Declaration of Independence - 1776

Articles of Confederation - 1777

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 laws of Nature and Nature's God. The people
believed they would never again hear the words of enslavement, i.e.; "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 designed the Constitution 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 of the
union received one as well. It was written by delegates of the people of the several states and
when ratified by two-thirds of the people's conventions of the then Thirteen Independent and
Sovereign States was ordained and established as "The Constitution for the United States of
America." This new Union of States was comprised only of those states which had ratified the
Constitution. (North Carolina did not join the union until 11 months after the United States was
established, and Rhode Island held out for nearly a year and a half, and continued to operate
under the King's Charter until 1842.)

The government of the United States was "delegated" only 20 grants of power [See Constitution
Art 1, Sec 8] and ten things were carefully enumerated which the government may not do, [See
Constitution Art 1, Sec 9], and 10 further restrictions were added in the first 10 amendments [See
"Bill of Rights"] to the Constitution by the several states. The people never intended that
government of the United States should over step its 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

Page 1 of 8
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. 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 in practically all 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.

Page 2 of 8
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 its
jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child's birth through the birth certificate
serves as proof that he/she was born within territories of the united States, thereby making
him/her a United States citizen.

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.; Frothingham v.
Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..). (4) The plaintiff, Mrs. Frothingham, averred that the
act was unconstitutional, and that its 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

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 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."

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

Page 3 of 8
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. The "Full faith and credit" clause of the U.S.
Constitution, Article 4. Sec. 1, requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it
had by law or usage of state of its origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to
which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgment 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 its citizens/subjects. This author believes the federal government draws its 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 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

Page 4 of 8
the United States. The government then turns the new citizen into a corporation, a legal fiction,
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 user 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 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 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
known 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 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. 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
its 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

Page 5 of 8
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 newspaper, reported on March 15, 1996 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 wellbeing 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 has been reported that in California, early in the year 1996, 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:

The primary responsibility of a State is to protect its 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 its
citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to its
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
them.

Page 6 of 8
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 ....................

Footnotes:
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, Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.

4. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham v.

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 U.S. 390.

8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction
Co., 257 U.S. 529.

9. In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of the
Justices, 239 Mass. 606.

See Also "The Unconstitutional Fourteenth Amendment"

Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8