RE: [tips_and_tricks] Got A Question?
You will notice that there is no email address in the From -- Subject lines below for a direct personal return, infra.
So I am posting to the group.
Try some of these
http://cltg.org/ CITIZENS FOR LIMITED TAXATION
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htmThe Law by Frederick Bastiat
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of tec_time
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:12 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Got A Question?
If I wanted to sign something but, wanted to protect myself
from "liablity(s)" what 'phrase' and 'intials' would I put on a
contract that could leave me liable, otherwise?
Phillip "Grench" GillonU.S. Violates International Law by Mistreating Its Own CitizensBill exempts aliens from California lawFree Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativityhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse GUN SURRENDER BILL HEARINGhttp://www.state-citizen.org/misc/paren%20patriae.txt
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 law of Nature and Nature's God. The
people believed they would never again hear the words of
enslavement, ie; "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
claimed it was designed 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 received one as well. It was written
by the people of the several states and was titled "The
constitution for The united States of America." This new
state was "delegated" 17 authorities by the several states.
The people never intended that it should over step it's
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
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 PRACTICALLY IN 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 in the
united States, thereby making him/her a united states
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..). (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
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 ARE 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.
"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.
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."
Patens 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 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 use 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
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 know 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
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 it's 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, 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's been reported that in California, early in the year,
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 it's citizens if federal legislation violates the
Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to
it's 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
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 .
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, Oublic 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
8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co.,
232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257
9. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co.
v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the Justices,
239 Mass. 606.
Copyright (c) 1996 Joyce Rosenwald
For information on how to purchase the research documents
used in this article contact the author...joyce@...
For more interesting articles visit my website at:
http://www.bogue.com click on 'Grassroots'
- Nice Post JRHowever for new information UCC 1-207 has been changed as it has disappeared and reappeared as UCC 1-308 Magic huh, I wonder how that happened?FreedomStalker