$64.95 SECURED PARTY CREDITOR PROCESS PACK

Official PayPal Seal

“THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A CROP OF HUMAN SLAVES”

Structure of the Birth Certificate

“THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A CROP OF HUMAN SLAVES”

Structure of the Birth Certificate

Did the State Pledge Your Body to a Bank?

Right:  Some birth and marriage certificates are now "warehouse receipts," printed on banknote paper, which may mark you and yours as 'chattel' property of the banks that our government borrows from every day.

A certificate is a "paper establishing an ownership claim." - Barron's Dictionary of Banking Terms.  Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.

Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called "warehouse receipts."  The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:

 

-the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored...(residence)

-the date of issue of the receipt.....("Date issued")

-the consecutive number of the receipt...(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)

-a description of the goods or of the packages containing them...(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)

-the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent...(municipal clerk or state registrar's signature)

Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as "warehouse receipts" under the Uniform Commercial Code.  Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:

warehouse receipt. "...A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security."

Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks.  The "Full faith and Credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt.  That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt.  In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end.  Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is.

Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head" basis.  This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.

Additional Birth Certificate Research

Federal Children

 by Joyce Rosenwald

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for "other purposes." One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating "federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae," now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for "permission" from Daddy government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a "free country."

 

Before 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official" records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state tells you that registering your child's birth through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united States , thereby making him/her a United States Citizen. For the past several years a social security number has been mandated by the federal government to be issued at birth.

In 1933, bankruptcy was declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. To wit:"Full faith and credit" clause of Const. U.S. article 4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken.

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

The state claims an interest in every child within it's jurisdiction. The state will, if it deems it necessary, nullify your parental rights and appoint a guardian (trustee) over your children. The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. It is presumed by those who have researched this issue, that the child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate, and the social security number is the numbering or registration of the trust, allowing for the assets of the trust to be tracked. If this information is true, your child is now owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt united states. We are now designated by this government as "HUMAN RESOURCES," with a new crop born every year."

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the maternity act, who were citizens of another state, to enjoin them from enforcing it, wherein the plaintiff averred that the act was unconstitutional, and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights reserved by them through the federal Constitution's 10th amendment and not granted to the federal government, and that the burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States, held, that, as the statute does not require the plaintiff to do or yield anything, and as no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls, not on the State but on her inhabitants, who are within the federal as well as the state taxing power, the complaint resolves down to the naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their consent (Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..) Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit:

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

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY. THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

 

By section 4 of the act, the Children's Bureau is given all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide, the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND CARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

(1) The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power. McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.

In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.

The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822 ; 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago , 107 U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma , 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223 U.S. 390.

 

(2) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act. A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.

(3) The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution. Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to make laws for the United States . In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional. What was once declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as human resources, believed to be owned by government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D. is unconstitutional anyway you look at it. Federal jurisdiction to legislate for the several states does not exist and could never survive a court challenge as shown above. Writing letters to elected public servants won't save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power. Perhaps the 10th amendment of the federal constitution guaranteeing states rights will, if challenged, when making it known that we as individuals of the several states will not be treated as chattel of the U.S. government. If the federal government believes they own us, and as such have the right to demand national I.D. cards, and health I.D. cards, which will in truth tag us as we tag our animals, then let them bring forth the documents to prove their authority to legislate for it. If our G-D given rights to liberty and freedom, which were the foundation upon which this nation was created do not exist, and liberty and freedom is only an illusion under which the American people suffer, then let the governments of this nation come forward and tell the people. But...if we are indeed free, then we should not have to plead or beg before our elected public servants to be treated as such. If, in truth we are not free, then perhaps it's time to let the final chapter of the Great American Revolution be written..........

 

 

 

 

 
Section 8--102. Definitions.
(15) "Security", except as otherwise provided in  Section  8--103,
             means  an  obligation of an issuer or a share, participation,
             or  other  interest  in  an  issuer  or  in  property  or  an
             enterprise of an issuer:
               (i) which  is  represented  by  a  security  certificate in
                   bearer or registered form, or the transfer of which may
                   be registered upon books maintained for that purpose by
                   or on behalf of the issuer;
              (ii) which is one of a class or series or by  its  terms  is
                   divisible   into   a   class   or   series  of  shares,
                   participations, interests, or obligations; and
             (iii) which:
                   (A) is, or  is  of  a  type,  dealt  in  or  traded  on
                       securities exchanges or securities markets; or
                   (B) is  a  medium  for  investment  and  by  its  terms
                       expressly provides that it is a  security  governed
                       by this Article.
Section 8--103. 
Rules  for  Determining  Whether Certain Obligations and
                    Interests are Securities or Financial Assets.
    (a) A share or  similar  equity  interest  issued  by  a  corporation,
  business trust, joint stock company, or similar entity is a security.
    (b) An  "investment  company  security"  is  a  security.  "Investment
  company security" means a share or similar equity interest issued by  an
  entity  that  is  registered  as an investment company under the federal
  investment company laws, an interest in a unit investment trust that  is
  so  registered,  or  a  face-amount  certificate issued by a face-amount
  certificate company that is so registered.  Investment company security
  does  not  include  an  insurance  policy or endowment policy or annuity
  contract issued by an insurance company.
    (c) An interest in a partnership or limited liability company is not a
  security unless it is dealt in or traded on securities exchanges  or  in
  securities  markets,  its  terms expressly provide that it is a security
  governed by this Article, or  it  is  an  investment  company  security.
  However,  an interest in a partnership or limited liability company is a
  financial asset if it is held in a securities account.
    (d) A writing that is a  security  certificate  is  governed  by  this
  Article and not by Article 3, even though it also meets the requirements
  of  that Article. However, a negotiable instrument governed by Article 3
  is a financial asset if it is held in a securities account.
    (e) An option or similar obligation issued by a  clearing  corporation
  to its participants is not a security, but is a financial asset.
    (f) A  commodity contract, as defined in Section 9--102(a)(15), is not
  a security or a financial asset.
 


Section 8--201. Issuer.
    (a) With  respect  to  an obligation on or a defense to a security, an
  "issuer" includes a person that:
         (1) places or authorizes the placing of its name  on  a  security
             certificate, other than as authenticating trustee, registrar,
             transfer   agent,   or   the   like,  to  evidence  a  share,
             participation, or other interest in its  property  or  in  an
             enterprise,  or to evidence its duty to perform an obligation
             represented by the certificate;
         (2) creates a share, participation,  or  other  interest  in  its
             property  or  in  an enterprise, or undertakes an obligation,
             that is an uncertificated security;
         (3) directly or indirectly creates a fractional interest  in  its
             rights or property, if the fractional interest is represented
             by a security certificate; or
         (4) becomes  responsible  for,  or  in  place  of, another person
             described as an issuer in this section.
    (b) With respect to an obligation on  or  defense  to  a  security,  a
  guarantor is an issuer to the extent of its guaranty, whether or not its
  obligation is noted on a security certificate.
    (c) With  respect  to  a  registration  of  a transfer, issuer means a
  person on whose behalf transfer books are maintained.