Home | News | Site Map | Search | Contact

Has Your Birth Certificate Been Sold? Well...


OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE FOUND MYSELF OBLIGED to produce debunkings of various bits of nonsense resident within the activist community. The need has been especially acute in regard to the so-called "tax honesty community", in which errant notions seem to have no difficulty finding a home, and from which I have therefore always held the CtC community to be separate.

I have never done any of these debunkings with any enthusiasm-- indeed, I always do them reluctantly. I take no pleasure in pointing out the flaws in anyone else's sincerely-presented work or conclusions, or sincerely-held beliefs; further the debunkings are inevitably met with acrimony.

Every errant notion has its defenders-- people who have either pride or expectations invested in them. Some are even defended by what seems to be policy, being false notions deliberately injected into the community as distractions and "defended" by a professional cadre of provocateurs.

Unfortunately, though, the nonsense does have ill effects. At a minimum, these errant notions slow the progress toward the truth of those who fall prey to them. Worse, in some cases these mistaken or misleading ideas steer people into doing themselves great harm. Consequently, debunking errors that acquire traction is sometimes necessary as a matter of social responsibility.

TODAY I FIND MYSELF FEELING OBLIGED to address a wildly-errant notion long-resident in the fringier parts of the tax-honesty community, and which could be said to be the binding idea informing a community all of its own. I will take a stab at labeling this notion as the UCC/Redemption/Worldwide-Ancient-Conspiracy (URW) argument.

As best can be told by years of periodic exposure to this general theory of reality, its basic ideas include, among much else, that every government is a corporation in the same sense that McDonalds is a corporation. Without explaining how things managed to stumble along prior, the theory posits that the United States itself became a corporation in 1871.

Further, this URW notion asserts that corporations can only interact with other corporations, and therefore all Americans are, by legal legerdemain, assumed to be corporations in all dealings with, or impositions by, the state. Another assertion swimming in these waters is that the US went bankrupt in 1933 and was rescued from this dilemma by the British, through a depraved agreement under which American governments committed  every subsequent newborn's future wealth production to Britain (or sometimes the Queen of England personally), secured by transfer of ownership of the "corporate baby's" birth certificate, in exchange for the bail-out.

There is much more to this URW absurdity; thousands of pages of complex gibberish have been written fleshing out the whole thing. And I expect to hear from its adherents about how I am misrepresenting, or failing to properly clarify the couple of portions I have described here.

Frankly, the whole package appears designed to discourage debunking by reliance on its sheer bulk and confusion as a defense. Talking about this at all generates a headache in any rational person, and though I have addressed it a bit in the past, mostly I have just thrown up my hands and moved on to more productive uses of my time.

But in just the last week, I have had two people I like and respect bring this subject up with me. Each has been approached by folks who have drunk this Kool-Aid and seek to entice my friends into the utter waste of time and energy involved in skimming even the periphery of this dark cloud of craziness.

Thus, while I will by no means offer a comprehensive analysis of the URW universe, I will address the couple of tenets I described above. This will suffice, for all it takes to show any sensible person that an offered meal is not wholesome is to point out one or two bits of dog-poo on the plate, or, to put it a bit more decorously, "garbage in, garbage out."

(In any event, the couple of things I'm going to cover will have to suffice, because even mentioning this craziness on these pages is embarrassing, and I'll spend no more pixels on it than the bare minimum necessary...)

SADLY, LIKE FAR TOO MANY FOLKS victimized by government "schooling" during their formative years (see the great video I came across this week on that subject posted below this article), those taken in by the URW scam have no knowledge of history. This weakness is exploited by the scam's purveyors.

For instance, as mentioned earlier, part of the URW storyline has the United States going "bankrupt" in 1933 and making a deal to pull its fat out of the fire with Great Britain. Under the terms of the (of course, somehow completely secret) deal Britain (or the Queen of England alone!) gained an ownership interest in the wealth production or tax liabilities of all future Americans (accomplished or memorialized by her purchase of their birth certificates, you see...).

However, the inconvenient fact is that Great Britain was in far worse financial shape than the United States in 1933, and had been since WWI. In fact, the supposed manifestation of the US "bankruptcy" was the abandonment of the gold standard, but this had happened in Great Britain two years earlier.

Just a few years after this alleged US bankruptcy and rescue by the Brits Great Britain was at our door, hat-in-hand, begging for aid, which we afforded it through FDR's "Lend-Lease" program. By the end of WWII, Britain was an economic basket case. The idea that Britain was in a position to rescue or buy-out the United States in the 1930s (or anytime) is ridiculous.

Further, the whole "bankruptcy" assertion is itself a product of naiveté. Called upon as "evidence" for this assertion are certain speeches in Congress made during this period.

Unrecognized or unacknowledged in regard to these citations is that these speeches were simply political rhetoric. These speeches were made in many cases by senators and representatives beholden to the affluent interests who held the vast majority of federal debt which was now to be re-paid in mere fiat currency rather than hard money. The speeches cast events and/or policies in a light, and with expressions, calculated to excite perspectives and opinions desired by those interests.

The policies railed against were dastardly, it can be argued, and unconstitutional, as well. But they were not a "bankruptcy". And that's a shame. An actual bankruptcy would have had the feds repudiate the debt outright, and that would probably have been a very good thing for both the short-term and long-term health of the USA (just as it would today).

HERE'S ANOTHER BIT OF DOG POO spoiling this dinner. As part of the "corporate governments can only deal with corporations" nonsense (and struggling to rationalize just how government DO manage to deal with all us flesh-and-blood people), there is a simply wrong doctrine flogged by this same crew about "Social security Trusts".

But there ARE no "Social security trusts", and no Social security number (or any other kind of number) is required for the tax to apply. See this, and read all the way to the end.

I'LL FINISH WITH ONE LAST CATEGORY of poo-- bogus authority citations. Someone purveying the URW crankery sent me the following (from, in this case, Minnesota's judicial rules, though the same basic material can be found in many places) as "evidence" supporting its assertions about the legal character and uses of birth certificates:

Rule 220. Birth Certificates

The Registrar of Titles is authorized to receive for registration of memorials upon any outstanding certificate of title an official birth certificate pertaining to a registered owner named in said certificate of title showing the date of birth of said registered owner, providing there is attached to said birth certificate an affidavit of an affiant who states that he/she is familiar with the facts recited, stating that the party named in said birth certificate is the same party as one of the owners named in said certificate of title; and that thereafter the Registrar of Titles shall treat said registered owner as having attained the age of the majority at a date 18 years after the date of birth shown by said certificate.

Bereft of context, this language would be provocative to anyone who hadn't already rejected the "birth certificate" proposition just based on its sheer lunacy alone. This is why this text is sent around by URW-promoters without acknowledgement of the fact that this rule appears as one of the miscellaneous provisions of the state's judicial rules for registration of land titles, some aspects of which require that a purported owner-disposer be an adult.

In short, what is being presented as "evidence" is only evidence that the whole kit-and-kaboodle is a scam. But that's not the best item in the 'false authority" category. Here's the beaut, that will be found littering the internet on websites and blogs operated by adherents to this craziness, and presented as the knockout punch in support of the URW theory:

"Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.  The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.  The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial person and the contract between them."

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators (3 U.S. 54: 1 L.Ed. 56; 3 Dall. 54)

Pretty telling, yes? Well it might be if a word of it actually appeared in the ruling, but of course none do.

Please everyone, remember, friends don't let friends waste time and energy on nonsense. Be a good friend and denounce this craziness whenever it is encountered.

P.S. Anyone exhibiting any indication of adherence to this nonsense-- such as adding UCC section references to forms or other paperwork; sticking a colon, or "of the family" into their name; making references to "the strawman"; showing a fear of zipcodes; and so forth-- should consider himself or herself to be the kid in the middle-school hallway with the "Kick me" sign on their back where any bureaucrat without respect for the law is concerned.

Most of those exhibitions are legally harmless-- that is, most of them (though not all) do not invalidate a return, or generate any other infirmity. Mostly such exhibitions amount to mere eccentricities, from a legal standpoint.

But such exhibitions DO suggest, rightly or wrongly, a credulousness and lack of understanding or confidence that unscrupulous government officials can be expected to see as signs of a soft target. Thus, such exhibitions, if seen by the wrong person, are likely to draw harassment, resistance and other bad behavior even in regard to otherwise flawless, completely correct educated filings.

P. P. S. Some related posts can be found at:

Regarding The "ALL UPPER CASE" Fallacy

Regarding The "Income Only Means Corporate Profit" Fallacy

Regarding Misunderstandings In General, With Comments On The UCC And Adhesion Contracts

If We Would All Just Stick To The Facts, We Could Win In A Month

Everyone Is Entitled To His Own Opinion, But Facts Are Facts

A number of other posts that readers will find varyingly relevant depending on the particulars of how this gibberish was presented (it often is doled out in bits and pieces) can be found here; just check topic headings and browse as seems right to you.