Knowledge is power!

Study Material collected and composed by Your R.I.C

This material has been collected and composed for educational purposes only. This information
does have a copyright by another Author so please do not use this information for a commercial
purpose.

1
 Who is running America?

Have you ever asked yourself the question? You know the question, just as I did.
Who is running America? The answer is out there, it will find you if you want it to!

Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, “Government as Parent”, as a result of the manipulated
bankruptcy of the United States of America in 1929, all the assets of the American people, their
person, and of our country itself is held by the Depository Trust Corporation at 55 Water Street,
NY, NY, secured by UCC Commercial Liens, which are then monetized as “debt money” by the
Federal Reserve. It may interest you to know that under the umbrella of the Depository Trust
Corporation lies the CEDE Corporation, the Federal Reserve Corporation, the American Bar
Association, the legal arm of the banking interests, and the Internal Revenue Service, the
system’s collection agency.

Now that you know who is running America, you might want to take exception to the name on
the marquee at the entrance to 55 Water Street. You can clearly see they are referring to
“Tower of Power”.

Another thing to think about – who owns the media and the news you are fed?

2
 A Free and Independent Press?
Yeah, right…

The New York Times owns the Boston Globe. Look at who owns both:

Cede & Co., c/o The Depository Trust Co. (the Federal Reserve)
United States Trust Company of New York
Wells Fargo Institutional Trust Company
Bank of New York
Bank one Ohio Trust Company
Bankers Trust Company
Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.
The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Mellon Bank, N.A.
Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.
Northern Trust Co.
Smith Barney, Inc.

“What do you think the chances are that you’re ever going to hear a single story that the Federal
Reserve Banking Cartel doesn’t approve?

“The bureaucratic objective is this: If you cannot suppress the news or control it, then for
heaven’s sake convert it into a meaningless mass of gobbledegook.” (Roger Tarterian, Editor,
United Press International, March, 8, 1967)

“You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, an American journalist, but seeing what the man
will do, un-bribed, there’s no occasion to.” (Humbert Wolfe)

“This is, in theory still a free country, but our politically correct, censorious times are such that
many of us tremble to give vent to perfectly acceptable views for fear of condemnation.
Freedom of speech is thereby imperiled, big questions go un-debated, and great lies become
accepted, unequivocally, as great truths.” (Simon Heffer, Daily Mail, June 7th, 2000)

3
 Parens Patriae, “Government as Parent.”

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another.”

Those were the words that started a Revolution propelling several English colonies into the
nation known as “The United States of America.”

This new nation was designed to function under the laws of Nature and Nature’s God. The
people believed they would never again hear the words of enslavement, i.e.; “under the
sovereignty of the King.” Living under the sovereignty of the King made you the King’s
chattel. He owned you. You were his property. You could own nothing, not even your
children. The King ruled by divine right.

The people of this new nation designed the Constitution to be a government “Of the People,
By the People, For the People.” Representatives of this government were to be elected by the
people, not born to power. And so, in 1776 the great experiment in freedom, known as “The
United States of America” began.

People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony to become a Sovereign
Nation State. These States then created a new state, designed to exclusively serve the several
Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept the nation of States united was born. Every
Sovereign Nation State joining the Union had a Constitution. The newly created State of the
Union received one as well. It was written by delegates of the people of the several states and
when ratified by two-thirds of the people’s conventions of the Thirteen Independent and
Sovereign States, “then”, was ordained and established as “The Constitution for the United
States of America.” This new Union of States was comprised only of those States which had
ratified the Constitution. (North Carolina did not join the Union until 11 months after the United
States was established, and Rhode Island held out for nearly a year and a half, and continued
to operate under the King’s Charter until 1842.)

The government of the United States was “delegated” only 20 grants of power [See Constitution
Article 1, Sec 8] and ten things were carefully enumerated which the government may not do,
[See Constitution Article 1, Sec 9], and 10further restrictions were added in the first 10
amendments [See “Bill of Rights”] to the Constitution by the several states. The people never
intended that government of the United States should over step its delegated authorities.

Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink was dry on the contract written
between the people and their new government, “The Constitution.” There is some question as
to exactly where and when the new Nation faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary
Act. Others say it was after the Civil War. Still others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or perhaps in

4
1933. History tells us the Supreme Court of the United States Government claims it was when
the Union itself was formed.

In the cases of New Hampshire vs. Louisiana and New York vs. Louisiana among others, it
states that: “all the rights of the States as independent nations were surrendered to the
United States. The States are not nations, either as between themselves or towards
foreign nations. They are sovereign within their spheres, but their sovereignty stops
short of nationality. Their political status at home and abroad is that of States in the
United States. They can neither make war nor peace without the consent of the national
government. Neither can they, except with like consent, “enter into any agreement or
compact with another State.” “The relation of one of the United States to its Citizens is not
that of an independent Sovereign State to its Citizens. A Sovereign State seeking redress of
another Sovereign State on behalf of its Citizens can resort to war on refusal, which a State
cannot do. The state, having been a Sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of
marquee and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a belligerent way, resigned these powers into the
control of the United States, to be held in trust.”

In United States vs. Chamberlin, the Supreme Court of the United States Decided, to wit:

“It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named
therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for
example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they
may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of
any particular act, though not named. The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is
equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different States,
and in practically all the federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal
prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of Parens Patriae, or universal trustee,
enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution.”

Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral obligation on the part
of the parents to care for and educate their children in their existing social values and morals.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard – Towner Maternity Act was passed creating birth “registration” or
what we now know as the “birth certificate.” It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to
the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health
of mothers and infants, and for other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for the
establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing
of its operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the first attempt of “government by
appointment,” or cooperation of state governments to aid the federal government in usurping the
legislative process of the several states as exists today through the federal grant in aid to the
states programs.

5
Prior to 1921 the records of birth and names of children were entered into family bibles, as were
the records of marriages and deaths. These records were readily accepted by both the family
and the law as “official” records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the
births and names of their children with the government of the state in which they are born, even
though there is no federal law requiring it. The state claims an interest in every child within its
jurisdiction, telling the parents that registering their child’s birth through the birth certificate
serves as proof that he/she was born within territories of the United States, thereby making
him/her a United States citizen.

In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the administration of the act.
(Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Frothingham vs.
Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury et.al..). The plaintiff, Mrs. Frothingham, averred that the act
was unconstitutional, and that it’s purpose was to induce the States to yield sovereign rights
reserved by them and not granted the federal government, under the Constitution, and that the
burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the several States. The complaint stated the
naked contention that Congress has usurped reserved powers of the States by the mere
enactment of the statute, though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it without their
consent. Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. To wit:

“The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers
which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize
appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.

Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of
regulations which may be imposed under the act. The forced registration of pregnancy,
governmental prenatal examination of expectant mothers, restrictions on the right of a woman to
secure the services of a midwife or physician of her own selection, are measures to which the
people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which
prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. Insurance of mothers may be
made compulsory. The teaching of birth control and physical inspection of persons about to
marry may be required.

The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of
the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and
for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the
plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters are the
Bureau and the Board. The fact that it was considered necessary in explicit terms to preserve
from invasion by federal officials; the right of the parent to the custody and care of his child and
the sanctity of his home, shows how far reaching are the powers which were intended to be
granted by the act.”

6
It was further stated in the complaint that “The act is invalid because it assumes powers not
granted to Congress and usurps the local police power.” In more recent cases, however, the
Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to
be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved
powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly
within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to
be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power.

It went on to state:

“The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with
respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state
legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. The act is
invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers
reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act.”

“A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a

constitutional right, is null and void.”

“The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the
Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution.”

“Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to
make laws for the United States.”

In 1933, bankruptcy was “covertly” declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the
then 48 States pledged the “full faith and credit” of their states, including the citizenry, as
collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve System. The “Full faith and credit clause”
of the United States Constitution [Article 4. Section 1] requires that foreign judgment be given
such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of its origin. That foreign statutes are to
have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgment or record
shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has
by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.

Today the federal government “mandates, orders and compels” the states to enforce federal
jurisdiction upon its citizens/subjects. This author believes the Federal Government draws its de
facto jurisdiction for these actions from the “Doctrine of Parens Patriae.” Parens Patriae
means literally, “Parent of the country.” It refers traditionally to the role of STATE as
sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. Parens Patriae originates from the
English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with
legal disabilities such as infants.

7
With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the doctrine of Parens
Patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them
into debt into perpetuity. Under this doctrine, if one is born with a disability, the State, (the
sovereign) has the responsibility to take care of you. This author believes that the disability you
are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are born, you are born free, a
“citizen of the soil,” an American National. Parents, without full disclosure under law, make
application for a “birth certificate,” thereby making the child a citizen of the corporate
government known as the United States. The Government then turns the new citizen into a
corporation, a legal fiction, under the laws of the State. The birth information is collected by the
state and is then turned over to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Corporation is then
placed into a “trust”, known as a “Cestui Que Trust”. A cestui que trust is defined as: “He
who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is
vested in another; the beneficiary of another.” Cestui que use is: “He for whose use and
benefit lands or tenements are held by another. The cestui que user has the right to receive the
profits and benefits of the estate, but the legal title and possession, as well the duty of defending
the same, reside in the other.”

The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his ownb
trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government.
The government then places the Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the
“guardians.” The child may reside in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time as
the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state then goes into the
home and removes the “trust” from the guardians. At majority, the parents lose their
guardianship.

The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly
trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. The child itself is
the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate. “Title” to your child is now owned by the
state. The State now directs the trust corpus and provides “benefits” for the beneficiary – the
corpus and beneficiary being one and the same – the citizen – first as child, then as adult.

The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the process
known as “Novation.” Novation is defined as “the substitution of a new contract between
same or different parties; the substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one;
the substitution of one debtor for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old
debt is extinguished.” This author believes the debt of an individual is extinguished at his
death, and the same debt is then transferred to a new individual when he/she is born through
the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the hands of
the trust.

Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the bankrupt United States
which acts as the “Debtor in Possession.” We are now designated by this government as

8
“HUMAN RESOURCES,” with new such resources being added (born) continually. The
bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged. The Human Resources service the
debt, which continues to grow with time.

The Federal Government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal Parens Patriae authority
to the State Attorney Generals. The Attorney Generals can now enforce all legislation involving
your personal life, the lives of your children, and your material assets.

In today’s society the Government, through the doctrine of Parens Patriae, has already
instituted its control of our children through the legislative process. Medical treatments are
enforced through the court with threats of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged.
Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your child under the guise of
“child neglect” (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If you spank your child or cause him/her
any embarrassment or indignities, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under
the guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus).

Some States have legislation either pending or passed to give social workers arrest authority.
School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless
searches of your home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child.

The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on March 15, 1996 that limits on the ability of
divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involved were clarified by the Florida
Supreme Court. The high court three years ago approved a policy favoring relocation requests
of custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good faith for the well being of parents
and children. Also, the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made “from a vindictive
desire to interfere with the visitation rights of the other parent.” The right of locomotion is
held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon the right of locomotion was a well-known
feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right to
appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion.
The control by government courts (supra) of an individual’s freedom of locomotion could be
construed as a sign of ownership of the individual, or slavery.

It has been reported that in California, early in the year 1996, an assembly woman, in regard to
education policy, made the statement “the children belong to the STATE.”

Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. Federal Parens Patriae
legislation can be found in Title 15 of the United States Code:

Title 15, Section 15h. Applicability of Parens Patriae actions:

STATUTE – Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless
such State provides by law for its non-applicability in such State.

9
The primary responsibility of a State is to protect its citizens from the tyranny of the Federal
Government. The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under
the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution for any State legislation that brings them an
injury by depriving them of a civil right. A State may sue the Federal Government for protection
for its citizens if Federal legislation violates the Constitution’s of the several States and brings
harm to its citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of
municipal law for the regulation of private rights. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly
secured by the fourteenth amendment, but they are secured by way of prohibition against State
laws and State proceedings affecting those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended
to provide against State laws, or State action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen
secured by the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rights
appertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That
would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and
man in society. It would be to make congress take the place of the State legislatures and to
supersede them.

However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that: A State may not, as Parens Patriae,
institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less citizens of the United
States), from the operation of a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them, it is
unconstitutional.

The Parens Patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time immemorial as
being under the rule of a tyrant.

Note: The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other
legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by
bureaucrats with re-delegated authority outside of Constitutional authority, with the ability to tax,
which is in itself unconstitutional and represents taxation without representation. This type of
government is in place today and is known as “Regionalism.” The Federal Government couldn’t
fool the people in 1921 into surrendering their sovereignty.

10