Fort Fairfield Journal Contact Us Bible Reference Our Library
Advanced Civics Research Library
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.
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal
Read more editorials by David Deschesne, click here
Fort Fairfield Journal, May 11, 2005
A certificate is a "paper establishing an ownership claim." - Barron's Dictionary of Banking Terms. Registration of births began in 1915, by the Bureau of Census, with all states adopting the practice by 1933.
Birth and marriage certificates are a form of securities called "warehouse receipts." The items included on a warehouse receipt, as descried at §7-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the law which governs commercial paper and transactions, which parallel a birth or marriage certificate are:
-the location of the warehouse where the goods are stored...(residence)
-the date of issue of the receipt.....("Date issued")
-the consecutive number of the receipt...(found on back or front of the certificate, usually in red numbers)
-a description of the goods or of the packages containing them...(name, sex, date of birth, etc.)
-the signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent...(municipal clerk or state registrar's signature)
Birth/marriage certificates now appear to at least qualify as "warehouse receipts" under the Uniform Commercial Code. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. defines:
warehouse receipt. "...A warehouse receipt, which is considered a document of title, may be a negotiable instrument and is often used for financing with inventory as security."
Since the U.S. went bankrupt in 1933, all new money has to be borrowed into existence. All states started issuing serial-numbered, certificated "warehouse receipts" for births and marriages in order to pledge us as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve's banks. The "Full faith and Credit" of the American people is said to be that which back the nation's debt. That simply means the American people's ability to labor and pay back that debt. In order to catalog its laborers, the government needed an efficient, methodical system of tracking its property to that end. Humans today are looked upon merely as resources - "human resources," that is.
Governmental assignment of a dollar value to the heads of citizens began on July 14, 1862 when President Lincoln offered 6 percent interest bearing-bonds to states who freed their slaves on a "per head" basis. This practice of valuating humans (cattle?) continues today with our current system of debt-based currency reliant upon a steady stream of fresh new chattels to back it.
Additional Birth Certificate Research
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
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.
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
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.
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
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,
(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
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