What is your warehouse number?

"Believe if you will or not, BUT VERIFY everything."  I do not
accept any liability or responsibility for the information provided by others.  It
is your duty to verify the accuracy and the legality of any information accessed via
the Internet.

FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL

Real.  Educational.  News.

     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, Fort Fairfield Journal

      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

      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, 239Mass. 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..........
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s