Thursday, February 3, 2011

To Whom Your Children Belong..are they really yours???

To Whom Your Children Belong
Joyce Rosenwald
Joyce Rosenwald suffered a stroke a year or so ago and backed out of her public
life. Till then she performed extraordinary legal research, and I so admire her
for her contributions to our knowledge and insight. She first told me about intervention
and how to get federal courts to intervene in state matters and force
the A.G. to declare whether a state law comports with the US constitution. Joyce
wrote a lot about the issue of children and to whom they belong. You will "nd
her research and conclusions shocking.
From !e Idaho Observer
People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony to
become a Sovereign Nation State. !ese 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 “!e constitution for !e united
States of America.”This new state was “delegated” 17 authorities [powers] by the
several states. !e people never intended that it should over step it's delegated
authorities.
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.” !e States are not nations, either
as between themselves or towards foreign nations. !ey 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. !ey 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. !e 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.
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 “!e
United states of America”, began.
In United States v. Chamberlin, 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. !e most general
words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or
corporate) a#ect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish
any of his rights and interests. He may even take the bene$t of any particular
act, though not named.
The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this
government, and it has bee applied frequently in the di#rent states, and practically
in the federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the
royal prerogatives, as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patriae or
universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles
of the British Constitution.
Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral
obligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children in
their existing social values and morals.
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was passed creating
birth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certi$cate.” 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. !is 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. !ese records
were readily accepted by both the family and the law as “o%cial” 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. !e state claims an interest in every child
within it's jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child's birth
2 Awakenings
through the birth certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the united
States, thereby making him/her a united states citizen.
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal o%cials charged with the administration
of the act, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary
of the Treasury, et.al. !e plainti#, 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 unde$ned, 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. !ere is nothing
which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. Insurance
of mothers may be made compulsory. !e teaching of birth control and physical
inspection of persons about to marry may 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 $nal arbiters are the Bureau and
the Board. The fact that it was considered necessary in explicit terms to preserve
from invasion by federeral o%cials the right of the parents to the custody and
care of their 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.” 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
! ! The Case Against Income Tax Cases! 3
they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. 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) !e 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.
!e 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 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. !e
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 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
the state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which
they are entitled in the home state. And that a judgement or record shall have the
same faith, credit, conclusive e#ect, 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. !is 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 in 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 certifcate,” thereby making the child a citizen of the
4 Awakenings
corporate government known as the United States. !e 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. !e 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 benefciary of another.
Cestui que use is: he for whose use and bene-
fit 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 benefi-
ciary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now
vested in the federal government. !e government then places the trust into the
hands of the parents, who are made “guardians.” !e 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. !e 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 certi
ficate. “Title” to your child is now owned by the state. !e state now directs the
trust corpus and provides “bene$ts” for the beneficiary—the corpus and bene$-
ciary being one and the same: the citizen, first as child and then as adult.
!e debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another
through the process know as “Novation.” Novation is de$ned as “the substitution
ofa 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. !e 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 Case Against Income Tax Cases! 5
The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal parens
patriae authority to the state attorney generals. The attorneys general 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 threatsof 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 clari$ed by the Florida Supreme Court. !e 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:
Sec. 15h. Applicability of parens patriae actions
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. !e 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
6 Awakenings
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 14th 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 (Commonwealth of Massachusetts
v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et.al.) 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….Fascism