Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Forced Birth Certificate...

Expand Messages
  • Eli
    Hi, my name is Ben and my wife and I had a baby boy last month. The hospital wanted us to fill out a birth certificate application, we declined on religious
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 18, 2004
      Hi, my name is Ben and my wife and I had a baby boy last month. The
      hospital wanted us to fill out a birth certificate application, we
      declined on religious and polictical grounds. We got a letter today
      from state vital statistics saying that they registered **** ***
      ***** and we have 90 days to send in a chaange of name, or that will
      be his name given by the hospital. We do not want a Birth
      Certificate, nor do we want an Social Security number. I s there a
      rememdy for us? Thanks.
    • John Wilde
      It doesn t matter what vital statistics puts on a form. All they can put is baby boy (or girl) and your last name. You give your child what ever name you
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 20, 2004
        It doesn't matter what vital statistics puts on a form. All they can
        put is baby boy (or girl) and your last name. You give your child what
        ever name you intend on using, record it in a family recording Bible.
        That record is just as "official" as the birth certificate. Have done
        it with all six of our children. Of course one other thing we did is we
        used my wife's maiden name. If it is possible in your state any other
        children you have should be home birth with a midwife. That way you
        have better control of the information. The mid-wife may have to do a
        birth certificate as well, but you tell her you are following your
        religious tenant of not naming the baby for at least 8 days. We had to
        wait 11 days on the triplets, because one ended up in intensive care for
        10 days. By then she will have turned in the birth certificate and it
        will have baby boy (or girl) and your wife's maiden name.

        g'day
        John Wilde

        Eli wrote:

        >Hi, my name is Ben and my wife and I had a baby boy last month. The
        >hospital wanted us to fill out a birth certificate application, we
        >declined on religious and polictical grounds. We got a letter today
        >from state vital statistics saying that they registered **** ***
        >***** and we have 90 days to send in a chaange of name, or that will
        >be his name given by the hospital. We do not want a Birth
        >Certificate, nor do we want an Social Security number. I s there a
        >rememdy for us? Thanks.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Denise and Scott Harclerode
        What do you care what the gubment decides to do. If you want a SSN for your child, then the change form is probably the most efficient method to get one.
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 20, 2004

          What do you care what the gubment decides to do.  If you want a SSN for your child, then the change form is probably the most efficient method to get one.  Otherwise, your child is not connected to the “person” (read fiction) that the gubment created “for you.”

        • Alfred Adask
          I have a friend who also refused to get a Birth Certificate and SSN for their newborn baby. In order to accomplish their objective, he and his wife refused to
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 20, 2004
            I have a friend who also refused to get a Birth
            Certificate and SSN for their newborn baby. In order
            to accomplish their objective, he and his wife refused
            to give the child a name while at the hospital. They
            pretended to hem and haw as if they just could quite
            agree on what the infant's name should be. Without a
            name, the hospital (seemingly) could not issue a birth
            certificate or SSN.

            The parents' refusal to name the child seemed to work.
            They left the hospital in a couple days with the
            "uncertified" baby and without a SSN for the infant.

            A week or two later, a nurse called them at home and
            explained that some of the nurses and staff thought
            their little girl was "just so pretty" that they
            couldn't help wondering what name the parents had
            finally given their "beautiful child". This inquiry
            was intended to flatter the parents into revealing the
            child's name, but the parents were smart enough to
            refuse to reveal the child's name to the nurse.

            Result? A month or two later, the parents (whose last
            name is "Byrum") received a Social Security card in
            the mail made out to the name "BABY GIRL BYRUM".

            That may seem like a far-fetched story, but I know the
            parents personally, and I've SEEN that Social Security
            Card. The story is true.

            So far as I know, the parents never applied for and
            never received a state-issued Birth Certificate for
            their infant daughter.

            The question is, Why does the hospital go to such
            extremes (usinig even trickery) to issue a Social
            Security Card--even under a clearly false name--for
            every child born in the hospital?

            It's almost inconceivable that a hospital would put
            one its nurses up to lying over the phone, several
            weeks after the baby was born, in an attempt to trick
            the parents into revealing the child's name--unless
            there was a financial motive to do so. I.e., it's a
            virtual certainty that some supervisor ordered one of
            the nurses to look up the parents' phone number,
            concoct a lie, call the parents and try to trick them
            into revealing the child's name--all on
            hospital-company time. You don't make that sort of
            effort unless you're being paid to do so.

            There've been reports for several years that hospitals
            are paid a flat sum by the Social Security
            Administration for every child they "birth" and
            "brand" with a Social Security Number. Estimates of
            the size of the payment vary, but some claim the
            hospital receives $5,000 for each child they "brand"
            with a SSN.

            I have no idea if the $5,000 figure is accurate, but I
            don't doubt that each hospital receives some kind of
            "pay-off" from the So-So Security Administration for
            "branding" newborns.

            If that were true, what is the hospital's legal
            authority to receive payment for "branding" the
            parents' infant? I.e., why doesn't that SSA "reward"
            go to the parents rather than the hospital? After
            all, if the parents (or their insurance company) have
            already paid the hospital for delivering their child,
            why should the "extra" money from the SSA go to the
            hospital rather than the parents? Or, at minimum, why
            shouldn't that SSA "reward" money go towards paying
            off the delivery costs for the child "branded" and
            thus reduce the cost to the parents for the birth? In
            other words, why shouldn't the $5,000 (?) from the SSA
            be deducted from the cost of birthing the child?

            Such deduction would be an enormous windfall to any
            poor parent who was pregnant and without insurance
            when she gave birth.

            And what if a parent having a child at home with
            mid-wives (rather than at the hospital), had a chance
            to receive $5,000 (?) "reward" for registering the
            child's SSN?

            Don't misunderstand. I'm not recommending that any
            parent get a SSN for their child, but the truth is
            that just about all parents do so--so if there's a
            $5,000 "reward" to paid, why shouldn't it go to the
            parents?

            I have a hunch that it might be possible for a
            motivated parent to sue a hospital to 1) discover how
            much money the hospital had been paid from any and all
            sources (including SSA) to deliver the parents' child;
            and 2) sue the hospital to recover any sums paid to
            the hospital on behalf of the child above and beyond
            the sum agreed to and revealed on the hospital bill
            and paid by the parents themselves and/or their
            insurance companies.

            And if a class-action suit could be filed by all the
            parents whose children had birthed and "branded" (for
            a "secret" reward) by a particular hospital, I'd bet
            that sort of lawsuit might scare the crap out every
            hospital administrator within the USA.

            If it could be verified that the SSA was paying some
            sum to hospitals to "brand" their newborns with SSNs,
            it might not only be possible for parents to sue the
            hospitals and/or the SSA to recover those sums, it
            might even be possible for the CHILD to later to sue
            the hospitals for whatever "damages" (loss of status
            to claim unalienable Rights?) might be associated with
            being "involuntarily" subjected to a SSN by the
            hospital at the time of birth.

            I'm not sure how long the hospitals have been
            "imposing" SSNs on infants, but suppose they started
            the process about 20 years ago. Would it be possible
            for a young man or woman of 18, 19 or 20 years of age
            to sue the hospital for "damages"? It would be hard
            to prove that a youth of that age was actually injured
            by having a SSN. And there would probably be statute
            of limitation problems that could not be easily
            overcome--unless there were a way to sue the hospital
            for FRAUD (which has no statute of limitations).


            Are the hospitals actually paid $5,000 for every child
            they "brand"? I don't know. Maybe the sum is only
            $500 or perhaps less.

            But given the hospital's determination to learn the
            name of the Byrums' child, and given the fact that the
            hospital (not knowing the infant's true name) chose to
            issue a SS card in the false name of "BABY GIRL
            BYRUM," it appears that the hospital must have some
            considerable financial motivation in "branding" each
            infant. I doubt very much that hospitals selling
            aspirin pills for $2 each will go through that kind of
            administrative effort and even trickey to issue a SS
            card for just $50.



            As for a remedy to your current problem of receiving
            an unwanted birth certificate from the state, if you
            have 90 days to make a correction, you might start by
            carefully reading the birth certificate to see if the
            name of the child listed thereon actually corresponds
            precisely to the name of your child. For example, if
            your child's true and proper name were "Mary Ellen
            Smith" and the birth certificate registered the name
            "MARY ELLEN SMITH" or "MARY E. SMITH," you might want
            to contact the Birth Certificate folks and demand a
            correction.

            Alternatively, if you studied the rules of grammar and
            discovered that: 1) only a "proper" name can be used
            to identify a "proper" (specific) individual or
            entity; and 2) "proper" names are always capitalized
            (the first letter of each word in the proper name is
            upper-case, all the rest are lower case as in "Mary
            Ellen Smith")-- then you might not merely argue that
            the name on the proposed birth certificate ("MARY E.
            SMITH") is improper, but rather that, being improper
            that such name must identify some entity OTHER THAN
            your child. I.e., if the name on the birth
            certificate were not the true and proper name of your
            child, then that birth certificate might not be an
            error in FORM, but rather an error in SUBSTANCE. If
            so, you might consider sending the birth certificate
            back with a notorized affidavit declaring that the
            proposed birth certificate involves a mistaken
            identity--that your child is not the child or entity
            identified on that certificate.

            If I were using some strategy to return the birth
            certificate for defects in form or substance, I would
            almost certainly record my affidavit listing those
            error and/or mistakes and copy of the errant birth
            certificate at my county recorder's office. Then, I'd
            probably send copies of that recorded document to the
            Birth Certificate folks by means of certified or
            registered mail. Following this procedure might be an
            effective means to place the birth cerficate
            administrators on legal notice and thus possibly
            create some liability for these folks if they
            proceeded with their proposed birth certificate.

            If I and my wife hadn't already baptized my newborn
            baby, I might even consider baptizing the child in a
            name other than "Mary Ellen Smith". Maybe I'd baptize
            her "Mary Elaine Smith" (I always liked the name
            "Elaine"). Or maybe I'd baptize her "Ellen Mary
            Smith"--that might be a better choice so as to avoid
            any ambiguity whereby "Mary Ellen Smith" and "Mary
            Elaine Smith" might both be identified by the name
            "MARY E. SMITH".

            Of course, I'd want to be very careful to insure that
            the name of my child on the baptismal certificate were
            spelled in the child's proper (capitalized) name
            ("Mary Ellen Smith") rather than an improper,
            all-upper-case name like "MARY ELLEN SMITH".

            But if I had a baptismal certificate in the name "Mary
            Ellen Smith," I would probably consider using that
            baptismal certificate as an evidence to support my
            contention that "MARY E. SMITH" and/or "MARY ELLEN
            SMITH" were not the true and proper names of my child,
            "Mary Ellen Smith" (or maybe "Ellen Mary Smith," or
            "Elaine Margaret Smith," etc. etc.).

            If the Birth Certificate folks sent me a proposed
            birth certificate, I might simply reply that I have no
            child that I identify by the name listed on their
            proposed birth certificate--and I might even refuse to
            tell them the true name or names of my child/children
            I may or may not have. I could be wrong, but I'd bet
            that under family law, I may have a "privacy" right to
            refuse to disclose the names of my children and/or
            other family members.

            So, if I wouldn't reveal the true names of my
            children, the birth certificate administrators could
            simply guess--much like the fair-haired princess was
            forced to guess the name of "Rumplestiltkin" in the
            fairy tale. They could send me a birth certificate in
            the name "MARY E. SMITH" and I'd reply, Nope, that's
            not it--try again. OK, they could send another
            "possible" birth certificate with the name "MARY ELLEN
            SMITH"--and I'd say, Nope--try again. OK, then they
            might try "MARY ROSE SMITH". Nope. "MARY ELAINE
            SMITH"? Nope. etc. etc.

            (They might go through an awful lot of forms and
            postage before they "guessed" my child's true name.)

            Of course, I'd want to read the law on birth
            certificates and responsibility for applying for one,
            etc. I'd want to know if the birth certificate were
            mandatory or voluntary before I tried to "fence" with
            the Birth Certificate administrators.

            However, without having studied that law, my instinct
            suggests that parents can only supply the name of the
            child VOLUNTARILY; that until the parents voluntarily
            supply and/or agree to the name on the birth
            certificate, that instrument may have no legal
            validity.

            I've seen evidence in other instances of the police
            being stymied if they don't have a person's name. If
            you won't identify yourself, the police can sometimes
            be forced to leave you alone. I'm not sure how the
            mechanism works, but clearly--unless a crime has been
            committed in the officer's view--someone has got to
            identify who the person is that the police want to
            talk to. There is some powerful mechanism and
            requirement for "identification" without which, the
            system is often unable to proceed.

            Therefore, I suspect that, as parents, we must somehow
            "give" our child's name to the state or otherwise
            "voluntarily consent" to the state's rendition of our
            child's name. If we don't volunteer, I suspect that
            the state may be estopped from exercising most powers
            or jurisdictions over the child. And it's got to be
            the parents who provide the child's name. Who else
            could know?


            If some parents had "volunteered" their child's name
            to the state or otherwise assented/consented to the
            State's rendition of a name, those parents might still
            have an opportunity to "correct" any error in that
            "name" on the birth certificate. If the child is
            "Mary Ellen Smith," and the state registered here as
            "MARY E. SMITH" or "MARY ELLEN SMITH," perhaps the
            parents could ask that the birth certificate be
            corrected to reflect the child's true, proper name
            ("Mary Ellen Smith" or even "Mary Smith").

            I can't say if the folks who initiated this email have
            a remedy, but they certainly have an opportunity to
            explore and "probe" the process by which birth
            cerficiates are issued. Given that a dialogue has
            been intiated by the birth certificate administrators,
            the parents have a fine opportunity to pose a host of
            counter-questions that must be answered before they
            can "voluntarily agree" to the information the the
            proposed Birth Certificate.

            If those parents will ask such questions, they might
            not be able to avoid having THEIR child "branded" with
            a Birth Certificate. (It's unlikely, but perhaps
            mistakes have already been made which cannot be
            legally overcome.) But surely, these parents could
            learn enough from their questions and the birth
            certificate administrator's answers to help other
            parents avoid making the same mistakes (if any) and
            also avoid having their child "branded" by the STATE.

            without prejudice to my God-given, unalienable Rights
            and at arm's length

            Alfred Adask



            --- Eli <lonnie@...> wrote:
            > Hi, my name is Ben and my wife and I had a baby boy
            > last month. The
            > hospital wanted us to fill out a birth certificate
            > application, we
            > declined on religious and polictical grounds. We
            > got a letter today
            > from state vital statistics saying that they
            > registered **** ***
            > ***** and we have 90 days to send in a chaange of
            > name, or that will
            > be his name given by the hospital. We do not want a
            > Birth
            > Certificate, nor do we want an Social Security
            > number. I s there a
            > rememdy for us? Thanks.
            >
            >
            >


            =====
            http://www.antishyster.net
            without prejudice to my God-given, unalienable Rights
            at arm's length
            Alfred Adask




            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
            http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
          • joann
            So....LET THEM name him **** *** *****. Can you see that on his records ??? Or maybe change it to XXXX XXX XXXXX....or maybe !!!! !!! !!!!!? Or perhaps 0000
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 20, 2004
              So....LET THEM name him **** *** *****. Can you see that on his 'records'???
              Or maybe change it to XXXX XXX XXXXX....or maybe !!!! !!! !!!!!? Or perhaps 0000 000 00000 ?That ought to foul up the system royally! What would you call a boy with **** for a first name?
              Well...if the artist-formerly-known-as-?????????? can have a SYMBOL for a legal name, Why not **** *** *****?

              Hi, my name is Ben and my wife and I had a baby boy last month. The
              hospital wanted us to fill out a birth certificate application, we
              declined on religious and polictical grounds. We got a letter today
              from state vital statistics saying that they registered **** ***
              ***** and we have 90 days to send in a chaange of name, or that will
              be his name given by the hospital. We do not want a Birth
              Certificate, nor do we want an Social Security number. I s there a
              rememdy for us? Thanks.
            • Nilbux@aol.com
              In a message dated 6/20/2004 3:58:33 PM Central Daylight Time, ... I have seen and possibly have a copy of a letter from SSA stasting that if a person mever
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 20, 2004
                In a message dated 6/20/2004 3:58:33 PM Central Daylight Time, alfredadask@... writes:

                It would be hard
                to prove that a youth of that age was actually injured
                by having a SSN. 
                And there would probably be statute
                of limitation problems that could not be easily
                overcome--unless there were a way to sue the hospital
                for FRAUD (which has no statute of limitations).

                I have seen and possibly have a copy of a letter from
                SSA stasting that if a person mever has a SSN,
                they would never have an income tax liability.
                Therefore any person branded with SSN by a hospital
                was injured by the hospial.
                  



              • jm367@bellsouth.net
                wife s maiden name ? that s what they use. Is their mother a maiden ? Is their mother unmarried ? The child whose father is unknown has the State for a
                Message 7 of 9 , Jun 21, 2004
                  wife's maiden name ?  that's what they use.  Is their mother a maiden ?  Is their mother unmarried ?
                  The child whose father is unknown has the State for a father.
                  At the very least you must declare in proper form that you are the father of these children or they are going to have status of illegitimate wards and that is not good.  They could be exported.  No kidding.
                  These questions of origin and status are all governed in the common law by evidence admissible in common law and that does not mean affidavits.
                  I presume you do not want to leave a curse on your children.  You need well informed competent advice or to spend some time in law libraries to straighten out the mess you have created for your children to inherit.
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 11:39 AM
                  Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Forced Birth Certificate...

                • sonya vines
                  hello your email caught my eye.i have a son that was accused of being a childs father in south carolina.there is a question of paternity.have been the hospital
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jun 21, 2004
                    hello your email caught my eye.i have a son that was accused of being a childs father in south carolina.there is a question of paternity.have been the hospital allowed the girl to give the child our last name.we are getting ready to have dna done.if hes not we are suing the hospitial and making her take our last name off.






                      sonya
                    From: Nilbux@... Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Forced Birth Certificate... Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:38:13 EDT In a message dated 6/20/2004 3:58:33 PM Central Daylight Time, alfredadask@... writes: > It would be hard > to prove that a youth of that age was actually injured > by having a SSN. And there would probably be statute > of limitation problems that could not be easily > overcome--unless there were a way to sue the hospital > for FRAUD (which has no statute of limitations). > I have seen and possibly have a copy of a letter from SSA stasting that if a person mever has a SSN, they would never have an income tax liability. Therefore any person branded with SSN by a hospital was injured by the hospial.


                    Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up � now 3 months FREE!
                  • WW011@aol.com
                    Suppose it was around $60,000 per child in branding SSN? (straw-man)
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 17, 2004
                      Suppose it was around $60,000 per child in branding SSN?
                      (straw-man)
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.