What’s in a Birth Certificate?

19 Jul

Sample of a short form birth certificate (cert...

Image via Wikipedia

I remember being told in high school that you don’t really understand your own language until you learn a foreign language.

I think that principle applies to most areas of study.

For example, lots of us have suspected for most of 20 years that the government-issued birth certificates may be used as devices to somehow deprive us of our rights.

The details of this deprivation have remained unclear (at least for me).  Perhaps the birth certificate is presumed to change me from a free man into a “U.S. citizen,” “subject” or eve “slave”.  Perhaps, the birth certificate is presumed to change my status from that of an independent man (with a name like “Alfred Adask”) to that of a fiduciary for the “entity” created and given an all-upper-case name (“ALFRED N ADASK”) by the “birth certificate”.

What follows is an email exchange between myself and John Rod—a Native American—who has been deprived of his real “birth certificate” and as a result, has been deprived of his rights as a Native American.

This email exchange is not profound, but it still offers some insight.  Just as studying Spanish may help each of us to better understand English, studying the “birth certificates” of Native Americans may help each “American” to better understand his own “birth certificate”.

From: john rod


Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: birth certificate

Not sure why I’m asking you this but I often seek the opinion of folks I admire for whatever reasons.

I was adopted and for the life of me I cannot get the state of ND [North Dakota] to issue anything other than a certification of birth to me, which contains the name of my adopted family.  To thicken the plot I am a native American [N.A.], which I think has something to do with the complications.  It seems my only recourse is to hire an attorney to go after the certificate vs the state.  I am presently not in ND but there must/might be some other remedy that i have not considered.

What do you think?


. . . .

Hi John,

I think you have an interesting set of circumstances, but I have no idea of how best to proceed.  I couldn’t begin to offer any suggestions based on the little, general info you’ve provided.

I am intrigued by the idea that your “certification of birth” reflects your adopted parents rather than your biological parents.  Do you know how old you were when you were adopted?  Do you know how old you were when you the birth certificate with your adoptive parent’s names was first issued?

I’m going to guess that this “adoptive-parent” birth certificate was issued on order from a judge as part of the adoption process.

Can you shed any light on the issuance of this “adoptive-parent” birth certificate?


 . . . .

Hi Al,

Yea I was 5 years old when I was adopted, I didn’t want to bore you with a lot of detail until I made actual contact with you….not that I want to bore you now!! LOL

The whole N.A. [Native American] issue is the main problem.  I won’t go into the whole sordid history except to say that up until about 1976 it was totally legal for the Catholic church, with the blessings and sanctions of the U.S. government, to actually go onto reservations . . . in this case Turtle Mtn (chippewa res) and TAKE children from the family . . . the government and church addressed it as “saving” children from a life of poverty . . . the tribe called it GENOCIDE!  [For more insight into the concept of “genocide” see “Man of Other Animals #3–Genocide” on this blog.]

The government achieved 2 goals:  one of destroying families and cultures, and, two, making money.  We were sold, for all basic purposes, to non native peoples and groups. (in catholic orphanages)

Well aside from those issues . . . ND is also a sealed record state . . . meaning any adoption of a native child is hidden by the state . . . in other words I have to petition the state for MY rights as to my heritage, and then have to fight it in court to win the right to my LEGAL Birth Certificate.  A judge could give it up, but they never have.


. . . .

Hi John,

Then your “birth certificate” could not have been issued until after you were 5 years old.

This raises a question as to What is actually being “certified” by that document?

Clearly, unless you were created by God out of dust or you are an “angel,” you were necessarily “born”.  Anyone looking at you can tell you must’ve been “born”.  No one needs a “birth certificate” to establish that they were “born”—any more than we need a “water certificate” to certify that we need water to live.

Similarly, given that your “birth certificate” does not include the names of your biological mother and father, it’s apparent that a “birth certificate” need not include the names of your biological parents.

Thus, the birth certificate is not necessarily about your ancestors or your blood or your genetics.

If a birth certificate need not reflect your biological origins, it’s arguable that the entity named on the birth certificate (“JOHN ROD”) has no “biological origins” and therefore is not a biological entity.

If that were true, then what kind of “birth” is being certified?

If the entity “born” has no biological reality, that entity could not have been “born” in the sense that your biological mother gave you “birth”.  The definition for the word “birth” in “birth certificate” would then have to mean something much different from what most people suppose.  It wouldn’t reflect the “live birth” of a living infant.  It would reflect the “birth” or “creation” of some sort of legal fiction.

So, what’s left for the “birth certificate” to “certify”?

Your name?

I doubt that the all-upper case name on your birth certificate is actually your name.  I doubt that the all-upper-case name signifies a living, biological being.  I suspect that the all-upper case name signifies some sort of estate or account, a legal fiction that is other than you.

And what’s left to “certify” after that?

The place or venue of your “birth”—and by implication, your “citizenship”?

If so, the primary purpose of the birth certificate is not to certify that you were born, but rather to certify where you were born, or perhaps even certify where the legal fiction that you are presumed to represent was “born”.

Curiouser and curiouser, hmm?


. . . .

Hi Al,

Bingo . . . you figured out what I have been saying or claiming all along.  Their Certification of Birth [Not a “Birth Certificate”?] . . . “is to certify that there is on record in the division of vital records, North Dakota department of health Bismarck ND, the following entry of birth:

NAME:                      (adopted name . . . all caps)








DATE ISSUED:          (THIS SAYS SEPT 12, 2005). . . As this was the period I was seeking a passport and needed a Birth Certificate, which I was almost not able to get because they (US government) wanted a birth certificate not this certification of birth . . . .  I need to beg/plead to allow this so that I could go on my trip to India LOL.

I KNOW this concerns many more LEGAL issues in regards to my original document$…for instance I cannot claim my Tribal rights without my original documents!!! etc. The BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs] will only allow me to claim 1/4 Native American blood—this goes into my inheritance rights, I need to be able to prove at least 1/2 blood line to receive my native rights!!! But they won’t let me prove it  LOL.

Anyway there is more than 1 way to skin a cat.  This whole issue for me has to do with becoming/claiming my sovereignty on this EARTH!!!

And YES of course the all caps name on this document represents the TRUST they hold over me!  I seek a remedy one way or another to claim my TRUST and sovereignty as a child/man/being of my GOD. and not chattel for them!

Thank you for letting me bend your ear a bit Al.


. . . .

John’s “birth certificate” and/or “certificate of birth” is absolutely being used as a device to deprive him of his biological “rights” as a Native American.

If some “birth certificates” (or perhaps “certificates of birth”) are clearly being used to deprive some people of their biological rights, why couldn’t all “birth certificates” be used to achieve the same deprivation?

Is my government-issued “birth certificate” likewise being used as a device to deprive me of recognition by government that I am a man (biological being) who is:

1) made in God’s image and given dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:26-28); and

2) “endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights” which the government is obligated to “secure” (“Declaration of Independence”)?

I suspect the answer is Yes.

If our government is using the birth certificate to deprive us of the God-given, unalienable Rights to which we are naturally entitled, would that use constitute an act of genocide against the American people?

I believe the answer would be Yes.

If the birth certificate could be shown to be an instrument of genocide, could it be attacked and disregarded on that basis?

It would be a difficult process but, again, I think the answer might be Yes.


Tags: , , ,

33 responses to “What’s in a Birth Certificate?

  1. Ryan

    July 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

    They can use whatever paperwork and aliases they’d like to label whatever, it doesn’t take away unalienable rights as a human on Earth.

    You can call a tomato a chair in front of me, but I still know it’s a tomato.

  2. pop de adam

    July 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

    I have come across these two forms on a few websites. Will they do what we wish? Who knows? These are the Governments trusts/property so while we cannot destroy them, we should be able to: resign, divest, divorce and divest ourselves from them.

    Form 56

    Resignation of compelled social security trustee
    Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship


    Request for withdrawal of application

    To create a new name or person, use an affidavit with proper witnesses seems like it would be ample.

    New reseach project?- Ecclesiastical Deed Poll

  3. Jim

    July 19, 2011 at 9:00 PM

    seems the federal courts instructed the states the ‘native americans’ are under the exclusive control of congress. don’t look to the states for help. Do a search on “another broken trust” native americans for possible help.

    Indian Trust Fund: Resolution and Proposed Reformation to the …
    It is estimated that between 300000 and 500000 Indians have been deprived of between ….. John Gibeaut, Another Broken Trust, 85 A.B.A.J. 40, 43 (1999). …

    Don’t look to reclaim rights by registration , a possible avenue is rectification of registration.

  4. derick

    July 19, 2011 at 9:32 PM

    My wife will give birth to our third child any day now. Although I have spent alot of time researching the birth certificate and the theories sorounding it, we have taken no action. I have been told that if we do not sign the birth certificate at the hospital we will not be able to take our child home?? I know it”s probably too late to do anything but if anyone has information that can help us NOW, I would very much appreciate any help I can get.

    • Jethro

      July 19, 2011 at 10:27 PM


      If they prevented you from taking your child home that would be kidnapping. If it were me, I’d sternly warn them not to try it.

      I wonder if the ‘disability’ attached from the birth certificate comes not so much from its issuance, but from its use (by YOU). No one force you to use it. The BC is the foundational document for virtually every “benefit” this state offers and one’s application for such benefits are voluntary.

      • derick

        July 20, 2011 at 8:45 AM


        We have a marriage license and my understanding is, that it makes the state the benificiary of anything we create. Our children are a ward of the state and we are just gaurdians. If that is true, the state could take our child for whatever reason and it would not be kidnapping. We will be getting out of the marriage license contract this year but its my understanding that this would have to happen before a child is born. We wanted to have a home birth but couldnt afford a midwife and with a little research I found out that most if not all midwives are licensed by the state. That would make them an informant! Who do they ask to sign the BC? “Mother or other Informant”

    • 1bassman9

      July 20, 2011 at 1:13 PM

      Use a midwife and have a home birth might be one possibility.

    • 1bassman9

      July 20, 2011 at 1:18 PM

      Use a midwife and have a home birth might be one possibility. One reason I believe the state returned those children in that FLDS fiasco was the fact that there were no records due to the fact the children were born through midwifery and the births were never registered. I am no attorney but it is worth looking into.

    • Nicklas Arthur

      July 20, 2011 at 4:34 PM

      “wise as serpents, harmless as doves” You could give them a fictitious name for their “words on Paper” creation, then give your child a real name and disregard the fiction altogether and forever? A little outside the box, but worth considering!

    • messianicdruid

      July 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM

      Maybe you should avoid the hospital…

    • Ed

      July 24, 2011 at 10:15 PM

      If you are coerced or forced to sign the birth certificate, attach “without prejudice” above your name. If anything it will make a statement not to force their mode of action for not signing.

    • Madeline

      July 26, 2011 at 12:16 PM

      Check out Americans bulletin. org, or .com(I’m not sure of the ending). They have all the information you need to claim yourself free. Understand that the paperwork needs to be filled out correctly and without any mistakes. The process can take up to two years. Good Luck!

  5. pop de adam

    July 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM


    The only one with requirements and liabilities under the statutes is the physician/hospital, as far as your marriage is concerned you and your wife chose the marriage, as a party to it you can also end it.

    If I create something, I also create the liability. If you create a child are you not truely liable for its welfare? The issueing body of any paperwork also carries the liability. If you think about it, the “state” requires someone to have a “drivers license” and insurance, the license is perhaps a cognovit, however also having insurance is supposed to absolve you of any eventuality that may occur. If a police officer wishes to cite you for some “traffic violation”, not only are they issuing a thing(creating a liability), the states requirements are again a liability as the state insist and depend upon them, but also you have insured yourself against liability.

    If you want to try something interesting, as a potential informant upon said paperwork, arrive at a hospital with a envelope addressed to your states Department of Vital Statisics, assume the position of someone about to sign said paperwork, but instead put it in the envelope and seal it. This could precipitate the following: No signatures create invalid agreements, if they open said package it would be interferring with the “mails”, and you would be complying with the requirement to notify the Department of Vital Statistics.

  6. Jim

    July 20, 2011 at 1:43 PM

    The birth certificate is an application. Before you consider signing you had better have your inquiries for full disclosure ready to present so you can determine if you want a birth certificate and from whom the birth certificate is issued. You will have a hard time undoing an application but you can apply in the future if you like. Social security will try to impose a number before leaving the hospital but you can hold off applying until you determine if you need one. Explain to hospital staff you are not ready to apply and expect them to honor your right to full disclosure. Better do your homework on vaccinations because you will be pressured to administer them before you leave and if you suffer injury from the same you regret the failure to investigate every day of the rest of your life. .

  7. derick

    July 20, 2011 at 1:50 PM


    Thank you for that information. Do you know where I can fnd inquires for full disclosure?

  8. derick

    July 20, 2011 at 1:52 PM


    Thank you too!

  9. Jethro

    July 20, 2011 at 2:57 PM


    I’m unsure what the relationship between the “marriage license” and compulsory birth certificate may be. However, that the BC “requires” the parents’ signature serves as evidence obtaining one is voluntary. It may be mandatory upon the hospital/doctor to fill it out, but I imagine there’s no law that says you have to help them. If they threatened to kidnap your child, you could always sign “Under Duress”.

    One way you could approach this would be to contact the hospital ahead of time, offer to prepay for their delivery service (they’ll like that), but tell them you’re not signing a BC or getting a SSN. IOW, head off the confrontation ahead of time.

    Another approach a friend took was to NOT name your child in the hospital (heck, you need to think about a name for a while, right??). Then the BC would simply be for “Baby derick,” or whatever your family name is. My friend’s child is now in his late teens and that’s how “his” BC still reads. Is that “his” BC? Who knows.

  10. derick

    July 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM


    Thats a great idea. The hospital has 48 hours to send the BC application in and they give you five days to ammend it.

  11. Jerry Lee

    July 21, 2011 at 10:10 PM

    Al, John,

    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 of 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.

    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)..

    The Birth Certificate is a cestui que trust has no Grantor, but, being a constructive trust created by operation of law, i.e. by make-believe, has only co-trustees and co beneficiaries. The co-trustees are the parties [us] with the duties for managing property [your body & labor] for the “public good,” i.e. for the benefit of those designated as co beneficiaries the US INC and the International Bankers.
    Of course this is for US citizen only.

    As for the parents names biological or other wise is a moot point. One does not need the father’s name or the mother’s for that matter; you will notice that the line that has mother maiden name also says ‘Informant’ other may have a separate box, so you see parents are irrelative. Al you are on spot again.

    Al is correct on venue, with the Birth Certificate you were “born again” not in the Kingdom of Our Lord but into the United States Inc and ‘its’ Jurisdiction.
    By being ‘Enumerated’ by the Federal Census you now come under this corporation’s Public [company] Policy. [Court case omitted].The legal definition of the word “Birth” has two meanings, natural birth or coming into legal existence.
    Example: a corporation has a birth. “Birth” is the event, such as signing a form that creates legal existence in the eyes of the law.
    “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.

    The B/C is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, juristic name of a person and is a Security Instrument used by ‘this State’ to create that ens legis a legal fiction as debt collateral for the bankrupt mother corporation THE UNITED STATES INC.

    If I recall one may use their Family Bible for identification for a passport application. This would be better since it would appear to me it would be in step with the Common Law and Black’s Law on the Christian name implying you were created in the image of God thus you are not declaring to be a US citizen but a non citizen national, a man on the land an not the ‘person’ a politically status. Please research to verify for there would be more then this but a affidavit stating such may be attached to the passport application.

    On a side note here My son is a Sheriff and upon the nativity of My last grandson I had My son fill in his Family linage into Our Family Bible. As he started I said to him “do not use all Caps”. His reply was that he was use to printing all caps to write names on his job ie citations. I had just made another point about his authority over fictions not People. He listen to the old man, the entry was in proper English.

    A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

    John you said “I was adopted and for the life of me I cannot get the state of ND [North Dakota] to issue anything other than a certification of birth to me, which contains the name of my adopted family”.

    There is a good reason if you have been listening to Al’s take on ‘this state’ or The State.


    1-01-09. Word defined by statute always has same meaning.
    Whenever the meaning of a word or phrase is defined in any statute, such definition is
    applicable to the same word or phrase wherever it occurs in the same or subsequent statutes, except when a contrary intention plainly appears.

    1-01-49. Other general definitions.

    16. “State” when applied to the different parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the territories.

    18. “United States” includes the District of Columbia and the territories.

    If you are familiar with legalese when the word ‘includes’ is use to confine within, hold as an enclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, enclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. As you have read the above this is not The State of North Dakota. Thus the ND designation means ‘it’ is one of the Federal States of Washington DC.

    To help with your correct status as a Native American I may suggest you start with the known working backwards. Does the reservation have a church where church minutes are open for public review? It may contain facts that would lead up to your birth but not your birth itself and events afterwards. Do you have personal contact with those living on the reservation? Old timers may have information vital to your quest.

    Treaties with the tribe may also be useful to establish your rights. The Tribe may have their own procedures for who is and isn’t a member of their Nation.

    Finally this,
    Since citizenship is controlled by the individual and not the government,
    Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253; 87 S. Ct. 1660 (1967)

  12. Jerry Lee

    July 21, 2011 at 10:13 PM

    “enumerated” as used in the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration has stated on their former web site:
    “The process of issuing Social Security numbers is called “enumeration,” and over the years it has been one of the most interesting topics involving Social Security.” Now, here is the legal definition of ENUMERATED: The term is often used in law as equivalent to “mentioned specifically,” “designated” or “expressly named or granted;” as in speaking of enumerated government powers, ITEMS OF PROPERTY, or articles in a tariff schedule

  13. Pingback: Who are we? |
  14. John Nix

    July 23, 2011 at 2:35 AM

    John Rod, You might try checking with the Catholic Church parish at Turtle Mountain and ask if the pastor can find a Baptismal Certificate for you with your birth name. (Assumption: You were Baptised as a Catholic about the date of your recorded birth.) The altered Adoption Birth Certificate would have your correct date of birth, and was issued on the theory that it was protecting your biological mother from blackmail.

    Church clergy are full of well meaning fools with no common sense, who let themselves be blindfolded by the halo they think they are wearing.
    I spent 9 months in an orphanage for reacting to my parents fighting. Those 9 months created a feeling of abandonment and set up long term depression that could have driven me to suicide.
    I think that many good Catholic colledes turn into damed diploma mills for members of the clergy when they need a degree to do a job. Require them to go to a non affiliated school for their law degrees or psych degrees.

  15. ben

    July 23, 2011 at 4:49 AM

    How can I file for sovereignty

    • Adask

      July 23, 2011 at 7:42 AM

      I wish I knew. It’s not that simple. First you must educate yourself to understand the concept of individual sovereignty. Then, perhaps, you may discover a strategy to cause the government to recognize your status as a “sovereign”. But, so far as I know, there is no procedure whereby you simply “file for sovereignty”. It’s not like applying for a drivers license or voters registration. It’s considerably more complex.

  16. Madeline

    July 26, 2011 at 12:29 PM

    If you go to a site called Americans bulletin. org, or .com(I’m not sure of the ending). They have all the information you need to claim yourself free. Understand that the paperwork needs to be filled out correctly and without any mistakes. The process can take up to two years. Good Luck!

  17. ic

    July 28, 2011 at 4:39 AM

    The only purpose of “the birth certificate” is to insure taxation of the little human resource !!
    History has proven time and again that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The BIA is just another evil arm of the federal government and can NOT have your the best interest at heart. Use the courts / government as a last resort !!

    Go visit the Chippewa reservation, it may be your best starting point as they are usually very helpful and may have some kind of records (of their children being stolen / adopted out) Go visit the reservation. Go to the tribal offices and try there, do some DNA test with them and trust our Creator can lead you back to your roots / your true heritage. Go find your relatives !!

    It was, is and always will be genocide of the beautiful, peaceful magnificent indigenous people of this land!!

  18. Anibal Crespo

    July 30, 2011 at 12:39 AM

    Or perhaps give their entire land back and their religion…. Or may be The TEA Party can give a little push with Sarah Palin and make that real…… I don’t think so….. You wanna call genocide denial????? This is America the land of the free and the brave, that every single tax payer is responsible. Just like Ward Churchill said once ” we are all little EIchmann’s” he is so right. Thank you and . May the SunGod Bless you.


    July 31, 2011 at 6:55 PM

    Super citizen. Sub citizen. And YOU do NOT decide which you will be. ERR… divine right of Kings or something.

  20. indio007

    August 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM

    A birth certificate is nothing more than presumptive evidence of a particular political allegiance.
    Unfortunately it is often used as evidence as allegiance to an actual sovereign man.
    It is evidence of a guardian ward relationship as well.

    This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen,
    as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled
    as the rule partus sequitur ventrem. the one being a rule fixing the status of
    freemen, the other being a rule defining the ownership of property ; the one
    applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in
    the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom,
    the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the
    bondage of the mother.

    No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or
    any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam (31 Barb.. 486)
    the court says: “The universal maxim of the common law being partus
    sequitur patrem, it is suflicient for the application of this doctrine that the
    father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance
    beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.”

    The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (p. 101), says: “As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” Again, on page 102, Vattel says : ” By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.” This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any postive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.

    Everyone should take note that the PTB use the same rules concerning slavery as they do in determining political allegiance.

    but….Allegiance to a political body is a legal fiction and and is not within the natural law.
    the natural law being ex fide non ficta as illustrated in Calvins Case. Calvin’s Case is the Case cited In Yick Wo v. Hopkins in which the plaintiff wanted to be a “citizen”. If they where fighting no to be there would have been a different result. Citizenship is a political CHOICE.

    The relevant portin of Calvin’s Case decided by Lord Coke

    1. Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign…

    But between the Sovereign and the subject there is without comparison a higher and greater connexion: for as the subject oweth to the King his true and faithful ligeance and obedience, so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his Subjects…

    It is true, that the King hath two capacities in him: one a natural body, being descended of the blood royal of the Realm; and this body is of the creation of Almighty God, and is subject to death, infirmity, and such like; the other is a politic, body or capacity, so called, because it is framed by the policy of man…

    … First, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects which oath he taketh in his natural person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man…

    4. A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.

    Read the last sentence again and again and again.

  21. Harley Davidson Borgais

    October 14, 2014 at 2:34 AM

    The ultimate solution to the corrupt systems of law I have found is called a ‘presumptive letter’, which I learned about from Jack and Margy Flynn. In this, when your opponent (i.e. govt. agent) ignores you, they agree to all your ‘presumptions’/accusations/defenses/etc., and you win.
    According to rule of civil procedure 8d (Az. and US), failure to deny means agreement.
    Learn this, and the US and state constitution (your rights in general), and some relevant court cases, and you should be able to overcome the corruption in your govt. and get paid BIG time for all the harm they have done to you.


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