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
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, ……….
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.
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.
Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.
This HTML presentation is copyright by Barefoot & J.R, August 1997