Do you know who owns your child?

This might seem like a strange question to most… but the answer is even stranger and more terrifying to comprehend.

When a question like this is posed, we the people often look to our legislature and our constitution for the answers, as esoteric and interpretable as those answers may be. But without the rose-colored glasses, we can actually read with our own eyes what the answer to this question is from the eyes and opinion of our government.

Before you can truly attain the answer to this question though, and comprehend how it applies to you and your children, you must first temporarily suspend your emotion, your idealism, and your beliefs. For when we refer to law, these things do not apply. And when it is a corporation that writes these laws, morals, ethics, and values go out the window.

Anger though, for the purpose of the information you are about to receive, is permitted and requested…

≈

First of all, let’s clarify that what we are about to see is the opinion of the court system. Courts do not offer “judgment”, only “opinion”. The justices (not judges) of the “Supreme Court” as well offer nothing but opinion, which then becomes what the BAR association considers to be “Public Policy” or public opinion. The BAR copyrights these opinions then misleadingly calls it the “law”.

The side effect of being a consenting citizen of the United States (corporation) is that these copyrighted codes are applied to you with what the U.S.CODE itself calls Prima Facie law (law which derives its authority from presumed consent). Therefore, all branches of government technically operate under presumed law, meaning that the consent of the governed is automatically assumed in all legal matters and decisions based on court opinion.

This, unfortunately, applies to all contracts made with or on behalf of the state…

And one of those contracts is called a “Marriage License“.

Yours and your spouses signature on that state-sanctioned and federally registered document signifies a consent-based contract between all three parties – you, your spouse, and the “State“.

But don’t take my word for it… Let’s see what the court system offers in their opinion about this subject?

First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:

Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:

“Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“

Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

Continued…

“…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State“

Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).

“The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.“

Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).

Continued…

“This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family.   The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.   Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.“

Also, this case law states…

“The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.”

Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.

(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1486817.html)

≈

Well now… the courts sure do seem to offer the opinion that your child is owned by the state!

But heck, what should we the people (not People) expect?

When such authority and jurisdiction is just arbitrarily handed over to a bunch of attorneys running around in black moo-moos with little wooden hammers yelling that they rule supreme in their houses of judicial worship simply because the state allows them to presume such authority and jurisdiction… I suppose those people who consent to this charade get just what they deserve – slavery through a bondage contract.

But then, when the President of the country is also a lawyer, along with his wife, and for that mater more than half of all U.S. Presidents, 56/100 Senators, over 35% of Congressmen, both “speakers” of the house, and most of the State Governors in office today are all BAR attorneys/lawyers, I suppose we shouldn’t be at all surprised that the opinion of the BAR Association is the law of the land…

Of course, the above opinion is not just some isolated case. This opinion is quite general in its purview, and quite common in its legal application. In fact, it is the very basis of the criminal racket we call the dreaded “Child Protective Services (CPS)”, which claims its overarching authority from the Federal “Health And Human Services (HHS)” as it legally kidnaps your children.

So where else can we find such blatant power abused so absolutely?

How about in the case of MEADOWS v. MEADOWS, (Aug 2008), in the “Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama”?

“The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”

Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

“There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.“

Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).

“The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.“

Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)․

“…we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.“

Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.

“In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.“

Ziegler v. Ziegler, 107 Idaho 527, 691 P.2d 773 (Idaho App.1985) (citing Carlson v. Carlson, 8 Kan.App.2d 564, 661 P.2d 833 (1983)).

**Note: The word “interest”, when it is used by the courts on behalf of “the state”, should be considered here to be defined in layman’s terms as the monetary interest in what the State considers one of its trade-able commodities. For to a for-profit government, people are considered legal “persons”, and their value is not in flesh and blood, but in labor and tax. Persons are the original form of legal tender. -Clint-

Continued…

“Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”

Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).

“Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ”

Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).

“In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “

Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’).

(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/al-court-of-civil-appeals/1325717.html)

≈

Wait a minute, you say. This doesn’t sound very “constitutional” to me…

Oh, you mean that mythical and more importantly interpretable (in court opinion) document that you believe gives you rights? Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids.

In reality, everything that happens is in fact “constitutional” as long as the court (an attorney in a black moo-moo) says it is “constitutional” from within its (his/her) opinion.

In the end, you have only one right. And that right is the right of non-consent. (Consent is the most important legal term that you can possibly ever comprehend.)

But don’t take my word for it… here are a few more instances of “case law” which let you know that the constitution simply does not apply to you in the corporate world of commercial (copyrighted) code…

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.“

Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

**Note: Remember, the word “person” refers to your veil of artificial person-hood; your STRAWMAN if you will. The court will never refer to you in the sense that you are a living, breathing, sentient being with god-given rights that cannot be taken away, but instead relies on your presumed consent as the physical representation of your fiction, your corporate self. “Person” is defined in U.S. CODE as an “individual, association, corporation, group…” etc. It is not defined as “people” unless those people are a group of “persons”, in which case, as in the constitution, the word “people” is capitalized (i.e. We, the People – referring to the men who signed the constitution, and whom were the only men for which that constitution held under “contract” with any authority. The constitution has no authority accept that for which the court passes judgment (opinion) upon. -Clint-

“The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act… It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.“

The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: “U.S. v Cruikshank”