unitedstatessecurities

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Saturday, April 27, 2013

STRUCTURE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Posted on 2:58 AM by Unknown



By:  David Deschesne
Fort Fairfield Journal, May 11, 2005
A certificate is a "paper establishing an ownership claim." - Barron's Dictionary of Banking Terms.  Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.
Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called "warehouse receipts."  The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:
-the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored...(residence)
-the date of issue of the receipt.....("Date issued")
-the consecutive number of the receipt...(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)
-a description of the goods or of the packages containing them...(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)
-the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent...(municipal clerk or state registrar's signature)
Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as "warehouse receipts" under the Uniform Commercial Code.  Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:
warehouse receipt. "...A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security."
Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence.  All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks.  The "Full faith and Credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt.  That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt.  In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end.  Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is.
Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head" basis.  This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.
Additional Birth Certificate Research
Federal Children
 by Joyce Rosenwald
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."
Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.
In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.
Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.
The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:
I. The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.
By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.
(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.
In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.
The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.
(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.
(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.
The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........
http://www.mainemediaresources.com/mpl_birthcert.htm
ETHICAL DONATORS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE GLOBAL INDEPENDENT MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE POLITICS HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND CONTROL. FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:themikiverse@gmail.com 
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in 100% Australian Independent Media, mikiverse, Mikiverse Headline News, Mikiverse Health, Mikiverse Law, Mikiverse Politics, Mikiverse Science | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • SEND THIS DOCUMENT TO THE JUDGE AND WATCH YOUR COURT CASE VANISH!
    http://freedomfromgovernment.us/?p=725  Taken from FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT webpage. Use the following freedom affidavit to let them know tha...
  • DECLARING YOURSELF AS A SECURE PARTY CREDITOR
    Published February 12, 2012 | By admin In the review of the steps necessary for filing your Redemption, the main and primary focus, for ...
  • JEAN KEATING ORLANDO FLORIDA SEMINAR
    Transcribed by Rockney Martineau 12/25/04 Jean Keating Work Shop   ______________________ INTRODUCTION By:   Michael Young               ...
  • THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME-THE BIRTH SCAM
    PLEASE NOTE: I do not know who authored this, but, think that it was a biological composition with the calling of Bill. I was presented with...
  • BEAT THE LAW "HOW TO GET DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY"
    ALL CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE OR FROM COL WILSON IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. ALL RIG...
  • COSMIC BLUEPRINTS OPEN FORUM TONY Z AND KATE OF GAIA
    Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio ETHICAL   DONATORS  AND  COMMUNITY MEMBERS  REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SP...
  • WHEN ENGLAND BECAME A VASSAL STATE OF THE VATICAN.....THE SECRET TREATY OF VERONA 1213
    “On October 3rd 1213, King John, as ‘King of England Corporation Sole’ claimed autonomy over all the sovereign rights of England and ...
  • COSMIC BLUEPRINTS OPEN FORUM. TONY Z, KATE OF GAIA AND OTHERS TALK TO TAMI PEPPERMAN
    Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio ETHICAL   DONATORS  AND  COMMUNITY MEMBERS  REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SP...
  • NEGOTIORUM GESTIO & NEGOTIORUM GESTOR AS DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW FIRST EDITION
    NEGOTIORUM GESTIO. Lat. In the civil law. Literally, a doing of business or businesses. A species of spontaneous agency, or an interference ...
  • LEAVING THE PFARM - OPPT DISCUSSION BY TAMI PEPPERMAN AND FRIENDS
    There are some terrible audio problems over the first 5-10 minutes then it really kicks off. The trend that I am noticing in the OPPT debate...

Categories

  • 'Australia is 100% Australian Independent Media (6)
  • 'Australia is a Crime Scene' - Robbie Thorpe (107)
  • 100% Australian Independent Media (392)
  • 100% Independent Australian Media (69)
  • 100% Independent Australian Media Australian Constitution (2)
  • A4V (2)
  • Administration and Probate Act 1958 - SECT 9 (1)
  • Australia is a Crime Scene (1)
  • Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (1)
  • Australian Independent Media (1)
  • Bill Turner (1)
  • Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (1)
  • Blacks Law (1)
  • Bono Vacantia (1)
  • Bouvier's (1)
  • Bruce Bell (1)
  • Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (7)
  • Challenger (1)
  • COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION. (1)
  • Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (1)
  • County Court owned by Liberty (1)
  • Daily Mail (1)
  • Dean Clifford (7)
  • Frank O’Collins (6)
  • Free Roger Hayes (2)
  • Freedom from Government (1)
  • Herald Sun (3)
  • high court (1)
  • High Court decisions (2)
  • http://mikiverselaw.blogspot.com.au/ (24)
  • Idle No More (1)
  • Information Privacy Act 2000 (1)
  • Jean Keating (2)
  • Judiciary Act 1903 S.40 (1)
  • King James II of Australia (1)
  • Larry Hannigan (1)
  • Liberty (1)
  • Mark A Robinson (1)
  • Mark McMurtrie (23)
  • Master in Equity (1)
  • Mens Rea (1)
  • Mental Health Act (1)
  • Mika of the family Rasila (4)
  • mikiverse (486)
  • Mikiverse Headline News (464)
  • Mikiverse Health (492)
  • Mikiverse Law (490)
  • Mikiverse Politics (494)
  • Mikiverse Science (488)
  • mikiverse.com (23)
  • MikiverseLaw (6)
  • Motor Car Act 1909 (1)
  • NATIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSION (ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION—AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES) REGULATIONS 2006 (1)
  • NSW Law Reform Commission (1)
  • OPPT (8)
  • Original Soveregn Tribal Federation (5)
  • Originie Australian (2)
  • OSTF (9)
  • Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1872 (1)
  • Police Brutality (1)
  • PUBLIC NOTICE (1)
  • Real Justice (1)
  • RealJustice (1)
  • Robert Arthur Menard (4)
  • Robert Menard (4)
  • Rod Class (3)
  • Roger Hayes (1)
  • RT (1)
  • Rumble-v-Liverpool Plains Shire Council No. 2011/58125 (1)
  • S 16 Motor Car Act 1909 (1)
  • S.76 Sentencing Act 1991 (1)
  • Santos Bonacci (1)
  • Stefan Molyneux (1)
  • Tami Pepperman (3)
  • The Judiciary Act 1903 (1)
  • The Mikiverse (3)
  • UCC Financing Statement (1)
  • Vimeo (1)
  • Wayne Glew (1)
  • Winston Shrout (1)
  • You Tube (24)
  • Your CAR is NOT a MOTOR VEHICLE (3)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (304)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (59)
    • ►  July (30)
    • ►  June (28)
    • ►  May (18)
    • ▼  April (25)
      • IMBATMAN57'S COMMUNITY CALL
      • THE CODE OF HAMMURABI TRANSLATED BY L. W. KING
      • BABYLONIAN LAW -- THE CODE OF HAMMURABI
      • ACILIAN LAW ON THE RIGHT TO RECOVERY OF PROPERTY O...
      • HOONS' CARS GO UNDER THE HAMMER
      • SPACE EVADERS - TRAM INSPECTORS CAN'T CHASE, CORRA...
      • THE ONE PEOPLE: OATH AND BOND DOCUMENTS
      • STRUCTURE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
      • JOHN PASCOE RIDES AGAIN. FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT...
      • PIRATE BAY FOUNDERS CASE REJECTED BY HUMAN RIGHTS ...
      • HIGH HOUSE PRICES? INEQUALITY? I BLAME THE NORMANS
      • UN-SWISSINDO - OPPT AS I UNDERSTAND IT
      • HOUSE APPROVES CISPA DESPITE LAST-MINUTE PUSH BY O...
      • FORMER POLICE PROSECUTOR CHALLENGING CASEY COUNCIL...
      • WHY DO WE HAVE NAMES ON PAPER YOUR NAME IN CAPS ( ...
      • OHIO SHOULD OUTLAW RED LIGHT CAMERAS
      • SEVEN ALLEGORICAL FILMS THAT REVEAL SECRETS ABOUT ...
      • NSW LAWS PASSED TO END RIGHT TO SILENCE
      • WHATS IN A NAME?
      • TEN TIPS AND TACTICS FOR INVESTIGATING SOVEREIGN C...
      • H.R.4310 - NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR ...
      • CQV TRUST JUDGE BANS CAMERAS AND OFFERS QUICK DEAL...
      • CQV CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST -- APPOINTING THE JUDGE T...
      • MARK SCHMIDTER CAGED FOR DISTRUBUTING JURY NULLIFI...
      • HUMAN BEING - TO BE OR NOT TO BE A HUMAN BEING?
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (66)
    • ►  January (32)
  • ►  2012 (196)
    • ►  December (48)
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (15)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (37)
    • ►  May (10)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (1)
Powered by Blogger.