A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘labor’

Some States Are Cutting Poor Dads A Deal On Unpaid Child Support

child support shacklesMany states have opted for oppression when it comes down to child support debt. A few wiser minds are prevailing in a few places. When the state of Maryland wanted to reach dads who were behind on their child support payments, it started in the boarded-up blocks of West Baltimore, in neighborhoods marked by drugs, violence and unemployment.

In just four zip code areas, the state identified 4,642 people who owed more than $30 million in back child support. Most of that was “state-owed,” meaning that rather than going to the child through the custodial parent, it’s supposed to reimburse taxpayers for welfare paid to the child’s mother.

This is a source of great resentment for many men, who say they want their money to go to their children. But most who owe it can’t pay anyway, as they earn less than $10,000 a year.

slavery to children“So even if we use taxpayer dollars to chase ’em down, and we catch ’em, right, and we go into their pockets, there’s nothing in there,” says Joe Jones of Baltimore’s Center for Urban Families.

Are they deadbeat?

Joseph DiPrimio, head of Maryland’s child support enforcement office, doesn’t like that expression. “I think that’s vulgar. I don’t use it,” he says. DiPrimio prefers “dead broke.”

“We’re talking about individuals that are economically challenged, they’re underemployed, but they want to do the right thing,” he says.

Unpaid child support in the U.S. has climbed to $113 billion, and enforcement agencies have given up on collecting much of it. They say too many men simply don’t have the money.

What’s more, research shows that high child-support debt can leave parents feeling so hopeless that they give up trying to pay it.

Breaking Through The Distrust

ecard father bradley amdLike a growing number of state government officials, Maryland’s DiPrimio wanted to make parents an offer. But he needed their trust, and that was a problem.

Research shows high child support debt can leave parents feeling so hopeless that they give up trying to pay it.

And sting operations to round up parents who owed child support have happened all over the country, including Baltimore. In a typical ruse, agencies have sent fake letters telling parents they won tickets to a football bowl game, for instance — but when they showed up to collect, they were arrested instead.

father-sonTo break through years of distrust, Maryland sent letters to parents with the logo of the Center for Urban Families, a nonprofit in West Baltimore that provides job training and other help to poor families.

They made this offer: If the parent takes the center’s month-long employment training course and lands a job, the state will forgive 10 percent of his or her child support debt. If they complete a Responsible Fatherhood program, the state will write off another 15 percent. One of the first persons to sign up was a mother, though the vast majority of noncustodial parents are men.

In a separate “debt compromise” program, Maryland will also write off 50 percent of a parent’s child support debt if they maintain monthly payments for a year.

fathersrightsResponse has been slow. In two years, slightly more than 100 parents have signed on. Many of them attend fatherhood meetings like one held on a recent Wednesday night. Two dozen men — 20-something to middle age, in sweats and in suits — sit in a large square.

Some complain their exes won’t let them see their child if they haven’t paid child support. Others don’t understand why it doesn’t count as support when they take their kids out to eat, or buy them clothes — or say they would do those sorts of things for their kids if their child support obligation wasn’t so heavy.

Mostly, like 30-year-old Lee Ford, they say it’s so hard to find work

“You telling me no matter what, I gotta pay. But I can’t get a job to work to save my soul,” he says.

Group leader Eddie White cuts no slack. “If you know you got a criminal record, sure it’s gonna be hard for you to get a job. But it don’t mean you can’t work,” White says.

A big part of this class is also educational. White asks the men what a person who is paying child support should do if he gets laid off or loses his job.

“There you go, that’s the word. Immediately,” White says. “Immediately ask the court for an adjustment.”

Other Approaches To Debt Relief

Maryland’s program is part of a larger effort to keep impoverished parents from racking up child support debt in the first place.

baby moneySome states are trying to speed up the cumbersome process of adjusting an order when a parent loses a job. Ohio has experimented with sending simple reminders — by phone, mail or text — to parents who need to send in monthly payments. Texas has reached out to newly incarcerated parents, to let them know they can apply to have their payments reduced while in prison — something not all states allow.

“We sent out a teaser postcard trying to combat the ostrich effect,” says Emily Schmidt, a research analyst with the U.S. Administration for Children and Families, who helped with the Texas effort.

Schmidt says there was concern that someone going through the emotional transition of incarceration wouldn’t likely be thinking about child support, and may not even open a letter from the state. So they printed the postcard on blue paper to stand out, and, taking a cue from marketers, it said, “Four easy steps to lowering your child support.”

After 100 days, the response rate among parents was up 11 percent, “a very low-cost intervention for a fairly dramatic effect,” Schmidt says.

barack obamaThe Obama administration wants to “right size” child support orders from the start, and has proposed regulations to make sure they are set according to what parents actually earn. Officials say some jurisdictions base orders on a full-time minimum wage, even if a parent earns far less. They say this can backfire, leaving so little money after a parent’s wages are garnished that he or she quits and works underground instead.

The White House’s proposals also would provide more job training for parents with child support debt — something Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution says is a good investment.

“More fathers will get a job, more fathers will have earnings, and more fathers will use those earnings to pay child support,” he says.

So far, that’s what’s happened in Baltimore. The numbers are small. But the amount of child support that’s been paid is more than double the amount of debt written off.

Maryland wants to expand its child support debt forgiveness program, hoping to help more parents to pay what they can.

Advertisements

How America’s Child Support System Failed To Keep Up With The Times

clinton-child-support-celebration
When the U.S. child support collection system was set up in 1975 under President Gerald Ford — a child of divorce whose father failed to pay court-ordered child support — the country, and the typical family, looked very different from today.

And as the nation’s social, economic and demographic landscape has shifted, the system has struggled to keep up. Cynthia Osborne, director of the Child and Family Research Partnership and associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs, explains how these changes have outpaced the decades-old system — and left the country with more than $113 billion in unpaid child support.

Walk us through what the child support collection system looked like in 1975. What issues was it designed to address? What did the typical family look like?

It was officially launched in 1975, which is when the government established Section IV-D of the Social Security Act. No-fault divorce had recently been passed, and there was a rapid increase in divorce.

In 1975, this system would try to ensure that after a divorce, we would try to replicate what the household looked like prior to the divorce with regards to the children’s well-being. So the father would continue to provide income to the child, and the mother normally would get the child following a divorce in terms of physical custody, and she would use the resources from the father.

The whole system was set up in a way to try to bring back what the nuclear family looked like prior to a divorce, and nearly everyone who entered into the child support system was a product of divorce. There were very few nonmarital births at that time.

During that time period, divorce was one of the single greatest predictors that a woman, especially a woman with children, would fall into poverty. The research indicated that fathers typically gained financially following a divorce, even though they were ordered to pay child support, and mothers typically lost financially, they had both the children and reduced income. And so the child support system was hoping to try to offset some of that.

The 1970s and ’80s saw profound social, economic and demographic changes. What sort of shifts were occurring, and how did they affect child support?

There was this huge increase in divorce, and a beginning rise in nonmarital childbearing that was nearly nonexistent in the early 1970s — then becoming, by the mid-1980s, up into the 20 percent of all children.

Those were big changes that were occurring in the family, and simultaneously there were gains and losses in the labor market. There were more and more women who were starting to enter into the labor market during both the 1970s and ’80s. And the question about what women’s role was, vis-a-vis caring for their child and working and so forth, was starting to be really front and center in the discussion of women’s place within the family and the economy.

Still, though, the majority of women, when they became mothers, were the primary caretakers and not the primary breadwinners. The single mothers also were not very likely to work. So married moms were staying at home to take care of the kid. Single moms were on welfare, and our welfare rolls were expanding quite rapidly.

The 1980s [also] saw a huge boom in the return to college education, and this is especially true for men. And those who got this education— with higher skills and higher-wage jobs — were starting to really pull away from men who had lower levels of education or moderate levels of education. And men at the very bottom, who had no high school education especially, were starting to lose in real terms of their value of earnings. And that’s really a trend that’s continued until today.

And when we think about who those men are partnered with, often they’re partnered with the same women who are more and more likely to be dependent on welfare rolls — during this time there was a huge increase in welfare rolls — and also mostly among less educated women.

So you now had a growing number of women who were either divorced or not married who were seeking public assistance, and a growing number of less educated men who had very few prospects in the labor market, and declining prospects at that.

It really can’t be overstated how important in the whole welfare reform debate [it] was that one of the fastest entrants into the labor market were women with children under the ages of 5. And it became harder and harder to justify that we should have a system that would support one group of women to stay at home with their children while this other group of women was choosing to enter into the labor market.

And all this set the stage for welfare reform?

Yes, with that kind of backdrop — with two earners becoming necessary, women making this conscious decision to enter into the labor market and the general dismay about the existing welfare reforms system — we started really to think seriously about how we should do this differently, and what should we expect of moms and so forth, and I think that’s why the work requirements became so steep in the welfare reform debate.

And with child support, by the mid-1990s when all of these reforms were being put into place, nonmarital childbearing had risen from being something that was not very pervasive to nearly one-third of all births, 25 to 28 percent. Now, it’s at 41 to 42 percent.

What were the hallmarks of the 1996 welfare reform?

Welfare reform really did punctuate this idea that fathers should be responsible for providing for their children, that the state will do it in limited circumstances, but that we want the fathers to be the ones who are responsible for this. And there was a very strong notion at that point that men who weren’t paying for their child support were not involved in their children’s lives, were just deadbeat and avoiding the system.

The Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) made it so that the guidelines had to be more specific, and that the states had to enforce them more carefully. It changed what the performance measures were for states — basically, if you set an order, you have to collect on it and there could be penalties if you didn’t. And it really punctuated the idea that child support is a direct link with welfare, that there really isn’t a way for a mom who’s going to go on public assistance to avoid seeking child support.

In 1994 our rolls on welfare were some of the largest that they had been; they had really ballooned up to the point where upwards of 7 percent of kids were on welfare rolls. There was no end in sight because of the increase in nonmarital childbearing and who was now coming into the system was a different family type than what the system was initially set up to accommodate. And that, I think, remains one of the biggest challenges of our system.

And so the initial system was set up to replicate the nuclear family of dad as breadwinner, mom as homemaker, and now you have families in which mom and dad may have never lived together. They may have lived together when the child was born for a short period of time. They may or may not have shared resources. The father may have been contributing or not contributing.

And that gets us to the massive amount of unpaid child support — $113 billion and counting.

Right. Each state does it differently, but Texas will determine what a noncustodial parent’s income is. If he says zero, well, there isn’t zero child support, there will often be a presumption that he should be working full time, full year at at least minimum wage. So the judge will often set what’s called a minimum wage order, and it’s about $215 a month in Texas, which is about 20 percent of your net income of that. So here is a father who is now going to owe $215 a month plus about $50 a month in medical support. And he did not disclose that he had any income at the time that he established those awards.

It could be even worse, it could be — and this happens very often — that that man comes in, but his child is 2 years old. And now, either he’s been evading for two years, or he didn’t know he had this child, or they were together for almost all that time, but now they’ve separated. There could be lots of different reasons, but the child’s now 2 years old. The judge could order at that time that not only does he owe $200 each month moving forward, but he owes $200 a month for those two years …

Even if they were together but not married?

That’s right. And so this back child support is something that’s very real. A lot of the men start off in this hole that they just simply cannot dig themselves out of. For some of these guys, having a $5,000 arrears payment, it would be like a middle income person having a $50,000 debt that they’re just supposed to somehow work their way out of. It feels almost impossible.

What about the people who argue that this just doesn’t make sense?

I think it is actually not a simple answer. We do need to feel like men are being held accountable for their children, or noncustodial parents are supporting their children in some way. I do think that it’s reasonable for people to say somehow men have to demonstrate that they are going to provide for their children. Even if it is $200 a month and even if they don’t have a job, we are going to hold them accountable.

That just ignores, though, the fact that we can say that, but that doesn’t mean that they’re going to be able to pay it. We often know that if they’re not able to pay their child support formally, that they’re less likely to be able to contribute informally. They’re going to stay away from the child; they’re going to be less involved.

So although it makes sense on some level that we want to find a way to hold these dads accountable, in fact, what we’re doing is making it less likely that he’s going to be engaged in his child’s life by providing informally or being involved in other sorts of ways, and it’s going to cause difficulties in the co-parenting relationship between the mom and the father.

And for those reasons, there are proposals by the Obama administration — and other folks have been advocating this for quite a while — that say, let’s set what we call right-sized orders, that we actually take into account what he actually has the ability to pay when we establish these child support orders, and that we’re hoping that if he pays $25 a month now, that we can modify that order later when he gets more income and he’ll pay a little more and so forth.

This applies also to fathers who are incarcerated. We have a huge number of fathers who are incarcerated at some point in their child’s life. But it has not been a material reason to alter your child support award amount. So that’s another change proposed by the Obama administration, that if you are incarcerated, that we modify the child support order in some way to reflect that you cannot earn an income during that time.

In Texas, the average arrears payment that a father owes who’s been incarcerated coming out of prison is $8,000. When he comes out with high levels of arrears, he’s less likely to enter into the formal labor market and have his wages immediately garnished, so it just sends him back to the underground economy and the chances of recidivism and incarceration are really high.

Ultimately, then, what’s the purpose of child support system?

The states’ incentives really are to set amounts that can be collected on that make it look like they are reaching collection goals. But the performance measures at the federal level are based on the proportion that you collect based on the proportion that’s established.

So the states could benefit if they move to this more right-sized orders approach. But we have to be careful that that big dollar amount out there of what we’re collecting doesn’t become the driving force of how to maintain our child support enforcement system.

To be perfectly honest, I think if I could be queen for the day, in today’s families, I would change the presumption that there is an equal division of time and an equal division of responsibility for providing for that child. That’s not going to work for every family. Some of them have never been contributing, some have both been contributing but at disproportionate amounts.

But if we started with the 50-50 presumption, then the judge could work with the families to say, well, how do we get to some form of equality that works for you guys?

If we really started with this presumption that we’re going to jointly care for our children, even though the parents are not married to each other, and then let’s work out a system that seems fair in both the amount of time that we’re spending and the amount of resources that we’re spending, that it costs to raise this particular child, it’s a lot more work on the part of the state to figure out what that is, but it just feels like that would be more fair.

For our low-income guys who can’t afford anything, the moms are having to work, why don’t they provide the child care? We’re not ready to go that way with our families, but our families have changed so much, we need a system that starts to keep up with them some way.

from NPR

The Birth Certificate Scam

ABSTRACT. Long form, short form, birth pledge, estate, cestui que trust, birth bond, BC bond, Treasury account, SSN, SS bond, DTC…

This article explains the series of transactions that comprise the birth scam whereby governments convert the birth of a child into a financial asset to underwrite the public debt and the issuance of substance-shy currency. Dubbed by the author the Uniform Securitization Scheme or USS, this universal pattern of “legalization,” registration, certification, securitization and general deposit is revealed to be a blueprint for virtually every event of our lives involving government, from simple purchases to the most complex banking, economic and Court transactions, in particular the metamorphosis of loan applications into salable securities. The article suggests that a comprehensive understanding of the birth schematic will provide the reader with a new plateau to address the complications when constitutors of the government face enticements to become its subjects. The author states that the article is offered to elevate discussion to a new plateau and assist concerned people in explaining their positions to friends and relatives.

THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME

INTRODUCTION.

mob-rule-child-support-governmentThere was a time when the joyous event of childbirth was recorded in the family Bible to signify the child’s status as a member of the family’s posterity with implied rights of an heir. To this day, the family Bible remains a lawful record that is recognized in the “legal” system. In 1933, when most privately-held gold was confiscated by the Federal Reserve System under Executive Order 6102 and obligations payable in gold were outlawed under H.J.R. 192 (Public Law 73-10), the substance-backed economy was replaced by a financial system based upon credit (IOU’s) which is currently failing under the weight of it’s own nature. What is that nature?

Like “Seinfeld,” very simply, nothing. Empty promises to pay backed by fraudulent presumptions of informed consent. It’s an economy where the books always add up to zero, where the very nature of bookkeeping had to be altered to disguise the void (double-entry bookkeeping), where the notion of a single entry to explain your purchase of a pack of gum was apparently inadequate to hide the theft of your money, where every asset is also entered as an offsetting liability, where the law itself had to be replaced by commercial hypocrisy, where the sum total of all activity in every government licensed institution, bank, Court and corporation
equals zero each and every day, where transactions which once involved the exchange of goods and services of equal value now involve the exchange of “securities” of equal “value” (nothing) as the term “value” is defined in inferior statutory “law.”

Like “Seinfeld,” the world suffers not so much an economy, as a comedy of errors. Perhaps more correctly, a comedy of frauds wherein the concept of “value” is established by words on the page instead of the perceived value of goods, services and labor at hand; where up is down, black is white, and timeless immorality is perfectly “legal.”

It is a well established fact that the United States is defined as a corporation in Section 3002 of the Judiciary Code. Meaning that the United States judiciary operates under the global presumption that the United States is a corporation, notwithstanding periodic attempts by learned attorneys-at-law to treat this fact casually.

What is a corporation? In essence: nothing. A construction of words on pieces of paper. A contrivance without a soul, sentience or conscience. The question becomes, How does an unconscious paper corporation operating in an economy without substance control the population of living people under the original public trust charter? The answer is self-evident. Organized commercial fraud which applies ancient edifices of commercial sleight-of-hand such as legal fictions, certification, registration and securitization to achieve outcomes which would otherwise be impossible (and certainly repugnant to the Founders). Translation: the machines harness the people’s commercial energy through a Matrix of scripted distractions and diversions wherein fraud, falsehood and fallacy supplant the law until amnesia has become endemic. That system is known as the “legal” system, a profit-inspired veneer for THE universal system of voodoo accounting explained in this article: the Uniform Securitization Scheme which runs invisibly as the operational schematic that underlies all public events be it the birth of a baby, the issuance of currency, economic “bailouts,” a court case, a purchase, a loan, a mortgage or a real estate transaction. Without your awareness, virtually every event of your life which involves a public institution has been covertly superimposed on the underlying Uniform Securitization Scheme (“USS”) revealed in this article, so that the actual events are invisible.

The USS is the EXACT SAME PROCESS used by banks to PLEDGE your credit card and loan applications as the surety for certificates and notes issued by their subsidiaries and sold to investors. Patriot mythology has held that these loan applications are actually securities. As will be revealed, in this instance the legend is true. The evidence is contained in every Rule 424(b)(5) prospectus filed by every bank with the SEC. A Bank of America flowchart published in a 2010 SEC prospectus is included in Appendix B to graphically demonstrate the universality of the USS. This chilling roadmap to the Uniform Securitization Scam may be helpful to review as you read about the pledges, certification, re-deposit and various techniques that comprise the USS.

To understand the Uniform Securities Scheme is to understand the commercial world around you, and the banks, government agencies and Courts that seek to control your life. The author has no objection if a copy of this article is sent to every JUDGE TRUST on the Federal and State benches, and every political prisoner in America.

__________________
I.
THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCAM

chronic-stressThe fuel behind the United States Federal corporation, the underlying premise behind every transaction in which you have participated, is the presumption that your labor has been voluntarily pledged to pay the debts of the United States (the public debt). Is this presumption factual or the wild concoction of misguided conspiracy theorists? Is it even remotely possible that the Founders’ descendants are captured as sureties for the escapades of their public officials?

The answer will soon be clear. It will be found by exploring a series of legal maneuvers known as “legalization,” registration, certification, securitization and general deposit which comprise the essence of the Uniform Securitization Scheme (“USS”). That same scheme is used at every stage of the Matrix, from the construction of the birth account to the reverse mortgage you sign on your death bed. To understand the birth certificate scam, is to understand loans, mortgages, purchases, deeds and all the other mirror-image substitutions for good old fashioned truth.

II
THE PLEDGE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; SECURITY FUTURES

shaken baby syndromeAlmost immediately, the blessed event of the delivery of an infant is marred by using its right foot to make an impression on a hospital birth record (HBR). The HBR provides public testimony of the baby’s “birth” on the continent and status as an “owner” of the United States.

Contrary to popular opinion, ownership is not control. In the “legal” system, ownership is defined as a pledge to act as surety for the debts incurred by the property. In the case of the United States, that doctrine is enshrined in Article VI of the Constitution which says:

“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

In other words, the act of registering the child with the United States Federal corporation through a government-licensed hospital comprises THE OWNER’S PLEDGE OF FUTURE LABOR, the “full faith and credit” that underwrites all U.S. currency and public debt under the ancient doctrine that ownership equals liability. After all, who else but the owners would be motivated to pay the bills?

For the sake of skeptical friends and family, here are the sound bites: Who else but the people of the United States stand behind U.S. currency? Does the issuance of a U.S. hospital birth record signify one’s responsibility to pay taxes and underwrite the public debt?

III
OPENING AN ACCOUNT

kangaroo courtThe HBR is delivered to the incorporated County for the purpose of transmitting the infant’s pledge into the “legal” system. What happens when you transfer property? What must you do when you make a purchase on the internet? What’s the first step in creating a commercial relationship with your doctor, bank and phone company? They open an account in your name.

As with any asset, the incorporate County as the receiving institution must open an account and log it in. The County Registrar opens an account in the County’s books. As you will discover, the sole purpose of every account that has ever been opened in your name is to leverage (issue) future securities. You are unaware of this because you are unaware of the definition of securities.

Opening an account is a boilerplate event in the Uniform Securitization Scam when any bank, Court, corporation or government institution seeks to assess the owner with a portion of the public debt and tap into your Estate to pay the assessment.

IV
REDUCING STATUS TO A NUMBER

As with any account, the County birth account is assigned a number, typically in the format: 123-45-654321. The first number group identifies the corporate State, the second group identifies the year of delivery, and the third group identifies the transaction. This birth identification number will follow the infant throughout his life. The implications are well documented in Scripture.

“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1).”

You may wish to read about the consequences of that event to the people of Israel. When we participate in a census for purposes other than to glorify the Lord, we can expect to be condemned.

V
RECORDING A GENERAL DEPOSIT; RELINQUISHING TITLE

violation of due process and civil rightsThe registrar then records the HBR in the account as a general deposit, meaning the State takes title to the funds (your future labor/commercial energy) the same way a bank takes title to your deposits when you use the bank’s endorsement stamp to print “PAY TO THE ORDER OF ACME BANK” on the back of a check before depositing it in “your” account. Haven’t you ever wondered why checks are made payable to the bank instead of to your account? The PAY TO THE ORDER OF notation is not just a material alteration under the Uniform Commercial Code.

It creates a brand new security wherein the bank takes your funds for its own purposes and disguises the acquisition by issuing credits to your account. This one act is the mechanism by which the State steals the infant’s Divine right to her own labor and converts it into a numbered account to act as surety for it’s portion of the public debt owed to the banking cartels under the Constitution. The United States now holds the pledge of the minor child’s future labor deposited “voluntarily” by the child’s mother as the foundation for all the future securities it will attempt to issue in your name.

The HBR is then placed into a vault at City Hall or the County Seat or a subsidiary such as Vital Records. Those who are skeptical might wish to examine their own birth certificates alongside a stock or bond certificate and read the definition of securities in Section 78c of Title 15 of United States Code (subparagraph (a)(10)). The internet provides immediate access.

VI
LEGALIZATION OF YOUR PUBLIC ESTATE

mind controlYour estate here on earth consists of your inheritance from the Creator: your body, the air you breath, your possessions, the fruits of your labor. However, as with your name, churches, money, law and courts of record, U.S. Inc. intends to create a fictional mirror-image counterpart of your estate in the public venue. This process is known as “legalization.”

Depositing your presumed security future pledge into a public account for the creation of securities “legalizes” your labor into a public estate (“Estate”), a vast account which holds the pledge of your future labor (an IOU) to act as surety for your portion of the public debt.

Every time your straw man is “charged,” the government is seeking to tap into your Estate to pay the assessment. Your Estate is merely a trust which has been designated as insurance to underwrite the public debt and create profits and proceeds for public officials who seek to convert you from a member of the posterity they are sworn to serve into a subject that exists to provide them with commercial energy and position.

VII
CERTIFICATION

baby moneyThe Registrar certifies the deposit of the pledge by issuing a Certificate of Live Birth or Certificate of Birth (so-called long form) which identifies the child, the parents, the date of birth and the date of certification. This one act legalizes the pledge by converting the presumption of pledged labor into a security. Section 8-102(a)(4) of the Uniform Commercial Code defines a “Certificated Security” as “a security that is represented by a certificate.” By issuing the Certificate, the Registrar is confessing
that the hospital birth record is a certificated security, and the County is the depository institution which has taken title to the “funds.”

Certification is the same process used by banks to launder your credit application into an “asset”to be sold to investors. The BOA flowchart in Appendix B provides a graphic confession of thecertification scam. Notice that the BA Master Credit Card Trust II is the certificating subsidiary that certificates your credit card application. What is a credit card application? A pledge. It’s your pledge (security future) to pay the line-of credit that the bank “creates” when they approve your credit card application.

Regarding general deposit and certification, the County and Bank of America are birds of a feather. Both seek to interpret your signature as a pledge of future performance, a security future. The act of certificating the hospital birth record legalizes the infant’s pledge as a security future “asset” for posting as tangible funds in various public accounts as you will see. This is the scheme by which the obligation to perform is transferred from public officials who are sworn to act as
trustees of the public trust, to the hapless “legal” Citizen “strawman” created (as you will see later) to act as a substitute trustee through the process of “legalizing” the infant’s pledge into the public venue.

VIII
REDEPOSIT

unconstitutional law must goThe Secretary of the Treasury is notified of the pledge presumably by the transmission of a certified copy of the pledge certificate or electronic record of the County deposit, thereby beginning the Uniform Securitization Scam (create an account, make a general deposit, certificate the “asset,” issue derivative securities as if they’re tax exempt original issues) once again.

The Secretary’ delegates open an account identified by the previously assigned birth certificate number for the sole purpose of leveraging (issuing) securities against your Estate. The infant’s pledge represented by the Certificate of Live Birth is deposited, again generally, providing the “funds” against which future securities will be issued.

THIS IS HOW THE CORPORATION TAPS INTO THE ESTATE TO UNDERWRITE EVERY SECURITY THAT IT ISSUES, every indictment, citation, bill, bond, charging instrument, complaint, summons, arrest warrant, promissory note, assessment and mortgage.

THIS IS WHY THE GURUS HAVE TOLD YOU EVERYTHING IS PREPAID. Under the
UCC, the term “for value” is defined as a pre-paid account. The birth account at Treasury is the prepaid account against which all such assessments, and your setoffs and acceptances “for value” will be drawn. The pre-payment is the long form Certificate of Live Birth representing the security future pledge of future labor.

This is the account that supplies the funds when you mark a bill “charge the same toJOHN HENRY DOE 123-45-6789.”

This is the elusive “Treasury account” prosecutors love to ridicule when prosecuting a patriot. For many patriots, this may be the first time you have understood what you’ve been writing in your acceptances. Without this understanding, how could you possibly hope to enforce them? The potential damage to themselves and the technology when thousands of people issue acceptances without adequate understanding of the processes and cheer each other on in internet groups is self-evident.

IX
CREATION OF A TRUST

When property is transferred, a trust relationship is created. The recipient has an obligation to perform in some fashion such as processing an instrument, protecting the property or delivering a bill. The recipient is therefore a trustee. Section 401 of the Uniform Trust Code confirms that a trust is created upon transfer of property.
SECTION 401. METHODS OF CREATING TRUST.

A trust may be created by:

(1) transfer of property to another person as trustee…

As with any conveyance of property, the deposit of the pledge creates a trust in which the recipient has a trustee obligation to process the instrument. This is the so-called Birth Certificate
trust. It is not the result of some bureaucrat recording a trust, but the natural consequence of a transfer. The birth trust is identified by the original birth number assigned by the County registrar. As you will see, this number represents a variety of accounts, trusts, securities and certificates all derived from the original pledge.

X
RE-ISSUE OF SECONDARY SECURITIES; THE BIRTH BOND

The first security issued from the Treasury account is the birth bond which the United States uses to underwrite its currency. Like the pledge, the birth bond is a certificated book-entry security future, a bet against your future performance, which is re-presented (noticed) into the public by a certificate: the short form Birth Certificate. Like any bond, the birth bond is nothing more than evidence of debt; evidence that the Estate (your labor) is the surety for the infant’s portion of the public debt.

As you may suspect, the purpose of the birth bond is to leverage more securities using the USS template described in this article. The profiteering begins when the birth bond is traded dollar for dollar for money issued by the Federal Reserve, permitting Treasury to place the money into circulation under the premise that it is backed by the people’s “full faith and credit.” The bond is transmitted by the Fed to The Depository Trust Company where it is placed into “safe keeping” for the purpose of re-issuing a vast array of derivative securities, each one written against the pledge and designed to elicit your consent for profiteering.

XI
REGISTRATION

hillary-clintonOne of the most seemingly benign cogs in the Uniform Securitization Scam, registration, is the process by which a creditor registers a security interest against the owner. Registration is a pernicious method used to take control of “legalized” property by a genuine or presumed secured party under protection of the “legal” franchise and it’s incorporated judiciary. Here are some excerpts from the twelve paragraph operational arrangements published by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) to govern DTC Direct and Indirect Participants:

“The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, NY, will act as securities depository for the securities (the “Securities”). The Securities will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC’s partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC.”

“Purchases of Securities under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Securities on DTC’s records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Security (“Beneficial Owner”) is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants’ records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase.”

There it is in black and white. The birth bond is “registered” to the benefit of DTC. DTC will not even mention the “Beneficial Owner”—the beneficiary—in its records. By combining the terms “beneficiary” (the sole party with the right to enjoy the fruits of the security) with “owner” (the party that’s liable for all of the debts and injuries caused by the security), you have been reduced to the lowest common denominator: an owner. Forget the adjective “Beneficial,” you don’t matter at all. Your only right is to order the sale of the security to the next hapless owner. If this is hard to accept, ask yourself who suffers when the value of a stock certificate registered to DTC suddenly falls. The owner. Who pays the margin? The owner. Who sells at a loss? The owner. Who makes a profit on the sale by having locked in its position as holder of the security?

The Depository Trust Company.

Conversely, as stated by DTC, the Direct Participant (the financial institution that made the deposit, in this case, the Fed) will be credited with the value of the security. This means that DTC will post the birth bond on its books as a credit to the Direct Participant, not you, allowing the Direct Participant to enjoy the increase in net worth, to borrow against the value, to post between 3 and 10 percent of the bond’s value to the Direct Participant’s reserves thereby allowing the Direct Participant to lend out at least nine times the value of the securities using YOUR pledge as the source of credit.

So while your Estate pays all of the bills assessed against the straw man, the Fed enjoys the value of your pledge. IT IS THROUGH THE BOOK-ENTRIES DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE, IN PARTICULAR THE POSTING OF VALUE IN THE RESERVE ACCOUNTS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, THAT THE PUBLIC TAPS INTO YOUR ESTATE WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. In other words, if a Court wishes to assess your Estate, it deposits the indictment security into an account opened in the name of your straw man, and charges the Estate by issuing an arrest warrant security to bring you in for the purpose of consenting to the assessment.

Meanwhile, it is trading against the reserve posting by issuing and trading a Case bond issued from the same account.

XII
RE-ISSUE OF SECONDARY SECURITIES; THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOND

The next security issued by Treasury against the pledge is the master Social Security bond. The purpose of the bond is to create a trust (upon redeposit) which will be used as a vessel to transmit public debt, entice the Estate to act publicly as surety for your portion of the public debt, and transmit funds to the English Crown trust.

XIII
OPENING AN ACCOUNT; SOCIAL SECURITY

Following the Uniform Securitization Scam blueprint, Treasury authorizes the opening of an account to receive the Social Security bond for the customary purpose of leveraging securities.

XIV
REDUCING STATUS TO A NUMBER; SSN

Unlike the birth account maintained by the County and the Secretary of the Treasury, the SS account is assigned a new name and number: JOHN HENRY DOE, SSN 123-45-6789 for the purpose of identifying various derivative bonds to be issued from the account against your Estate (your pledge).

XV
RECORDING A GENERAL DEPOSIT; RELINQUISHING TITLE TO THE SS BOND

As previously described regarding the birth bond, the master Social Security bond is deposited generally into the SS account.

XVI
CREATING A TRUST; SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST

As with any transfer of property, the deposit of the SS bond creates a trust relationship. Over the years, the SS trust, JOHN HENRY SMITH ID # 123-45-6789, has become notorious. But the purpose of the trust is worth repeating: The SS trust will be used as a vessel to transmit public debt, entice the Estate to act publicly as
surety for your portion of the public debt, and transmit funds to the English Crown trust.

The SS trust is a manifestation of debt. It is debt, and nothing more. Internalizing that understanding is helpful to returning control from public officials to the rightful beneficiary that issued the pledge. The trust directives (the terms of the trust) are all the rules and regulations compiled in United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. And guess who is obligated to obey them?…

XVII
PRESUMPTIONS

kidsThe Social Security trust is the vehicle used by public officials to plunder the Estate. Upon deposit of the Social Security bond, the Department of the Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service is the trustee of record. But the government bank would rather be the beneficiary. In order to presume that the United States is the beneficiary, Treasury presumes that the straw man account is also a trustee of the SS trust with the obligation to perform all of the trustee’s duties under the public trust. After you accept offers to operate as the trustee on three occasions, the presumption is fulfilled. From then on, the straw man will be treated as a vehicle for transmitting public debt assessments to the Estate by “charging” the straw man for the liability

The stranglehold of the Uniform Securitization Scheme on our lives is BROKEN when we reverse the process and use the SS trust to transmit funds from the Estate to the assessing party upon our express authorization. The name of this process is “setoff.”
__________________
THE UNIFORM IN UNIFORM

dad-slavery-2Every public transaction mimics the Uniform Securitization Scam. During the $700B bailout of 2008, Treasury issued $700B in bonds, the Fed issued $700B of U.S. money, the bonds were exchanged for the funds and then deposited with DTC following the USS model.

When a prosecutor lodges an indictment with a Court, the Court opens an account, the indictment or information is deposited generally, and an arrest warrant is issued against the indictment which is presumed to be backed by the pledge as manifested in the Estate.

When an attorney lodges a complaint with a Court, the Court opens an account, the complaint is deposited generally, and a summons is issued against the indictment which is presumed to be backed by the pledge as manifested in the Estate.

When you make a withdrawal from at a bank, the bank endorses your draft “PAY TO THE ORDER OF” thereby creating a new security which it posts in its books and exchanges for Federal Reserve Notes, securities of equivalent value.

When you issue a mortgage (promissory) note, the bank opens an account, deposits the note generally thereby taking title to the funds, posts it as an asset and offsetting liability at the full value of the note to the bank (which includes the value of all future interest), and issues a bank check to the seller in the lower face value of the note (uneven exchange), thereby leaving a balance owed to the maker which usually goes unclaimed. the purchase of groceries is also a well-disguised exchange of securities, Federal Reserve Notes, a bank draft or a credit card invoice (security futures) for a cash receipt. In the present economic system of credit swaps, the theft of the groceries without providing equal value is ignored. “It’s the securities, stupid.”

All of these transactions are examples of how the USS manifests in our lives.

CHARGING

To “charge” is to draw funds. How does the public levy the Estate to pay an assessment? The answer is right in front of our face. They charge the strawman account 123-45-6789. Might we follow the same approach if we intend to draw the funds for an acceptance from the Estate?: CHARGE THE SAME TO John Henry Smith ID # 123-45-654321 (birth name and # as they appear on the long form Certif. of Birth) or CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789 (the SS trust as used by the public customarily to transmit debt to the Estate) The latter form more closely mimics the customary business practices of public institutions.

Notice, a patriot favorite, the “exemption number:” 123456789, is not mentioned. It is strongly suggested that the reader does NOT consider this an invitation to start issuing acceptances. The contents of this article is merely scratching the surface regarding such transactions.

EXEMPTION NUMBER
When the redemption movement began in the last millennium, our knowledge was considerably less. While we believed that a private account must appear on the books to receive the funds and property that had been confiscated in 1933, the identity of that account was elusive. The exemption number was a convention to represent that account in our paperwork. We now understand that the birth number is universally applied to all accounts, trusts, securities and certificates associated with the infant’s pledge of our one true commodity, our future labor.

So it appears that the value of the Exemption ID Number has lapsed.

CREDITING

Regarding our setoffs, to “credit” is to apply the funds where desired. If we wish to credit the straw man, we might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789

If we wish to credit a vendor’s account, we might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO ACCOUNT # 123456

We might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789 FOR FURTHER CREDIT TO ACCOUNT # 123456

Or we might say none of that.

CHARGING AND CREDITING

To specify an entire transaction, we might say:
CHARGE THE SAME TO John Henry Smith ID # 123-45-654321
CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789
CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789”
CREDIT THE SAME TO ACCOUNT # 123456

A creditor might also choose to use none of those statements and simply rely upon our acceptance in the manner of a standard banker’s acceptance. It all depends on the circumstances and one’s understanding of the accounting.

AGAIN, READERS ARE CAUTIONED AGAINST UNDERTAKING BRAIN SURGERY WITHOUT A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF PROCESS, ENFORCEMENT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. DO YOU REALLY WISH TO BECOME ANOTHER STATISTIC WHO LOST THE FAMILY HOME, HAD HER WAGES GARNISHED, OR WOUND UP IN FEDERAL PRISON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS?

Now you can see the tyranny that all men are under.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:10

But enduring it is not enough.

overthrow

The Power to Tax

Ronald Henry wrote an article that needs to be heartily considered. I urge all people interested in this topic to read it. The link is below.

Ronald Henry Article

I have seen some parents who refuse to pay child support even though they have plenty of money to do so . . . However, I have seen far more parents who are ordered to pay child support who pay some support but not all they are ordered to pay. Many of these parents are engaged in a financial struggle that they cannot win. These are the working poor.” (Hon. Anne Kass, Presiding Family Judge, Albuquerque, New Mexico, District Court)

Amendment Creates an American Criminal Subclass

burning the constitutionThe 1986 federal Bradley Amendment seems innocent and helpful to Americans on the surface. The federal law is purported to collect child support that could normally never be collected, with the idea of decreasing poverty in America. It was hatched from the national hysteria whipped up in the 1980s, derived from the legendary and abusive behavior of “deadbeat dads” as well as the intense need for welfare reform.

A Short History Lesson
Government administrators decided that instituting the Amendment was not enough because enforcement measures were not in place at the inception of the Amendment. In 1993, as part of an ambitious and aggressive initiative by the Massachusetts State Administration to improve child support enforcement in advance of welfare reform, the first financial institution data match was made. It began as a pilot program and after the program implementation was mastered, was unleashed on the country as a whole in 1994 by the Clinton Administration. The illegal enforcement of the Amendment proceeded with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The program involves the extraction of financial institution data as a requirement for banking in all states as the determining method to execute the garnishment of money for enforcement on a national level. A data match identifies account holders with child support debts by social security number and allows the child support agency to issue a levy to the financial institution, with notice to the account holder. The financial institution freezes the funds in the account up to the amount of the child support debt and forwards the funds to the child support agency for distribution to the “family”.

The Government Invasion
This provision has been extended to the paycheck of every American in the system as well and through the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Bradley Amendment enacted by Congress in 1986, a child support obligation becomes a judgment by operation of law as of the date that that it is due and unpaid. In addition, under Section 368 of PRWORA (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(4)), an administrative lien also arises by operation of law against any unpaid child support on an ongoing basis. Because of this, it not necessary to return to court after each payment is missed to get past-due support reduced to a judgment in order to obtain a lien or enforce a judgment. The funds and assets of all non-custodial parents are spotted and can be quickly seized without passing through a hearing process of any kind. The information is assumed to be correct and is updated once yearly according to government sources based on information that is available through the system. What is broken is never fixed or changed.

The Resulting Civil Rights Carnage
Naturally, this puts the burden of proof upon the non-custodial parent as a guilty criminal for all time. There is no concept of innocence, nor can there be. The presumption is that an order exists and that the order will be collected by any means necessary on a federal level. The law does not allow for adjustment in court or by any means. The debt can never be cancelled. Even after the demise of the parties involved, the debt exists in perpetuity. Information that is incorrect cannot be corrected without the expense of hiring an attorney and making the correction. A correction can never be made after the fact and no credit can ever be issued. If an attorney cannot be hired, no change can be made. The Bradley Amendment sets the information in place to be correct for all time without the possibility or option of revision on any level.

Government Recklessness and Abuse
Congress, the DHHS, the OCSE, nor any government body has ever commissioned or performed any study on the target: the non-custodial parent. The government has simply imagined reasons for the measures that have been exacted. Six billion federal dollars a year, plus billions more by the states, are spent on a legal target with no research at all. The Federal Government is spending billions of dollars each year on something they know little about and based many assumptions by polling custodial parents. This reinforces the approach that the inability to pay is no excuse. Needless to say, there are endless stories of men who are now crushed by a debt that they will never be able to pay for all kinds of valid reasons. The program moves endlessly forward with heartless efficiency, crushing all in its hold. This oppression is a violation of due process and is both cruel and unusual because the program removes the use of human discretion and compassion from dealing with individual cases in the present or in the future.

A common “solution” for non-payment of child support is jail. In 1798, John Adams signed into law the elimination of debtor’s prison. Sending “bad men” to jail for child support without paying money and creating state and federal expense is why some proponents want failure to pay child support added to criminal law, even though it is clearly a civil matter. This is national hysteria, an abuse and waste of millions in tax dollars with no benefit to anyone. It is vindictive blood-lust and wanton misuse of power.

State child support agencies act in behalf of private citizens as financial intermediaries. However, these agencies are not subjected to the same accounting as banks. Financial accuracy remains unchecked and the errors are legion. Recent studies have proven that more than $500 million in funds have been held in public coffers without distribution. That is 4% of funds collected by the year 2000. If a financial institution had made a 4% error, the government would have closed them down. Furthermore, the whole program was designed from the outset to reduce the cost of welfare. This has not happened as the cost of welfare spirals upward without reform, cost-containment or reduction in sight.

Non-custodial parents are monitored and regulated as though they are criminals. The Bradley Amendment mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see the children, loses a job or suffers a pay cut. The Amendment has resulted in unintended consequences that have never been corrected, gross injustices that are never dealt with and massive costs, especially to non-custodial parents that are already under the financial gun. Poverty has not been eliminated or the poor truly assisted in a substantial way. The evidence shows that the Bradley Amendment has had the opposite effect. The spiraling costs within government supply no gain and only enhance bureaucracy. The Bradley Amendment must be repealed because it violates the rights of millions of American citizens at huge expense to the government, under the pretense of abolishing poverty and collecting child support for the nation.

Judges Twist the Law

Child Support Guidelines – Support or Extortion?

Most judges are breaking the law as they please on child support by denying due process, imputing income only to men, forcing you into jobs they don’t want or can’t afford and many other violations of constitutional rights. This is intimidation to force you to effectively become a slave to the state and your ex-wife. All this is hidden under the claim this is in the “best interest of the children”. Who could argue with what’s best for the children is maximum access to both parents? Most fathers want to support their children in ways other than financially by having them in their home. Child support is effectively a blackmail or extortion system whereby the state takes you children unconstitutionally, and then uses that excuse to charge you extortion fees weekly for the privilege of NOT having your children! You will find here many pages of true stories and reference material.

This page has a listing on the issue of child support. Although much is Massachusetts specific, this is the worst state in the nation according to many and the bulk of the information outside of actual child support calculation figures is likely to apply.

Child Support Enforcement is WELFARE. It is paid for exclusively out of the Title IV-D of Title 42 USC 655 & 42 USC 658.

Census 2004

Child-Support Payments now 4.6 million – Number of fathers who provide child support. All in all, 84 percent of child-support providers are men, who provide median payments of $3,600 annually.

Income and Wealth Statistics

Tag Cloud