1. Turnaround Tues, metals are down a bit, and we have the consumer confidence report on tap today
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Tuesday morning, Metals are weaker this am, while oil is going positive after yesterdays losses. The USD is getting a small push to the up.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 8/27/16 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1322.60 DOWN 19.60-- Silver $18.65 DOWN 66-- Oil $47.64 DOWN 1.47--- USD $95.54 up 106 tics-- Based on near term futures contract--- At JMB Current price AGE $1392.14(1), SAE $21.84 (20)
  4. Added Heartland Precious Metals out of OK and LA to the map, Added Texas Precious Metals, and Added Provident Metals.

Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

Discussion in 'Beginner's Forum' started by Goldhedge, Jun 15, 2010.



  1. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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.wordpre...th-certificate-life-is-pledged-as-collateral/
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2010
  2. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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 - 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, 18, it is assumed that you have the ability to understand.
    You are of legal age and are responsible for your actions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2014
    Po'boy likes this.
  3. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2013
    GOLDZILLA likes this.
  4. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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_strawman.htm
     
    GOLDZILLA and kerdasi amaq like this.
  5. bing

    bing New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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".
     
  6. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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!
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
  7. silverblood

    silverblood Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
    TAEZZAR, earplugs and Malus like this.
  8. bing

    bing New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  9. AGG

    AGG Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2010
  10. minimus

    minimus Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,384
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
    AGG likes this.
  11. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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?
     
    BarnacleBob and TAEZZAR like this.
  12. AGG

    AGG Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2010
  13. AGG

    AGG Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
  14. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2011
  15. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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
     
  16. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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
     
  17. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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
     
  18. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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
     
  19. chomper

    chomper Purveyor of Filth Seeker

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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.
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  20. Ragnarok

    Ragnarok I'd rather be Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,304
    Likes Received:
    4,165
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  21. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    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...
     
  22. Studiopaul

    Studiopaul Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    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:
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  23. chomper

    chomper Purveyor of Filth Seeker

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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.
     
  24. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    2,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    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.

     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  25. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    2,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    "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...
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  26. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    2,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    A closer look at the Admirality from Journey Beyond Perception.

     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2012
    Goldhedge likes this.
  27. chomper

    chomper Purveyor of Filth Seeker

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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?
     
  28. arminius

    arminius Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    2,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    420 healer
    Location:
    right here right now
    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...
     
  29. chomper

    chomper Purveyor of Filth Seeker

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    43
    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
     
  30. earplugs

    earplugs Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    1,549
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?
     
  31. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2015
    Malus likes this.
  32. anotherdave

    anotherdave Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    1,474
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The arminius/Sapiens/Author Unknown post #24 above comes as close to getting it right as any I have seen. I disagree with a lot it has to say, such as the U.S. being a British corporation, but I am surprised at the assertion that "No de jure, constitutional Congress has existed since March 27, 1861". I believe this could be true!

    When was Civil War martial law rescinded? Trick question! It hasn't been.

    Here's another clue: Why the fringe on the U.S. flag? Veterans groups will tell you "because we can" and "it looks pretty". Patriotic groups will offer lengthy explanations that go nowhere about admiralty law.

    But the law says it is the flag of the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy!

    Look in the U.S. Code (4 USC 1) that defines the flag of the United States and you won't find fringe mentioned at all. But if you will use an older copy of West's you will find a little footnote, leading you to the correct body of law: "The Placing of a fringe on the national flag,.. [is] within the discretion of the President as commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.

    It's the CIC's military flag! Track down Army Regulation no. 260-10, if you can.

    Why would that particular flag be shown at all public offices in the U.S.? could it be because we've been under a military government since the Civil War, hmmm?

    More later, if anyone wants.

    .
     
    Po'boy likes this.
  33. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Posted recently on GIM2 - I forget where, but it's here for posterity...

    PARENS PATRIAE....
    GOVERNMENT AS PARENT


    "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . ."

    These are the words that started a Revolution propelling several English colonies into the nation known as "The United States of America."

    This new nation was designed to function under the laws of Nature and Nature's God. The people believed they would never again hear the words of enslavement, i.e.; "under the sovereignty of the King." Living under the sovereignty of the King made you the King's chattel. He owned you. You were his property. You could own nothing, not even your children. The King ruled by divine right.

    The framers of this new nation designed the Constitution to be a government "Of The People, By The People, For The People." Representatives of this government were to be elected by the people, not born to power. And so, in 1776 the great experiment in freedom, known as "The United States of America" began.

    People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony to become a Sovereign Nation State. These States then created a new state, designed to exclusively serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept the nation of States united was born. Every Sovereign Nation State joining the Union had a Constitution. The newly created State of the union received one as well. It was written by delegates of the people of the several states and when ratified by two-thirds of the people's conventions of the then Thirteen Independent and Sovereign States was ordained and established as "The Constitution for the United States of America." This new Union of States was comprised only of those states which had ratified the Constitution. (North Carolina did not join the union until 11 months after the United States was established, and Rhode Island held out for nearly a year and a half, and continued to operate under the King's Charter until 1842.)

    The government of the United States was "delegated" only 20 grants of power [See Constitution Art 1, Sec 8] and ten things were carefully enumerated which the government may not do, [See Constitution Art 1, Sec 9], and 10 further restrictions were added in the first 10 amendments [See "Bill of Rights"] to the Constitution by the several states. The people never intended that government of the United States should over step it's delegated authorities.

    Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink was dry on the contract written between the people and their new government, "The Constitution." There is some question as to exactly where and when the new nation faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary Act. Others say it was after the Civil War. Still others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or perhaps in 1933 ....... History tells us the Supreme Court of the United States government claims it was when the Union itself was formed.

    In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, (1) it states that: "all the rights of the States as independent nations were surrendered to the United States. The States are not nations, either as between themselves or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of nationality. Their political status at home and abroad is that of States in the united States. They can neither make war nor peace without the consent of the national government. Neither can they, except with like consent, "enter into any agreement or compact with another State." Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3. "The relation of one of the united States to its citizens is not that of an independent sovereign State to its citizens. A sovereign State seeking redress of another sovereign State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal, which a State cannot do. The state, having been a sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a belligerent way, resigned these powers into the control of the United States, to be held in trust."

    In United States v. Chamberlin, (2) the Supreme Court of the United States Decided, to wit:

    "It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different states, and in practically all the federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of Parens Patriae, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution."

    Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children in their existing social values and morals.

    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. One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the first attempt of "government by appointment," or cooperation of state governments to aid the federal government in usurping the legislative process of the several states as exists today through the federal grant in aid to the states programs.

    Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born within territories of the united States, thereby making him/her a United States citizen.

    In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the act. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..). (4) The plaintiff, Mrs. Frothingham, averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them and not granted the federal government, under the Constitution, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States. The complaint stated the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent. Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. To wit:

    "The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

    Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. The forced registration of pregnancy, governmental prenatal examination of expectant mothers, restrictions on the right of a woman to secure the services of a midwife or physician of her own selection, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. Insurance of mothers may be made compulsory. The teaching of birth control and physical inspection of persons about to marry may be required.

    The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. The fact that it was considered necessary in explicit terms to preserve from invasion by federal officials the right of the parent to the custody and care of his child and the sanctity of his home shows how far reaching are the powers which were intended to be granted by the act."

    It was further stated in the complaint that "The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power." (5)In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. (6)

    It went on to state:

    "The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. (7) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act."

    "A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void." (8)

    "The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution."

    "Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States." (9)

    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 citizenry, 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 it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in 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. This author believes the federal government draws it's 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.

    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. This author believes 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 "citizen of the soil," an American National. Parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a "birth certificate," thereby making the child a citizen 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 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 "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 citizen -- first as child, then as adult.

    The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the process known as "Novation." Novation is defined as "the substitution of a new contract between same or different parties; The substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished. This author believes the debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then transferred to a new individual when he/she is born through the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the hands of the trust.

    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.

    In today's society the government, through the doctrine of Parens Patriae, has already instituted its control of our children through the legislative process. Medical treatments are enforced through the court with threats of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged. Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your child under the guise of "child neglect" (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment or indignities, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus).

    Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give social workers arrest authority. School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child.

    The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on March 15, 1996 that limits on the ability of divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involved were clarified by the Florida Supreme Court. The high court three years ago approved a policy favoring relocation requests of custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good faith for the well being of parents and children. Also, the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made "from a vindictive desire to interfere with the visitation rights of the other parent." The right of locomotion is held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon the right of locomotion was a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion. The control by government courts (supra) of an individuals' freedom of locomotion could be construed as a sign of ownership of the individual, or slavery.

    It has been reported that in California, early in the year 1996, an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made the statement "the children belong to the STATE."

    Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. Federal Parens Patriae legislation can be found in Title 15 of the United States Code:

    TITLE 15, Sec. 15h. Applicability of Parens Patriae actions:
    STATUTE- Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its non-applicability in such State.

    The primary responsibility of a State is to protect it's citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution for any state legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right. A state may sue the Federal government for protection for its citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to its citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment, but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended to provide against state laws, or state action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rights appertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and man in society. It would be to make congress take the place of the state legislatures and to supersede them.

    However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that: A State may not, as Parens Patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less citizens of the United States), from the operation of a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them, it is unconstitutional.

    The Parens Patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time immemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.

    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 outside of Constitutional authority, with the ability to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional and represents taxation without representation. This type of government is in place today and is known as "Regionalism." The federal government couldn't fool the people in 1921 into surrendering their sovereignty,

    .............................. but in 1933 ....................


    Footnotes:
    1. New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, 108 U.S. 76, 27 L. Ed. 656, 2 S. Ct. 176, March 5, 1883.

    2. United States v. Chamberlin 219 U.S. 250, 55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S. Ct. 155, January 3, 1911

    3. Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.

    4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al.. 262 U.S. 447, 67 L.Ed. 1078, 43 S. Ct. 597.

    5. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

    6. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

    7. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

    8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

    9. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

    See Also "The Unconstitutional Fourteenth Amendment"


    http://www.barefootsworld.net/parensp.html
     
  34. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Are you tired of being a 14th Amendment "citizen" that's bound to "statutes" and not Laws? If so, you might want to read this:

    Then perhaps you need to send back your Certificate of Live Birth and protest it as a constructive fraud with intent to enslave you and unjustly enrich the STATE, along with a new Declaration of Status and allegiance to the Republic state in which you live, not the Flag, but the "REPUBLIC".

    Denounce the implied contract and sever it. Even a former Arizona State Senator recognized that sovereign state Citizens were relinquishing their purported gov't contracts and warned other state officials of such:

    Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump Letter

    NOTE: These are my opinions and not legal advice, but rather put here for discussion and not meant to be taken as fact. Do your own due diligence, and add to the discussion if you so wish.

    Here's the simplest way to get out of their 'system' and reclaim your state citizenship: Declare your sovereign status and send back the one document that originated the fraud:

    Your Certificate of Live Birth is that one document that was a constructive fraud perpetrated by the STATE against you without your consent as an infant, and it was presented to your mother with fraudulent intent to begin with.

    You mother signed the Live Birth Record as an informant and using her maiden name, which was admission that there was no father (a bastard child that's a ward of the state), which gave the STATE permission to administer the Estate, since there was no father/Executor of the Estate, even if the father was present at the time of the birth.

    When your mother and father created the Record of Live Birth, they were the Grantor's who appointed the STATE as the Trustee of the Trust Agreement. The STATE pulled a fast one; split the title and sent back "ANOTHER and DIFFERENT" document known as the Certificate of Live Birth, in which they created, and he who creates owns. By doing this, they were now the Beneficiaries of a Trust they created for you ....... They were no longer the Trustees; they are now the Beneficiaries; the old Switcharoo! Now the parents become the Trustees, and the Trustees primary job in any Trust agreement, is to make as much money as possible for the Beneficiaries or Shareholders of said Trust. Hopefully I'm explaining this correctly, if not I'm sure the comment section will be quite helpful below :)

    Who knows, maybe we can Dean Clifford himself to chime in here. He seems to know more about our laws than most of us and sure has a way of making it simple.

    But they never told you that once you became of legal age, you could now step into your proper role as the Executor/Beneficiary. Here's where we switch from Trust Law to Corporate Law, and the former Executor becomes the Director who sets corporate policy and the government becomes the Trustee, who's primary role is to make sure the Shareholders get the largest return possible for their money.

    You should look up Dean Clifford's Trust Law Seminars on YouTube and start by watching the one called "Both Sides of the Story" to fully understand your relationship with government; the birth certificate, etc.

    The Record of Live Birth was sent to the STATE where it was then registered (not recorded, but registered). The STATE split the title and sent back a Certificate of Live Birth in the mail, which by the way is against the law; it's the conveyance of a security instrument through the mail, but we accepted it; we didn't know any better (we were infants), and neither did our parents.

    It's important to note: The Live Birth Record is a permanent legal record; it's a recording of an event (your birth). The Certificate of Live Birth is an extract from that document, stating something (your birth) was registered ...... two totally different things!

    They tell you not to use this "Certificate" as a means of Identity, but we do it anyway. Why? Because we are basically forced to by every government institution in this land. And for those that say we are not forced to, you are somewhat correct, but the truth is, that the public perception by all gov't and state employees, is that you "must" produce this document to receive services/licenses/registrations, etc. The public pressure is overwhelming; you're an outcast of society if you can't/won't/don't produce this document. This is a fact!

    It's a constructive-brainwashing FRAUD on society.

    Want a Drivers License? Then you must produce your Certificate of Live Birth.

    Want a Social Security Card? Then you must produce your Certificate of Live Birth to fill out the SS Application.

    Want a checking account? Then you must produce your drivers license and/or social security number, which you can't get without a Certificate of Live Birth.

    Want your child to play little league baseball? Then you must produce a Certificate of Live Birth.

    And the list goes on and on and on and on.

    So basically you've been raised and groomed in a system of bondage and government slavery since you hit the dirt crying. Births before 1921 I believe were recorded in the family Bible, then along came the foreign corp US and their constructive fraud-plan to enslave the future labor of all Citizens as collateral.

    The entire concept of the Certificate of Live Birth is a constructive fraud perpetrated against each and every one of us by the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES. That one document is the fraud that is used to bind you into other contracts with the foreign corp US; it is in fact the first link of the chain you will now build around your very own neck, followed by other links to that chain, such as the drivers license, the social security card, the selective service registration, etc.

    Live Birth Record - Certificate of Live Birth - Drivers License - Social Security Card - Slavery and Taxes.

    Since the Certificate of Live Birth is a constructive fraud meant to do nothing more than enslave you from it's inception, all other documentation acquired by use of that fraudulent document are NULL and VOID ........ End of Story!

    What did you acquire with the acceptance of the Certificate of Live Birth? Not one thing, other than slavery. You already had your Inherent Rights; granted by God. But with the acceptance of the Certificate and future use as identity for the purpose of acquiring a drivers license and social security card, now you have nothing to show, except an obligation(s).

    The only benefit we get is their Administration of our affairs, nice benefits package wouldn't you say?

    What benefit did they (corp US) get from issuing us that document with fraudulent intent?

    Can you say "Unjust Enrichment"? That one document was presented and delivered for one purpose and one purpose only:

    To begin the paperwork and process of your enslavement, period! It was the greatest of all magic tricks; the greatest deception the world has ever know ... a creation of Lucifer himself in my opinion.

    Perhaps we should send that Certificate of Live Birth to our respective state Attorney Generals and Secretary of States and protest it as an constructive fraud, with malicious intent to enslave us, and enrich the STATE?

    Every license, registration, certificate, we've received by use of that document is NULL and VOID on it's face, and yes, that includes the dreaded Social Security Card/Number.

    I wonder what would happen, or what the response would be if an affidavit of truth and protest was sent to the state government officials in protest of this Certificate of Live Birth?

    Could they rebut your claim, point by point in 21 days? And if they can't rebut your claim, or choose not to, isn't that an agreement between two parties; and if you have an agreement between two parties, isn't that now law?

    Doesn't an un-rebutted affidavit stand as law? I think it does.

    I don't know about you, but when I went and took a drivers test to obtain a 'drivers license'; and when I went to apply for a 'social security card', using my Certificate of Live Birth, I was not fully aware of the repercussions of this action. The truth was not presented to me that I was signing away my sovereignty and becoming a taxed slave/employee/person/corporation in commerce that's now arbitrarily bound by UNITED STATES rules/regulations and statutes.

    I did not know that this act alone would negate my Inherent Rights that are protected by the Constitution of the united States, and all of a sudden provide me with "granted rights and privileges"; subject me to an income tax, etc.

    When every single person from my parents to my high school and college instructors; state police; state officials etc. gave me the impression that I "must" use this Certificate of Live Birth to acquire a drivers license, little league membership, social security card, checking account, etc. I took them for their word, I believed it was in good faith, and not one of them ever told me the true repercussions and obligations that were attached to the use of this document. I was never taught in school; the highway patrol never explained this to me when I went to take a driving test; the tag agency never told me this when they issued my drivers license and on and on.

    These facts in their entirety were not brought to my attention; they are not listed in easy to read or plain language on any of those applications, and we were not told that by signing this, you are:

    1. Giving up your state/National Citizenship. 2. Are now considered to be an employee of a foreign corp US. 3. You will now be subject to an income tax. 4. You no longer have Inherent God given rights. 5. You will now be granted your rights and privileges by the STATE. 6. You no longer have a right to travel, it's now a privilege. 7. You will now be considered and enemy of the STATE. 8. We are using your Record of Live Birth as surety. 9. This is a unilateral "implied" contract, we won't sign it. 10.The Registrars Seal means your Estate is now in Probate 11.The STATE now considers you a DEAD person; fictitious entity. 12.You must now obey all our rules/regulations/statutes. 13.If you fail to obey, we will fine or imprison you. 14.You are now responsible for the governments debt you loaned us. 15.You are now considered a ward of the state, incompetent. 16.You are now subject to the Crown and all her glory. 17.You must ask permission to grow a garden, build a pond, etc. 18.You must acquire a license for anything and everything with a fee. 19.You will grant us authority to rape and pillage your bank account. 20.You are now a slave-taxpayer and we will take 25% of your income. 21.There is nothing but obligation attached to this document. 22.You are now considered a trustee of your own Estate. 23.A judge will now presume he's the administrator of your Estate. 24.An attorney, judge, prosecutor all work for the STATE against you. 25.A court of Law is now a shareholders meeting against your Estate. 26.All crimes will now be considered commercial. 27.You no longer have common law rights. 28.You can't bring the Constitution into a court as defense. 29.You are now considered property of the STATE. 30.From this day forth, you are a SLAVE-SLAVE-SLAVE, so help you God.

    31.You don't really have to sign this contract; it does not benefit you in any way-shape or form. It's only intent is to trick you into voluntary servitude and rob you for the rest of you life; to take your Inherent-God given rights and replace them with "granted rights and privileges". To have authority over your every decision; thought, or action from this day forth; to tax you into oblivion; steal your home, your car, your money, your freedom and pursuit of happiness. To take your right to a fair trial and instead put you at the mercy of a BAR attorney and Judge, and State Prosecutor who are all receiving money from the STATE as pay (your money mind you), which is a conflict of interest, but that's the price you're going to pay if you ever in a million years wish to play little league baseball; get a checking/savings account; get a social security number and basically be able to function in society (Insert Horror Movie Draconian Voice Here) ... Haaaaa-Haaaaa-Haaaaaaa-Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I smell the blood of 'citizen' said the monster/STATE.

    ME: Who the F***K would sign up for some BS like this if they understood the true "nature" and "intent" behind it????

    Yeah, me neither! It's a lie; it's a constructive fraud, period!

    It was not brought to my attention that a constructive fraud was being perpetrating before my very eyes. I thought I could trust my so called government not to force me into a slave contract by way of fraud and deceit. I was taken advantage of by a system that had I known the repercussions of my actions, I would have never volunteered for this, who in their right mind would?

    I wonder if one could draw up their own Declaration of Status, stating they are not 14th Amendment United States citizens; they are non-residents to the foreign corp US; but instead an American/state National; they are not employees of the foreign corp US (unless you are receiving a paycheck from them), and therefor not required or obligated to their (foreign corp US) rules, regulations, and statutes? That unless he/she is receiving a payment for their services, they are not performing a function of government; not operating through that 'title', and therefor not under any obligation to follow rules of that corporation?

    Also including a FEE SCHEDULE in your Declaration, that states: Since you folks created this "title" for me; and are under the presumption I'm operating through that "title" in the capacity of a government employee 365 days a year, and you're presuming my home is an office; and I'm the occupant of that office, if you want me to do anything other than sit on my a$$ and watch the Flintstone's all day, then my price to perform in that capacity within that office is $500,000.00 dollars an hour. If you want me to file a tax return; fill out any applications; show up in your statutory courts, etc. I'll need payment up front for my services, since you people apparently can't pay your bills and can't be trusted, once I receive payment in full, I'll be more than happy to carry out any function of government you insist on. I have a one hour minimum, so if it only takes me 17 minutes to fulfill my duties, you agree to pay me the sum of $500 Thousand. If it takes me 61 minutes, then you agree to pay me the sum of $1 Million Dollars USD and so forth.

    Then record that Declaration in the county recorders office. Run an add in the county seat newspaper as serving proper public notice (due process of law) for 3 consecutive weeks, then record the affidavit of publication the paper sends you in the county recorders office; then republish another add in the county seat newspaper stating it again for 3 more consecutive weeks. Isn't this serving proper-public notice?

    Note: Check your states public notice laws for required time of running a county seat add to fulfill due process.

    Also in your Declaration, make it known that you are not DEAD; that you are alive. The Certificate of Live Birth has a Registrars Seal and Signature. The Registrar is the court of Probate, and Probate only deals with the Estates of the DEAD. Why would the STATE split the original Record of Live Birth 'title' and send you back a death certificate? Could it be because they are using that original document as a security instrument; borrowing money against your future labor to pay off public debt? ..... If so, FRAUD on it's face!

    I think people tend to forget one thing: When the government took away our ability to pay off a debt by stealing our gold; they took possession of the gold, and He who has the gold makes the rules, right?

    But, He who has the gold, also "pays the bills". They (foreign corp US)owe us a lot of money; we don't owe them anything, unless you are employed by them, then you owe them taxes, but for state Citizens who are not employees of the foreign corp, they are owed the taxes the foreign corp is collecting from their employees as usage fees for using our lands and natural resources.

    That is the meaning of "public debt"; they are indebted to us; they stole our gold and are using our Record of Live Birth as a means of making money with our future labor; we are the lender, they are the borrower. They devised a deceitful scheme to suck us into their foreign corporation to pay their debt by issuing us a Certificate of Live Birth, then telling us we must have a drivers license; that we must get a social security card (#) to function in society; to get a checking account; to play little league sports; to get insurance, etc.

    It was an evil and deceitful plan to sucker you into employment; an employment contract of sorts. The only problem is, we never sit down and negotiated the "terms of my employment". How much am I getting paid; what are my hours; what's my medical/dental insurance incentives; do I get a company vehicle, paid sick days; how many days off for holidays, is that with pay? What's my yearly performance bonus? Where's my value in this deal? What benefits am I receiving other than a "promise to pay me later" with gold, police or fire services, hospitalization, etc. I don't work for free or a "possibility" of a future benefit; do you?

    A contract can only be a contract if there is valuable consideration. What value did we receive by accepting the COLB other than obligations on Inherent Rights we already had? What value did they receive?

    Could it be "Unjust Enrichment by way of Fraud and Deceit"?

    You should listen to Dean Clifford explain it a little better in his recent talkshoe appearance on Angela Stark's radio program, here ...

    Skip forward to about the :50 minute mark, as Dean showed up a little late.

    Every contract you've entered into by using the Certificate of Live Birth, is NULL and VOID, and that includes the Social Security Slave Card/Number .... All the way back to the day you received the Certificate of Live Birth in the mail.

    But only if your protest it. Silence is acquiescence and failure to dispute a fraud is acceptance.

    NOTE: If you're a government employee reading this (IRS, DEA, CIA, FEMA, FBI, etc.) you've got to be scratching your head about now saying "WTF?" I had no idea of this; I had no idea my little Johnie or Jamie are now wards of the STATE; that because I sent in that Record of Live Birth, I unknowingly enslaved my child; subjected them to future taxes, rules and regulations. Subjected them to unfair trials by BAR Attorneys, Judges and STATE Prosecutors who are all being paid by the STATE with one common goal in mind: To tax/fine/imprison my little child to further enrich the STATE. That I unwittingly signed my child over to the STATE with the Birth Certificate and Marriage License; that the STATE now considers my little Johnnie or Jamie their own personal-private property/tax slave.

    If you weren't aware of this by now, welcome to the club Special Agent Johnson.

    If you were aware, I don't know how you people sleep at night knowing your complicit in this fraud of enslaving your own brothers and sisters on American soil; working for the Crown as a Foreign Agent with one purpose: To help beat up and imprison your own people for a measly STATE issued weekly paycheck. Is $500/week worth your soul?

    Dean says don't spend all this time jumping through gov't BS paperwork and hoops. Forget all the Patriot UCC-1 filings (it's their paperwork your using to get free, how much freedom do you think it really provides?).

    Denounce the sole document that started it all, the Certificate of Live Birth and every contract you ever signed using that document as Identification is NULL and VOID. That's where the fraud started, and that's the head of the snake, so cut it off and be done with it. If they have no contract, they have NO JURISDICTION!
     
  35. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    These facts in their entirety were not brought to my attention; they are not listed in easy to read or plain language on any of those applications, and we were not told that by signing this, you are:

    1. Giving up your state/National Citizenship.

    2. Are now considered to be an employee of a foreign corp US.

    3. You will now be subject to an income tax.

    4. You no longer have Inherent God given rights.

    5. You will now be granted your rights and privileges by the STATE.

    6. You no longer have a right to travel, it's now a privilege.

    7. You will now be considered and enemy of the STATE.

    8. We are using your Record of Live Birth as surety.

    9. This is a unilateral "implied" contract, we won't sign it.

    10.The Registrars Seal means your Estate is now in Probate

    11.The STATE now considers you a DEAD person; fictitious entity.

    12.You must now obey all our rules/regulations/statutes.

    13.If you fail to obey, we will fine or imprison you.
    14.You are now responsible for the governments debt you loaned us.

    15.You are now considered a ward of the state, incompetent.

    16.You are now subject to the Crown and all her glory.

    17.You must ask permission to grow a garden, build a pond, etc.

    18.You must acquire a license for anything and everything with a fee.

    19.You will grant us authority to rape and pillage your bank account.

    20.You are now a slave-taxpayer and we will take 25% of your income.

    21.There is nothing but obligation attached to this document.

    22.You are now considered a trustee of your own Estate.

    23.A judge will now presume he's the administrator of your Estate.

    24.An attorney, judge, prosecutor all work for the STATE against you.

    25.A court of Law is now a shareholders meeting against your Estate.

    26.All crimes will now be considered commercial.

    27.You no longer have common law rights.

    28.You can't bring the Constitution into a court as defense.

    29.You are now considered property of the STATE.

    30.From this day forth, you are a SLAVE-SLAVE-SLAVE, so help you God.

    31.You don't really have to sign this contract; it does not benefit you in any way-shape or form. It's only intent is to trick you into voluntary servitude and rob you for the rest of you life; to take your Inherent-God given rights and replace them with "granted rights and privileges". To have authority over your every decision; thought, or action from this day forth; to tax you into oblivion; steal your home, your car, your money, your freedom and pursuit of happiness. To take your right to a fair trial and instead put you at the mercy of a BAR attorney and Judge, and State Prosecutor who are all receiving money from the STATE as pay (your money mind you), which is a conflict ofinterest, but that's the price you're going to pay if you ever in a million years wish to play little league baseball; get a checking/savings account; get a social security number and basically be able to function in society.
     
  36. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    875
    Likes Received:
    968
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    These court decisions seem to give validity that your "Strawman" is real...

    We are born as Sovereign and the government is the servant.
    How many times have you heard that government officials are "Public Servants"??
    So how is it that the government is our master???

    "One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master".


    The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates.
    Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)





    “The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories [STATUTORY citizens], though within the United States[*], were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.”
    [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]




    In the United States (the country), there are, in fact TWO “social contracts” or “social compacts”, and each protects a different subset of the overall population.

    “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
    [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]

    You can only be a party to ONE of these two social contracts/compacts at a time, because you can only have a domicile in ONE jurisdiction at a time.
    These two jurisdictions that Congress legislates for are:

    1.The states of the Union under the requirements of the Constitution of the United States. In this capacity, it is called the “federal/general government”.

    2.The U.S. government, the District of Columbia, U.S. possessions and territories, and enclaves within the states. In this capacity, it is called the “national government”. The authority for this jurisdiction derives from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. All laws passed essentially amount to municipal laws for federal property, and in that capacity, Congress is not restrained by either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We call the collection of all federal territories, possessions, and enclaves within the states “the federal zone” throughout this document.

    The “separation of powers doctrine” is what created these two separate and distinct social compacts and jurisdictions. Each has its own courts, unique types of “citizens”, and laws.
     
    anotherdave likes this.
  37. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    The only way I know is by contract. Adhesion contracts such as the SSN, Birth certificate, Driver's license et al.
     
  38. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    875
    Likes Received:
    968
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    third cove on the right



























    I know you know....:thumbs_up:









    i
     
  39. TRYNEIN

    TRYNEIN Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    875
    Likes Received:
    968
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    third cove on the right
    CHALLENGES IN COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS START

    These statements and questions can be directed to the judge, for himself, the prosecuting attorney and state witnesses, such as police, etc., and to each one, individually. Not all of these need be made, so state those with which you are most comfortable. If both you and your opposition, including the judge, fully understand the very serious, lawful positions and Constitutional implications of the statements and questions, usually, only the first one is needed for Constitutional justice to be served.

    When the judge asks if the parties are ready to proceed, we say, “No, not just yet, sir (or madam), I have a few matters I need to clarify before we begin.” Then we make the statements we think most appropriate.

    1. A. You and the prosecutor have taken oaths of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America and that of this state. Is that correct?

    B. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths, in the performance of your official duties, including those before this Honorable Court. Is that correct?

    Note: If the judge, or the prosecuting attorney or other state witnesses say “no”, then, obviously, they must be disqualified and/or removed from the bench, position or impeached as witnesses, along with their testimonies, for obvious reasons. This answer is evidence that the one who answered “no” will not abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties, therefore, by his own answer, his oath is meaningless to him. He is a traitor and a danger to the American People, and must be removed from power.

    All those who have taken oaths are required to answer “yes”. This answer is consistent with the requirements under the oath, the bond which binds the oath and requirements of the Constitutions. A “yes” answer means that ALL actions taken by the public servant, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE must be consistent with Constitutional requirements, specific to the Bill of Rights. If the public servant’s past actions failed this, and if those actions are used in an action or as evidence against the defendant, then those actions were not taken pursuant to his oath and were done in opposition to Constitutional requirements. Therefore, the public servant perjured his oath, invoked the self-executing sections 3 and 4 of the 14th amendment, vacated his office, and forfeited all benefits of that former office, including salary and pensions. All charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.

    He must be disqualified from his position, and if a witness, he and his testimony must be impeached and all his unconstitutional, unlawful actions and evidence against the defendant must be denied, and the charges dismissed. All present and future actions by the judge and court must be conducted pursuant to the Constitutions, federal and state. In this situation, if you are fully aware of your Rights and the full extent of the “yes” answer, you will prevail. However, if the judge were to then after violate his answer by his actions, you must inform him of his answer and his Constitutional requirements thereto, and his liability if he were to fail in his duty.


    2. I appear before this Honorable Court as a living, breathing natural-born American Citizen, with, and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the federal and state Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled in upper and lower case letters.

    After this is stated, wait a few seconds to look at the prosecutors and the judge, then say:

    Is there any objection to what I just stated?

    Obviously, pursuant to oaths taken by the judge, prosecutors or opposing attorneys, there can be no lawful objection to what you just stated, because all that you just stated, includes, but is not limited to, truth and fact. If what you just stated is true, namely, that you are a natural born American Citizen, it would be lawfully foolish and absurd for the judge, the prosecutor or your opposing attorneys to object. If they were to object, then, they would be forced to support their objections with fact and law, or their objections are reduced to opinions, only, and opinions are not valid bases in any court of Constitutional competence upon which to state objections or claim lawful positions. In such an event, you must specify this.

    When no objection is made, then, you appear before the Court as you stated. If there are any assumptions or presumptions made by any of your opposition regarding any alleged contracts or requirements with the fictitious entity, those assumptions, contracts, etc., were just removed with your statement and no objections made. If the case against you is based upon those contracts and assumptions, the entire basis for the case has been removed by your own direct and simple statement.

    3. This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed to American Citizens in the federal and state Constitutions, including due process of law. Is that correct?

    Note: A “no” answer carries the same conditions as above. A “yes” answer is in compliance with Constitutional requirements for American Citizens and is consistent with the “yes” answer to #1 above. Again, if you are fully aware of your Rights and the conditions underlying the affirmative answer, you will prevail. Remember, bind the judge by his answer.

    4. I am entitled to and guaranteed a fair and impartial trial presided over by a fair, unbiased and impartial judge, in a court of record, before and decided by a well-informed jury of my peers. Is that correct?

    Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions stated above. A “yes” answer confirms the conditions of the statement, including: (1) Right to a fair and impartial trial; (2) unbiased and impartial judge; (3) a jury of my peers; (4) which jury decides guilt or innocence.

    5. I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges, presumptions and assumptions in, by and of this court, unless proven guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on verified evidence and proof. Is that correct?

    Note: Either answer is consistent with conditions as stated above. However, in this statement, with a “yes” answer, you are confirming several vital positions: (1) presumed innocent of all ASPECTS of the alleged charges; (2) presumed innocent of ALL PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS of this court; (3) unless PROVEN guilty by a JURY OF MY PEERS; (4) proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (5) based SOLELY ON VERIFIED EVIDENCE AND PROOF.

    6. A. “Proof” consists of verified and demonstrated evidence, and not opinion, especially opinion unsupported by fact, law and evidence. Is that correct?

    Note: In this statement, by the judge’s answer, you are confirming the nature and status of “proof”. It is highly unlikely that any judge will, on the public record, answer “no” to this statement, since his answer will defy the very loudly proclaimed concept of American justice, will defy due process of law, deny Constitutional Rights and allow ‘opinion”, unsupported or otherwise, to be used as “proof”.

    When the judge answers “yes”, that will be consistent with the judge’s oath, Constitutional requirements and his other “yes” answers. He will confirm the statement, and the fact that opinion, verified or otherwise, is not proof. This is a major position, a major lawful gain and benefit. Many “testimonies” by witnesses are simply opinions, usually unsupported and unverified. The defendant can now be assured that only verified and documented proof, and not opinion, from anyone, can be used against him.

    B. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” consists solely of decisions and verdicts from a well-informed jury of my peers based entirely on proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury. Is that correct?

    Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions above stated. A “yes” answer confirms ALL the conditions of the statement, due process of law, Constitutional requirements, the judge’s oath, and assures that a jury of your peers will make its verdict based solely on PROOF, not opinion, that absolutely confirms guilt, without any questions, whatsoever.

    7. Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported and unverified by fact, law and proven evidence is simply opinion, and opinion, as previously established, is not proof. Is that correct?

    Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions stated above. A “yes” answer again confirms the status of ”proof” as different from opinion. Thus, any plaintiff, (or opponent), prosecutor or witness MUST have verified proof, as described, and not opinion to support his statements. This is of vital importance to American Citizens. Therefore, “proof” by the prosecutor and testimony of witnesses is only opinion, unless supported as above stated, and if not, it is meaningless, frivolous, null and void and not accepted by the court as proof of anything, including guilt.

    8. A. Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state that is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?

    B. Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same plaintiff against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.

    Note: A “no” answer is consistent with above conditions. If the judge were to answer ”no”, he is essentially saying, on the public record, that it is possible for a defendant to have a fair trial, even though he, the judge, the prosecutor and the state witnesses all work for and are paid by your opponent, and that all the so-called “evidence” against the defendant was obtained from sources paid by the state, again, the opponent. Even the most avowed critic can see through this fraud.

    A “yes” answer confirms the conditions of the statement, and conclusively demonstrates that a presiding judge recognizes, on the public record, that the referenced court conditions are not fair, not partial, and, as such, unconstitutional. This is a major Constitutional and lawful victory for the people, with far reaching implications.

    9. Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects, presumptions and assumptions of those charges and this court, I have challenged the jurisdiction of this court, which this court has not proven, on the public record. Therefore, since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the charges and presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven, jurisdiction is simply a presumption of this court, of which I am presumed innocent. Therefore, I move for dismissal of all charges for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous federal and Supreme Court rulings, this case must be dismissed, with prejudice, and I hereby move for dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice.

    Note: By prior “yes” answers, it has been established that the defendant is presumed innocent of all assumptions and presumptions of the court. Jurisdiction is both an assumption and presumption of the court, of which the defendant is presumed innocent. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court, which the court failed to prove, on the record. Therefore, since the defendant is presumed innocent of jurisdiction, has challenged jurisdiction, which the court has failed to prove, on the public record, the court lacks jurisdiction and since jurisdiction does not exist, the charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.

    If the judge were to deny this lawful position and insist that his court has jurisdiction, without his having proven it, on the public record, the following could be stated:

    Since the judge has stated that this court conforms to all Constitutional requirements, then, this court conforms to the Bill of Rights, Article III of the federal Constitution and to due process of law. Jurisdiction is directly related to the foregoing, is an aspect of the charges, and a presumption of this court, of which the defendant is presumed innocent, yet this court has failed to prove jurisdiction, on the record. Thus, this court defies Constitutional requirements, due process of law, federal and Supreme Court rulings, and therefore forfeits any “perceived jurisdiction”, has no Constitutional authority to hear this case, so this case must be dismissed, with prejudice; or the presiding judge, pursuant to his oath, perjures that oath, commits insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, on the public record, and treason against the American People.

    10. A. The jury swears an oath to the Constitution. Is that correct? In its deliberations and in its verdict, the jury is required to abide by its oath. Is that correct?

    Note: Since the jury swears an oath and is required to abide by that oath, it is obvious that a “yes” answer is required. The Constitutional and lawful position here is that the jury must abide by its oath in making its verdict. If it fails to do so, then the jury perjures its oath, its actions and verdict are unconstitutional and the jury verdict null and void, without force or effect, whatsoever. Just as a public servant is required to abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties, so is the jury. However, the People must know and demand their Rights, or they have none.

    If the judge were to answer “no”, which is highly unlikely, then as a defendant I would move for immediate dismissal of all charges, with prejudice, because any judge or court that permits an unconstitutional jury to perjure its oath and reach an unconstitutional verdict, pursuant to its oath, operates as an open fraud upon the People, denies and defies the Constitution and the powers of and Rights guaranteed therein to the American people, denies due process of law and has no jurisdiction over any American Citizen, whatsoever.

    B. If the jury, pursuant to its oath, makes its verdict in perjury of its oath or in opposition or contradiction to the Constitutions and the Rights guaranteed therein to American Citizens, or based in false information and fraud, that verdict is plainly unconstitutional, thus null and void, frivolous, and without force or effect, whatsoever. Is that correct?

    Note: Answer given in previous note. Further, pursuant to oaths taken, any jury verdict based, either in whole or in part, in fraud, deception, manipulation, lies or false information is null and void.

    If the judge were to say that this is not correct, then I, as a defendant, would inform him, pursuant to his oath and pursuant to his preceding “yes” answers, why his response is not only incorrect, but unconstitutional and unlawful. Further, I would inform him that he has no Constitutional authority to deny, on the public record, the very Constitution to which he, bound by bond, and the jury swore an oath. Further, he has no Constitutional authority to exceed his limited Constitutionally delegated authority, or to step outside that authority. It is obvious that the judge is not a higher authority than the Constitution, therefore, he cannot overrule it.

    If the judge were to insist that the jury verdict, even when based in fraud, etc., as above described, is valid, I would remind him of his first “yes” answer to statement #1, in which he is required to conduct his professional duties pursuant to his oath, as is the jury also required. I would then remind the judge of his other “yes” answers, in which he confirmed, including, but not limited to, the Constitutional duties of the court. His response is made in contradiction to his oath, as is the jury’s verdict, thus, both are unlawful, unconstitutional, without force or effect whatsoever, and not binding in a Constitutionally compliant court, which the judge stated, on the public record, is the status of this court.

    At this point, I would move for immediate dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice, for, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction, lack of Constitutional authority, defiance of the federal and state Constitutions, denial of due process, perjury of oath, insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, and treason against the American People, in the instant case, the defendant.

    If the “judge” were to remain firm, then, as a defendant, I would inform him that I am entitled to a fair and impartial trial, by a jury of my peers, as he has previously agreed, and as is Constitutionally guaranteed, yet this jury is not a jury of my peers for many reasons, including, but not limited to: (1) jury members are not part of my ethnicity; (2) they do not work in the same profession I do; (3) they do not come from the same background and education that I do; (4) they are not Constitutionalists and supporters of the Supreme Law of the Land, as I am; (4) they are traitors to the Constitution and to the American People, which I am not.

    I would then, again, move for dismissal of all charges and the case, with prejudice, based upon previously stated grounds, and further include the fact that the judge would permit an unconstitutional verdict by a lawless, unconstitutional jury not of my peers. The Constitutions guarantee me a jury of my peers, yet this judge denies this Constitutionally guaranteed Right to me. Pursuant to his oath, he has no Constitutional authority to overrule the very same Constitution to which he swore an oath, and, further, is not a higher authority than the Constitution. If the judge were to remain firm, I would again inform him that, by his own actions and responses, he committed insurrection, sedition and treason against the American People, is a traitor to this Nation and its People, and must be removed from the bench for his treason. I will immediately file criminal and civil charges against him, personally, and in his professional capacity, and take action against him in an Article III federal court, which I will demand, by Motion.


    http://web.archive.org/web/20110725...softheamericanconstitution.org/challenges.htm
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2013
  40. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    24,010
    Likes Received:
    24,299
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Another piece of the puzzle:

    Birth Certificate

    A Settlement Certificate, also known as a “Birth Certificate” since 1837, is an official document issued to validly recorded poor (paupers) granting them certain basic rights and entitlement to benefits in exchange for recognition of their status as being owned as “property” and lawful slaves, also known as indentured servants and bondsmen. A “settlement” therefore is equivalent to a voluntary slave plantation.

    Origin of Settlement (Birth) Certificates

    Under King Henry VIII of England and his Venetian/Magyar advisers, the first poor laws were promulgated around 1535 coinciding with the first official mandate requiring uniform record keeping by all Church of England parishes of births, deaths and marriages. The poor were considered the responsibility of the “Church” including ensuring they had ample work and did not starve to death as they were considered by default the property of the church.

    Under Queen Elizabeth I of England, a set of measures which were introduced which had the effect of accelerating the disenfranchisement of land peasants into landless paupers. Under the Erection of Cottages Act 1588, peasants required local parish permission to erect dwellings whereas before the erection of a dwelling by a land peasant on their lord's land was considered a "right". As a result, the ranks of the landless poor, or "paupers" swelled.

    Under Queen Elizabeth I of England, the laws concerning the administration and care of the “poor” were refined through the Poor Law (1601) which introduced a basic set of “rights” for the poor as well as the introduction of two “Overseers of the Poor” (Guardian) in each Parish, elected at Easter and funded through the first levy (tax) through local rates (now called "council taxes") on property owning rate payers.

    Under Charles II of England, the concept of “Settlements” as plantations of working poor controlled by the Church of England was further refined through the Settlement Act (1662) and Poor Relief Act (1662) including for the first time the issuance of “Settlement Certificates” equivalent to a “birth certificate, passport and social security” rolled into one document. A child's birthplace was its place of settlement, unless its mother had a settlement certificate from some other parish stating that the unborn child was included on the certificate. However from the age of 7 upwards the child could have been apprenticed and gained a settlement for itself through called indentured service, or "voluntary slavery". Also, the child could have obtained a settlement for itself by service by the time it was 16.

    Under the “reforms” of the Settlement Act (1662) and Poor Relief Act (1662), no one was allowed to move from town to town without the appropriate “Settlement Certificate”. If a person entered a parish in which he or she did not have official settlement, and seemed likely to become chargeable to the new parish, then an examination would be made by the justices (or parish overseers). From this examination on oath, the justices would determine if that person had the means to sustain himself. The results of the examination were documented in an Examination Paper. As a result of the examination the intruder would then either be allowed to stay, or would be removed by means of what was known as a Removal Order, the origin of the modern equivalent of an “Eviction and Removal Notice” when a sheriff removes people from their home.

    According to the various settlement acts from the 17th Century onwards until the introduction of Birth Certificates, the issue of a Settlement Certificate was considered a privilege, not a right. If a peasant wanted to move, the home parish could choose to issue a Settlement Certificate which then effectively became an indemnity insurance to the new parish if the pauper was unable to earn a living. A settlement certificate was only valid if it bore the seals of the overseers of both parishes and that of the local Justices and was not transferable. This is the same model of modern passports for citizens listed as "P" (Paupers or Peons) used today.

    Due to the increase in the number of “poor”, in 1723 a new law was passed called the Workhouse Test Act (1723) in which those who wished to claim benefits and relief as poor now had to enter a “workhouse” being essentially a prison for men, women and children to perform some set work. To ensure that all poor were accounted and could be identified, new laws were also introduced to force the Paupers to wear a ‘P’ on their right shoulders as a mark of their status. This is both the origin of the “P” still placed as a mark on modern passports and other “official” documents and the “P” worn by prisoners from the 20th Century.

    Beginning in 1773 with the Inclosure Act 1773, followed by the Inclosure Consolidation Act 1801, English Parliament effectively "privatized" massive amounts of common land for the benefit of a few, causing huge numbers of land peasants to become "landless paupers" and therefore in need of parish assistance. The Inclosure Acts are the foundation of Land Title as it is known today.

    Because of the deliberate "legal" theft of land under parliamentary Inclosure laws of the late 18th and early 19th Century, the number of paupers dramatically increased. This led to the most awful and cruel laws being introduced to deliver to an elite few, the slave labor force needed for the industrial revolution through the Poor Law Amendment Act (1834) which effectively stated that the poor could not receive any benefit unless they were constantly "employed" in a workhouse prison. Thus, despite international treaties against slavery, the very worst slavery being "wage slavery" or "lawful slavery" was born whereby men, women and children lived in terrible conditions and were worked "to death".

    Beginning in 1834, a number of historic changes were introduced to the record keeping of births, deaths and marriages, the issuance of documents and the management of the “poor”:
    (i) In 1834, British Parliament introduced the Poor Law Amendment Act (1834) which reorganized Church of England parishes into unions which would then be responsible for the poor in their area and administered by a Board of Poor Law Guardians, also known as the Board of Guardians. The clerks of Magistrates Courts still hold the power of a Clerk of the Board of Guardians; and
    (ii) In 1835, the Municipal Corporations Act (1835) was introduced which effectively standardized the corporate model for towns and boroughs including making the municipality with elected officials responsible for data collection and service administration; and
    (iii) In 1836, the Births and Deaths Registration Act (1836) was introduced which for the first time created the General Register Office and the requirement for uniform records of births, deaths and marriages across the Empire by Municipal Councils and Unions of Parishes. Thus on 1 July 1837, the Birth Certificate was formed as the successor of the Settlement Certificate for all "paupers" disenfranchised of their land birthright to be considered lawful ("voluntary") slaves with benefits provided by the local parish/region underwritten by the Society of Lloyds as it is still today.

    Beginning from 1871, further historic changes in the administration of “vital statistics” such as birth certificates and death certificates with the introduction of health districts or “sanitary districts”. The Local Government Act of 1871, Public Health Act 1872 and Public Health Act 1875 created a system of “districts” called Sanitary Districts governed by a Sanitary Authority responsible for various public health matters including mental health legally known as “sanity”. Two types of Sanitary Districts were created being Urban and Rural. While the sanitary districts were “abolished” in 1894 with the Local Government Act of 1894, the administration of the “poor” is still maintained in part under the concept of district health boards of Guardians including magistrates and other “Justices of the Peace”.

    Since 1990 under the United Nations and the World Health Organisation (WHO) by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the system of issuing birth certificates as proof of a man or woman being a permanent member of the underclass has become an international system.

    Birth Certificate as proof one is born on the land

    One fundamental flaw that remains within the Settlement (Birth) Cerificate System for the Roman Cult and its agents remains the fact that a Settlement Certificate is proof that a man or woman must have been born on the land for the certifiate to have effect, regardless of convoluted subsequent presumptions of what the certificate actually represents. If a man or woman was not born on the land somewhere a certificate could not be issued. Therefore any rejection, or return of a Birth Certificate serves as perfected evidence that a man or woman was born on the land and support to any Affadavit of Truth concerning their immutable rights from the Divine Creator.

    This built in "flaw" is offset through the treatment of men and women as land themselves, through the deliberate corruption of the definition of land to include all that has been born naturally or self-improved on the land. In other words, the sharp edge reason the system ultimately denies each citizen their share of the commonwealth is because they are considered "chattle" and mere creatures less than slaves.

    Birth Certificates are not "extremely valuable" to the holder in whose name the certificate is issued

    While it is true that Birth Certificates are considered valuable securities that are traded amongst the private international entities and the elite, the holder in whose name the certificate is issued does not have access to such value.

    Instead, by holding the Birth Certificate, the man or woman essentially consent to being treated as a pauper or peon and the sole obligation of the elite to provide mere scraps so that the man or woman does not die of starvation or great illness.

    As Settlement Certificates and later Birth Certificates are solely and purposefully designed to disenfranchise men and woman from their rightful inheritance through voluntary enslavement and admission to being "paupers", the system of Birth Certificates is wholly without legitimacy, a global system of organized fraud and crime and without lawful effect.

    http://euro-union-court.org/info_ecclesiastical_deed/edp_birth_certificates.htm
     

Share This Page