where a threat to withhold service or benefit was illegally made where the Privacy Act Notice accompanying the solicitation failed to state "Disclosure is Mandatory" and specify the Federal Statute appropriately making disclosure mandatory.

It is also notable that because the legislative compromise process led to Social Security benefits being targeted toward individuated accounts and age-related retirement, the Social Security Administration began soliciting people's ages. This too was regarded as an extraordinary and intrusive, unprecedented government activity. Thus, although solicited with the application for an SSN along with name, a person's recorded date of birth was whatever that person stated it to be, just as with name and consistent with individual identity rights.

Apparently, a little humorously, stories abound of women who did not collect Social Security benefits for five or ten or more years later than their spouses and peers with whom they had grown up because they stated a legal age to the Social Security Administration that much younger than their biological age. This was largely immaterial to the given duties of the Social Security Administration, which was explicitly to manage accounts and not identities. However, it would have been far more sensible, and more proper, for the Social Security Administration to wait until an individual presented a request to collect their benefits before soliciting age information, as the duties at law for the Administration in regard to age related strictly to such benefits payments, and not to the funding of accounts prior to such payments.

In 1979, the practice of issuing Social Security Numbers to children at birth began. Previously, issuance was not made until an individual had grown older and begun seeking employment. To this day, any individual born before 1979 may very well not have a Social Security Number assigned to them if they've never sought employment, as in the case of many who were born into great wealth.

In 2000, the Social Security Administration first deleted comments on its form to apply for a Social Security Card (Form SS-5) that supplying gender information was optional and could be omitted. It is not clear what new Federal Public Law was enacted and went into effect in 2000 that mandated such an intrusive change. Nor is it entirely clear that the omission, and the law implementing it, had the effect of mandating disclosure of gender information upon individuals. Gender information ostensibly recorded by the Social Security Administration prior to 2000 can generally be expected to be unreliable and improperly substantiated in records where it appears at all. Gender identifiers recorded after 2000 may be inaccurate or falsified in any records pertaining to individuals with congenital variations of sexual development or otherwise of imprecise gender. (Important: see more on this on the "Birth Certificates & Identity" webpage), and may also be improperly substantiated depending upon whether the Administration relies upon first-party information only, or relies on less reliable third-party sources, such as documents of any kind.

It appears that also in 2000, the Social Security Administration first began implying in its literature that legal name changes would not be consistently honored or respected. If indeed, as implied, that is the new policy of the Administration, such policy is unavoidably an unconstitutional and illegal policy rendered wholly unenforceable. Any such enforcement attempt would be thoroughly criminal felony activity.

In 2008, the Social Security Administration indicated an intent to exceed the bounds of its lawful authority and begin exchanging information with the business sector beyond simple verification that a number has been validly issued. This appears to be the most direct, blatant assault against the rule of law and the personal security of individuals ever to arise from the Social Security Administration. No new Public Law authorizing such intrusive violence has been identified, and the actions appear entirely felonious.

http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_ssn.html

[Goldhedge]

The National Council on Identity Policy
Legal History: Drivers' Licenses & Identity
idhistory.NCIDPolicy.org

The National Council on Identity Policy (NCIDP) was born of the struggles of one tenacious survivor of domestic violence and stalking. The NCIDP continues her work with the help of many. Read more about the NCIDP...
~
This is a page from the NCIDP "A Brief History of Identity" collection. These pages are intended to provide a context for understanding the development of legal principles regarding identity information as it continues to bear upon modern legal governance of identity information. This is an extract of a history of this subject highlighting those aspects that enhance understanding of why the laws of today are such as they are, and how they came to be that way. These pages are intended to cast important perspective upon relevant law, but are not intended as a comprehensive sociological study of these subjects.

Throughout most of history, by custom and tradition, an ordinary individual's declared name was the extent of identity information used to describe a person. There were no Social Security Numbers, Drivers' Licenses, Passports, voter registries, deed polls, credit reports....

Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).

Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.

* Drivers' Licenses *

Contrary to one popular modern myth, Drivers' Licenses were NOT conceived and created to ensure that drivers had appropriate training and skills for driving. After the first Drivers' License requirement was first implemented, licenses were issued for five decades before competency requirements of any kind became widespread. They were conceived of originally as a revenue source through imposition of a use tax, and further, were at first applied only to business and trade activities involving driving (cab drivers, freight carriers, cargo deliveries).

The first attempt at issuing drivers' licenses within the U.S. occurred at the cusp of the Twentieth Century, although drivers had been operating vehicles for many years already. These first licenses were promptly ruled (in Chicago v. Collins (Ill S.Ct., 1898)) an unjustifiable, unconscionable and unconstitutional intrusion upon the rights of individuals to travel upon public ways unhindered and unimpaired. The court found that only the regulation of commerce could justify any drivers' license requirements, and only applying such requirement to commercial drivers (cab drivers, freight carriers, cargo deliveries, etc.) could be justified by it; that it was a right of private individuals to travel upon such public unhindered by such encumbrances and laws.

Initially, licenses were issued upon demand, in many cases by mail, and no tests were required. Only a very few states, on the order of two or three perhaps, instituted driver competency standards shortly after instituting their licensing requirement. Most states issued licenses for decades before implementing any driver competency exam requirement. As license requirements were instituted, it appears that no statistically significant reduction in accident rates was found among licensed drivers. As competency exam requirements were instituted, it appears that no statistically significant reduction in accident rates was found among licensed drivers. Only formal driver education courses, as they began to appear in high schools across the country, seemed to show an actual beneficial impact upon accident rates.

Through World War I, only a small handful of states issued Drivers' Licenses. Many of those states required them only of commercial drivers, but some few states ignored the Illinois Supreme Court precedent, since they weren't Illinois and, therefore, not strictly bound to it, and began requiring licenses of all operators. As the Great Depression unfolded, and viewing license requirements as a potential revenue source, more states began requiring them. Still, it appears that only about half or less of all states required licenses by the time that the U.S. entered World War II (1941), and perhaps less than half a dozen required any competency exam. The constitutionality of licensing requirements was widely doubted and, indeed, often regarded as a fascist practice that was almost certainly unconstitutional, as had been found in Illinois.

It wasn't until the influence of rabid McCarthyist fascism swept the nation that all states came to require drivers' licenses and establish competency tests. It was also under this influence that licenses first began to take on the role of documentation of identity, with states gradually adding increasing amounts of identity information and photographs. By the time Reagan left office in 1988, most if not all states had shifted drivers' licenses to the role of identity documentation, and had added photographs to them. In most cases, states issuing such licenses had not yet begun attempt to arrogate the identity rights of individuals, and identity recorded on such licenses was as it was stated by the individuals.

The finding by the Illinois Supreme Court, that licensing requirements imposed upon private citizens is unconstitutional, appears to have never been reversed, and appears to have been a finding repeated in other lower court cases in other jurisdictions. In short, it appears that, at law, drivers' licenses imposed upon private members of society are very likely entirely unconstitutional, and that the states have simply set out to patently ignore an inconvenient truth, the courts, and the Constitution. And, although the states like to portray driving as a "privilege", and have worked hard to establish that aura around it during the past twenty or so years, the courts appear to have already indicated that it is a right.

Construing driving as a right, as courts to date appear to have done, licensing requirements themselves would have to be construed as unconstitutional. It appears that the U.S. Supreme Court has avoided ruling directly on the subject, but other rulings appear to apply to their present status. To quote one ruling, "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." (Miranda v Arizona (S Ct., 1966), quoting Olmstead v. U.S. (S Ct., 1928, Brandeis dissenting)).

The court also said in another ruling, "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." (Marbury v. Madison (S Ct., 1803)).

"In the Boyd Case, supra, after citing Lord Camden's judgment in Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, Mr. Justice Bradley said (630): 'The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense,-it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden's judgment.' In Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 , 42 L. ed. 568, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 183, 10 Am. Crim. Rep. 547, this court, in speaking by the present Chief Justice of Boyd's Case, dealing with the 4th and 5th Amendments, said (544): 'It was in that case demonstrated that both of these Amendments contemplated perpetuating, in their full efficacy, by means of a constitutional provision, principles of humanity and civil liberty which had been secured in the mother country only after years of struggle, so as to implant them in our institutions in the fullness of their integrity, free from the possibilities of future legislative change.'" (Weeks v. U.S. (S Ct., 1914), quoting Boyd v. U.S. (S Ct., 1886) and Bram v. U.S. (S Ct., 1897)).

http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_dl.html

[Goldhedge]

The National Council on Identity Policy
Legal History: Marriage & Identity
idhistory.NCIDPolicy.org

The National Council on Identity Policy (NCIDP) was born of the struggles of one tenacious survivor of domestic violence and stalking. The NCIDP continues her work with the help of many. Read more about the NCIDP...
~
This is a page from the NCIDP "A Brief History of Identity" collection. These pages are intended to provide a context for understanding the development of legal principles regarding identity information as it continues to bear upon modern legal governance of identity information. This is an extract of a history of this subject highlighting those aspects that enhance understanding of why the laws of today are such as they are, and how they came to be that way. These pages are intended to cast important perspective upon relevant law, but are not intended as a comprehensive sociological study of these subjects.

Throughout most of history, by custom and tradition, an ordinary individual's declared name was the extent of identity information used to describe a person. There were no Social Security Numbers, Drivers' Licenses, Passports, voter registries, deed polls, credit reports....

Any individual could [and can] adopt any identity they chose at will, and their word of it was [and is] the fact of it. (Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); et al.). The idea that an individual might be stuck with a fixed identity at any time in life was never conceived of, and was [and is] abject violence. (Keeble v. Hickeringill (QB, 1707)). That it might be dictated to an individual at any time was unimaginable, and is unconstitutional in the U.S. (Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.).

Time and again, history has shown that the slightest routinized solicitations of government to identify individuals is born of, or leads to, the selective oppression of individuals. The privacy right of anonymity is the first and most profound defense of personal safety and common liberty.

* Marriage *

Across most of the legal history of marriage, traditional marriages were UNREGULATED by the state.

The traditional marriages of most people were, historically, what today are often known as "common law marriage". That is, individuals are married in the eyes of the government by virtue of mutually claiming themselves to be married to each other. Moreover, in the earlier traditions of it, dissolution of any childless marriage by mutual consent and agreement could be equally simple, and the former spouses would separate and cease to claim to be married to each other.

Marriage ceremonies might or might not be performed, and friends and family might or might not be gathered for such ceremonies. Regardless, inasmuch as the state was concerned, they were all what are now called "common law marriages", but were then simply called "marriages" and "married". Absent prohibitory regulation of the state, minorities, gays, and lesbians were equally free to enter into such marriages, and often did, simply going unnoticed by a state that made no notice of most commoner marriages anyway.

A number of modern anti-gay organizations have espoused the notion that "traditional marriage" is regulated by the government so as to be restricted exclusively to be "between a man and a woman". This is an utterly myopic view of historical traditions, limited to novel and recent developments in statutory laws, initially enacted as identity discriminating anti-miscegenation laws (prohibitions against interracial marriages), then later conflated with religious laws that themselves are more recent than not. This view does not nearly do justice to the historical period even just since biblical times, let alone to the far longer history behind "traditional" marriages – and certainly is not justice for gay and lesbian peoples.

In later times, marriages by and/or between members of the aristocracy, and only within that aristocracy, were regulated by the state, which was the person of the reigning King or Queen. Such regulation, that is the King's or Queen's approval or disapproval of any marriage within the aristocracy, was based upon political issues, having nothing to do with love. Yet it is this model of loveless state approved or disapproved marriage, historically applied to a very tiny minority of the population, that anti-gay groups claims to be "traditional". This claim seems just completely bizarre and weirdly hypocritical in light of their self-styled "family values" pretense.

Although marriage by mutual declaration, modernly called "common law marriage", continued to be the norm into and through the colonial era, anti-miscegenation laws, laws against interracial marriage, began to take root and were in place in about half of the thirteen colonies by the time of the outbreak of the Revolutionary War.

Born of this denigrating, eugenicist view of the racial inferiority of non-whites, these anti-miscegenation laws typically prohibited marriages between whites and non-whites, but in some cases prohibited marriages along different racial lines or standards. In fact, the earliest colonial anti-miscegenation laws specified that only enslaved or indentured blacks could not marry whites, apparently designed to protect the institutions of slavery and indentured servitude.

Primarily these laws tended to prohibit any officiation or solemnization of interracial marriages by other parties (such as ministers), rather than actual entry into marriage by the lovers. But these laws also sometimes specifically prohibited cohabitation and sex between interracial couples.

Still, anti-miscegenation laws sputtered and even went broadly unenforced in many jurisdictions until the latter 19th Century, leading into and on after the American Civil War, when they were revived with a vengeance as poll taxes and Jim Crow laws were ushered in.

The anti-miscegenation eugenicists realized that for the anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting the officiation of marriages to be effective against the actual occurrence of interracial marriages, statutes requiring state sponsored marriages, and prohibiting traditional or "common law" marriages were necessary. Thus began the drive toward requiring marriage "licenses" from the government, increasingly supplanting the ideal of marriages based upon concepts of love and affection with ideals of state enacted bigotry.

As a result of this origin in racial bigotry, numerous and odd requirements were imposed upon individuals seeking marriage licenses from the state. For example, many states required medical examinations including blood tests, to enable the state to verify the racial status of each individual; and it became commonly required that both parties to a marriage make a personal appearance before the state to obtain a license, prior to and in addition to appearing before the officiant of the ceremony; all designed to ensure that the state could personally inspect both parties to the marriage and ensure that they were not an interracial couple.

Remember to that, in the earlier in U.S. history, tests used by the federal government to determine whether individuals were of Native American descent for treaty purposes included sticking pencils in the hair of tribal members, and if their hair wasn't straight enough to let the pencil fall out, they weren't recognized as Native American by the federal government. This is the caliber of "science" behind eugenics and its anti-miscegenation ideals
Now is that science or what? All courtesy of the eugenicists who would later bring the world the European Holocaust of World War II, where millions of gays, lesbians, Jewish, disabled, and other minority people were slaughtered.

Through the early 20th Century, after less than 50 years, anti-miscegenation laws specifically prohibiting interracial marriages began to fade again, often being overturned as unconstitutional in state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, ostensibly ending enforcement nationwide. The particular statutes enacted as part of the anti-miscegenation efforts, but themselves only prohibiting recognition of traditional or "common law" marriages and requiring "marriage licenses", generally persisted – even some of the weird screening processes, including blood tests and personal inspection appearances, sometimes re-rationalized on different grounds.

MEANWHILE, (while the lengthy English Common Law history above unfolded, and in that context) as Christianity spread, grew and became increasingly dominant, the ministers and priests of Christiandom were increasingly the individuals called upon by average folks to actually perform wedding ceremonies, administer vows and grant blessings to the marriages of common folks. These religious leaders did not perform these ceremonies for commoners as functionaries of the state, but as respected and admired members of their local communities to whom folks often turned for guidance, counseling and blessings – roles filled prior to the rise of Christianity by community spiritual leaders of older faiths, or by elder or respected community members.

For many centuries, gay weddings were often performed by these religious leaders, including by Christian priests and ministers centuries beyond the rise of Christianity. But again, these remained largely beyond the notice of the state, as did most common marriages – although enough documentation exists to show that Christian gay marriages continued through the first 1500 or 1600 years of Christianity.

Now at the dawning of the 21st Century, the remnants of anti-miscegenation laws, borne of racist bigotry, are hotly debated in the U.S., but as anti-"gay marriage" laws. Originally designed to prohibit interracial heterosexual marriages, and to help preserve the institutions of indentured servitude and slavery, these have been deemed the "traditional" form of marriage by those who have now replaced racist bigotry with homophobic bigotry in their readings of those anti-miscegenation laws. History, however, shows us that the truly "traditional" marriages were NOT regulated by the state, and that sweeping religious prohibitions against marriage for gays and lesbians are novel ideas – and wherein those prohibitions were normally limited to prohibiting practitioners of those religions from performing solemnizations of such weddings.

One of the very recent tactics against marriage for gays and lesbians has been to enact laws, even state constitutional amendments, specifically stating that marriage is only recognized to be "between a man and a woman". To understand completely what this means requires careful study of the legal meaning of "man" and "woman", which is actually "man" and "other than man". [See more about this critical nuance of law on the Legal History of Birth Certificates & Identity page].

This legal factoid could prove to hold some dramatically unexpected consequences for members of the anti-gay forces pushing for these novel anti-gay restrictions, especially in jurisdictions that may attempt to reinstate eugenicist biological determinism models of old. Currently, a person's legal identity is as that person states it to be, and eugenicist ideas of biological determinism are thankfully now unsupportable and dead in law. Were these eugenicist notions still alive in law, just the passing thought alone of reviving biological determinism begs the question, with a shudder: How many of the anti-gay activists would find themselves biologically unfit, lacking in any way complete, normal and fully functional reproductive capacity to sire a child (the historical standard for the 'biological condition or quality of being a male') such as erectile dysfunction disorder, impotence, or prostate or testicular cancer, and suddenly and unexpectedly realize themselves to be legally "other than male" (and, thus, legally indistinguishable from "female")? [This is illustrated by a theoretical example explained on the Case Study: DSM V page, in section 7 midway down that case study page]. [See more on the Legal History of Birth Certificates & Identity page].

How many of those individuals will happily spend a few minutes in a room with a cup, in front of a town clerk with a microscope, to prove that they meet those standards and can obtain a marriage license with a woman rather than with a man? Indeed then, the limitation to marriage between a man and a woman would, effectively, become a blanket limitation against lesbians, but only a limitation against putatively "gay men" to marriage between a fertile "man" and an infertile "other than male" partner.

It becomes wholly unsupportable.

On the other hand, the self-determination of identity [See Overview of Identity], and the innumerable variety of potential gender identities, renders laws or constitutional amendments that limit marriage to be "between a man and a woman" extremely tenuous, wholly excluding en masse all who do not identify as one of those two potential gender identities. Indeed, it immediately becomes so problematic that it raises the spectre of reviving the relevance of the legal gender distinctions of "male" and "other than male", ultimately shuffling all of the hundreds or thousands or millions of gender identities that are not "male" into the grouping of "other than male". This in and of itself then immediately becomes a conundrum of the rights of self-determination of those individuals whose non-male identities are being forcibly lumped together so crudely and cruelly. It becomes a violent assault upon those individuals. [See also: Overview of Identity; Legal History of Birth Certificates & Identity; Case Study: DSM V.]

The CALIFORNIA example:
In the hotly contested California battle over same-sex marriage rights, an amendment to the state constitution has been written defining marriage to be exclusively "between a man and a woman". Consequently, California is presently required by its own constitution to oppress gay, lesbian and other-gendered people. A federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court (Perry v. Schwarzenhagger (undecided – ongoing in 2010)) continues to challenge that oppression.

And, as with most such enactments, the legally identical meanings of "female" and "other than male" were completely ignored by its advocates, creating multiple layers of confusion and injustices that will occupy the courts for decades if left to stand.

Previously, however, California had first begun prohibiting the marriage of gays and lesbians by statute in 1977*. When homophobic local city and town clerks found themselves legally unable to deny marriage licenses to the 'free love' gay and lesbian hippies asking for those licenses, many of those clerks refused to perform their duties anyway (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), and then pushed for legislation to legally allow them to make such refusals. That cover-up legislation was enacted in 1977.

* It is critically important to note here that the California and U.S. legal systems are rooted in common law, and that California is explicitly a common law state (CCC § 22.2). This means that prohibitions against individuals exist at law ONLY if the prohibitions are expressly enumerated in statutes (or a direct violent assault upon the rights of other human individuals). Gay and lesbian marriage was never expressly prohibited in statues in California until this 1977 law was enacted, and gay and lesbian marriages are known to have occurred prior to this 1977 change of law.

In that new 1977 law, a marriage contracted in California was specified to be a contract between a man and a woman. In 2000, in response to the marriages of gays and lesbians in other states, Proposition 22 was passed adding a statute to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. The principal purpose of this new statute was to prevent California from recognizing the marriages of gays and lesbians performed in other states, since California had already explicitly prohibited contracting of the marriages of gays and lesbians within its borders since 1977. Note, however, that laws were consistently gender-neutralized over the intervening decades, and it seemed extremely likely that in the face of a constitutional challenge, consistent with that history of ending gender differentiation in the legal regard of individuals, the 1977 law would be overturned. Proposition 22, therefore, also served to give a contemporaneous reiteration of that gender differentiated legal treatment as regards marriage.
It didn't work, and it was this 1977 law, and the newer 2000 law, that the California Supreme Court finally ruled on and held unconstitutional (In re Marriage Cases (Cal S.Ct, 2008)) in 2008, after three decades of statutory discrimination.

In response, the California "Proposition 8" campaign was begun, intended to again impose a prohibition against marriage for gays and lesbians, this time through the state constitution. That amendment was passed in November, 2008, and the marriage of gays and lesbians were again prohibited. The current Perry v. Schwarzenegger case (ongoing in 2010) seeks to have the Proposition 8 state constitutional amendment invalidated as a violation of the federal U.S. constitution.

Unlike most U.S. states, California enacted statutes to prohibit enactment of 'common law' marriages within its boundaries from the inception of its statehood (it became a U.S. state in 1850). Here again, this was the product of anti-miscegenation ideologies that were beginning to revive as the nation increasingly polarized over race issues, among other issues, in the growing tensions leading to the outbreak of the American Civil War (1861), and indeed the statutory prohibition on traditional marriage (now known as 'common law marriage') was accompanied by other anti-miscegenation laws. And now (2010), as in many other jurisdictions, these remnants of anti-miscegenation laws are being reframed as anti-gay laws, allowing gays and lesbians to marry only with the approval of the state, and then creating a blanket prohibition on that state approval – the identical legal tactic created by anti-miscegenation idealists long ago.

http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_marriage.html

[chomper]

Forgive my epic thread mine, but I have spent the better part of the past two months researching the claims made in this thread. I grabbed law dictionaries, spent many hours in university libraries pouring over any tome I could find, went over a whole ton of legislation and I basically couldn't find anything to back up these claims. Presenting web links to obscure sites isn't exactly evidence. I apologise if I am coming across as a stubborn nut, but those are some mammoth claims to make (and present them so matter of factly too).

Intuitively, I know something is epically rotten with 'the system', but the claims above don't shed any light on what scam is being pulled over us with regards to the legislative system. Could you elaborate your reasoning behind them and provide some evidence behind your reasoning.

[Ragnarok]

Thank you for the information, Goldhedge.

If a President can call the founding documents of his nation a "goddamned piece of paper", a citizen of same nation might say the same about the birth certificate or any other "document", legal or no.

As for my life, that is pledged to my Creator through my heavenly brother-savior Jesus Christ, who gave His to save mine and all others who follow Him.

R.

[Goldhedge]

Forgive my epic thread mine, but I have spent the better part of the past two months researching the claims made in this thread. I grabbed law dictionaries, spent many hours in university libraries pouring over any tome I could find, went over a whole ton of legislation and I basically couldn't find anything to back up these claims. Presenting web links to obscure sites isn't exactly evidence. I apologise if I am coming across as a stubborn nut, but those are some mammoth claims to make (and present them so matter of factly too).

Intuitively, I know something is epically rotten with 'the system', but the claims above don't shed any light on what scam is being pulled over us with regards to the legislative system. Could you elaborate your reasoning behind them and provide some evidence behind your reasoning.

I don't have anything to back up the claims myself, but the question remains:


Why do they need a certificate of birth?


It's a "CERTIFIED" document. Not a "NOTE".

Our money used to be "CERTIFIED", meaning it was REAL.


You volunteer to obtain a birth certificate. There's more here than meets the eye...

[Studiopaul]

The more I research. The more I see the laws, legislations, amendments, cirtificates, permits, bills, receipts, debt instruments.
Economics.
It's all structured from a parent to a child.
Do as I say not as I do.
Push me too far and I will give you a timeout that will be very memorable.
Judges. Whos to judge. Who's to question the judge.
For someone to push back will invoke larger fines or as mentioned before a centance of time in prison.
Your either part of re enforcing the system and it's tools used to your benefit or you are on the losing debate team as there patience wares thin fast.
All starting at birth.



My 2c :508:

[chomper]

I don't have anything to back up the claims myself, but the question remains:

Why do they need a certificate of birth?
It's a "CERTIFIED" document. Not a "NOTE".
Our money used to be "CERTIFIED", meaning it was REAL.
You volunteer to obtain a birth certificate. There's more here than meets the eye...

That is a valid question Goldhedge and one that I have always pondered.

Money was certified, by whom and how?

As for volunteering, I don't know of anyone that voluntarily asked to have their child registered with some central authority. People have registered births on the grounds that it was "the law" and as such, it was mandatory. This is one area that I will need to look into further as to whether "the law" mandates birth registration.

[arminius]

I pulled this off the old GIM, a post by Sapiens. Anyone remember him?

Not much about the birth certificate,but an interesting perspective none the less.




U.S. Legal History
Author Unknown


U.S. Law is Private Merchant Law, leaving the people as Surety and Debtor on the bankruptcy.

Law is contract, universally and in the U.S., so we must follow the progression of contractual agreements, which constitute the underlying U.S. Law. (We cannot address all individual laws and cases or you would not have time in a life to review it, even though ignorance of the millions of laws, statutes, codes, etc… is no excuse in Private Admiralty Jurisdictions.)

In basically chronological order, the following progression of contracts, and our interpretation of them follows:

The USA, a corporation of the English Crown, is bankrupt, and has been since at least 1788. The Articles of Confederation states in Article 12: “All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed as considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.” The “Founding Fathers,” as constitutors, acknowledged and reorganized the debt in the US Constitution 1787, Article VI, hence “constitution.” Bankruptcy occurred on January 1, 1788 based on 21 loans that the United States of America received from the King of England dating from February 28, 1778 through July 5, 1782, the repayment of which had been ratified by Congress on January 22, 1783. The United States Bank, created in 1791, was a private bank, with 18,000 of 25,000 shares owned by England.

No de jure, constitutional Congress has existed since March 27, 1861 when seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called “Congress” today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. “law of necessity,” i.e. no law (see 12 Stat 319, which has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties).

Since the above-referenced date, March 27, 1861, Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order under the aforementioned Emergency War Powers, 12 USC 95 a, b. Every “citizen of the United States” is now “legally” established as an “enemy” via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, amending Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.

December 6th, 1865, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed as ratified (even though it never properly was, see below). The 14th Amendment, which is private Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Trust Law, constitutes a constructive, cestui que trust, a public charitable trust, “PCT,” that was expressly designed to bring every corporate franchise artificial person called a “citizen of the United States” into an inseparable merging with the government until the two are united (with the power inhering in the government, not the people). A cestui que trust is fundamentally different from a regular trust, which is express in nature and consists of a contractual indenture involving three (3) parties: Grantor (Creator or Trustor), Trustee, and Beneficiaries. In an express trust, legal ownership is transferred by written contract between Grantor and Trustee in which the Grantor surrenders ownership of property to the legal person, the Trust, to be managed by the Trustee on behalf of those who are to benefit from the arrangement, the Beneficiaries. A cestui que trust, on the other hand, differs from an express trust in several crucial ways:

a. It is not formed by express contract, i.e. overt agreement expressed in writing, but by legal construction, i.e. fiat.

b. A cestui que trust has no Grantor, but, being a constructive trust created by operation of law, i.e. by make-believe, has only co-trustees and co-beneficiaries. The co-trustees are the parties with the duties for managing property for the “public good,” i.e. for the benefit of those designated as co-beneficiaries.

The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the so-called 14th Amendment, which the record indicates was never ratified (see Utah Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28 Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484; Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646). A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

In conformity with the above-referenced creation of United States (1871) and the 14th Amendment, the Legislature of each State created a limited-liability corporation, chartered in a private, military, international, commercial, admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled “STATE OF…” e.g. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA,” as evidenced by, inter alia, the change in the seal and the creation of a new constitution, e.g. Constitution of the State of California (1879), concerning which, re California:

a. A general partnership agreement, hereinafter “General Partnership,” exists between the California Republic (1849), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (1879), with STATE OF CALIFORNIA acting as governmental controller.

b. STATE OF CALIFORNIA now acts as an agent/instrumentality of United States, collecting whole life insurance premiums, known as “taxes,” for the International Monetary Fund, based, inter alia, upon the Limited Liability Act of 1851 and the bankruptcy of United States of 1933, see House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; Public Law 73-10; Perry v. U.S. (1935), 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L Ed 912; 31 USC 5112, 5119.

Inasmuch as all law is contract, the contract involved in a constructive trust is an implied contract. An implied contract can be ratified by two (2) means:

a. Acquiescence by silence, i.e. the “government” asserts its intentions concerning your life, rights, and property and you assent, don’t rebut, and compliantly go along with what they claim. In 1871 the Government changed the nature of its contract with the people from law as defined by the original Constitution of 1787 that recognizes law (common law), admiralty (on the sea only), and equity (functioning by voluntary contract between all participating parties), and began relating to people as if they were “citizens of the Unites States” within/under the private, commercial, international, military jurisdiction of the new de facto corporation, i.e. US Inc. They offered people a “new deal,” and almost everyone bought it (based on naïve and foolish trust and assuming that everything was OK). The people were thereby denied access to law and placed on the ship of state of US Inc. where the captain’s word is law and no one has any rights. As Jefferson phrased the matter, “As government grows, liberty recedes.”

b. You expressly accept “benefits” offered by the government, and thereby finalize the contract by deed. This is similar to finalizing a contract with a restaurant by sitting down at a table, reading a menu, and then ordering and consuming a meal. By your deeds you affirm to the restaurant that you will pay for the meal in accordance with the price stated on the menu. No written contract is signed, but a contract is formed nevertheless.

By the above two (2) means people give implied assent that they are bound by an alleged contract with US Inc. in accordance with the terms and conditions that inhere in being treated as a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, and are therefore placed into permanent legal status as a Debtor and Surety for U.S. Inc.. In such a position people leave the ground of sovereignty and all capacity for asserting their unalienable rights in favor of being presumed as having exercised their sovereignty and free-will autonomy for the purpose of going along with the government’s assertion that they sacrifice everything for the “public good,” i.e. the PCT. By so doing people lose their standing in law, i.e. they “die a civil death in the law.” They are placed in the legal position of mortmain (i.e. as if deceased) and are shorn of capacity for asserting their rights, since the presumption is that they have already exercised those rights for the purpose of being placed in the position they are in, i.e. property of the government with a lien against you and everything your life labor could ever create, including your children. The private being (the real individual) is sacrificed for the good of the public (the imaginary collective).

When people die such a civil death in the law they are like ghosts, and thereby incapable of managing their own affairs and enjoying their unalienable rights. Like the estate of a decedent, they are then managed by the executors/administrators of the estate, in probate. Such is the condition of every “citizen of the United States” today in law, managed by the government agencies acting as executors/administrators of their estates in bankruptcy, legal incapacity, and civil death as assets of the bankrupt US. The US is property of the private Real Parties of Interest, the Creditors in bankruptcy.

The 14th Amendment was allegedly established for the purpose of creating a citizenship for the liberated blacks, and other disenfranchised people, who otherwise had no citizenship because they could not comply with the requirements for state citizenship. What actually happened was that the blacks were taken off of the Southern slave plantations and placed into the slave plantation of US Inc., a far worse lot. The government then gradually absorbed everyone else—including state citizens—into the same condition.

1871-1913. Officers of the actual government held office in dual capacity, i.e. in both USA and US Inc. status.

1912. Bonds issued by US Inc. came due but US Inc. did not have the resources for paying their creditors (the seven families that founded the Federal Reserve Bank), so US Inc.’s owner (the actual government) was required to pay the balance. The national government was also without sufficient funds to meet US Inc.’s obligations, so the creditors settled for all of the assets of both US Inc. and the national government instead of foreclosure on and liquidation of the entire country. By so doing they expropriated the nation—both USA and US Inc. Sic transit America.

1912. US Inc. forms an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank (It is important to note that both of these entities are private corporations which removes the general allegations of treason or fraud from this relationship). Through this agreement US Inc. must function in debt, even though they have neither funds nor resources for financing their operation.

1912. The first corporate only Senators are seated in the next election year by popular vote of the US Inc. registered voters. The original-jurisdiction national Senators of the States did not assume office that year and at least one third of the nation’s Senators seats were lawfully and voluntarily vacant.

February 3rd, 1913. US Inc. passes its 16th Amendment and Congress orders the Secretary of State to enter it as ratified even though the States had not ratified it according to Law. The Secretary complied. It should be noted that this would not have been lawful if it were a national Constitution amendment, however it was perfectly legal within the colorable, de facto corporation. It should also be noted that where the national Constitution already had a 16th amendment and where the Supreme Court says that the new 16th Amendment did not do anything, this corporate amendment must simply be a space filler entered such that US Inc.’s Constitution (1871) would have the same number of amendments as that of the national Constitution (1787).

April 8th, 1913. US Inc. passes its 17th amendment and Congress orders it to be entered as ratified in the exact same manner as they did with US Inc.’s 16th Amendment. This amendment changes where US Inc.’s Senators are elected. This amendment is not even lawfully possible as a national Constitution amendment for several reasons, not the least of which is that the amendment would have required that Congress first pass an amendment that stated that they had the power to say where Senators are elected before they could even deliberate on such a subject matter, after which they would then have to have competent ratifications performed on such amendments in accord with constitutional limits, not as was done with US Inc.’s 16th Amendment.

December 23, 1913. The Congress, late at night with only a small cadre of supporters present, passed the Federal Reserve Act, surrendering the creation and management of the nation’s currency into the hands of a cartel of private—and mostly foreign—bankers. Currency is the single most essential and critical commodity in the world, embodying more law and principles of commerce than any other. Since all interactions are “commerce,” and the medium of doing business in commerce is currency, money is in a very significant sense the measure of all things. By abandoning control and management of the money supply the nation surrendered all capacity for claiming sovereignty. The government lost its independent treasury (one of the requirements in law for national sovereignty). The United States Government became a mere fiefdom, or administrative arm, of the bankers, who now owned the store.

Passage of the Federal Reserve Act was a major milestone on the “road to serfdom” that this entire progression outlines. The conspiratorial nature of matters is exemplified in comments by one of the major actors in the triumph of the Federal Reserve, Edward Mandell House, who had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:

“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

1917. Corporate-only Senators begin participating in all matters with those Senators who still had original jurisdiction government capacity, as a result of which all activities of the government were performed in corporate capacity only.

1917. President Wilson was re-elected by the Electoral College, but only US Inc.’s Senate performed the Senate confirmation necessary for seating the national President. There was no national government Senate confirmation; no national seats were seated and all remained vacant. Note: the national President is also the Military’s Commander in Chief, and under the nation’s status of being ruled by the private, commercial, martial-law rule of the Bankers and English Crown, the business needs of the nation have remained under US Inc. control since 1871, i.e. ever since US Inc. was incorporated and made operational over such matters.

1917-1944. All national government seats are and remain vacant, and US Inc. continues maintaining the business needs of the government under martial-law rule.

June 5, 1933. US Inc. declares bankruptcy under House Joint Resolution, “HJR,” 192.

1935. The Social Security Act is passed.

On application, the new Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) creates a private Trust with a trust name that sounds like the name of the applicant except the Trust’s name is spelled with all capital letters. SSA makes the applicant a co-trustee of the namesake Trust, designates the SSA General Trust Fund as the Beneficiary of the namesake trust, and assigns the Trust a Social Security General Trust Fund Account number re the applicant for accounting and identification purposes.

1938. In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64-92, the U.S. Supreme Court sets the presumption re the status and capacity of an individual as that of General Capacity/General Partnership relationship with the namesake Trust, as if the two (2) entities—individual and namesake Trust—were one-in-the-same person.

1944. In the Bretton Woods Agreement US Inc. is quit-claimed into the newly formed International Monetary Fund (hereinafter “IMF”) in exchange for the power allowing US Inc.’s President the right of naming (seating and controlling) the governors and general managers of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Bank also formed in that agreement (codified at United States Code Title 22 § 286). It must be noted that this act created an unlawful conflict of interest between US Inc. (with its new foreign owner) and its purpose of carrying out the business needs of the national government. This is the cause of our use of the term “original-jurisdiction” government. With the new foreign owner of US Inc. a conflict of interest is created between the national government and US Inc., even though the contracted purpose of US Inc. has not changed on its face.

1962. At the National Governor’s Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, US Inc. informs the governors, under the guise of “public necessity”, that they must all form, or reform existing, private corporations under US Inc. (in their state’s interest), so that the people will not discover what the state governments are doing with the people’s money (dabbling in foreign notes, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), bonds, and evidences of debt), which activity is forbidden from State governments by their own State Constitutions, which information would likely cause a people’s revolt ending in the State official’s being at worst killed and at least replaced. The proposed incorporation deadline was 1968.

1970. By this time each State revised its constitution and statutes and formed private corporate entities of the name “STATE OF (X)” (where “(X)” is representative of the common State name), and then vacated their original jurisdiction government seats in favor of foreign ownership and control under the mandate of US Inc.

It appears that this was all done so a General Partnership could be presumed as existing between “The State” (of the national Union of States) and “STATE OF (X)”, a private corporation. Said STATE OF (X), as General Partner, then assumes the role of governmental operator/controller. This scenario is further proven by the fact that these corporate entities cannot handle gold and silver coin of the United States of America in commercial transactions without violating the Par Value Modifications Act and the Foreign Currency Exchange Act.

April 19th, 1994. Federal agents attack, burn, and raze the compound, killing approximately 100 of the members of the sect, without any lawful cause for the action.

50 USC 1520 et seq. demonstrates that there exists an agenda for using Americans (Sovereign and otherwise) as biological test subjects. This is a fundamental breach of an alleged Constitutional contract.

President Clinton pushes for a mandatory health care bill for the purpose of placing the physical bodies of all Americans under control of US Inc., with international identification attached, for the purpose of tagging the populace, as per the Biblical prophesy of the Mark of the Beast. The computer that would handle the tracking is even identified with the acronym: B.E.A.S.T.

What the above progression depicts is the systematic growth of the power, scope, and pervasive control of Government exercised against the American people by foreign, criminal, and hostile powers. This same dreary gestalt constitutes the nature of man’s history on this planet as far back as the eye can see. Civilizations rise, fall, and disappear, replaced by new ones that—based upon being founded on, and functioning in accordance with, wrong principles—are foredoomed for extinction, as were all of their predecessors and as all future civilizations will be until mankind finally learns and ceases “beating a dead horse” by structuring law, commerce, religion, and social organization in general on principles that are existentially impossible.

The above progression has proceeded in America by implementing such strategy as:

1. Relentlessly instilling in people the foundational idea that governments in general are absolutely essential in the society of man and that the Government in America is the people’s friend and servant, i.e. a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” These premises are untrue—self-serving cons by those who want the power.

2. Creating governmentally owned corporate franchises, such as a “citizen of the United States” and one’s all-capital-letter name, with which people are deceived into identifying.

3. Regarding every citizen of the United States as contractually being:
a. A corporate citizen, i.e. a corporate franchise;
b. A co-trustee (with duties) and co-beneficiary (with privileges) of the 14th Amendment Public Charitable cestui que Trust;
c. Pledged as an asset in the bankruptcy of US Inc., and therefore a co-surety for the debts of US Inc.;
d. An enemy of the Creditors;
e. Chattel property of the Bankers and Power Elite;
f. A slave with no capacity for asserting any rights, no standing in law, and no capacity for contracting.

4. Functioning on the presumption that the individual being, with autonomy and free will, knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily contracted into the situation of being united—like heads and tails of a coin—with a corporate entity created and owned by the Government.

As per the established maxim of law, “As a thing is bound, so it is unbound,” the way out of the problem is within and through the problem. This is accomplished by understanding what the problem is, i.e. its structure and character, just as solving the problem of a plugged drain is accomplished by realizing that the problem is the plugged drain, whereby the solution consists of unplugging the drain. “Know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

The United States Library of Congress now has between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 books on law. Any law library is a daunting place, possessing row after row of shelves with books full of fine print. Making knowledge of such “law” even more unattainable is not only that what passes for law today perpetually changes, altered by every new court case/opinion, legislative enactment, and all of the ever-changing policies, rules, and regulations of administrative agencies, but an immense amount of the world’s law today, as actually implemented, is unwritten and inaccessible.

This is not only because judges operate in general equity in which the ultimate arbiter of a matter is the “conscience of the court” (i.e. how the judge feels about something that day), but because almost all of the world’s law is the private Law Merchant of the Creditors in bankruptcy of the world’s nations, essentially all of which are insolvent and in receivership to the Bankers. This private Law Merchant is of ancient origin, and is implemented today by men whose identities are unknown to the mass of mankind.

In the face of this undependability of law we may ask some fundamental and ingenuous questions:

1. Is there such a thing as genuine law that is timeless, stable, and dependable?

2. If so, can such universal law be effectively invoked and utilized in practice today? How can I use it to ensure my inalienable sovereign birth rights to life and happiness?

3. If genuine law exists, why is it not taught and uniformly utilized instead of the chaotic and colorable charade that dominates the legal field today?

4. Can we integrate said universal law with the ephemeral, desultory “law” that now enslaves the overwhelming majority of people on this planet?

Fortunately, affirmative answers all of the above questions. Answering them, and obtaining a clear understanding and effective, practical ways for utilizing genuine law, is found through individual study and contemplation.

[arminius]

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." -Sam Adams


From a now defunct website, vinyasi...



The Birth Certificate

Since the early 1960's, State governments themselves specially created, juristic, corporate
persons signified by all caps have issued Birth Certificates to "persons" with legal fiction all-
caps names. This is not a lawful record of your physical birth, but rather the birth of the juristic,
all-caps name. It may appear to be your true name, but since no proper name is ever written in
all caps (either lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify who you are. The Birth Certificate
is the governments self-created document of title for its new property, i.e. the deed to the juristic-
name artificial person whose all-caps name mirrors your true name. The Birth Certificate brings
the new all-caps name into colorable admiralty/maritime law, the same way a ship (and ship of
state) is berthed.

One important area to address, before going any further, is the governmental use of older
data storage from the late 1950's until the early 1980's. As a "left over" from various teletype-
oriented systems, many government data storage methods used all caps for proper names. The
IRS was supposedly still complaining about some of their antiquated storage systems as recent as
the early 1980's. At first, this may have been a necessity of the technology at the time, not a
deliberate act. Perhaps, when this technology was first being used and implemented into the
mainstream of communications, some legal experts saw it as a perfect tool for their perfidious
intentions. What better excuse could there be?

However, since local, State, and Federal offices primarily used typewriters during that
same time period, and Birth Certificates and other important documents, such as driver's
licenses, were produced with typewriters, it's very doubtful that this poses much of an excuse to
explain all-caps usage for proper names. The only reasonable usage of the older databank all-
caps storage systems would have been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in bulk,
including payment checks, which the governments did frequently.

Automated computer systems, with daisy-wheel and pin printers used prevalently in the
early 1980's, emulated the IBM electric typewriter Courier or Helvetica fonts in both upper and
lower case letters. Shortly thereafter, the introduction of laser and ink-jet printers with multiple
fonts became the standard. For the past fifteen years, there is no excuse that the government
computers will not accommodate the use of lower case letters unless the older data is still stored
in its original form, i.e. all caps, and has not been translated due to the costs of re-entry. But this
does not excuse the entry of new data, only "legacy" data. In fact, on many government forms
today, proper names are in all caps while other areas of the same computer produced document
are in both upper and lower case. One can only conclude that now, more than ever, the use of all
caps in substitution the writing a proper name is no mistake.

When a child is born, the hospital sends the original, not a copy, of the record of live
birth to the "State Bureau of Vital Statistics," sometimes called the "Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services" (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES with
birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live
birth keeps it and then issues a Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the babys
true name, i.e. JAMES WILBER SMITH.

cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French, from Medieval
Latinceruficatum. from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify,
15th century. 3: a document evidencing ownership or debt.-- Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998).

The Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U.S. Department of
Commerce -- the Executive Office -- specifically through their own sub-agency, the U.S. Census
Bureau, which is responsible to register vital statistics from all the States. The word
"registered," as it is used within commercial or legal based equity law, does not mean that the
all-caps name was merely noted in a book for reference purposes. When a Birth Certificate
is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce, it means that the all-caps legal person
named thereon has become a surety or guarantor, a condition and obligation that is automatically
and unwittingly assumed unless you rebut the presumption by effectively noticing them: It aint
me.

registered. Security, bond. -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996).

Security. I a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to make certain the
fulfillment of an obligation. Example: used his property as security for a loan. lb: "surety." 2:
Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership. -- Ibid.

Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person undertakes to perform a
certain act (as fulfill the obligations of a contract) . . with the condition that failure to perform or
abstain will obligate the person . . to pay a sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money
put up by the person or surety. lb: One who acts as a surety. 2: An interest-bearing document
giving evidence of a debt issued by a government body or corporation that is sometimes secured
by a lien on property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need. -- Ibid.

Surety. The person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a certain
action if the principal to a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the original contract. --
Duhaime'sLaw Dictionary.

1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking.
2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of another.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety includes a guarantor, and the two terms
are generally interchangeable.
Merriam Webster's "Dictionary of Law" (1996).

Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of another, but separately, as part
of an independently contract with the obligee of the original contract.
Duhaime's Law Dictionary.

It is not difficult to see that a state-created Birth Certificate, with an all-caps, name is a
document evidencing debt the moment it is issued. Once a state has registered a birth document
with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department notifies the Treasury Department,
which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan to purchase a bond
(the Fed holds a purchase money security interest in the bond) from the Department of
Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury
Department then issues Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using
the bonds as surety for the new securities. This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the
legal person whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This also means that the bankrupt,
corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax
revenues of every citizen of the United States/American with a Birth Certificate as collateral for
payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a
legal, juristic name of a person.

Dubuque rei potissinia pars prineipium est The principal part of everything is in the
beginning. (Well begun is half done.)

Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal,
State and local governments via your STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the
name of your all-caps person. Birth Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim exclusive
title to the legal person created thereby. This is further compounded when one voluntarily
obtains a Drivers License or a Social Security Account Number. The state even owns your
personal and private life through your STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the
all-caps names. You have no rights in birth, marriage, or even death. The state holds title to all
legal persons the state creates via Birth Certificates until the rightful owner, i.e. you,
reclaims/redeems it by becoming the holder in due course of the instrument.

The various bankruptcies The main problem is that the mother and father, and then the
eighteen-year-old man or woman, voluntarily agreed to this contrived system of plunder and
slavery by remaining silent a legal default, latches, and failing to claim ones own Rights.
The maxim of law becomes crucially operative: He who fails to assert his rights has none.

The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no court hearing to
determine if those rules are correct. Government rules are self-regulating and
self-supporting. Once set into motion, such "laws" automatically come into
effect provided the legal process has been followed.

The legal person known as the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful
Constitutionally mandated silver or gold gold coin or bullion with which to back any currency.
All private held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America was seized via Executive
Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Corporation under
the terms of the bankruptcy.

Congress still convening strictly under Executive Order authority confirmed the
bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5, 1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73 Congress, 1st
Session, Public Law 73-10. This 1933 public law states, in part:

"... every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give
the oblige a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an
amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy."

The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was
appointed Receiver for the bankrupt U.S. in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903,
Public Law 94-564, "Legislative History," page 5967.

Since 1933, the only assets used by the UNITED STATES to pay its debt to the Fed have
been the blood, sweat, and tears of every American unfortunate to be saddled with a Birth
Certificate and a Social Security Account Number (the U.S. Government must conceal this fact
from the American people at all cost). Their future labor and tax revenues have been legally
pledged via the new all-caps, juristic-person names appearing on the Birth Certificates, i.e. the
securities used as collateral for loans of credit (thin-air belief) to pay daily operational costs,
re-organization expenses in bankruptcy, insurance policy premiums required to float the
bankrupt government, and interest on the ever-increasing, wholly fraudulent, debt.

[arminius]

A closer look at the Admirality from Journey Beyond Perception.



The foundation of what we are dealing with.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3) was passed creating 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”. However the Act did not give full
disclosure, their Brady Doctrine requirement under common law and statutory law, as to the
“other purposes”.

In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48
States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the people, as collateral for
loans of credit from the Federal Reserve System. The "Full faith and credit" clause of the U.S.
Constitution, Article 4. Sec. 1 requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it
had by law or usage of state of its origin, and that the foreign statutes are to have force and effect
to which they are entitled to in the home State. And that a judgment 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.

Today the federal government "mandates, orders and compels" the States to enforce federal
jurisdiction upon it's citizens/subjects. I believe the federal government draws its de facto
jurisdiction for these actions from the "Doctrine of Parens Patriae." Parens Patriae means
literally, "parent of the country." It refers traditionally to the role of STATE as sovereign and
guardian of persons under legal disability. Parens Patriae originates from the English common
law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities
such as infants. Note: 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.

With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the doctrine of Parens
Patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them into
debt into perpetuity. Under this doctrine, if one is born with a disability, the state, (the
sovereign) has the responsibility to take care of you. I believe that the disability you are born
with is, in fact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are born, you are born free, "a man or
woman of the soil." You as parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a
"birth certificate," and when you sign a state's birth certificate - you have made your child a
transferable asset - identical to a stock certificate thereby making the child a citizen with a
national character of the corporate government known as the United States. The government
then turns the new citizen into a corporation, a legal fiction, under the laws of the state. The
birth information is collected by the state and is then turned over to the U.S. Department of
Commerce. The corporation is then placed into a "trust", known as a "Cestui Que Trust". A
Cestui que trust is defined as: "He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate
the legal title to which is vested in another; the beneficiary of another." Cestui que use is: "He
for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held by another. The Cestui que user has the
right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession, as well
the duty of defending the same, reside in the other."

The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the contributing beneficiary of
his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal
government. The government then places the Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made
the "guardians." The child may reside in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time as
the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state then goes into the
home and removes the subject matter of the trust from the guardians. At majority, the parents
lose their guardianship.

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. The child itself is
the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate. "Title" to your child is now owned by the
state. The state now directs the trust corpus and provides "benefits" for the beneficiary -- the
corpus and beneficiary being one and the same -- the man or woman -- first as child, then as
adult.

Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States
which acts as the "Debtor in Possession." We are now designated by this government as
"HUMAN RESOURCES," with new such resources being added (born) continually. The
bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy. The bankruptcy debts are
serviced, not paid or discharged. The Human Resources service the debt, which continues to
grow with time.

The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal Parens Patriae authority to the state attorney generals. The attorney generals can now enforce all
legislation involving your personal life, the lives of your children, and your material assets.

Understanding the birth registration process

Remember in Admiralty Vessels documented by registration under the laws of the United States
are entitled to privileges and subject to the obligations prescribed by the laws of the United
States for merchant vessels.

To start out with, your parents due to their prior birth registration were already considered
being registered documented vessels/mentally incompetent wards of the State, being under the
guardianship of the State, who by legal marriage, where the State is a third party to the marriage
contract, had an offspring/ward which they brought into this world by delivery1, the act by
which the res the subject matter of a trust, or substance thereof was placed within the actual or
constructive possession or control of another in the delivery room of the maternity ward of the
hospital, the port of entry for vessels/wards. Then they asked your mother for your legal
name2 in Upper Lower case which consists of one Christian name and one surname which is
the name on the RECORD OF LIVE BIRTH written in upper and lowercase letters. What your mother was not told is that she delivered you to an agent/licensed doctor of the State, in a
federally funded hospital, an act by which the res3 the subject matter of a trust or substance
thereof was placed within the actual or constructive possession or control of another, the State,
for which in equity they created a Certificate of Live Birth with the all CAPITAL LETTERS and
recorded that warehouse receipt in the commercial registry as cargo under transportation.

The hospital documented your birth with the legal name Title4 in a distinctive style or
appellation, Upper Lower case, the name by which anything is known, and because under trust
law whenever title or money is transferred, a trust is created by operation of law, representing
you, for which they created a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH in all CAPITAL LETTERS, which
was filed with the local Registrar and registered with the State, via Certificate of registry5, in
commercial maritime law which is a certificate of registration of a vessel according to the
registry acts, for the purpose of giving her a national character i.e. U.S. citizen born in a federal
zone, hospital zip code, in the judicial district in which the birthing of the vessel occurred
identified by the filing with the Florida State Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics
within 5 days after your delivery, and then sent to Washington, D.C., for which the hospital
receives a check for that vessel.

Then the local registrar issued your parents a copy of the warehouse receipt for the cargo, the
CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH from the State of Florida in all CAPITAL LETTERS, representing a
vessel/ward of the State representing the abandonment of your title by registration. The State of
Florida the Creator/Trustor then created a Cestui que trust (constructive trust) behind your
back after the fact, with the all Upper Lower case name, and placed a value on it, based on
actuarial estimates of your future labor/human resource. Then they issued a Bond against the
trust’s asset, a certificate of indebtedness6 and funded the bond through the IMF based on
your future earnings from your labor as the contributing beneficiary, which is a trust asset, and
set up a Federal Reserve account for the same. So now the IMF has a beneficial interest in and
out of the trust estate, the legal title is now vested with the State of Florida, and held by the Alien
Property Custodian in Washington, D.C.; equitable title copy of CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH held
by you representing equity/labor; the Governor acting as the managing fiduciary trustee; the
Secretary of State Registrar acting as fiduciary trustee until you turn of legal age; and you acting
as fiduciary trustee for the trust with duties and obligations once you turn of legal age, and the
Secretary of Treasury in charge of the Federal Reserve account.

That ward/vessel is a now a Vessel of the United States, documented by registration under the
laws of the United States and subject to its laws and jurisdiction, and the Title goes to the Alien
Property Custodian in Washington, D.C. In a maritime in rem action, jurisdiction over the
person of the "defendant", the vessel, is premised upon the presence of the vessel within the
district in which the court sits. The only vessel they have jurisdiction over is the trust, that is evidenced by the CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, establishing the three points of jurisdiction
NAME, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER and DATE OF BIRTH, the Federal Reserve account
under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury who is also the managing trustee for the
Social Security Administration and governor for the IMF.

Up until you turned of legal age to work, the deputy Registrar on behalf of the Registrar/
Secretary of State, or the Registrar/Secretary of State whichever signed the CERTIFICATE OF
LIVE BIRTH has been the fiduciary trustee for that trust created behind your back and
securitized where the government owns it in part and you own it in part. Meaning the Registrar
had the fiduciary duty and obligation for that Trust up until you started your first job. That is
why the State can take the child away from the parents, because it is the duty and obligation of
the fiduciary trustee as guardian, to look after the ward, and make sure he or she is taken care of
properly.

When you filled out the Application Form SS-5 for a Social Security Card, the Registrar turned
over the duty and obligation of the fiduciary trustee over to you, because he did not want to be
responsible as fiduciary for anything you do in commerce using that SS Card/number. You then
became the contributing beneficiary and fiduciary trustee for that trust with the duties and
obligations for filing and paying the licensing taxes, registration taxes, and taxes on profits,
gains and income generated for the trust once it starts to operate in commerce with a Social
Security Card/number on all commercial transactions, because you on behalf of the beneficial
owner “the trust”, which is resident within a territory occupied by military forces with which the
United States is at war, or a resident outside the United States, for which you are considered an
enemy doing business with a license and tax identifying number for the purposes “of trade”
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within said territory for which you
are granted a license under the authority of the President pursuant to the Trading with the
Enemy Act, as an enemy in order to trade, or attempt to trade with the enemy for the beneficial
owner the “trust”, and as the fiduciary trustee paying, satisfying, compromising, or giving
security for the payment or satisfaction of any debt or obligation, and for drawing, accepting,
paying, presenting for acceptance or payment, or indorsing any negotiable instrument or chose
in action on behalf of the trust. So far there are two different styles of your name being used,
one “upper lower case”, first and last name, and an all “UPPER CASE” first, middle and last
name.

__________________________________________________ ____

Delivery1. The act by which the res or substance thereof is placed within the actual or constructive possession or control of
another.

Legal Name2. Under common law, consists of one Christian name and one surname, and the insertion, omission, or mistake in
middle name or initial is immaterial. The legal name of an individual consists of a given or baptismal name usually assumed at birth
and a surname deriving from the common name of the parents.

Res3. The subject matter of a trust or will.

Title4. A mark, style or designation, a distinctive appellation. The name by which anything is known. Thus, in the law of persons, a
title is an appellation of dignity or distinction, a name denoting the social rank of the person bearing it, such as Duke or Count.

Certificate of Registry5. In maritime law, which is a certificate of registration of a vessel according to the registry acts, for the
purpose of giving her a national character.

Certificate of Indebtedness6. An obligation sometimes issued by corporations having practically the same force and effect as a
bond, though not usually secured on any specific property. It may, however, create a lien on all the property of the corporation
issuing it, superior to the rights of general creditors. In banking, same as a government security, same as a treasury certificate.

[chomper]

Arminius, I have a few questions.

I have read in many places about how the United States of America is a corporation of the English Crown (and Australia too). All I seem to read is the assertion that that is the case with no actual corroborating evidence or proof to support that statement. Does such evidence exists or is it an assumption based on hearsay and circumstantial allegories?

The definitions posted in the article about birth certificates... I have checked them all in my law dictionaries and they differ wildly from what is presented above. For example, the definition of registered using the same Merriam-Webster Law Dictionary gives me the following definition:

- To formally enter into a public list, to make a record of.

Certificate (from Black's Law Dictionary 2nd edition) - a written assurance or official representation that some act or event has been done, not done, happened or not happened.

If the definitions are indeed taken from Merriam's, why do they differ so much from what I am finding?

GiM is one of the few forums that seek to enlighten, that dare to ask questions that no one else will not or is not able to. Yet when it comes to such claims as those presented (especially considering the lack of corroborating evidence), there seems to be no questioning happening. Why is that?

[arminius]

when it comes to such claims as those presented (especially considering the lack of corroborating evidence), there seems to be no questioning happening. Why is that?

I make no claims within those three posts. I merely present information for your perusal. You must invest the due dilligence, the "questioning" for your life, as I must for mine.

Here is a claim for you. You seem to already have made up your mind...



The definitions posted in the article about birth certificates... I have checked them all in my law dictionaries and they differ wildly

The lexicon of legal definitions have changed as fast and furious as the growth of the written legal code attempting to subvert the Statutes at Large has, within the last oh, eighty years. Again the operative thrust, as always, remains DYODD...

[chomper]

I make no claims within those three posts. I merely present information for your perusal. You must invest the due dilligence, the "questioning" for your life, as I must for mine.

Here is a claim for you. You seem to already have made up your mind...

The lexicon of legal definitions have changed as fast and furious as the growth of the written legal code attempting to subvert the Statutes at Large has, within the last oh, eighty years. Again the operative thrust, as always, remains DYODD...

Yes you have presented something for my perusal and for that I thank you :)

Made up my mind... far from it. In fact, its as open as it has ever been to any possibility. What I am finding is that the possibilities I have come across so far, whilst plausible, are lacking in any real substance.

If I had made up my mind, I'd have put my shovel away a long time ago :D

[earplugs]

It's not voluntary. When asked, the health care provider stated it was by law they had to obtain information for a birth certificate. Same with marriage certificate. It's forced. Married people get better tax breaks. Any contracts made out of force are null and void.


But let's say this is true...what sort of responsibilities does a master have to its slaves?