You are on page 1of 6

file:///F|/...edom-Sovereignty/Law Library - Blacks, Bouvier's,Oxford, Common law, Univ. Legal Tech/PARENS PATRIAE & its effects.

htm[4/16/2013 6:42:00 PM]


From: WethePeople_Shareholders@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Mach-10
[longest95@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:42 AM
To: WethePeople_Shareholders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WethePeople_Shareholders] PARENS PATRIAE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: Red Category

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 where and when the new nation faltered.
Some say it was in 1789, with the J udiciary 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.
file:///F|/...edom-Sovereignty/Law Library - Blacks, Bouvier's,Oxford, Common law, Univ. Legal Tech/PARENS PATRIAE & its effects.htm[4/16/2013 6:42:00 PM]
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.
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:
file:///F|/...edom-Sovereignty/Law Library - Blacks, Bouvier's,Oxford, Common law, Univ. Legal Tech/PARENS PATRIAE & its effects.htm[4/16/2013 6:42:00 PM]
"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.
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 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 it's 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
file:///F|/...edom-Sovereignty/Law Library - Blacks, Bouvier's,Oxford, Common law, Univ. Legal Tech/PARENS PATRIAE & its effects.htm[4/16/2013 6:42:00 PM]
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 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
file:///F|/...edom-Sovereignty/Law Library - Blacks, Bouvier's,Oxford, Common law, Univ. Legal Tech/PARENS PATRIAE & its effects.htm[4/16/2013 6:42:00 PM]
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 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, 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 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 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: STATUTE- 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 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.
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.
file:///F|/...edom-Sovereignty/Law Library - Blacks, Bouvier's,Oxford, Common law, Univ. Legal Tech/PARENS PATRIAE & its effects.htm[4/16/2013 6:42:00 PM]
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest Unsubscribe Terms of Use Send us Feedback
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 .... the NEW DEAL.
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, J anuary 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. Mellon, Secretary of
the Treasury et.al.. 262 U.S. 447, 67 L.Ed. 1078, 43 S. Ct. 597.
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 J ustices, 239 Mass. 606.
__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY:
New Members 4
New Links 2
New Files 8
Visit Your Group
.
__,_._,___