Birth Certificates for Slaves?

30 Jun

Portrait of Dred Scott

Image via Wikipedia

I’ve just heard an anecdote from Donna Baran.  According to the story, someone’s grandparents (perhaps back in the first half of the 20th Century) refused to get a birth certificate for one of their children.  These grandparents allegedly claimed that they knew and remembered from their grandparents that birth certificates were originally issued as stock certificates for former [current?] slaves.

I’ve never before heard of this claim.  I have absolutely no evidence or authority to support his claim.

But the idea that birth certificates were originally intended for slaves (or former slaves) instantly resonated with me.  With nothing to go on but gut, I’ll bet that if someone could research birth certificates back into, say, the 1850’s in the Old South, I’ll bet they find that birth certificates were originally intended as a way of identifying the slaves, property, chattel, animals, and livestock owned by plantation owners.

If this claim that “birth certificates were originally issued as stock certificates for former [current?] slaves” is true, I’ll bet that someone who studies genealogy–especially of African-Americans might find evidence in pre-civil war archives that the earliest birth certificates were issued to slaves.

In the alternative, the alleged claim  was actually written as “birth certificates were originally issued as stock certificates for former slaves”–I added the “[current?]” text because I suspected that the birth certificates would be issued for slaves much like you might issue a “title” to an automobile or a prize bull.

But maybe my notion of birth certificates for actual slaves prior to the Civil War was wrong.  Maybe these birth certificates were only issued to former slaves, after the Civil War and after they were emancipated by the 13th and 14th Amendments.  If so, evidence of these first birth certificates would be found after A.D. 1865.

The Dred Scott vs Sanford (A.D. 1857) case has been “vilified” for having caused the Civil War (A.D. 1860-1865) by refusing the “free” the slaves.  Because the case has been vilified, no one bothers to read it.

But I read it–about fifteen years ago.  I was not as competent a reader then as I am now.  If I read the case today, I might interpret it much differently than I did then.  But I remember reading Dred Scott and discovering that the Supreme Court justices, rather than being villains determined to keep slaves in bondage, were practically lamenting that they had no constitutional authority to elevate those persons who had previously been declared to be slaves and therefore property to the status of men and women.   The Supreme Court essentially said “Our hands are tied by the Constitution; there’s nothing we can do unless the Constitution is amended.”  And even then (if I recall the case correctly), the Supreme Court seemed to say that there might still be no way to turn “property” (slaves) into men and women.

Three years later, the Civil War ensued.  That war ended in A.D. 1865 and the Constitution was amended by the 13th Amendment (prohibiting slavery) and the then the 14th Amendment (A.D. 1868) granting citizenship to former slaves.

But, while the 13th Amendment outlawed the ownership of slaves, it did not elevate former slaves to the status of free men and women.  We might pass a constitutional amendment today that outlawed the ownership of horses.  The horse would have to be turned loose to run free–but they’d still be horses.  They would not be men and women made in God’s image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Similarly, while the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to former slaves, it did not expressly declare them to be elevated from the status of property to the status of free men and women.

It is possible that while the institution of slavery was ended after the Civil War, the former slaves remained in the status of chattel (“things” and “property”) rather than men and women.

If so, it is conceivable (especially under the 14th Amendment that declares “All persons born or naturalized in the United States  . . . are citizens of the United States”) that a former slave would need and want a “birth certificate” to “certify” that he had been “born in the United States”  to elevate them from the status of mere “chattel” (property and “things”) to the status of “citizen of the United States”.   For the newly emancipated slave, a “birth certificate” might be something like a “passport” that at least allowed him to “pass” for a “citizen”–but perhaps not as a “man”.

Whatever the truth of this matter may be, I’m hoping that some of you who read this blog may have sufficient interest and talent to ferret out whether the original birth certificates were intended for slaves or former slaves rather than free men and women.

If birth certificates began as a device to elevate slaves from the status of chattel to the status of citizens, it may well be that anyone who uses a birth certificate is thereby degrading his status from that of a man to that of a citizen or even a slave.


Posted by on June 30, 2011 in Identification


Tags: , ,

56 responses to “Birth Certificates for Slaves?

  1. Dog Food

    June 30, 2011 at 2:56 PM

    Very thought provoking, Al.

    Will you be back on Freedom Frenzy any time soon?

    • Adask

      June 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

      If I’m invited.

  2. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 30, 2011 at 3:02 PM

    The Birth Certificate I have, in pertinent part shows the the logo & the words, “Department of Commerce.” The logo is in the center of the certificate. I personally think this “shows” identification of at least a commercial commodity.

    • Carolyn

      September 16, 2016 at 12:17 AM

      United States of America is actually a corporation. I tell you true. Birth certificates are how we are contracted to it. We just were not informed.

  3. Al Thompson

    June 30, 2011 at 3:47 PM

    I don’t think the government likes to use the term slaves, but the fact is that the people: men, women, and children are being treated as livestock in the United States and by governments around the world. I remember that IRS agents are paid out of the Department of Agriculture. Why? I could never understand it, but now it makes sense. To the government (which teaches evolution), we are nothing more than livestock to be exploited. The IRS collects it’s money just as a rancher would shear the wool from a lamb. That’s why I think the constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights are just a smoke screen for the real system. Which is feudalism of which the oath is the bond to the evil. These “founding” documents are nothing more than a bankruptcy, tax, and slave (livestock)
    I just operate under God’s law at this point because it is utter nonsense to attempt to make sense of all of this stuff. I can understand God’s commandments, but man’s laws are too convoluted to really make any intelligent decision for anything. In my opinion, the “people” of the United States are the aristocrats or the ruling class, and the “citizen” is just another piece of livestock. The political and religious systems are mostly frauds and are used for mind control.
    There’s a book I read a long time ago called “Dead Souls” and I can’t remember the author. It was about a man who used to by the titles of the dead serfs and then he took out loans on them to monetize these titles. The whole book went around and around in circles like most Russian novels,
    but it resembled what we put up with today. See you can monetize livestock, sheep, cows, humans (bipedal primate mammals or monkeys), but under God’s laws one cannot monetize a man, woman, or child. My take on the Constitution and all these laws is that they are forced contracts and unjust bonds. Which to me means that they are of no importance and more of an annoyance than anything else.
    Evil will never produce anything good. We exist under a feudal system, under the forbidden oath, in disobedience to God’s commandments. The only difference is that it is now called communism,
    socialism, and fascism. They have different names but get the same results.
    The solution is to pay attention and keep God’s commandments. This will work much better than man’s laws.

    • Peace

      June 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM

      I echo your sentiments Al, you have hit it right on the button.

    • pjwharris

      September 13, 2016 at 9:01 PM

      It is great u recognize these atrocities, but we as general population play right into their hands with some of the thoughts you shared, like: My take on the Constitution and all these laws is that they are forced contracts and unjust bonds. Which to me means that they are of no importance and more of an annoyance than anything else AND I just operate under God’s law at this point because it is utter nonsense to attempt to make sense of all of this stuff. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against God’s Law. But apathy can be a stifling thing. If we don’t stand for something, we’re quietly saying yes to anything and actively participating in our own demise. We must begin with self. We can Educate our own selves like no other time in history. The Internet is loaded, but you can streamline by associating With the right group or website. I encourage u to do this yourself and encourage others that learning true history is critical to not letting time and history repeat itself.

      • Adask

        September 13, 2016 at 10:20 PM

        I disagree with the claim that the Constitution is a contract. There is no living signatory to the Constitution. It can’t be a contract. But it could be a TRUST.

  4. Donald Blaine-Bailey

    June 30, 2011 at 4:40 PM

    To Al Thompson,

    Maybe “this/that Constitution” should be declared an annulity as it violates the seperation of church & state doctrine,e.g done in the day of our “Lord” September 17,1787. 1787 from what? The year before, it was 1786 from “something.” The “something” when traced back will clearly show the “Lord” was Yashua, the Christ, aka or called Jesus. Clearly a violation of the seperation of church & state doctrine. I sure hope this is understood as I mean it to be otherwise I’m in trouble again.

    Anyway, I cannot refute anything you say. I agree 100% with “keep God’s commandments.” At least try to. If all of us did,we would have a Utopia

    Dead Souls (Russian: Мёртвые души, myortvyje dushi) is a novel by Nikolai Gogol, first published in 1842, and widely regarded as an exemplar of 19th-century …

  5. Jerry Lee

    June 30, 2011 at 7:53 PM

    I do believe that the Birth Certificate does enslave. It is a Warehouse Receipt and Bank Security Note encompass into one instrument, which is used as ‘Money’ today. I first found a piece on the Internet that said newer Birth Certificates are printed on Bank Securities, just like stock certificate. Well I looked at my grand children’s and sure enough on the bottom left incorporated into that certificate was written MIDWEST BANK NOTE.

    To go further I notice that everything was written in upper case. At that time I had become aware what this meant in the Legal System and it ani’t me babe.

    I have retired but I did have one of my co-workers finally come to the realization what I had been expounding was fact. This gentleman was from Illinois and after some teaching about the Birth Certificate and other things he had a question about his Birth Certificate as he told me it looked very strange. He brought it in for my review and what I seen was beyond belief, well not really since I had come to the conclusion that nothing was out of bounds for the criminals in charge.

    Picture this and if anyone out there is from Illinois having a similar Birth Certificate or any other ‘State’ please chime in.

    One Birth Certificate from the year 1963 AD typed with correct and proper English.
    Now along comes the Administrative State of Illinois. This proper county record was change and was so corrupt I could not believe what I was witnessing.

    The original Birth Certificate had been superimposed on to Legal size paper [8 ½ x 14], the top had the Administrative State of Illinois heading ie corporate heading. Now where the original certificate had been copied the only change was in his legal name Upper and Lowercase had been white out and now was typed in ‘all uppercase’ letters. Moving on down to the extension pass the original transcript the Wording of the new Administrative language signed off by the ‘County’ officer dated…1967. Can you say “FRAUD”. So I asked Scott what happen after we had gone over “HIS” Birth Certificate and to my surprise his answers were right on spot. It had been Securitized, it was now commercial paper with ‘value’ but not for ‘HIM” but His Masters. And when I asked him what happen in 1967 he said the UCC Warehouse Receipt section had been completed and added to the UCC ‘STATE’ System, and he was now decease, civilly dead bingo, he was listening after all.

    Four years after [1963AD] the original recorded Birth Certificate had been ‘Fraudulently’ altered into a Security Certificate, Scott was now presumed to be chattel property of ‘this state’, maybe even a Peon.
    One of the legal definitions of the word “Birth”: natural birth or coming into legal existence. What do you think happen?

    One has to remember that Birth Certificates are also invested in the stock market and are used as by the Prison Industry, as Bid, Performance and Payment Bonds, which are sold as Securities to Wal-Mart. K-Mart etc. threw the Securities and Exchange Commission by ‘Authorized’ gov-co license Brokers. Look up Prison Bonds.
    We have no lawful money in circulation only “Commercial Paper” which can be monetized say a Birth Certificate, Marriage License Vehicle Registration, anything with YOUR SIGNATURE, it’s all commercial law [Uniform Commercial Code] everything is commercial.

  6. Tony Barbieri

    June 30, 2011 at 8:43 PM

    Hi Al,

    Part of Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation:
    “Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;…”

    It makes sense to me that when FDR took lawful money from the people, thereby making them paupers, it was something legally carried out.

    Perhaps gov-co saw to it to presume all of us are paupers, thus having reduced status at law. The BC being a formal process recognizing this makes sense.


  7. Jerry Lee

    June 30, 2011 at 9:12 PM

    Something else for Slaves-Persons, in My 1828 American Dictionary Of The English Language [Noah Webster] and Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1856 there is no such thing as a ‘Marriage License’ only states marriage is a union between one man and one woman did not mention the word Person[s] and was a civil contract etc.

    The First time I see the word ‘Marriage License” was in Black’s First Edition1891 when the following Terms were used… Marriage License, A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry….

    Black’s Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition, West Publishing Co. 1968
    Page 1124, Marriage License, A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry….

    Black’s Law Dictionary Abridged Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. 1991
    Page 672, Marriage License, A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry….

    Stop and think about this statement one did not need a ‘Marriage License” to marry provide the union was one man and one woman.
    But if you are a Slave you certainly would need permission from your Master wouldn’t you? For you are consider the Master’s PROPERTY or maybe a man or woman wanted to marry a piece of Property/person I guess that would count as an intermarriage also. Think about it you thought to intermarry meant one’s race.

    Latter the Master would devise a system where the Slaves would care for their selves without the added expense to the Master say a Federal Reserve System. Of course the Masters would have to act like they were caring, so some Slaves would be taken more care of while some were let’s say eliminated to show they really really do care about the safety of their PROPERTY I mean Persons.

    I do recall while I was domicile in California Gay Marriages were short lived but those Marriage License said PERSON ‘A’ TO PERSON ‘B’.

    Of course today everyone runs to the Courthouse and exchanges an Unalienable Right for a License [Privilege] and ‘pays’ a fee to become something they are not; Person[s]. Even the short lived Gay Marriage License in ‘CA’ is the same as a marriage license issued to a man and woman for they changed their persona from real to fiction and gave the Master ie State controlling interest in that Marriage through it’s permission ie License.

    By the way this is why the State claims controlling interest in any children of that marriage they are it’s property too. You signed the contract ie marriage license.

    The Third party between a man and woman should be God not the god State.

    Don’t forget this folks, License is permission to do or not to do something that would be illegal without and is issued by a competent authority.

    Just put your marriage into your Family Bible [your law] which will hold up in a court of law if need be.

    • Donald Blaine-Bailey

      June 30, 2011 at 11:03 PM

      To Jerry Lee:

      I wish I knew where A (just one) Court of Law IS. I f you get this, did you see my message to you about your home?

  8. pop de adam

    July 1, 2011 at 1:18 AM


    I hope you realize i was not intentionally being flipant or strange. I read so many fantastic things.

    Unless one is entering a contract willingly, one is doing it unwillingly, if another makes it so then it is a violation of the 13th amendment, servitude.

  9. derick

    July 1, 2011 at 8:43 AM

    If there is not full disclosure, the contract in question is null and void. I urge everyone to go to and learn the law for yourself. You cannot ignore the laws and contracts of corp us.Learn who you are.

  10. derick

    July 1, 2011 at 8:45 AM

    BTW I didnt mean to take anything away from the great work you do here Al. Thank you for everything you do!

    • Adask

      July 1, 2011 at 8:47 AM

      My pleasure.

    • Don

      July 1, 2011 at 10:06 PM

      AMEN!! With a resounding N !!!

  11. Jerry Lee

    July 1, 2011 at 8:56 AM

    To: Donald Blaine-Bailey
    ie withdraw of property [home] Yes I did. Although the State of Ohio was admitted on equal footing with the several states the 1802 constitution does permit the state to asset a property tax which would include more then just a home. My premise would be to attack ‘this state’ as an instrumentally of Washington DC, this is exactly where ‘this state’ is HQ. All Administrative States are HQ in DC not on the land of ‘THE’ State. The ORC allows one to withdraw their property [home] from ‘Registration’/ Public side. There is more but like you said we should not use Al’s Site to go back and forth with personal discussions. But please keep posting for you too have the Freedom Bug and your personal conviction has brought you into ‘Their” arena. As we all have an Unalienable Right to be LEFT ALONE per the supreme Court. Al does have a truly interesting site including his Internet shows as I too learn from Al and like-minded people like yourself, as the learning cure is never ending because ‘Their’ words are forever evolving. I also know and have stated being Right sometimes is a losing battle. Did not mean to ignore your post as I have yet to reply to a few new post from Al I have been busy. Yes I find mistakes after I post too but the jest of the story is there.
    The 1912 Ohio constitution ‘this state’ does allow the Assembly to establish rules for ‘Registration and Fees’ for real property.

    • Don

      July 1, 2011 at 10:45 PM

      To Jerry Lee

      The power to tax is the power to destroy. I use “UNalienable” too but the courts here pervert that also & say I said INalienable, meaning as far as I am concerned, gov-co says there is a lien on them & since gov-co has a lien on them, my rights are in their possession. Anyway, My friend in Texas no longer pays a property tax. He made front page news in the newspapers left & right, so to speak. Let me make a long story short here, A U.S. District Court Judge put him away for life, literally !! Shortly thereafter, I think it was about 10 days later,The Supreme Court of Texas issued an order for his “DISCHARGE”. He had a “Silver Dollar” in his pocket when he was arrested. When he was “DISCHARGED” he was given 1 frn. He threw it in the trash can. He has never been bothered since but he was hounded to death before the “Texas Supreme Court” had him “discharged,” via his “Common Law” Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Strange, that none of this made made the newspapers. Well NO it’s not. No need to respond to this, & don’t feel obligated. By the way, I don’t think he would mind me saying who he is. His name is Troy Barclay- lives in Perryton, Ochiltree County, Texas.

      • Adask

        July 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM

        I’d like to talk to Troy. Could you introduce me to him and/or send me his phone number or email address? Don’t sen that private info in a comment on this blog. Send it to my email at

  12. given-cynthia

    July 1, 2011 at 9:35 AM

    There is one who has ‘dug deep’ and possibly (still in discussion) determined a manner to claim one’s (birth certificate) estate/trust/inheritance based entirely on ‘law of common man’ and “without Commerce” which is the ideal, as technically ‘we’ determine what ‘jurisdiction’ we are ‘in’, and if we REFUSE to accept or withdraw our consent ‘out of commerce babylon’ then ‘they’, the Puppet Masters no long have ANY ‘hold’ or “Bond” upon us, period.

    Discussions are in process and will be posted to Nothing there yet, working on ‘clean up’ and organization of the content so it reads in proper order. Will post notice that site is ‘live’ here when ready.

  13. D.M. Simonds

    July 1, 2011 at 10:08 AM

    Yes, Alfred, you are right.
    But my dear….what is the answer?
    And better yet—will America listen?

    As a freelance writer for the patriot community…this is my quest.

    D.M. Simonds

  14. Jerry Lee

    July 1, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    To: Donald Blaine-Bailey

    Where is a Court of Law?
    Actually it is the supreme Court of the United States not THE UNITED SATES SUPREME COURT mention in Article III, Section I which has judicial ‘Power’ the other is a private corporation which operates at municipal law of the mother corporation the Nation Government of Washington DC. Today I do believe you as a man has to envoke the common law court in your state as all courts today are no more then ‘Federal’ and there is no general federal common law as of 1938 but if ‘They’ want to pretend will let us play the game, make it so.
    Remember, you are in court to declare the Law, and not to dispute or join with their jurisdiction.

    Every man shall have ‘his’ court per the Magna Charter: 39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. This is also incorporated in the organic Federal constitution as well as all states of the Union, know as due process and not the one sited in the 14th amendment that is empty procedural not substance due process.

    Even with all the other so-called Courts [inferior] are not Judicial but Administrative Courts which enforce Statues a law established by an act of the legislature or by the other name you might be familiar with… a Bill which is for you to pay a fee with ‘Their’ funny money.
    Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson, page 104, it says “Bank: A judge’s seat.
    Inferior courts may also be Executive as in Administrative Departments or Agencies created by that branch. All do have Recourse and Remedy in Their codes, rules and regulations but you must know how to enter this venue. Of course only a man ie male/female may enter the common law court not the legal fiction created by ‘this state’.
    Statue is used in contradistinction to the common law. Statutes acquire their force from the time of their passage unless otherwise provided. These “Bills” may also be private or public and are for Person[s] a status in Soceity. Yes you may become a person if you so chose.

    Back to Codes, Revised Codes etc; within those bodies of text is your Recourse and Remedy.
    Remedial statutes are those, which are made to supply such defects, and abridge such superfluities in the common law as may have been discovered. These remedial statutes are themselves divided into enlarging statutes, by which the common law is made more comprehensive and extended than it was before; and into restraining statutes, by which it is narrowed down to that which is just and proper. The term remedial statute is also applied to those acts, which give the party, injured a remedy, and in some respects those statutes are penal.
    This is why the placement of the following wording [paraphrasing] are found in every Statue… “If any part of this Act is found unconstitutional the remaining parts will still be in full force and effect”, They are telling you that it is not constitutional for man but you have to figure that out for your self ‘They’ surely are not going to kill ‘Their’ cash cow Mr. and Mrs. Fiction. As Al has said; know who you are [mankind] and where you are [on the land] that will be the law.

    To operate as They do in the de facto mode I think what hasn’t been discuss in order to have a de facto office[r] there must be a de jure office[r] or something ordain and establish by the compact of the people which is explained in Norton vs Shelby County. This is why there is Recourse and Remedy to you to you from the Corporation.
    I will lead you to the Banker’s book or Black’s Law Dictionary Abridged 6th Edition, Police Power… Page 801 this short three-paragraph dissertation really gives one the insight that Police power may be used for the protection the Citizen or agaisnt the Slave/person for control and profit if you can read Attorney.
    I am now on page eleven of the deconstruction of Police power.
    I have to say ‘They” did a great job in hiding the true meaning of police powers.
    Most will read right through it and not comprend just what it means.

    So stated in this maxim of law…”The Law of God [Holly Bible] and the Law of the Land [federal Constitution] are all one; both preserve and flavor the common good of the land.” Is this your law? I hope this post was somewhat helpful. Again the content is My belief.

  15. RB

    July 1, 2011 at 10:15 PM

    Examining my California Certificate of Live Birth, circa 1957, at the bottom I see that it was photocopied onto “American Bank Note Company” stationery, with state and county seals in the border.

    I see in the upper right hand corner the heading “Local Registration District and Certificate Number.” A two-part 8-digit number follows, consisting of two groups of four digits each separated by a space. I would guess that the first four digits, “6015”, are referring to this “Registration District”, whatever THAT is.

    My hunch is also that this “Registration District” will be found to be tied to a “Federal District” which is identical to or connected to an “Internal Revenue District”. Research has shown that IRS Districts are primarily restricted to “ports of entry”, for purposes of collecting “revenue”, such as import duties and tariffs. Once within our territorial waters, and thence deposited on the land, the tax revenue would be an “internal” matter.

    The city where I was allegedly “born” is a major port city, as are nearly all major coastal population centers. Slaves were brought into such ports where the slave ships were “berthed”. No doubt federal taxes were collected on these “imports”.

    See the connection?

    Who can authoritatively say exactly what these “Registration Districts” are and how they might relate to “Internal Revenue Districts”?

    • Adask

      July 2, 2011 at 3:03 AM

      If your analysis is correct, and if the “The State/this state” hypothesis is correct, then the birth certificate is evidence of the VENUE with which anyone using a BC is identified. I.e., by using a birth certificate (and perhaps the all-upper case name like “ALFRED N ADASK” found on those BCs), you might be presumed to have consented to be treated as if you reside and transact in the territorial district of “this state” rather than within the venue of a State of the Union.

  16. RB

    July 1, 2011 at 11:15 PM

    58.2 Records of Predecessors of the Office of the Commissioner of
    Internal Revenue

    History: Federal Government began levying internal taxes for revenue purposes with tax on distilled spirits (1 Stat. 202), March 3, 1791. There followed taxes on carriages, retail dealers in liquor, auctioned property, and refined sugar and snuff, 1794; snuff mills, 1795; legal instruments, bonds, and deeds, 1797; and real property, 1798. Revenues were collected by district supervisors in the states, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury, until an act of May 8, 1792 (1 Stat. 280) created the position of Commissioner of the Revenue, to assume supervision. Federal tax collectors were first authorized by the Direct Tax Act (1 Stat. 599), July 14, 1798. The positions of Commissioner and tax collectors lapsed with the repeal of all internal taxes by an act of April 6, 1802 (2 Stat. 149), effective upon the collection of all taxes due.

    To finance the War of 1812, new internal revenue taxes were imposed, by acts of July 24, 1813 (3 Stat. 35, 40, 42, 44), on sugar, carriages, distillers, and auction sales; followed by acts of August 2, 1813 (3 Stat. 53, 72, 77), imposing direct taxes on property, license taxes on liquor dealers and retailers of imported goods, and stamp taxes. To supervise the collection of these and other revenue measures, the position of Commissioner of the Revenue was revived by an act of July 24, 1813 (3 Stat. 39). The Commissioner was assisted by district collectors and assessors authorized by an act of July 22, 1813 (3 Stat. 25). These positions lapsed with the repeal, effective December 31, 1817, of all internal taxes, by an act of December 23, 1817 (3 Stat. 401). No internal taxes were levied between 1817 and 1861. See 58.3.



    “Auctioned property” would have included African slaves, at least until 1862!

    Notice that “legal instruments, bonds, and deeds” were included.

    Notice the reference to the “Direct Tax Act” creating the FIRST Federal tax collectors. “Direct” taxes are also called “capitations” or “head” taxes, which is to say, a “per head” tax!

    The question for us today is, WHO exactly is “bidding AT AUCTION” when our TAXABLE birth certificates, being “legal instruments, bonds, and deeds”, are put up for auction, and WHO is
    LIABLE for the tax on both the property itself, and the legal instruments secured by that property??

    Who is LIABLE? The seller or the buyer? All import and “sales” taxes are the liability of the seller, not the buyer, though the seller will almost always transfer the full cost of this tax to the buyer, so long as the buyer is willing to pay it, but nonetheless, it is the seller who is ultimately LIABLE.

    So, when parents “register” their children, are they in fact creating “legal instruments, bonds, and deeds”, secured against their children, and/or their future labor, THE STRAWMEN WHOM THEY ARE IN FACT PUTTING UP FOR SUCTION AS LEGAL “VIRTUAL” SLAVES?

    As sellers of the “legal instruments, bonds, and deeds”, secured by their children’s future labor, are the parents LIABLE for the tax on the sale, as in any other sales tax? They couldn’t pay it if they were. The tax would be levied on millions of dollars of projected lifetime future income.

    Is the buyer of the “legal instruments, bonds, and deeds”, AT AUCTION, knowing that the seller, the parents, do not have the money to pay the tax for which THEY are liable, “kindheartedly” agreeing to pay the tax the seller/parents owe as part of the purchase price, chalking it up to “the cost of doing business”? Does the buyer do this out of “kindness”, or because the buyer knows he can extract much more than this over time, and at compound interest?

    Seems to me that the burden of the tax is placed upon the only party in the transaction who is not in any position to complain at the time the transaction is made, which is the unknowing newborn child of the feckless parents.

    Then again, perhaps the tax is of a dual nature, or TWO distinct taxes. One tax being an indirect “sales” tax AT AUCTION, and the other, a direct tax on the property itself.


    Slaves were auctioned at or near the dock, where the ships were “berthed”. Today, our “strawman” “virtual slave”, created at a birth, is auctioned off, putting the natural man in the dock. The taxes are on both the sale at auction and on the future labor value of the “virtual slave”, but it is the natural person who is made liable. Only a real flesh and blood human being can ultimately be liable for the payment, or non-payment, of a tax.It is this liability of the natural man for a tax against the sale and “person” of the “virtual slave” that renders the natural man as much a slave as the virtual one. Or, to put it another way, since a strawman “virtual slave” is intangible, aside from the documents that created it, and entirely unable to do any “work” or produce anything at all of real exchangeable value, then it must be concluded that its only purpose for existence is to be the fictional legal instrumentality needed to make a debt slave out of the only one that can and does produce wealth, and who can be held liable for any tax on such productivity, which is the natural man or woman. – RB

    • Adask

      July 2, 2011 at 12:20 AM

      I’m not a student of income tax laws. But as I understand those laws (and I absolutely stand to be corrected), the federal government was initially prevented from imposing a “direct” or “head” tax on each of the people within the States of the Union. The feds could impose a tax on each State, and then it was up to the State to divide that tax as it saw fit among its own people and impose that federal tax “indirectly”. The federal taxes had to be equally apportioned between the States of the Union. But once the federal tax was equally apportioned to each State, it was up to each State to figure out how they impose it upon that State’s people. For example, one State (that grew lots of corn) might increase the State taxes on corn to pay the income tax to the federales. Another State (that manufactured a lot of clothing) might increase its State taxes on clothing to pay the income tax levied by the feds. This would process of the feds imposing a tax on the States, which the States then imposed on the its people, constituted an “indirect” tax.

      IF my understanding it roughly correct that the feds were largely prohibited from applying a “direct” or “head” tax upon the people of the States of the Union, today’s income tax laws would seem to be unlawful insofar as they do impose a direct income tax on the people.

      Is the rationale for this “direct” tax based on the loss of the governments of the States of the Union? I.e., when the feds removed gold and silver and rendered the governments of the States insolvent, did that justify the “direct” tax? A: Probably not. At least, probably not in the original instance since–so far as I can see–the governments of the States of the Union should’ve continued to function until at least A.D. 1968 (when silver was removed from domestic circulation)–and the “direct” income tax was long established before A.D. 1968.

      Even so, was the rationale for the “direct” income tax first based on the Congress’s virtually unlimited legislative authority (under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution) to impose any law it please (including income taxes) on the people living in territories? I.e, the feds were prohibited from applying a direct tax on the people of the States, but it could do so on the people of the territories.

      I’m told that the modern income tax got its start as a voluntary “Victory Tax” during WWII. If that were true, the “Victory Tax” might’ve been mandatory for those living wthin the territories, but voluntary for those living within the States of the Union.

      Even today, IRS publications describe the income tax as “voluntary”. But “voluntary” where and for who? Do they mean that the income tax is voluntary within the States of the Union but mandatory in the territories?

      Finally, I wonder if a fictional entity with a name like “ALFRED N ADASK” might be a device to bypass the prohibition on direct and/or head taxes. It may be true that the feds cannot impose a direct or head tax on the man named “Alfred Adask” living within the borders of The State of Texas (a State of the Union). But a fictional entity has no “head”. It’s not a living man. If the feds were still prohibited by the constitution or statutes from imposing a direct tax on the man “Alfred Adask,” could the feds nevertheless impose a mandatory income tax directly on a legal fiction named “ALFRED N ADASK”? While the tax on “ALFRED” might be mandatory, would paying that same tax be voluntary for the man “Alfred”?

      I.e., I believe that the man “Alfred Adask” is presumed to be the fiduciary for the fiction/thing named “ALFRED N ADASK”. As fiduciary, the man (“Alfred”) is probably obligated to file income tax returns for the thing (“ALFRED”). The tax is imposed on “ALFRED”. “ALFRED” (but not “Alfred”) is liable for paying the income tax imposed on “ALFRED”. But is the man “Alfred” (fiduciary for “ALFRED”) obligated to handle paperwork addressed to “ALFRED”. Is “Alfred” therefore obligated to file an income tax return on behalf of “ALFRED”? But, if it’s mandatory for “Alfred” (the fiduciary) to file an income tax return for “ALFRED,” could it be that it’s still only voluntary for “Alfred” to pay the taxes imposed on “ALFRED”? Is “Alfred’s” payment of taxes on behalf of “ALFRED” presumed to be voluntary?

      Any thoughts?

      • pop de adam

        July 2, 2011 at 2:49 AM

        The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

        Notice: A) The only real actors or persons is Congress and States. B) Interests, royalties, profits are considered income derived from a source, labor for compensation is a simple trade, however you can produce profit from labor if you are the one who hires labor for less than the price for which you offer it. A corporation can write off its labor expenses, can a man write off his own labor and approach the same level of parity? Remember if you work it is all presumed to be profit. C) The term “without” in the final two phrasings, “apportionment among the several States” it doesn’t specifically state they may do the alternative, “regard to any census or enumeration” again the alternative is not granted.

        The Constitution was meant to define and bind the government itself, in court the people are routinely denied it. “No state shall” or “Congress shall” everything in it is about the administration of government, so it and its amendments can only apply to it. Treason is the only noticable thing a countryman would need to be wary of, unless there are those within it either choose to, or can’t be bothered to realize they are maladministering it

      • Brian

        July 6, 2011 at 8:45 PM

        The IRS always says the 16th amendment gives them their authority. They also say it is “voluntary”. The 16th amendment was the fix to the Pollock decision. The Pollock decision was about the feds taxing income gained by a group of people within a state who owned as property federal securities via a holding company. So these people bought federal stuff and then gained/profited from it. The feds wanted to tax it. The people said piss off and the SCOTUS said sorry fedco its a direct tax. Poof appears the poorly written 16th amendment to close this loop. Now the feds can tax “income” even though it may be direct as an excise when a gain is realized via something produced by the feds.

        Enter the Federal Reserve system and the banksters. They begin debasing the dollar and driving out other competing forms of lawful money. First Gold…then Silver and finally in 1971 US notes. Now nearly all “money” is FRN’s. A federal creation via the FRS. What the fed giveth they can taketh away. Banking is a quasi federal institution (see title 12). The FRS is certainly a grant of federal power. We all use their private money when we blank endorse our paychecks into their bank accounts. Hence they require us to file a return. There is a way to possibly defeat this….

  17. Jerry Lee

    July 2, 2011 at 8:26 PM

    Al I think this case will help one understand the collation between the Birth Certificate and the 16th amendment… The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration
    ‘ from whatever source of income’ that source is other property, you if you claim to be a US citizen that fictional created quasi trust/corporation, person, estate the list goes on. Since there is no lawful state money Commercial Paper is used and this is just what a Birth Certificate is today. The 16th amendment did not create any new taxes on people but on corporations or other fictional entities.
    EXCERPTS FROM: U.S. Supreme Court O’DONOGHUE v. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516 (1933)
    And in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice White in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 293 , 21 S.Ct. 770, 789, these decisions are said to grow out of the ‘presumably ephemeral nature of a territorial government.’
    In this connection, the peculiar language of the territorial clause, article 4, section 3, cl. 2, of the Constitution, should be noted. By that clause Congress is given power ‘to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.’ Literally, the word ‘territory,’ as there used, SIGNIFIES PROPERTY, since the language is not ‘territory or property,’ but ‘territory or other property.’
    [Al it seems “THEY” have many deviations with ‘or other’ in its body… like man or other animals?]
    There thus arises an evident difference between the words ‘the territory’ and ‘a territory’ of the United States. The former merely designates a particular part or parts of the earth’s surface-the imperially extensive real estate holdings of the nation; the latter is a governmental subdivision which happened to be called a ‘territory,’ but which quite as well could have been called a ‘colony’ or a ‘province.’ ‘The Territories,’ it was said in First National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 , 133, ‘are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States.’ Since the Constitution provides for the admission by Congress of new states (article 4, 3, cl. 1), it properly may be said that the outlying continental public domain, of which the United States was the proprietor, was, from the beginning, destined for admission as a state or states into the Union; and that as a preliminary step toward that foreordained end-to tide over the period of ineligibility-Congress, from time to time, created territorial governments, the existence of which was necessarily limited to the period of pupilage…
    This court has repeatedly held that the territorial courts are ‘legislative’ courts, created in virtue of the national sovereignty or under article 4, 3, cl. 2, of the Constitution, vesting in Congress the power ‘to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States’; and that they are not invested with any part of the judicial power defined in the third article of the Constitution. And this rule, as it affects the territories, is no longer open to question. Do the courts of the District of Columbia occupy a like situation in virtue of the plenary power of Congress, under article 1, 8, cl. 17, ‘To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States? …’ This inquiry requires a consideration, first, of the reasons upon which rest the decisions in respect of the territorial courts.
    Something to ponder…OHIO: CHAPTER 5747: INCOME TAX 5747.01 Income tax definitions.
    (3) Deduct interest or dividends on obligations of the United States and its territories and possessions or of any authority, commission, or instrumentality of the United States to the extent that the interest or dividends are included in federal adjusted gross income but exempt from state income taxes under the laws of the United States.

    (S) “Taxable income” or “Ohio taxable income” applies only to estates and trusts, and means federal taxable income, as defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code, adjusted as follows:

    chapter 27

    (E) “Fiduciary” means a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator, or any other person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any individual, trust, or estate.

    (G) “Individual” means any natural person. [does this mean a living soul may volunteer to be a trustee?]

    (I) “Resident” means any of the following, provided that division (I)(3) of this section applies only to taxable years of a trust beginning in 2002 or thereafter:
    (3) A trust that, in whole or part, resides in this state. If only part of a trust resides in this state, the trust is a resident only with respect to that part.
    I just thought this might be of interest because the Ohio income tax is applicable to fictions and those souls who volunteer into ‘this state’ I didn’t write it.

  18. Adask

    July 3, 2011 at 7:32 AM

    I started write a brief reply. It grew into an article that I’ll soon publish on this blog under the title “Enumeration vs. Census”.

  19. Harry

    July 3, 2011 at 8:08 PM

    The Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act in 1921 was for the promotion, the welfare, and hygiene of maternity and infancy AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

    It is my understanding that this act was the result of a study done by the United States [i.e. federal government] Childrens Bureau and in order to implement the provisions of this act the United States began the registration of the United States’ children born within the states that applied for and accepted the Federal funds to supposedly promote within the states the welfare of the United States’ children born therein. So the federal registration of the infants appears to have been one of the “OTHER PURPOSES” of this bill.

    The Act was repealed I believe, but the other purposes of the registration of infant births continues. This registration of the birth of our children along with the marriage license acts as a sort of legal re-birth of the child, so to speak thus making the State the “father” of the new legal child.

    When my first grandson was born his parents did not apply for a birth certificate. Someone accused my son-in-law of practicing midwifery without a license. One day a woman from child protective services and a sheriffs deputy came to their home and demanded to see the child. I just happened to be there at the time and asked the dear lady the basis of her authority to make such a demand. Her answer came as a question. She asked, “The parents have a STATE OF NEW YORK marriage license, don’t they?” My response was, “Sorry, the parents of this child are NOT assuming the marriage relationship in this State under license. The truth is they are actually JOINED in holy wedlock under the common law and the birth of this child has not be registered with the STATE OF NEW YORK or the U.S. Dept. of Commerce as a legal entity.

    The deputy looked at the social worker and asked, “Is our business here completed?” She answered, “It is for now.” He then said, “I think it is time we get off this man’s property.” He turned to me and said, “Sorry for any inconvenience we have caused you.” They turned and left, never to return.

    The births of all my daughter’s children are noted in their
    Family Bible and witnesses of each birth are noted in the Family Bible as well.

    • Virginia

      July 20, 2011 at 9:41 AM

      That is AWESOME Harry! May God continue to bless you and family for doing it God’s way. You have no idea how much I would LOVE to figure out a way of getting rid of our families birth certificates.


  20. pop de adam

    July 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM

    “Someone accused my son-in-law of practicing midwifery without a license.”

    This statement here as it is so far from the common notions of licensure is a good example of the faults inherent in common logic nowadays. If someone is born it is evidence of anothers guilt? A license is permission to do what is otherwise forbidden, murder is forbidden can someone be granted a “license to kill” and proceed to murder with impunity and a clear conscience? As none of the lesser people can singularly do this act, how could we even with a majority delegate such a power?

    • Al Thompson

      July 4, 2011 at 4:30 PM

      You raise an excellent question. I have your answer, and it is in the early Jewish writing called
      Ecclesiaticus or Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach:

      In referring to God:

      “He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, neither hath he given any man licence to sin.”

      No man on earth has the right to override God’s commandments. These commandments are to be used for the benefit of mankind. There is very little “bondage” in God’s commandments–if any.

    • Don

      July 9, 2011 at 12:55 AM

      HEY POP!!!
      I think the politically correct term today is Son-in legal.Mother-in legal, sister-in-legal,etc etc.

  21. Adask

    July 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM

    One reader reported that his comment would not post properly, so I’m “testing, testing, 1, 2, 3.”

  22. Greg

    July 21, 2011 at 10:25 AM

    Question, my BC does not contain all upper case letters for any part of the name, it is in proper format upper and lower case, it does not include any zip codes for the address’s used, and ask’s in box f if residence is on a farm answer no, the bc was issued in a.d 1965 . I recently got a certified copy which contains proper upper and lower case for all names in the bc. is this normal for year 1965 or did someone make a mistake , or is this at all important?

    • Adask

      July 21, 2011 at 11:31 AM

      Hard to say. In A.D. 1965, the BC data was almost certainly entered by a clerk on a typewriter. It may be that your BC is one of those anomalies like a coin that’s been accidentally struck with two heads, etc. Perhaps the clerk was new and didn’t know to type the name in all-upper-case letters. Once the original “mistake” was made, subsequent certified copies might’ve been required to faithfully emulate the original.

      Alternatively, perhaps your BC is evidence that the all-upper-case name theory is invalid. I’m not inclined to believe that explanation, but I recognize the possibility that the all-upper-case name theory might be incorrect.

      Whether that theory is right or wrong is not too important. You can spell my name any way you like, so long as you recognize that: 1) I am a man made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals as per Genesis 1:26-28; 2) I am endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”); 3) the primary duty of government is to “secure” my God-given, unalienable Rights (“Declaration of Independence”); 4) I’m acting “at arm’s length” (I’m not a fiduciary for any other person or fiction); and 5) I have no written or oral contract with you.

      I don’t care if you call me “Alfred,” “ALFRED,” “Al,” or “Butch” (my nickname as a child). As long as I’m recognized in the previous capacity(ies), I’m good to go.

      I’ve tried to resolve the “Alfred Adask” vs “ALFRED N ADASK” controversy by simply declaring under oath that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias for “Alfred Adask”. Truly, most people who look at the all-upper-case name on my long-expired Drivers License believe that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” identifies me. Thus, even though “ALFRED N ADASK” is not my “proper name” (“Alfred Adask”), I (“Alfred”) am truly known by the alias of “ALFRED”.

      One of two things must be true. Either “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED N ADASK” signify the same man or they signify two different entities. If both names signify the same living man, then “ADASK” really is an alias for “Adask”. My sworn declaration of such fact might be irrelevant but it would be harmless.

      On the other hand, if the court is relying on the presumption that the names “Adask” and “ADASK” identify two different entities (a man and a fiction?), once I declare under oath that “ADASK” is merely an alias for the man’s name “Adask,” it’s now up to the court, plaintiff, or prosecutor to prove on the record that “ADASK” is not “Adask”.

      I can’t imagine any judge, prosecutor or plaintiff trying to prove on the record that “Adask” and “ADASK” signify two different entities.

      Again, I don’t care what you call me or how you spell my name. I am only concerned that you recognize me in the capacities I’ve listed above.

  23. Jerry Lee

    July 21, 2011 at 12:32 PM

    If you read My earlier comment on this post it may give you a clue as why the capitalization. You must remember this fraud has been a slow process not to raise the attention of the populist. The old saying about the frog in water; the temperature is slowly turned up until death is the final out come; so it is with Americans it would seem. Although your B/C is not in all caps I am quite positive everything you have used in commerce or received from a purported government agency or business is indeed printed in upper case, Driver License, Bank accounts, credit cards, taxes, deeds, electric, gas, water bills and the list is endless even though the envelope may use proper English.

    I started a reply to another post from Al about the Birth Certificate pertaining to John but I will post a few paragraphs from that reply to give you a better understanding why we older folks do not have the all Cap B/C. But I am sure the Evil Doers have made use of those Securities. And as you read about Scott’s B/C being fraudulently changed will give you some idea about the criminals in charge. Illinois has also been a leader in corruption.

    So I will add some more info on the B/C.

    I did a post earlier on my thoughts of the Birth Certificate. This Instrument has more then one purpose as used in the Private International Law of Nations or Law Merchant better known as the Uniform Commercial Code. All Federal States adopted this municipal law of Washington DC [UCC] by the year 1968 AD the same year the FRN lost its backing to be redeemable in ‘Lawful” monies of the United States. This switch from Lawful money to [debt] commercial paper was all that was needed to make the Birth Certificate a Security under the rules Private International Law, UCC. Knowing that a Living soul could not be made to pay a fictional national debt if one had the knowledge not to be placed into voluntary servitude by contract.

    I think this may answer your questioin why no caps were use on older B/Cs.

    Cer-tif-i-cate, noun. Middle English certificat, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin ceruficatum. from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare, to certify, 15th century. 3: a document evidencing ownership or debt.– Merriam Webster Dictionary (1998)..

    So you see although your B/C was not in caps you were still issued a Birth… ‘Certificate”.

    As for today the commerce game has evolved.

    “Persons” have names in all capitalized letters. Christian names are not in all capital letters.

    The Birth Certificate surrenders the child to the de facto corporate government.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, “Christian 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.”

    Black’s Law Dictionary, “Surname”: “The 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.”

    Black’s Law Dictionary “Fictitious Name”: “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.”

    Gregg’s Manual of English: “A 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.”

    Fictitious names exist for a purpose…Fictions are invented to give courts jurisdiction. Snider v. Newell 44 SE 354.

    I hope this info has been useful to you.

    PS By the way the IRS was put under the UCC in 1966 as it uses commercial paper [FRN] and is a private corporation HQ in Puerto Rico.

  24. Cheryl Clift

    August 23, 2011 at 10:46 AM

    Has anyone ever collected or paid debt with their BC stock? If it’s true??…… There is a lot of talk that it can be done but…I have yet to find anyone who has done it. There are people who fought the IRS and won would be nice to see this one done.

  25. Adask

    November 11, 2011 at 3:03 PM

    I received the following email:

    Hello Alfred,

    I have been reading, studying, researching the article archives located within your blog. While researching some information concerning this post, I obtained this piece of history that may be of some help toward establishing some basis of proof

    I have briefly looked into some of the other colonial states found with this information (read what is written on history of BC toward the bottom of the page), with little success, but feel that the New Jersey legislative history may reflect an abolition sentiment conducive to other States. I did also find (copy of the) an original petition from a Quaker community to the Delaware legislature for the abolition of slavery.
    This does not directly help with the birth certificate question, but does reiterate the sentiments of some towards slavery in this time period.

    Check out the three links and see if this information will help update the original post.

    Please keep up the good work.

    Wesley Scott

  26. Jerry Lee

    November 14, 2011 at 8:02 PM

    I will post the following information in (4) sections because of its length.

    Cestui Que (Vie) Trust or the 14th amendment person/subject ie US citizen.

    Part 1:

    A Cestui Que Vie Trust, also known later as a “Fide Commissary Trust” and later again as a “Foreign Situs trust” and also known as a form of “Secret Trust” is a fictional concept being a Temporary Testamentary Trust, first created during the reign of Henry VIII of England through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 and updated by Charles II through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 wherein an Estate may be effected for the Benefit of one or more Persons presumed lost or abandoned at “sea” and therefore assumed “dead” after seven (7) years. Additional presumptions by which such a Trust may be formed were added in later statutes to include bankrupts, minors, incompetents, mortgages and private companies.

    The original purpose and function of a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust was to form a temporary Estate for the benefit of another because some event, state of affairs or condition prevented them from claiming their status as living, competent and present before a competent authority. Therefore, any claims, history, statutes or arguments that deviate in terms of the origin and function of a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust as pronounced by these canons is false and automatically null and void. A Cestui Que (Vie) Trust may only exist for seventy (70) years being the traditional accepted “life” expectancy of the estate.

    A Beneficiary under Estate may be either a Beneficiary or a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust. When a Beneficiary loses direct benefit of any Property of the higher Estate placed in Cestui Que (Vie) Trust on their behalf, they do not “own” the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust and are only the beneficiary of what the Trustees of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust choose to provide them.

    As all Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created on one or more presumptions based on its original purpose and function, such a Trust cannot be created if none of these presumptions can be proven to exist.

    The Trust Corpus created by a Cestui Que (Vie) is also known as the Estate from two Latin words e+statuo literally meaning “by virtue of decree, statute or judgment”. However, as the Estate is held in a Temporary not permanent Trust, the (Corporate) Person as Beneficiary is entitled only to equitable title and the use of the Property, rather than legal title and therefore ownership of the Property. Only the Corporation, also known as Body Corporate, Estate and Trust Corpus of a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust possesses valid legal personality.

    The Property of any Estate created through a Temporary (Testamentary) Trust may be regarded as under “Cestui Que Use” by the Corporate Person, even if another name or description is used to define the type of trust or use. Therefore “Cestui Que Use is not a Person but a Right and therefore a form of “property”.

  27. Jerry Lee

    November 14, 2011 at 8:04 PM

    Cestui Que (Vie) Trust or the 14th amendment person/subject ie US citizen.

    Part 2:

    In 1534, prior to the 1st Cestui Que Vie Act (1540), Henry VIII declared the first Cestui Que Vie type estate with the Act of Supremacy which created the Crown Estate. In 1604, seventy (70) years later, James I of England modified the estate as the Crown Union (Union of Crowns). By the 18th Century, the Crown was viewed as a company. However by the start of the 19th Century around 1814 onwards upon the bankruptcy of the company (1814/15), it became the fully private Crown Corporation controlled by European private banker families.

    Since 1581, there has been a second series of Cestui Que Vie Estates concerning the property of “persons” and rights which migrated to the United States for administration including: (i) In 1651 the Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1651-52 which introduced the concept of “settlements”, enemies of the state and restrictions of movement in states of “emergency”; and (ii) In 1861 the Emergency Powers Act 1861; and (iii) In 1931 the Emergency Relief and Construction Act 1931-32; and (iv) in 2001 the Patriot Act 2001.

    Since 1591, there has been a third series of Cestui Que Vie Estates concerning the property of “soul” and ecclesiastical rights which migrated to the United States for administration including: (i) In 1661 the Act of Settlement 1661-62; and (ii) In1871 the District of Columbia Act 1871; and (iii) In 1941 the Lend Lease Act 1941.

    By 1815 and the bankruptcy of the Crown and Bank of England by the Rothschilds, for the 1st time, the Cestui Que Vie Trusts of the United Kingdom became assets placed in private banks effectively becoming “private trusts” or “Fide Commissary Trusts” administered by commissioners (guardians). From 1835 and the Wills Act, these private trusts have been also considered “Secret Trusts” whose existence does not need to be divulged.

    From 1917/18 with the enactment of the Sedition Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act in the United States and through the United Kingdom, the citizens of the Commonwealth and the United States became effectively “enemies of the state” and “aliens” which in turn converted the “Fide Commissary” private secret trusts to “Foreign Situs” (Private International) Trusts.

    In 1931, the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican created the Bank for International Settlements for the control of claimed property of associated private central banks around the world. Upon the deliberate bankruptcy of most countries, private central banks were installed as administrators and the global Cestui Que Vie/Foreign Situs Trust system was implemented from 1933 onwards.

    Since 1933, when a child is borne in a State (Estate) under inferior Roman law, three (3) Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created upon certain presumptions, specifically designed to deny the child forever any rights of Real Property, any Rights as a Free Person and any Rights to be known as man and woman rather than a creature or animal, by claiming and possessing their Soul or Spirit

  28. Jerry Lee

    November 14, 2011 at 8:05 PM

    Cestui Que (Vie) Trust or the 14th amendment person/subject ie US citizen.

    Part 3:

    Since 1933, upon a new child being borne, the Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate willingly and knowingly convey the beneficial entitlements of the child as Beneficiary into the 1st Cestui Que (Vie) Trust in the form of a Registry Number by registering the Name, thereby also creating the Corporate Person and denying the child any rights as an owner of Real Property.

    Since 1933, when a child is borne, the Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate knowingly and willingly claim the baby as chattel to the Estate. The slave baby contract is then created by honoring the ancient tradition of either having the ink impression of the feet of the baby onto the live birth record, or a drop of its blood as well as tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record. This live birth record as a promissory note is converted into a slave bond sold to the private reserve bank of the estate and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate Cestui Que (Vie) Trust per child owned by the bank. Upon the promissory note reaching maturity and the bank being unable to “seize” the slave child, a maritime lien is lawfully issued to “salvage” the lost property and itself monetized as currency issued in series against the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust.

    Each Cestui Que Vie Trust created since 1933 represents one of the 3 Crowns representing the 3 claims of property of the Roman Cult, being Real Property, Personal Property and Ecclesiastical Property and the denial of any rights to men and women, other than those chosen as loyal members of the society and as Executors and Administrators.

    The Three (3) Cestui Que Vie Trusts are the specific denial of rights of Real Property, Personal Property and Ecclesiastical Property for most men and women, corresponds exactly to the three forms of law available to the Galla of the Bar Association Courts. The first form of law is corporate commercial law is effective because of the 1st Cestui Que Vie Trust. The second form of law is maritime and trust law is effective because of the 2nd Cestui Que Vie Trust. The 3rd form of law is Talmudic and Roman Cult law is effective because of the 3rd Cestui Que Vie Trust of Baptism.

    The Birth Certificate issued under Roman Law represents the modern equivalent to the Settlement Certificates of the 17th century and signifies the holder as a pauper and effectively a Roman Slave. The Birth Certificate has no direct relationship to the private secret trusts controlled by the private banking network, nor can it be used to force the administration of a state or nation to divulge the existence of these secret trusts.

    As the Cestui Que Vie Trusts are created as private secret trusts on multiple presumptions including the ongoing bankruptcy of certain national estates, they remain the claimed private property of the Roman Cult banks and therefore cannot be directly claimed or used.

  29. Jerry Lee

    November 14, 2011 at 8:06 PM

    Cestui Que (Vie) Trust or the 14th amendment person/subject ie US citizen.

    Part 4:

    While the private secret trusts of the private central banks cannot be directly addressed, they are still formed on certain presumptions of law including claimed ownership of the name, the body, the mind and soul of infants, men and women. Each and every man and woman has the absolute right to rebuke and reject such false presumptions as and holder of their own title.

    Given the private secret trusts of the private central banks are created on false presumptions, when a man or woman makes clear their Live Borne Record and claim over their own name, body, mind and soul, any such trust based on such false presumptions ceases to have any property.

    Any Administrator or Executor that refuses to immediately dissolve a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, upon a Person establishing their status and competency, is guilty of fraud and fundamental breach of their fiduciary duties requiring their immediate removal and punishment.

    This might help explain a little more:

    5747.01 Income tax definitions.
    (S) “Taxable income” or “Ohio taxable income” applies only to estates and trusts, and means federal taxable income, as defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code, adjusted as follows:

    Know you know the rest of the story.

  30. Mike

    November 14, 2011 at 8:37 PM

    The first marriage “license” was also tied to race. Virginia (if memory serves) required a license if a white person married a black person. This was because inter-racial marriage was illegal, and we all know that a license is permission given to do that which is illegal.

  31. Harry

    November 14, 2011 at 11:25 PM

    Jerry, I have long believed one’s presumed “status” is the root of our problems and why we cannot enjoy our Creator given rights; especially the right to acquire, actually possess and protect property,

    In digging in the bone piles of American history I unearthed many bits of information that spoke of freemen and as their being freeholders who did not pay taxes. Alexander Hamilton said, [These freeholders were not] “contending that our rabble, or all unqualified persons, shall have the right of voting OR NOT BE TAXED; but that the freeholders and electors, whose right accrues to them from the common law, or from charter, shall not be deprived of that right.” The Works of Alexander Hamilton by Henry Cabot Lodge, N.Y, 1904 I. 182. 9 ibid. March 31, 1768

    Clearly there were freemen and freeholder before the Declaration of Independence and the War for Independence. He appears to be appealing to the Charters, perhaps of Charles I & II and the common law. So these freeholder apparently were allodial proprietors and owned their land absolutely – i.e. their were lord of the fee. Would you agree or am I reading more into this than I should be?

    Also in my research I found this case:

    “Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his right to property there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that right.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 195, 208-9 (188)

    Since “status” also means “estate” and it signifies the “condition” or “circumstances” with which a person stand with regard to his property, I was wondering if the first step out of this public trust, if that is what it is, would be to go into the county court and establish your right to actual possession of property or must you claim your birthright as a free born man before you can have a freehold estate in land?

    I am a bit confused as to what interest we have in real property. I know that the legal title is one which is complete and perfect so far as regards the APPARENT right of ownership and possession, but which carries with it no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto. So the legal owner does not have the “actual” possession and use. Correct?

    Now, the equitable title is a right in the party to whom it belongs to have the legal title transferred to him; or the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another.

    Am I correct that what we are looking for is a merger of the equitable and legal titles in one individual man?

    When we purchase a piece of land or it is given to us by our parents is a constructive trust raised due to the presumption that we are 14th amendment federal citizens and cannot own property absolutely due this subject class or status of citizenship?

    Who is the Administrator or Executor of the trust and don’t we have to allow his 30 days or some amount of time to act and dissolve the trust? And, how can we enjoy and enforce our rights once the trust is dissolved? What will be the evidence that the trust is dissolved?

    I know that the real property tax is assessed against a tax “parcel.” I know that “parcel” as a verb means to divide an estate. So what part of an estate do we so called taxpayers have? I think there is a Maxim that goes: “The Law does not suffer the fracture and division of estates.”
    There is another one that goes “A man cannot be both lord and tenant of the same tenement.” Our deeds has us as ‘tenants of the entirety’ so who is the lord of this tenement?

    Thanks for all the good information on trusts.

  32. No Black Pete

    November 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM

    Reblogged this on Too Much Black.

  33. M ma

    September 12, 2016 at 9:04 PM

    Yep, you got it right with this one. Watch the first hour of 12 years a slave and you will see stark and glaring similatudes to your observation. Especially, when tibeats attempts to kill Mr. Northrup.

  34. M ma

    September 12, 2016 at 9:15 PM


    This may be one of the reasons we do not find property records in many of these genealogical studies like because these documents were used in banking transactions to create wealth not to identify people. They are in many safe deposit boxes, safes, etcetera. Remember when the group of ‘Stevies’ broke into the bank on the movie inside man, they took back those notes and the bank owner lost a lot of wealth in that transaction.

  35. Carolyn

    September 16, 2016 at 12:13 AM

    That’s because as explained to me, which is the truth, the United states of America is actually a corporation. We are it’s slaves and it is thru the birth certificates that we sign up. I wish my friend that has explained it all to me was available. He went thru all the facts and proof for me once. I couldn’t believe it but it was true.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s