BIRTH AND MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES AND ID CARDS
The term "the United States" is used in the
first sentence of the 14th amendment as something you can be born into. Don't be tricked by this.
The term “the United States” can mean either the name of the
government or the name of a geographical place.
If a form asks if you were born in the United States, do not assume
that this refers to a geographical place.
It is asking if you were born into the government.
There is a big difference between "the United
States" as a geographical place surrounded by a border and "the
United States" as the name of a political unit. The border existed before the government existed.
The government did not create the border. Governments don't determine
where the border is. The people who created government already had the territory
that the new servants were hired to defend. Government Servants cannot
extend the established geographic "United States", they can only
extend the political (or corporate) "United States". They can, and did, extend their jurisdiction beyond their
federal territories (of Washington DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands,
American Samoa and Northern Marianas Island) to anywhere and anything
receiving federal funds. This
is entirely voluntary, and is done with the consent of those who are
Since your Constitution limits your federal government
to Washington DC and the territories, it would be unconstitutional to tax
anyone within a state. Thomas
Jefferson, while he was Vice-President, in the Kentucky Resolves, reassured
us that there are only three federal crimes that apply within a state. The three crimes mentioned in your Constitution: piracy,
treason, and counterfeiting. James
Madison, in the Virginia Resolves also concluded that states had a right to
interfere with the federal government’s laws it considered
US Supreme Court in Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 US
"It is a
well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary
The Buck Act (4 U.S.C. § 104 to 113) creates taxable "Federal
Areas" within States wherever your federal government sends aid.
This includes Social Security. Now
read Springfield v. Kenny, 104 NE2d 65.
If you want proof that you are an "individual entity" that
is classified as a property franchise of your federal government, read the
Supreme Court case Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox 298 US 193, 56 S.Ct 773. As long as you have a link to your federal government, you
are in a "federal area" that is subject to federal laws.
You would otherwise be outside your federal jurisdiction.
As long as you have a SSN, a resident driver license, a federal bank
account, or even a zip code or a two letter federal area (I've read that
these two letter abbreviations were created by the Secretary of the Treasury
in 31 CFR Part 51.2, but I could not find a copy of this repealed
regulation), or if you confess that you are in an all capitalized STATE,
then you are receiving taxable federal benefits within a federal area.
Also see Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund, 344 US 624. Keep in mind that your federal legislature can not make laws
for state citizens. Congress
can only make territorial laws, with few exceptions.
American Banana Co. v. US Fruit Co., 213 US 347 (1909). US v. Spear, 338 US 217 (1949). NY Central RR Co. v. Chisholm, 268 US 29 (1925).
Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 US 281 (1948).
Now back to my original question. Which "United States" were you born in: the
geographical or the political?
Hint #1: In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v.
Franks, 7 S.Ct 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 said
constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally,
if not always, used in a political sense...
It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the
Hint #2: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of
the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "The
persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the
united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in
some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but
completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct
and immediate allegiance."
Hint #3: BIRTH DOES NOT ESTABLISH CITIZENSHIP according
to Edwards v. California, 314 US 160 at page 183: “... birth within a state does not establish
The legal definition of the word Birth has two
meanings, natural birth or coming into legal existence.
Example: a corporation has a birth.
Birth is the event, such as signing a form that creates legal
existence in the eyes of the law. [It
is a lot like Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, and
Nicodemus couldn’t understand that Jesus was speaking of corporate law]. We become officers/employees/agents of the corporate body by
such events as “entering into society” or “initiation” or “being
recognized” or “coming into legal existence” not by natural birth.
Now reread the first sentence of the 14th amendment and tell me if you were both (1) born or naturalized into the
government (2) AND SUBJECT TO the jurisdiction thereof ?
The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade correctly stated, although irrelevant to the case, that the:
`person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the
As I show in Appendix D, the word `person' does not
include the Christian either. To
suggest that non-persons can be killed, is the same kind of laws that Hitler
Persons have names in all capitalized letters.
Christian names are not in all capital letters.
I am now going to prove that getting a Birth
Certificate surrenders the child to the government. Don't take my word for
it, just become familiar with the terminology, and then look at a birth
certificate. Try to get a copy
of the document signed by the doctor, not just the computer printout.
name": "The baptismal name as distinct from the surname.
The name which is given one after his birth or at baptism, or is
afterward assumed by him in addition to his family name.
Such name may consist of a single letter."
family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name
which is not given in baptism. The
name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents....
The last name; the name common to all members of a family."
Gregg's Manual of English purportedly states:
name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper
noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a
dead person, or a nom de guerre.”
Read that again. A
name spelled in all capital letters is the name of a dead person.
Your government considers you to be either a dead person or a
"A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a
person, differing in some essential particular from his true name
(consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it
is meant to deceive or mislead."
"nom": Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a
false or assumed name."
"Nom de guerre": War name.
A name assumed by or assigned to a person engaged in some action or
"Guerre": War, and as a verb, to wage war.
The US Government Style Manual, Chapter 3 requires only
the names of corporate and other fictional entities, or those serving in
corporate capacities to be in all capitalized letters.
For a deeper study on this capitalization topic, study
Now look at a birth certificate. Is the baby's name in all capital letters?
Did the father name the baby or did the doctor, while exercising his
duties as a licensed government agent, assign the name to the baby?
Is there any hint on the legal document that the father named the
baby? Does an all capitalized name differ in some essential
particular from his true Christian name?
If so, the implication is that it is meant to deceive or mislead.
If not, then you've acknowledged that the all capitalized name is his
true name, which cannot be a Christian name.
Does your state birth certificate laws use the word 'person' when
referring to the name on the certificate?
The government now has proof that the baby is a PERSON.
PERSONS have legal existence in the eyes of the law, and are subject
to the statutes written by the legislature.
Sovereigns are above the law written by their servants.
The PERSON on the birth certificate will not be able to exercise the
rights of a non-person. You,
like Esau, gave up your birthright, which will not pass to your children.
There is something even more sinister here.
Government cannot know about matters of childbirth.
According to the Supreme Court’s famous Roe v. Wade decision “State criminal abortion laws... violate due
process clause of Fourteenth Amendment protecting right to privacy”.
That’s right! The Supreme
Court says childbearing must remain strictly private.
Why then is the doctor informing the government that a child was
born? I suspect that the doctor
is required to register government property.
The government wants to secure another loan on the national debt and
it needs collateral. A UCC-1
financing statement is not necessary because pursuant to UCC 9-302:
of a financing statement otherwise required is not necessary or effective to
perfect a security interest in property subject to (1) A statute or treaty
of the United States which provides for a national or international
registration or a national or international certificate of title or which
provides a place for filing different from that specified ...”
Is the doctor giving the baby to whoever owns the
government? 2 Peter 2:3
through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you
..." Now, if you don't
think the government is owned, look at a birth certificate and tell me why
the STATE NAME is all capitalized. Hint:
it's not all capitalized in your original state constitution.
Fictitious names exist for a purpose.
Fictions are invented to give courts jurisdiction.
Snider v. Newell, 44 SE 354. That's
right. Corporations are
fictions created by government. Persons
are also fictions created by government.
However, real Christians, being non-fiction, were protected against
the courts. They governed
Can a Christian use an all capitalized fictitious name
knowing that to do so is "...with the implication that it is meant to
deceive or mislead"? Now
look at your driver's license or passport or birth certificate or voter
registration. Can a Christian
use an all capitalized fictitious name on any ID?
Now go and try to get a government ID or birth certificate with a
Christian name and see what happens. You
cannot do it. Government cannot
issue any ID with your Christian name on it. CHRISTIANS CANNOT GET A GOVERNMENT ID CARD.
Christians are not part of their system, and DO NOT EXIST IN THE EYES
OF THEIR LAW. Only
non-Christians can get an ID (mark) of the beast.
Only non-Christians can have a name of (of= created by) the beast.
Only non-Christians can get the (ID) number of the Beast's name
Do you now confess that you have a mark of a beast, a
name of a beast, and a number of his name?
Fictions give courts jurisdiction. Could a fictitious, all capitalized, name of your state
government be an image of the beast? The
Greek word for image that is used in Revelation’s image of the beast is
the Greek word icon (Strong’s
1504). Synonyms: image,
artifice, and fabrication. Also
see: ruse, expedient. This icon
that receives worship is not the same thing as an idol, which can also
receive worship, although both are made by the hands of man.
Without an ID card you will notice that you are denied
the right to travel by car or by airline.
Nor can you cash a check or open a bank account or get a home phone.
Nor can you rent a Post Office Box (per Domestic Mail regulation DMM
951.142 even though the Post Office cannot accept a Social Security
Card as identification). You
can still officially get a job without a SSN.
But soon, you will be officially unable to get a job. Your papers are not in order.
Christians will be persecuted.
If you want to try an exercise in frustration, try to
get the phone company to send you your bill with your real name on it to
your real address. You cannot
do it. You must worship the
state god in order to get phone service.
The state is the god that created the corporation.
Real people don't exist in the eyes of the law.
Conclusion: as suggested by the Baldwin case quoted
above, claiming that you are a US citizen (with a Birth Certificate, or on
an SSN application) is enough proof that you were born into your federal
government. "A citizen of
the United States is a citizen of the federal government..." (Kitchens
v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383).
Real people do not exist in the eyes of the law,
because people are sovereigns, and the legislature cannot and does not write
laws for their masters (Matt 10:24, and John 15:20).
Most government forms ask for a date of birth.
A date of birth on a government form is not the date you took your
first breath, it is the date the instrument was signed that made you
property of the government. The
UN is involved in "the official birth registration process" per
Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, section 422.103(b)(2).
Here is further proof that government forms do not ask
for the day you took your first breath: Hearsay is inadmissible in court.
Although you were present on your born-day, you were not aware of any
specific calendar system on that day, nor does your memory serve you well.
It would be subornation of perjury for any government officer (with
or without a form) to coerce you, under penalty of perjury, for inadmissible
hearsay that you cannot recall. Federal Rules of Evidence rule 602 prohibits you from telling them your birth day.
However, family records are admissible.
I read a brief article about an 1884 law textbook
Parsons on Contracts with this quote from the chapter "Marriage is a
the state married them, the children were fruits of the state".
How did you delegate to your servants the authority to
divorce man from wife contrary to Mark 10:9?
I knew that I could not cancel my neighbor's vows to God, so I knew
that divorce court could not cancel anyone's vows to God. It sounds too Catholic to me.
How can you delegate the authority to bastardize your neighbors'
It turns out that we did not delegate this authority.
Apparently there are two meanings of the word `marriage', one meaning
holy matrimony and the other refers to a status within the government.
I always thought it peculiar that people who have a
right to get married would have to beg civil servants for permission
(license = permission) to get married.
I read the 1877 US Supreme Court decision Meister v. Moore, 96 US 76,
that a marriage license was not required, nor do states confer the right to
marry, and that marriage is based on contract.
This is consistent with the Bible, and it makes sense that the
Supreme Court would confirm that this most sacred of family rights does not
involve government. Since your
Constitution prohibits any state from impairing the obligation of contracts
(Article 1, section 10), the sanctity of the family is safe from government
Then I read the 1888 US Supreme Court decision in
Maynard v. Hill, 8 S.Ct 723, 125 US 190, where the Maynards had intermarried
in the state of Vermont (meaning they had a license) and that marriage was
NOT based on contract but upon a status, and the government could do whatever it wanted to do with
the marriage because a state created the status
of marriage. Since this kind of
marriage was not a commitment, there was no obligation of contract to be
enforced. Since there was no
commitment of marriage, this bastardizes the children.
Sexual immorality is a crime against God. His punishment: Bastards
cannot attend church even down to the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:2),
and fornicators cannot go to heaven (1st Corinthians 6:9). God has always abandoned any nation that allows sexual
What is divorce? Those
who get married to the state can get divorced by the state.
Nowhere in the Bible does divorce cancel a marriage.
Divorce in the Bible refers to living separately.
Everywhere remarriage is mentioned in the Bible, it is equated to
adultery. Adulterers cannot go
to heaven according to First Corinthians 6:9. Can a black robbed priest at
your county synagogue cancel your vows to God?
Family law is very diabolical. The word “marriage” has several meanings.
Clergy that are authorized by the state to solemnize state licensed
“marriages” can’t solemnize real marriages. They can only solemnize
contracts with the state, the groom’s contract and the bride’s contract.
If you pay a fee for a marriage license, then you’ve agreed that
you don’t have a right to marry, and furthermore, you’ve paid to have
your family regulated by the state. The
presumption by the family court is that there has never been a commitment to
a real husband-wife relationship, until death do you part.
Any evidence to prove that you had a commitment will be inadmissible. Since there is no commitment, there is no marriage contract
between the bride and groom. Since
there is no commitment, there is no man-wife relationship.
Since there is no commitment, all children are bastards.
The state claims all rights to bastards, therefore all children are
subject to the state’s determination for “care, custody, education, and
Perhaps children are indeed fruits of the state.
After all, when a slave owner allows two slaves to mate and they
produce new property, the new property is registered in the owner's records.
Is your birth registered in your father's family bible, or is your
birth registered in your owner's records?
Asking for permission to get married is a confession
that you do not have a right to get married.
By applying for a marriage license, you've waived your right to get
Marriage is the joining together of a man and woman in
order to raise a family. GOD
GIVES CHILDREN TO PARENTS (1st CHRONICLES 25:5
). PARENTHOOD IS A RIGHT GIVEN BY GOD. By getting permission to marry, or by selling you children
into slavery in order to get a tax deduction, or by accepting welfare,
children become wards of the state. 1st
Corinthians 7:23 says You were bought by Christ, do not become the slaves of
men. We are to be slaves to God
(Romans 6:22, Galatians 1:10). If you want to uphold the Lordship of Christ do not mark your
When the law says that the state cannot recognize a
common law marriage, it doesn't mean you're not married. It means the state cannot take your children nor divorce you.
God's laws prevail. A
common law marriage simply means that your family is not part of their
corporation. Your family does
not have existence in the eyes of their laws.
But beware that there are multiple definitions of common law
marriage. They twist things
around. They will insist that a
common law marriage is when a couple lives in sin.
In that case, there is no commitment, and the family court has
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You should have known (as did the Supreme Court in Murdock v.
Pennsylvania, 319 US 105
) that "A state may not, through a license tax, impose a charge for the
enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
By paying for a marriage license, you confessed that you did not have
a right to get married. The
power to tax is the power to destroy. What
part of "let no man put asunder" don't you understand?
Notice that the definition of a Christian name is a
name that is given one after birth or at baptism, or is afterward assumed by
him in addition to his family name. You
can assume a name that is not your government name. Examples: Saul became Paul, Simon became Peter (Cephas in
John 1:42), Zacchaeus became Matthew, Didymus became Thomas, and the
Thaddaeus of Matthew 10:3 and Mark 13:18 became Judas son of James in Luke
6:16. Even John the Baptist's
father had to rename his son (Luke 1:63) after the Holy Spirit had filled
him "even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15 KJV).
And when Joses became Christian, he was called Barnabas (Acts 4:36). Just try assuming a Christian name and see what happens.
There are dozens of early court cases to prove that you
can use any name you want to. However,
merchants who control your buying and selling have been deceived by a beast
power into asking for ID “proof that you are who you say you are.”
If these merchants were Christian, they should be saying: “I
acknowledge your authority to be whoever you say you are.
Your authority to exist does not come from someone’s civil
servants. The government does
not have a law impairing the obligations of contracts.
Early court decisions confirm that Christians must have
names, and must reveal their name in court, but non-Christians did not have
to have names. Non-Christians
could be called anything, such as John Doe.
If a Christian was called by a name other than his own, he could
abate the court proceedings by claiming that there was a “misnomer”. Everything is backwards now.
Non-Christians get full government recognition with an all
capitalized government name, and anyone who wants to keep their Christian
name is treated as an enemy of the state.
And furthermore, contempt of court is a life sentence without a
More name games with children. Government cannot know the names or birthdates or family
relationships of your children. Or
even the existence of your children. They
cannot even ask! Here are
proofs that birth certificates are about government property, not about
Roe v. Wade was a privacy case. Government
could not know about procreation or child rearing, thereby allowing abortion
in the first trimester to go unpunished because the abortion laws were
written in such that they “... violate due process clause of Fourteenth
Amendment protecting right to privacy...” Your family has a right to privacy. Roe v. Wade went on to also state “Several decisions of
this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage
and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Yeager v. Hackensack, 615 F.Supp1087, citing the
authority of Roe v. Wade, confirmed that “Right to be free from compelled
disclosure of names of household members is within right of privacy
protected by Constitution.”
Yeager v. Hackensack also confirmed that private utilities cannot request Social
Security Numbers without first complying with the disclosure provisions of
section 7(b) of the Privacy Act.
Roe v. Wade cannot be an abortion case.
It is only a privacy case. Proof
#1: the Supreme Court will not hear cases unless the party is damaged
(according to rules laid down in their Ashwander case).
Only Roe’s privacy was damaged.
Roe was not arrested for having an abortion.
Roe did not have an abortion, she gave birth to a son who remains an
active critic of the abortion laws. Proof#2:
The abortion doctor who joined in the case was remanded back to state courts
for his punishment. Roe v. Wade DID NOT legalize abortions.
A million repetitions of a lie do not make it true.
Matters of child bearing or child rearing must remain
strictly private. This cannot
be overemphasized. Asking for
the birth date of a child is such a gross violation of privacy, it is like
asking to watch the birth! I
offer the following proof that matters of child bearing require this level
of privacy: the Supreme Court in Bowers
v. Hardwick recognized that sodomy laws must be enforced because “The
right to privacy does not extend to acts of consensual sodomy between
homosexual adults”. Procreation
is private. Sodomy cannot be
private. Any bureaucrat who
asks for a child’s birthdate is violating your most sacred family privacy.
Treat him like you would treat Herod.
According to rules of evidence your family records, or
records of religious organizations are just as valid as records of state
vital statistics made to a public office (these are under the hearsay
exception rules -- which say that hearsay is not admissible except for these
three pages of exceptions which are admissible).
The main difference is that government documents are
Here is a challenge: You can overturn Roe v. Wade if you can find ANY government form that compels the
disclosure of a child’s name or birthdate or existence.
[Unless, of course, the child is the government’s child.
Government property must be regulated.
Which kind are your children?]
Midwives are now “required” to report home births
to government so that a birth certificate can be issued, and a SSN will be
issued pursuant to the GATT treaty
. Midwives under Pharaoh were also required to report the birth
of Moses; so that civil government could process him (Acts 7:19) but these
midwives lied to their government. Quiz:
Is it right or is it wrong for Midwives to lie to government?
When Jesus was a baby, all little boys in Bethlehem were to be
processed by civil government. Is it right or wrong to escape lawful government processing
For the advanced student:
In Maynard v. Hill the Supreme Court referred to the
Maynard's marriage with the term `status',
and every occurrence of the term `status'
was in italics. I never found
out what the italics signifies. If
you want to do some research, find out what italics means in Supreme Court
decisions, and keep in mind that Social Security is also not based on
contract, but upon a status. I was also about to study the Sheppard-Towner
Maternity Act of 1921, 42 Stat 224, formerly 42 U.S.C. § 161-175, and the
Federal Birth Registration areas of 1929, and Meeker v. US, 350 US 199, and
Chapter 135 sect 9, 42 U.S.C. § 225 which gave the Children's Bureau power
to enter homes and take children.
(NIV) "It is
for freedom that Christ has set us free.
Stand firm, then, and do not let
yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."