Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

Goldhedge said: 06-15-2010 03:08 PM
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.wordpres...as-collateral/
"...a Republic, if you can keep it!" Ben Franklin
Derivatives are contracts whose value is derived from stocks, bonds, loans, currencies and commodities, or linked to
specific events such as changes in interest rates or the weather.
"Money is the future idea of value." Armstrong

"Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance." Sun Tzu
Be the change you want to see in the world. Gandhi
Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

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.

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. Â§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/Ci.../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/In...ouStrawman.htm
Last edited by Goldhedge; 02-24-2013 at 11:07 PM.
Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

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. Â§ 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 manâ€™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 â€”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 â€”a fictional
person, a creature of the stateâ€” 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 â€”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 â€”from traffic citation to criminal chargesâ€” 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 â€”a very clever distractionâ€” 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 â€”who, until now, has been controlled by governmentâ€” 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 â€”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 â€”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 â€”"color" of law under present codes,
statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc. â€” 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" â€”through the use of our
transmitting utility/go-between, the Strawmanâ€” 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 thatâ€™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. Letâ€™s be GOD again!
http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/t...e_strawman.htm
bing said: 12-05-2010 11:29 AM

Three houses on my street are "Republic of Texas". They have been telling me about this for years. Al, the revered
leader of the group, just got out of prison on a three year bit for income tax evasion and just went back for two
more years for forgery. Issuing forms drawn on his birth certificate to pay off all debt. (In this case, tickets for issuing
their own drivers licenses, license plates, insurance etc.). Not saying it isn't true, but beware. "They" will get tired of
you sooner or later and squash you like a bug.
edited to add:
and thats exactly what the judge told him. "You may pay a 250 dollar fine and leave now." "But I've done nothing
wrong" "Then you have gone past being a nuisance and are now committing crimes. I sentence you to two years".
Goldhedge said: 12-06-2010 12:13 AM

Yeah, I understand. I only post stuff for recreational abusement.
Amusements, I find interesting on the net....DYODD
================================================
Ray Cox > Sui Juris Law - The Self Governing
Are you a Living, Breathing, Eternal Spiritual Being, experiencing this Hologram, or, are you part of the Hologram
itself?
When you were Born, the STATE (not State), Created a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (a fiction claim of ownership of
the value the HOLOGRAM IMAGE OF YOU might produce), which you did not sign, date, or put your seal upon, but
those working for the STATE claim you agreed, by placing your FOOT PRINT on the document.
When no one made claim of this CERTIFICATE CLAIM of value, within 45 days, another CERTIFICATE was made, the
BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and this CERTIFICATE was used to make the SALVAGE CLAIM against the CERTIFICATE OF LIVE
BIRTH that had not been claimed. You did not participate with that instrument either, and it was still just a CLAIM OF
VALUE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE HOLOGRAM BEING, and although that HOLOGRAM BEING was named using the
same letters used in your name, they were all UPPERCASE, as the FICTION HOLOGRAM has to be, to distinguish it
from the Living Being.
This FICTION ENTITY is not you, never was you, never will be you! It is a HOLOGRAM, a DEAD PIECE OF PAPER! That
CERTIFICATE was then issued an Insurance Policy, which you did not pay for, and was Monetized, which you did not
participate in either. You did not deposit that FICTION VALUE, nor did you know it was possible to even be done. You
did not trade the instruments created from these Documents, open accounts, account for losses, move the monies,
or in other words, you had nothing to do with the creation, growth, or management of these CERTIFICATES, and in
absolute fact, these documents, and FICTION CLAIMS are not yours, were not yours, will never be yours, and to
Claim otherwise is a FRAUD, and since these DOCUMENTS are traded Internationally, you would in that case be
violating International Banking Law, and are facing Criminal Charges for that Fraud.
So, it is not your BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and you have no right to make claim of it, and there is no description of the
Idiocy, of attempting such a claim, which would only prove to the FRAUD that you are their HOLOGRAM, and
STRAWMAN. DO NOT BE SO STUPID, AS TO ATTEMPT TO TIE YOURSELF TO THE HOLOGRAM FICTION!
silverblood said: 12-06-2010 01:00 AM

There is no true consent in any of those examples you gave. The truth is that the oligarchs put a gun to your head
and force you to live according to their rules. The sad thing is, most people are unaware of the gun, and most of the
few who are nevertheless back the State's use of force against them. False contract or no, everyone has a right to
resist aggression.
bing said: 12-06-2010 04:50 AM

Goldhedge, I wasn't trying to argue with you, merely stating what happened to my neighbor. The last fourteen
years, he has spent most of sitting in the county jail. (When he wasn't in prison). What Silverblood said, but you may
well spend the rest of your life locked up. My wife lived under martial law for nine years. We are well aware of the
implications.
AGG said: 12-07-2010 04:57 PM

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 by AGG; 12-08-2010 at 07:39 AM.
minimus said: 12-07-2010 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by AGG
Section 25. Reservation of Powers in People

To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this
article (article 1) is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.
Consider the 'high powers' to be that of individual religous freedoms / responsibilities of God's laws and are extant
from participation in statist govornment in accordance with the correct interpretation/application of Romans 13.
Consider that 'statism' is a 'ministry of Sec 3.
Out of context the reference to "higher powers" might seem to mean "individual religous freedoms / responsibilities
of God's laws" but in context it means exactly what it written i.e., "To guard against transgressions of the high
powers which we have delegated,..."
This means transgressions of appointed government officials, appointed by we the people.
In vexillum of angelus quod liberi ... nos vadum reperio fidelis

Originally Posted by AGG
But much of this is done at age of majority; not birth.

Correct observation.
Ask any adult "What is the age of majority and what does it mean?" and see what the answer is.
Ask any child the same thing.
If you get more than 10% knowing I would be impressed....
The problem is they don't teach a thing about law in this regard.
The 'age' most teens look forward to is 21 when they become an
adult and can drink themselves silly.
Ask them what a Promissory Note is and what it means.
Ask them where money comes from.
These are concepts that should be common knowledge by the age of majority, don't you think?
AGG said: 12-08-2010 03:48 AM
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 by AGG; 12-08-2010 at 04:50 PM.
AGG said: 01-07-2011 09:05 PM
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 by AGG; 01-08-2011 at 06:10 PM.
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. Â§Â§ 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 by Goldhedge; 03-25-2011 at 08:27 PM.

Legal History: Passports & Identity
~
* 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.

Legal History: Social Security Numbers & Identity
~
* 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.
Drivers' Licenses & Identity idhistory.NCIDPolicy.org
~
* 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)).
* 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 â€“ 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 â€“ 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 â€“ 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 â€“ 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 â€“ 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 â€“ 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. Â§Â§ 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 Â§ 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 â€“ the identical legal tactic created by anti-miscegenation
idealists long ago.
chomper said: 04-12-2012 07:29 AM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
Forgive my epic thread mine, but I have spent the better part of the past two months researching the claims made in
this thread. I grabbed law dictionaries, spent many hours in university libraries pouring over any tome I could find,
went over a whole ton of legislation and I basically couldn't find anything to back up these claims. Presenting web
links to obscure sites isn't exactly evidence. I apologise if I am coming across as a stubborn nut, but those are some
mammoth claims to make (and present them so matter of factly too).
Intuitively, I know something is epically rotten with 'the system', but the claims above don't shed any light on what
scam is being pulled over us with regards to the legislative system. Could you elaborate your reasoning behind them
and provide some evidence behind your reasoning.
Ragnarok said: 04-12-2012 10:23 AM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
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.
"Walk the gold trails of my good friend, do I. On my feet are "strong sole" of thick leather, purchased with much
knowledge of physical gold. These shoes not go bare before our journey is done. On trail I see your "thin sole" gold
investments cast aside and scavenged by beasts." - ANOTHER (THOUGHTS!) (04/14/01; 18:08:54MT - #: 51887)
Personal best on calm water: SAE - 32 skips. GAE - 21 skips.
Goldhedge said: 04-12-2012 10:28 AM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
Originally Posted by chomper
Forgive my epic thread mine, but I have spent the better part of the past two months researching the claims made in
this thread. I grabbed law dictionaries, spent many hours in university libraries pouring over any tome I could find,
went over a whole ton of legislation and I basically couldn't find anything to back up these claims. Presenting web
links to obscure sites isn't exactly evidence. I apologise if I am coming across as a stubborn nut, but those are some
mammoth claims to make (and present them so matter of factly too).
Intuitively, I know something is epically rotten with 'the system', but the claims above don't shed any light on what
scam is being pulled over us with regards to the legislative system. Could you elaborate your reasoning behind them
and provide some evidence behind your reasoning.
I don't have anything to back up the claims myself, but the question remains:
Why do they need a certificate of birth?
It's a "CERTIFIED" document. Not a "NOTE".

Our money used to be "CERTIFIED", meaning it was REAL.
You volunteer to obtain a birth certificate. There's more here than meets the eye...
Studiopaul said: 04-12-2012 10:21 PM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
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
chomper said: 04-12-2012 11:36 PM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
Originally Posted by Goldhedge
I don't have anything to back up the claims myself, but the question remains:
Why do they need a certificate of birth?
It's a "CERTIFIED" document. Not a "NOTE".
Our money used to be "CERTIFIED", meaning it was REAL.
You volunteer to obtain a birth certificate. There's more here than meets the eye...
That is a valid question Goldhedge and one that I have always pondered.
Money was certified, by whom and how?
As for volunteering, I don't know of anyone that voluntarily asked to have their child registered with some central
authority. People have registered births on the grounds that it was "the law" and as such, it was mandatory. This is
one area that I will need to look into further as to whether "the law" mandates birth registration.
arminius said:
04-13-2012 03:17 AM
I pulled this off the old GIM, a post by Sapiens. Anyone remember him?
Not much about the birth certificate,but an interesting perspective none the less.
U.S. Legal History

Author Unknown
U.S. Law is Private Merchant Law, leaving the people as Surety and Debtor on the bankruptcy.
Law is contract, universally and in the U.S., so we must follow the progression of contractual agreements, which
constitute the underlying U.S. Law. (We cannot address all individual laws and cases or you would not have time in a
life to review it, even though ignorance of the millions of laws, statutes, codes, etc… is no excuse in Private
Admiralty Jurisdictions.)
In basically chronological order, the following progression of contracts, and our interpretation of them follows:
The USA, a corporation of the English Crown, is bankrupt, and has been since at least 1788. The Articles of
Confederation states in Article 12: “All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under
the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation,
shall be deemed as considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said
United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.” The “Founding Fathers,” as constitutors,
acknowledged and reorganized the debt in the US Constitution 1787, Article VI, hence “constitution.” Bankruptcy
occurred on January 1, 1788 based on 21 loans that the United States of America received from the King of England
dating from February 28, 1778 through July 5, 1782, the repayment of which had been ratified by Congress on
January 22, 1783. The United States Bank, created in 1791, was a private bank, with 18,000 of 25,000 shares owned
by England.
No de jure, constitutional Congress has existed since March 27, 1861 when seven (7) Southern States walked out of
Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called
“Congress” today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-
In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. “law of necessity,” i.e. no law (see 12 Stat 319,
which has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-
6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties).
Since the above-referenced date, March 27, 1861, Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive
order under the aforementioned Emergency War Powers, 12 USC 95 a, b. Every “citizen of the United States” is now
“legally” established as an “enemy” via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, amending Trading With
Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91.
December 6th, 1865, the 14th Amendment was proclaimed as ratified (even though it never properly was, see
below). The 14th Amendment, which is private Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Trust Law, constitutes a constructive,
cestui que trust, a public charitable trust, “PCT,” that was expressly designed to bring every corporate franchise
artificial person called a “citizen of the United States” into an inseparable merging with the government until the
two are united (with the power inhering in the government, not the people). A cestui que trust is fundamentally
different from a regular trust, which is express in nature and consists of a contractual indenture involving three (3)
parties: Grantor (Creator or Trustor), Trustee, and Beneficiaries. In an express trust, legal ownership is transferred by
written contract between Grantor and Trustee in which the Grantor surrenders ownership of property to the legal
person, the Trust, to be managed by the Trustee on behalf of those who are to benefit from the arrangement, the
Beneficiaries.
A cestui que trust, on the other hand, differs from an express trust in several crucial ways:
a. It is not formed by express contract, i.e. overt agreement expressed in writing, but by legal construction, i.e. fiat.
b. A cestui que trust has no Grantor, but, being a constructive trust created by operation of law, i.e. by make-
believe, has only co-trustees and co-beneficiaries. The co-trustees are the parties with the duties for managing
property for the “public good,” i.e. for the benefit of those designated as co-beneficiaries.
The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, chartered a Federal
company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington,
D.C.,” in accordance with the so-called 14th Amendment, which the record indicates was never ratified (see Utah
Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v Phillips, (1975) 540 P 2d 936; as well as
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972; 28 Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484;
Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641-15646). A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity
operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT, the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th
Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.
In conformity with the above-referenced creation of United States (1871) and the 14th Amendment, the Legislature
of each State created a limited-liability corporation, chartered in a private, military, international, commercial,
admiralty/maritime jurisdiction, entitled “STATE OF…” e.g. “STATE OF CALIFORNIA,” as evidenced by, inter alia, the
change in the seal and the creation of a new constitution, e.g. Constitution of the State of California (1879),
concerning which, re California:
a. A general partnership agreement, hereinafter “General Partnership,” exists between the California Republic
(1849), and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (1879), with STATE OF CALIFORNIA acting as governmental controller.
b. STATE OF CALIFORNIA now acts as an agent/instrumentality of United States, collecting whole life insurance
premiums, known as “taxes,” for the International Monetary Fund, based, inter alia, upon the Limited Liability Act of
1851 and the bankruptcy of United States of 1933, see House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; Public Law 73-10;
Perry v. U.S. (1935), 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L Ed 912; 31 USC 5112, 5119.
Inasmuch as all law is contract, the contract involved in a constructive trust is an implied contract. An implied
contract can be ratified by two (2) means:
a. Acquiescence by silence, i.e. the “government” asserts its intentions concerning your life, rights, and property
and you assent, don’t rebut, and compliantly go along with what they claim. In 1871 the Government changed the
nature of its contract with the people from law as defined by the original Constitution of 1787 that recognizes law
(common law), admiralty (on the sea only), and equity (functioning by voluntary contract between all participating
parties), and began relating to people as if they were “citizens of the Unites States” within/under the private,
commercial, international, military jurisdiction of the new de facto corporation, i.e. US Inc. They offered people a
“new deal,” and almost everyone bought it (based on naïve and foolish trust and assuming that everything was OK).
The people were thereby denied access to law and placed on the ship of state of US Inc. where the captain’s word is
law and no one has any rights. As Jefferson phrased the matter, “As government grows, liberty recedes.”
b. You expressly accept “benefits” offered by the government, and thereby finalize the contract by deed. This is
similar to finalizing a contract with a restaurant by sitting down at a table, reading a menu, and then ordering and
consuming a meal. By your deeds you affirm to the restaurant that you will pay for the meal in accordance with the
price stated on the menu. No written contract is signed, but a contract is formed nevertheless.
By the above two (2) means people give implied assent that they are bound by an alleged contract with US Inc. in
accordance with the terms and conditions that inhere in being treated as a “citizen of the United States” under the
14th Amendment, and are therefore placed into permanent legal status as a Debtor and Surety for U.S. Inc.. In such
a position people leave the ground of sovereignty and all capacity for asserting their unalienable rights in favor of
being presumed as having exercised their sovereignty and free-will autonomy for the purpose of going along with
the government’s assertion that they sacrifice everything for the “public good,” i.e. the PCT. By so doing people lose
their standing in law, i.e. they “die a civil death in the law.” They are placed in the legal position of mortmain (i.e. as
if deceased) and are shorn of capacity for asserting their rights, since the presumption is that they have already
exercised those rights for the purpose of being placed in the position they are in, i.e. property of the government
with a lien against you and everything your life labor could ever create, including your children. The private being
(the real individual) is sacrificed for the good of the public (the imaginary collective).
When people die such a civil death in the law they are like ghosts, and thereby incapable of managing their own
affairs and enjoying their unalienable rights. Like the estate of a decedent, they are then managed by the
executors/administrators of the estate, in probate. Such is the condition of every “citizen of the United States” today
in law, managed by the government agencies acting as executors/administrators of their estates in bankruptcy, legal
incapacity, and civil death as assets of the bankrupt US. The US is property of the private Real Parties of Interest, the
Creditors in bankruptcy.
The 14th Amendment was allegedly established for the purpose of creating a citizenship for the liberated blacks, and
other disenfranchised people, who otherwise had no citizenship because they could not comply with the
requirements for state citizenship. What actually happened was that the blacks were taken off of the Southern slave
plantations and placed into the slave plantation of US Inc., a far worse lot. The government then gradually absorbed
everyone else—including state citizens—into the same condition.
1871-1913. Officers of the actual government held office in dual capacity, i.e. in both USA and US Inc. status.
1912. Bonds issued by US Inc. came due but US Inc. did not have the resources for paying their creditors (the seven
families that founded the Federal Reserve Bank), so US Inc.’s owner (the actual government) was required to pay the
balance. The national government was also without sufficient funds to meet US Inc.’s obligations, so the creditors
settled for all of the assets of both US Inc. and the national government instead of foreclosure on and liquidation of
the entire country. By so doing they expropriated the nation—both USA and US Inc. Sic transit America.
1912. US Inc. forms an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank (It is important to note that both of these entities
are private corporations which removes the general allegations of treason or fraud from this relationship). Through
this agreement US Inc. must function in debt, even though they have neither funds nor resources for financing their
operation.
1912. The first corporate only Senators are seated in the next election year by popular vote of the US Inc. registered
voters. The original-jurisdiction national Senators of the States did not assume office that year and at least one third
of the nation’s Senators seats were lawfully and voluntarily vacant.
February 3rd, 1913. US Inc. passes its 16th Amendment and Congress orders the Secretary of State to enter it as
ratified even though the States had not ratified it according to Law. The Secretary complied. It should be noted that
this would not have been lawful if it were a national Constitution amendment, however it was perfectly legal within
the colorable, de facto corporation. It should also be noted that where the national Constitution already had a 16th
amendment and where the Supreme Court says that the new 16th Amendment did not do anything, this corporate
amendment must simply be a space filler entered such that US Inc.’s Constitution (1871) would have the same
number of amendments as that of the national Constitution (1787).
April 8th, 1913. US Inc. passes its 17th amendment and Congress orders it to be entered as ratified in the exact same
manner as they did with US Inc.’s 16th Amendment. This amendment changes where US Inc.’s Senators are elected.
This amendment is not even lawfully possible as a national Constitution amendment for several reasons, not the
least of which is that the amendment would have required that Congress first pass an amendment that stated that
they had the power to say where Senators are elected before they could even deliberate on such a subject matter,
after which they would then have to have competent ratifications performed on such amendments in accord with
constitutional limits, not as was done with US Inc.’s 16th Amendment.
December 23, 1913. The Congress, late at night with only a small cadre of supporters present, passed the Federal
Reserve Act, surrendering the creation and management of the nation’s currency into the hands of a cartel of
private—and mostly foreign—bankers. Currency is the single most essential and critical commodity in the world,
embodying more law and principles of commerce than any other. Since all interactions are “commerce,” and the
medium of doing business in commerce is currency, money is in a very significant sense the measure of all things. By
abandoning control and management of the money supply the nation surrendered all capacity for claiming
sovereignty. The government lost its independent treasury (one of the requirements in law for national sovereignty).
The United States Government became a mere fiefdom, or administrative arm, of the bankers, who now owned the
store.
Passage of the Federal Reserve Act was a major milestone on the “road to serfdom” that this entire progression
outlines. The conspiratorial nature of matters is exemplified in comments by one of the major actors in the triumph
of the Federal Reserve, Edward Mandell House, who had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow
Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to
keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can
compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel,
and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of
secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered
bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be
stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser,
for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have
in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and
debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our
wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.”
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will
unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their
redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot
against America.”
1917. Corporate-only Senators begin participating in all matters with those Senators who still had original
jurisdiction government capacity, as a result of which all activities of the government were performed in corporate
capacity only.
1917. President Wilson was re-elected by the Electoral College, but only US Inc.’s Senate performed the Senate
confirmation necessary for seating the national President. There was no national government Senate confirmation;
no national seats were seated and all remained vacant. Note: the national President is also the Military’s
Commander in Chief, and under the nation’s status of being ruled by the private, commercial, martial-law rule of the
Bankers and English Crown, the business needs of the nation have remained under US Inc. control since 1871, i.e.
ever since US Inc. was incorporated and made operational over such matters.
1917-1944. All national government seats are and remain vacant, and US Inc. continues maintaining the business
needs of the government under martial-law rule.
June 5, 1933. US Inc. declares bankruptcy under House Joint Resolution, “HJR,” 192.
1935. The Social Security Act is passed.
On application, the new Social Security Administration (hereinafter “SSA”) creates a private Trust with a trust name
that sounds like the name of the applicant except the Trust’s name is spelled with all capital letters. SSA makes the
applicant a co-trustee of the namesake Trust, designates the SSA General Trust Fund as the Beneficiary of the
namesake trust, and assigns the Trust a Social Security General Trust Fund Account number re the applicant for
accounting and identification purposes.
1938. In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 U.S. 64-92, the U.S. Supreme Court sets the presumption re the status
and capacity of an individual as that of General Capacity/General Partnership relationship with the namesake Trust,
as if the two (2) entities—individual and namesake Trust—were one-in-the-same person.
1944. In the Bretton Woods Agreement US Inc. is quit-claimed into the newly formed International Monetary Fund
(hereinafter “IMF”) in exchange for the power allowing US Inc.’s President the right of naming (seating and
controlling) the governors and general managers of the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Bank also formed in that agreement (codified at United
States Code Title 22 § 286). It must be noted that this act created an unlawful conflict of interest between US Inc.
(with its new foreign owner) and its purpose of carrying out the business needs of the national government. This is
the cause of our use of the term “original-jurisdiction” government. With the new foreign owner of US Inc. a conflict
of interest is created between the national government and US Inc., even though the contracted purpose of US Inc.
has not changed on its face.
1962. At the National Governor’s Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, US Inc. informs the governors, under the guise
of “public necessity”, that they must all form, or reform existing, private corporations under US Inc. (in their state’s
interest), so that the people will not discover what the state governments are doing with the people’s money
(dabbling in foreign notes, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), bonds, and evidences of debt), which activity is
forbidden from State governments by their own State Constitutions, which information would likely cause a people’s
revolt ending in the State official’s being at worst killed and at least replaced. The proposed incorporation deadline
was 1968.
1970. By this time each State revised its constitution and statutes and formed private corporate entities of the name
“STATE OF (X)” (where “(X)” is representative of the common State name), and then vacated their original
jurisdiction government seats in favor of foreign ownership and control under the mandate of US Inc.
It appears that this was all done so a General Partnership could be presumed as existing between “The State” (of
the national Union of States) and “STATE OF (X)”, a private corporation. Said STATE OF (X), as General Partner, then
assumes the role of governmental operator/controller. This scenario is further proven by the fact that these
corporate entities cannot handle gold and silver coin of the United States of America in commercial transactions
without violating the Par Value Modifications Act and the Foreign Currency Exchange Act.
April 19th, 1994. Federal agents attack, burn, and raze the compound, killing approximately 100 of the members of
the sect, without any lawful cause for the action.
50 USC 1520 et seq. demonstrates that there exists an agenda for using Americans (Sovereign and otherwise) as
biological test subjects. This is a fundamental breach of an alleged Constitutional contract.
President Clinton pushes for a mandatory health care bill for the purpose of placing the physical bodies of all
Americans under control of US Inc., with international identification attached, for the purpose of tagging the
populace, as per the Biblical prophesy of the Mark of the Beast. The computer that would handle the tracking is
even identified with the acronym: B.E.A.S.T.
What the above progression depicts is the systematic growth of the power, scope, and pervasive control of
Government exercised against the American people by foreign, criminal, and hostile powers. This same dreary
gestalt constitutes the nature of man’s history on this planet as far back as the eye can see. Civilizations rise, fall, and
disappear, replaced by new ones that—based upon being founded on, and functioning in accordance with, wrong
principles—are foredoomed for extinction, as were all of their predecessors and as all future civilizations will be until
mankind finally learns and ceases “beating a dead horse” by structuring law, commerce, religion, and social
organization in general on principles that are existentially impossible.
The above progression has proceeded in America by implementing such strategy as:
1. Relentlessly instilling in people the foundational idea that governments in general are absolutely essential in the
society of man and that the Government in America is the people’s friend and servant, i.e. a “government of the
people, by the people, and for the people.” These premises are untrue—self-serving cons by those who want the
power.
2. Creating governmentally owned corporate franchises, such as a “citizen of the United States” and one’s all-capital-
letter name, with which people are deceived into identifying.
3. Regarding every citizen of the United States as contractually being:

a. A corporate citizen, i.e. a corporate franchise;
b. A co-trustee (with duties) and co-beneficiary (with privileges) of the 14th Amendment Public Charitable cestui que
Trust;
c. Pledged as an asset in the bankruptcy of US Inc., and therefore a co-surety for the debts of US Inc.;
d. An enemy of the Creditors;
e. Chattel property of the Bankers and Power Elite;
f. A slave with no capacity for asserting any rights, no standing in law, and no capacity for contracting.
4. Functioning on the presumption that the individual being, with autonomy and free will, knowingly, intentionally,
and voluntarily contracted into the situation of being united—like heads and tails of a coin—with a corporate entity
created and owned by the Government.
As per the established maxim of law, “As a thing is bound, so it is unbound,” the way out of the problem is within
and through the problem. This is accomplished by understanding what the problem is, i.e. its structure and
character, just as solving the problem of a plugged drain is accomplished by realizing that the problem is the plugged
drain, whereby the solution consists of unplugging the drain. “Know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”
The United States Library of Congress now has between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 books on law. Any law library is a
daunting place, possessing row after row of shelves with books full of fine print. Making knowledge of such “law”
even more unattainable is not only that what passes for law today perpetually changes, altered by every new court
case/opinion, legislative enactment, and all of the ever-changing policies, rules, and regulations of administrative
agencies, but an immense amount of the world’s law today, as actually implemented, is unwritten and inaccessible.
This is not only because judges operate in general equity in which the ultimate arbiter of a matter is the “conscience
of the court” (i.e. how the judge feels about something that day), but because almost all of the world’s law is the
private Law Merchant of the Creditors in bankruptcy of the world’s nations, essentially all of which are insolvent and
in receivership to the Bankers. This private Law Merchant is of ancient origin, and is implemented today by men
whose identities are unknown to the mass of mankind.
In the face of this undependability of law we may ask some fundamental and ingenuous questions:
1. Is there such a thing as genuine law that is timeless, stable, and dependable?
2. If so, can such universal law be effectively invoked and utilized in practice today? How can I use it to ensure my
inalienable sovereign birth rights to life and happiness?
3. If genuine law exists, why is it not taught and uniformly utilized instead of the chaotic and colorable charade that
dominates the legal field today?
4. Can we integrate said universal law with the ephemeral, desultory “law” that now enslaves the overwhelming
majority of people on this planet?
Fortunately, affirmative answers all of the above questions. Answering them, and obtaining a clear understanding
and effective, practical ways for utilizing genuine law, is found through individual study and contemplation.
arminius said: 04-13-2012 04:12 AM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go
home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." -Sam Adams
From a now defunct website, vinyasi...
The Birth Certificate

Since the early 1960's, State governments themselves specially created, juristic, corporate persons signified by all
caps have issued Birth Certificates to "persons" with legal fiction all- caps names. This is not a lawful record of your
physical birth, but rather the birth of the juristic, all-caps name. It may appear to be your true name, but since no
proper name is ever written in all caps (either lawfully or grammatically) it does not identify who you are. The Birth
Certificate is the governments self-created document of title for its new property, i.e. the deed to the juristic-
name artificial person whose all-caps name mirrors your true name. The Birth Certificate brings the new all-caps
name into colorable admiralty/maritime law, the same way a ship (and ship of state) is berthed.
One important area to address, before going any further, is the governmental use of older data storage from the
late 1950's until the early 1980's. As a "left over" from various teletype- oriented systems, many government data
storage methods used all caps for proper names. The IRS was supposedly still complaining about some of their
antiquated storage systems as recent as the early 1980's. At first, this may have been a necessity of the technology
at the time, not a deliberate act. Perhaps, when this technology was first being used and implemented into the
mainstream of communications, some legal experts saw it as a perfect tool for their perfidious
intentions. What better excuse could there be?
However, since local, State, and Federal offices primarily used typewriters during that same time period, and Birth
Certificates and other important documents, such as driver's licenses, were produced with typewriters, it's very
doubtful that this poses much of an excuse to explain all-caps usage for proper names. The only reasonable usage of
the older databank all- caps storage systems would have been for addressing envelopes or certain forms in bulk,
including payment checks, which the governments did frequently.
Automated computer systems, with daisy-wheel and pin printers used prevalently in the early 1980's, emulated the
IBM electric typewriter Courier or Helvetica fonts in both upper and lower case letters. Shortly thereafter, the
introduction of laser and ink-jet printers with multiple fonts became the standard. For the past fifteen years, there is
no excuse that the government computers will not accommodate the use of lower case letters unless the older data
is still stored in its original form, i.e. all caps, and has not been translated due to the costs of re-entry. But this
does not excuse the entry of new data, only "legacy" data. In fact, on many government forms today, proper names
are in all caps while other areas of the same computer produced document are in both upper and lower case. One
can only conclude that now, more than ever, the use of all caps in substitution the writing a proper name is no
mistake.
When a child is born, the hospital sends the original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the "State Bureau of
Vital Statistics," sometimes called the "Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services" (HRS). Each STATE is
required to supply the UNITED STATES with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the
original record of live birth keeps it and then issues a Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the babys
true name, i.e. JAMES WILBER SMITH.
cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French, from Medieval Latinceruficatum. from Late Latin,
neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3: a document evidencing ownership or
debt.-- Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998).
The Birth Certificate issued by the State is then registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce -- the Executive
Office -- specifically through their own sub-agency, the U.S. Census Bureau, which is responsible to register vital
statistics from all the States. The word "registered," as it is used within commercial or legal based equity law, does
not mean that the all-caps name was merely noted in a book for reference purposes. When a Birth Certificate
is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce, it means that the all-caps legal person named thereon has
become a surety or guarantor, a condition and obligation that is automatically and unwittingly assumed unless you
rebut the presumption by effectively noticing them: It aint me.
registered. Security, bond. -- Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law (1996).

Security. I a: Something (as a mortgage or collateral) that is provided to make certain the
fulfillment of an obligation. Example: used his property as security for a loan. lb: "surety." 2:
Evidence of indebtedness, ownership, or the right to ownership. -- Ibid.
Bond. I a: A usually formal written agreement by which a person undertakes to perform a certain act (as fulfill the
obligations of a contract) . . with the condition that failure to perform or abstain will obligate the person . . to pay a
sum of money or will result in the forfeiture of money put up by the person or surety. lb: One who acts as a surety.
2: An interest-bearing document giving evidence of a debt issued by a government body or corporation that is
sometimes secured by a lien on property and is often designed to take care of a particular financial need. -- Ibid.
Surety. The person who has pledged him or herself to pay back money or perform a certain action if the principal to
a contract fails, as collateral, and as part of the original contract. --
Duhaime'sLaw Dictionary.
1: a formal engagement (as a pledge) given for the fulfillment of an undertaking.
2: one who promises to answer for the debt or default of another.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, however, a surety includes a guarantor, and the two terms are generally
interchangeable.
Merriam Webster's "Dictionary of Law" (1996).
Guarantor. A person who pledges collateral for the contract of another, but separately, as part of an independently
contract with the obligee of the original contract. Duhaime's Law Dictionary.
It is not difficult to see that a state-created Birth Certificate, with an all-caps, name is a document evidencing debt
the moment it is issued. Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the
Department notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses
the loan to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a purchase money security interest in the bond) from the Department of
Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues
Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new securities.
This cycle is based on the future tax revenues of the legal person whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This
also means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor
and tax revenues of every citizen of the United States/American with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment.
This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, juristic name of a person.
Dubuque rei potissinia pars prineipium est The principal part of everything is in the beginning. (Well begun is half
done.) Legally, you are considered to be a slave or indentured servant to the various Federal, State and local
governments via your STATE-issued and STATE-created Birth Certificate in the name of your all-caps person. Birth
Certificates are issued so that the issuer can claim exclusive title to the legal person created thereby. This is further
compounded when one voluntarily obtains a Drivers License or a Social Security Account Number. The state even
owns your personal and private life through your STATE-issued marriage license/certificate issued in the all-caps
names. You have no rights in birth, marriage, or even death. The state holds title to all legal persons the state
creates via Birth Certificates until the rightful owner, i.e. you, reclaims/redeems it by becoming the holder in due
course of the instrument.
The various bankruptcies The main problem is that the mother and father, and then the
eighteen-year-old man or woman, voluntarily agreed to this contrived system of plunder and slavery by remaining
silent a legal default, latches, and failing to claim ones own Rights. The maxim of law becomes crucially operative: He
who fails to assert his rights has none.
The legal rules and codes enforce themselves. There is no court hearing to determine if those rules are correct.
Government rules are self-regulating and self-supporting. Once set into motion, such "laws" automatically come into
effect provided the legal process has been followed.
The legal person known as the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or
gold gold coin or bullion with which to back any currency. All private held and federally held gold coins and bullion in
America was seized via Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve
Corporation under the terms of the bankruptcy.
Congress still convening strictly under Executive Order authority confirmed the bankruptcy through the Joint
Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5, 1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR)
192, June 5, 1933, 73 Congress, 1st Session, Public Law 73-10. This 1933 public law states, in part:
"... every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the oblige a right to
require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States
measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy."
The corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed Receiver
for the bankrupt U.S. in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, "Legislative History," page
5967.
Since 1933, the only assets used by the UNITED STATES to pay its debt to the Fed have been the blood, sweat, and
tears of every American unfortunate to be saddled with a Birth Certificate and a Social Security Account Number
(the U.S. Government must conceal this fact from the American people at all cost). Their future labor and tax
revenues have been legally pledged via the new all-caps, juristic-person names appearing on the Birth Certificates,
i.e. the securities used as collateral for loans of credit (thin-air belief) to pay daily operational costs, re-organization
expenses in bankruptcy, insurance policy premiums required to float the bankrupt government, and interest on the
ever-increasing, wholly fraudulent, debt.
A closer look at the Admirality from Journey Beyond Perception.
The foundation of what we are dealing with.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3) was passed creating birth "registration" or what we now
know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law
that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for “other
purposes”. However the Act did not give full disclosure, their Brady Doctrine requirement under common law and
statutory law, as to the “other purposes”.
In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48
States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the people, as collateral for loans of credit from
the Federal Reserve System. The "Full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 4. Sec. 1 requires that
foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of its origin, and that the foreign
statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled to in the home State. And that a judgment or record
shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage
in the state from whence taken. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.
Today the federal government "mandates, orders and compels" the States to enforce federal jurisdiction upon it's
citizens/subjects. I believe the federal government draws its de facto jurisdiction for these actions from the
"Doctrine of Parens Patriae." Parens Patriae means literally, "parent of the country." It refers traditionally to the role
of STATE as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. Parens Patriae originates from the English
common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as
infants. Note: The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts.
What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated
authority.
With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, had the
mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them into debt into perpetuity. Under this
doctrine, if one is born with a disability, the state, (the sovereign) has the responsibility to take care of you. I believe
that the disability you are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are born, you are born free, "a
man or woman of the soil." You as parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a "birth
certificate," and when you sign a state's birth certificate - you have made your child a transferable asset - identical to
a stock certificate thereby making the child a citizen with a national character of the corporate government known
as the United States. The government then turns the new citizen into a corporation, a legal fiction, under the laws of
the state. The birth information is collected by the state and is then turned over to the U.S. Department of
Commerce. The corporation is then placed into a "trust", known as a "Cestui Que Trust". A Cestui que trust is
defined as: "He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in
another; the beneficiary of another." Cestui que use is: "He for whose use and benefit lands or tenements are held
by another. The Cestui que user has the right to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and
possession, as well the duty of defending the same, reside in the other."
The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the contributing beneficiary of his own trust. Legal
title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government. The government then places the
Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the "guardians." The child may reside in the hands of the
guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state
then goes into the home and removes the subject matter of the trust from the guardians. At majority, the parents
lose their guardianship.
The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute
valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. The child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth
certificate. "Title" to your child is now owned by the state. The state now directs the trust corpus and provides
"benefits" for the beneficiary -- the corpus and beneficiary being one and the same -- the man or woman -- first as
child, then as adult.
Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States which acts as the
"Debtor in Possession." We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with new such
resources being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged. The Human Resources service the debt, which continues
to grow with time.
The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal Parens Patriae authority to the state attorney
generals. The attorney generals can now enforce all legislation involving your personal life, the lives of your children,
and your material assets.
Understanding the birth registration process
Remember in Admiralty Vessels documented by registration under the laws of the United States are entitled to
privileges and subject to the obligations prescribed by the laws of the United States for merchant vessels.
To start out with, your parents due to their prior birth registration were already considered being registered
documented vessels/mentally incompetent wards of the State, being under the guardianship of the State, who by
legal marriage, where the State is a third party to the marriage contract, had an offspring/ward which they brought
into this world by delivery1, the act by which the res the subject matter of a trust, or substance thereof was placed
within the actual or constructive possession or control of another in the delivery room of the maternity ward of the
hospital, the port of entry for vessels/wards. Then they asked your mother for your legal name2 in Upper Lower case
which consists of one Christian name and one surname which is the name on the RECORD OF LIVE BIRTH written in
upper and lowercase letters. What your mother was not told is that she delivered you to an agent/licensed doctor of
the State, in a federally funded hospital, an act by which the res3 the subject matter of a trust or substance
thereof was placed within the actual or constructive possession or control of another, the State, for which in equity
they created a Certificate of Live Birth with the all CAPITAL LETTERS and recorded that warehouse receipt in the
commercial registry as cargo under transportation.
The hospital documented your birth with the legal name Title4 in a distinctive style or appellation, Upper Lower
case, the name by which anything is known, and because under trust law whenever title or money is transferred, a
trust is created by operation of law, representing you, for which they created a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH in all
CAPITAL LETTERS, which was filed with the local Registrar and registered with the State, via Certificate of registry5,
in commercial maritime law which is a certificate of registration of a vessel according to the registry acts, for the
purpose of giving her a national character i.e. U.S. citizen born in a federal zone, hospital zip code, in the judicial
district in which the birthing of the vessel occurred identified by the filing with the Florida State Department of
Health, Office of Vital Statistics within 5 days after your delivery, and then sent to Washington, D.C., for which the
hospital receives a check for that vessel.
Then the local registrar issued your parents a copy of the warehouse receipt for the cargo, the CERTIFICATE OF
BIRTH from the State of Florida in all CAPITAL LETTERS, representing a vessel/ward of the State representing the
abandonment of your title by registration. The State of Florida the Creator/Trustor then created a Cestui que trust
(constructive trust) behind your back after the fact, with the all Upper Lower case name, and placed a value on it,
based on actuarial estimates of your future labor/human resource. Then they issued a Bond against the trust’s asset,
a certificate of indebtedness6 and funded the bond through the IMF based on your future earnings from your labor
as the contributing beneficiary, which is a trust asset, and set up a Federal Reserve account for the same. So now the
IMF has a beneficial interest in and out of the trust estate, the legal title is now vested with the State of Florida, and
held by the Alien Property Custodian in Washington, D.C.; equitable title copy of CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH held by you
representing equity/labor; the Governor acting as the managing fiduciary trustee; the Secretary of State Registrar
acting as fiduciary trustee until you turn of legal age; and you acting as fiduciary trustee for the trust with duties and
obligations once you turn of legal age, and the Secretary of Treasury in charge of the Federal Reserve account.
That ward/vessel is a now a Vessel of the United States, documented by registration under the laws of the United
States and subject to its laws and jurisdiction, and the Title goes to the Alien Property Custodian in Washington, D.C.
In a maritime in rem action, jurisdiction over the person of the "defendant", the vessel, is premised upon the
presence of the vessel within the district in which the court sits. The only vessel they have jurisdiction over is the
trust, that is evidenced by the CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, establishing the three points of jurisdiction NAME,
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER and DATE OF BIRTH, the Federal Reserve account under the supervision of the Secretary
of the Treasury who is also the managing trustee for the Social Security Administration and governor for the IMF.
Up until you turned of legal age to work, the deputy Registrar on behalf of the Registrar/ Secretary of State, or the
Registrar/Secretary of State whichever signed the CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH has been the fiduciary trustee for that
trust created behind your back and securitized where the government owns it in part and you own it in part.
Meaning the Registrar had the fiduciary duty and obligation for that Trust up until you started your first job. That is
why the State can take the child away from the parents, because it is the duty and obligation of the fiduciary trustee
as guardian, to look after the ward, and make sure he or she is taken care of properly.
When you filled out the Application Form SS-5 for a Social Security Card, the Registrar turned over the duty and
obligation of the fiduciary trustee over to you, because he did not want to be responsible as fiduciary for anything
you do in commerce using that SS Card/number. You then became the contributing beneficiary and fiduciary trustee
for that trust with the duties and obligations for filing and paying the licensing taxes, registration taxes, and taxes on
profits, gains and income generated for the trust once it starts to operate in commerce with a Social Security
Card/number on all commercial transactions, because you on behalf of the beneficial owner “the trust”, which is
resident within a territory occupied by military forces with which the United States is at war, or a resident outside
the United States, for which you are considered an enemy doing business with a license and tax identifying number
for the purposes “of trade” effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within said territory for
which you are granted a license under the authority of the President pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, as
an enemy in order to trade, or attempt to trade with the enemy for the beneficial owner the “trust”, and as the
fiduciary trustee paying, satisfying, compromising, or giving security for the payment or satisfaction of any debt or
obligation, and for drawing, accepting, paying, presenting for acceptance or payment, or indorsing any negotiable
instrument or chose in action on behalf of the trust. So far there are two different styles of your name being used,
one “upper lower case”, first and last name, and an all “UPPER CASE” first, middle and last name.
__________________________________________________ ____
Delivery1. The act by which the res or substance thereof is placed within the actual or constructive possession or
control of another.
Legal Name2. Under common law, consists of one Christian name and one surname, and the insertion, omission, or
mistake in middle name or initial is immaterial. The legal name of an individual consists of a given or baptismal name
usually assumed at birth and a surname deriving from the common name of the parents.
Res3. The subject matter of a trust or will.

Title4. A mark, style or designation, a distinctive appellation. The name by which anything is known. Thus, in the law
of persons, a title is an appellation of dignity or distinction, a name denoting the social rank of the person bearing it,
such as Duke or Count.
Certificate of Registry5. In maritime law, which is a certificate of registration of a vessel according to the registry
acts, for the purpose of giving her a national character.
Certificate of Indebtedness6. An obligation sometimes issued by corporations having practically the same force and
effect as a bond, though not usually secured on any specific property. It may, however, create a lien on all the
property of the corporation issuing it, superior to the rights of general creditors. In banking, same as a government
security, same as a treasury certificate.
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?
when it comes to such claims as those presented (especially considering the lack of corroborating evidence), there
seems to be no questioning happening. Why is that?
I make no claims within those three posts. I merely present information for your perusal. You must invest the due
dilligence, the "questioning" for your life, as I must for mine.
Here is a claim for you. You seem to already have made up your mind...

The definitions posted in the article about birth certificates... I have checked them all in my law dictionaries and they
differ wildly
The lexicon of legal definitions have changed as fast and furious as the growth of the written legal code attempting
to subvert the Statutes at Large has, within the last oh, eighty years. Again the operative thrust, as always, remains
DYODD...
Originally Posted by arminius
I make no claims within those three posts. I merely present information for your perusal. You must invest the due
dilligence, the "questioning" for your life, as I must for mine.
Here is a claim for you. You seem to already have made up your mind...
The lexicon of legal definitions have changed as fast and furious as the growth of the written legal code attempting
to subvert the Statutes at Large has, within the last oh, eighty years. Again the operative thrust, as always, remains
DYODD...
Yes you have presented something for my perusal and for that I thank you
Made up my mind... far from it. In fact, its as open as it has ever been to any possibility. What I am finding is that the
possibilities I have come across so far, whilst plausible, are lacking in any real substance.
If I had made up my mind, I'd have put my shovel away a long time ago
earplugs said: 04-13-2012 08:40 AM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
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?
anotherdave said: 05-24-2012 09:59 PM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
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.
Goldhedge said: 11-27-2012 08:42 PM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
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"
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!
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.
TRYNEIN said: 05-07-2013 08:51 AM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
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.
Originally Posted by TRYNEIN
How many times have you heard that government officials are "Public Servants"??
So how is it that the government is our master???
The only way I know is by contract. Adhesion contracts such as the SSN, Birth certificate, Driver's license et al.
TRYNEIN said: 05-15-2013 06:42 PM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
Originally Posted by Goldhedge
The only way I know is by contract. Adhesion contracts such as the SSN, Birth certificate, Driver's license et al.
I know you know....
TRYNEIN said: 05-15-2013 06:48 PM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
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/201107251...challenges.htm
Last edited by Goldhedge; 11-10-2013 at 10:38 AM.
Goldhedge said: 11-10-2013 10:35 AM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
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_ecc...rtificates.htm
TAEZZAR said: 11-10-2013 02:29 PM Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral
I did a c & p into word to make comments, it didn't come out as I wanted it to.
I will put my comments in bold.
How many times have you heard that government officials are "Public Servants"?? Constantly !So how is it that the
government is our master??? By their decree !
"One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master". One would certainly
think that !
The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. Yes, as in citizens of an
independent Nation State i.e., Oregon, Arizona ..... The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it
creates. I am not a creature of the government, I was created by my parents. 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”.
This is where I want to be, but am I “allowed” ?
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. But, the Fed’s have usurped their false
authority in our lives. A big part of the problem is the "legalese". Even having The American Dictionary of the English
Language, Noah Webster, 1828 and Black's Law, mine is the 4th Ed., it's a royal pain in the @ss, to constantly look up
the "legal" meaning of a word.
Am I seeing this correctly ?

And, in all reality, what can we really do about it ?
Your opponents are very, very good at manipulating the justice system to their own advantage, but as long as we
have some sort of system, it HAS to appear to be fair and follow the law. It is your task to set up the court so that it
follows the law. You can't expect it to do so on its own.
Most all of us were 'educated' in the public fool system.
Not one wit of this information was ever brought up. Even less of it today!
I think even if you became a lawyer, you would not have a clue about it.
The system is designed that way, to obfuscate the real truth.
I think the birth certificate is the key.
You ask 'how can I be party to a contract I never signed'?

Your Silence is your consent!
An honorable man would correct the error once it was discovered.
How many have 'corrected' the error?

(Not that you are without honor! But the road is rough and rocky!)
We need the road map, the path to follow to correct the error.
Remember, even your parents had no clue! That is by design! Everyone believes the lie is true.
Try explaining this thread to a friend and they'll think you've gone bonkers!
The reason is civilization. Take the tour: http://www.pacalliance.us/tour/
Published on Feb 22, 2014
The certificate of birth is a class of person, entirely statutory in nature, it is a rank .

Governed entirely by the jurisdiction of its creation, being statues.
You now have the ability to join the great game and all the fun associated with it, "society".
The legal person, persona, or legal identity which you have the right or the option of you being recognized under
when playing their game of commerce. But it is not the only game in town but it is a game they created and seems
to be the dominate one at the moment.
It is no different as a certificate in a particular trade in which you are deemed competent in.
If you are certified, you are deemed competent.
If you are working, and you screw up, i.e. you have a certificate in welding that deems you competent for passing all
these requirements and you're absolutely qualified for what you're doing. Fantastic, you get a job. Therefore, if
you're working and you screw up, you do a weld or you wire something, or you put in a track, breather or stack in
that is contrary to the code to the people that are being governed by that particular Certificate. Which means you
didn't live up to your job. You did something against what you're deemed competent in. The code you have to follow
are no different to building codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes, welding codes, they are all codes. CRIMINAL
CODES ACT, they are all codes applicable to particular persons who are deemed competent in that field.
Just because you may get a win in statutory court, doesn't really mean you really win, they just handed it to you
because you made their scam so blatantly obvious purely to keep you in their system and maintain the illusion, and
if there is a loophole, they just change their rules instantly to correct that.
Please visit http://deanclifford.info and join the forums to access the full 2 day seminar and much more.

Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Goldhedge said: 06-15-2010 03:08 PM

Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

The Birth Certificate

And it doesn’t end there.

"...a Republic, if you can keep it!" Ben Franklin

"Money is the future idea of value." Armstrong

Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

"What 'contracts' you say?"

Re: Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

Last edited by Goldhedge; 02-24-2013 at 11:07 PM.

Your Birth Certificate & Life Pledged As Collateral

WE WERE NEVER TOLD WE WERE BEING ABUSED!

bing said: 12-05-2010 11:29 AM

Goldhedge said: 12-06-2010 12:13 AM

silverblood said: 12-06-2010 01:00 AM

bing said: 12-06-2010 04:50 AM

AGG said: 12-07-2010 04:57 PM

Section 1 . Inherent Rights of Mankind

Section 3. Religious Freedom

Section 25. Reservation of Powers in People

minimus said: 12-07-2010 07:02 PM

Section 25. Reservation of Powers in People

Goldhedge said: 12-07-2010 08:12 PM

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

AGG said: 12-08-2010 03:48 AM

AGG said: 01-07-2011 09:05 PM

To follow this up a little:

Could you elaborate on what a 'promissory note' is.

Goldhedge said: 03-25-2011 08:12 PM

Just found another link.

Goldhedge said: 03-25-2011 08:22 PM

The National Council on Identity Policy

The National Council on Identity Policy

* Social Security Numbers *

Drivers' Licenses & Identity idhistory.NCIDPolicy.org

It becomes wholly unsupportable.

The CALIFORNIA example:

Why do they need a certificate of birth?

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

U.S. Legal History

3. Regarding every citizen of the United States as contractually being:

From a now defunct website, vinyasi...

The Birth Certificate

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

A closer look at the Admirality from Journey Beyond Perception.

The foundation of what we are dealing with.

Understanding the birth registration process

Res3. The subject matter of a trust or will.

Arminius, I have a few questions.

Originally Posted by chomper

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

These two jurisdictions that Congress legislates for are:

I know you know....

CHALLENGES IN COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS START

Another piece of the puzzle: Birth Certificate

Origin of Settlement (Birth) Certificates

Birth Certificate as proof one is born on the land

These two jurisdictions that Congress legislates for are:

Am I seeing this correctly ?

Most all of us were 'educated' in the public fool system.

The system is designed that way, to obfuscate the real truth.

I think the birth certificate is the key.

You ask 'how can I be party to a contract I never signed'?