FROM THE REDEMPTION MANUAL
In 1921, the federal Sheppart-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 state agencies in overseeing of it’s operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal “birth registry’ which exists today, creating “FEDERAL CHILDREN” . This government of “Parents 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 those things necessary to carry our activities that exist in what is call a “free country”.
Before 1921, the records of births and names of children were entered into the 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 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. The social security number is one of those “other purposes“. It serves as a means of lifelong tracking of the one whose name is on the birth certificate.
In 1933, the united States of America (Corporate Government) was declared bankrupt by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the “full faith and credit” of each of their States, including the
CITIZENRY AS COLLATERAL, for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve System.
To wit; “FULL FAITH AND CREDIT” the clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) which provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the united States. It requires that foreign judgment 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 judgment of 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, Fourth Edition, and Sixth Edition (page 672), cites omitted.
After receiving the information of live birth and other particulars for the birth certificate accompanied by the assigned social security number, 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 it’s 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 registration of the trust, allowing for the trust’s assets to be tracked. If this information is true (and we believe it is), our children are owned by the state. Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of “bankrupt” united States Corporation. We are now designated by this government as
“HUMAN RESOURCES” born in a DELIVERY room, delivered to the state of birth by way of the
BIRTH CERTIFICATE for which our INFORMER (our Mother) provides the requested information including the
NAME and SOCIAL SECURITY (or tracking) NUMBER wherewith this bankrupt government is supplied with new
crop of COLLATERAL born each year.
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 vs. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral vs. Burke
Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.
The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government (a Corporation) 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: Rabrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co. vs. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149;
Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 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 to set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re- delegated authority to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional.
What was once declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of this nation in the past should be upheld in a court challenge today. The constitution has not changed. What has changed is the way this government views human life. Today we are defined as HUMAN RESOURCES, believed to be owned by the government. The government now wants us, as individuals, to be tagged and tracked. Government mandated or legislated National I.D., which is unconstitutional. 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 will not save us when we all know their agenda does not include serving those who placed them in power (servitude).
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 that 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.
If our God given RIGHTS to life, liberty, freedom and Pursuit of happiness, 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 government of this nation come forward and tell the people. But…..if we are judged 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 is our duty to address this issue forthright and forthwith with the power of the pen and pray the people will waken from their fear and slumber induced by greed.
In 1923, a suit was brought against “federal officials” (corporation) 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 no burden is imposed by it other than that of taxation, which falls not on the State but on it’s 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. Melton, Secretary of the
Treasury, et.al; Frothingham vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et.al.). Mr. Alexander Lincoln,
Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth Massachusetts. To wit;
The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government (a Corporation) powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purpose of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which
maybe imposed under the act; THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENT
PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS OF THE RIGHT OF
A WOMAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN
SELECTION, all 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 MAYBE
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 of assist in 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 T.HE ACT
The act is invalid because it assumes powers not Granted to Congress and Usurps the local police power.
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; United States vs. Cruickshank, 92 U.S. 542,
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 regulations of 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 vs. Dagenhart, 247,259 U.S … 44. The act is not made valid by the circumstances 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.
A message of President Monroe, May 4 1822; 4 Elliot’s Debates p. 525; Pollard’s Lessee vs.
Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. vs. Chicago,
107 U.S. 678; Coyle vs. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559; Cincinnati vs. Lousiville & Nashville
R. R. Co, 223