The term "the United States" is used in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment as something you can be born into. Don't be tricked by this. The term "the United States" can mean either the name of the government or the name of a geographical place. If a form asks if you were born in the United States, do not assume that this refers to a geographical place. It is asking if you were born into the government.

There is a big difference between "the United States" as a geographical place surrounded by a border and "the United States" as the name of a political unit. The border existed before the government existed. The government did not create the border. Governments don't determine where the border is. The people who created government already had the territory that the new servants were hired to defend. Government Servants cannot extend the established geographic "United States," they can only extend the political (or corporate) "United States." They can, and did, extend their jurisdiction beyond their federal territories (of Washington DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Northern Marianas Island) to anywhere and anything receiving federal funds. This is entirely voluntary, and is done with the consent of those who are governed.

Since your Constitution limits your federal government to Washington D.C. and the territories, it would be unconstitutional to tax anyone within a state. Thomas Jefferson, while he was Vice-President, in the Kentucky Resolves, reassured us that there are only three federal crimes that apply within a state. The three crimes mentioned in your Constitution: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. James Madison, in the Virginia Resolves also concluded that states had a right to interfere with the federal government's laws it considered unconstitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court in Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 US 281: 

"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears."

Now back to my original question. Which "United States" were you born in: the geographical or the political? In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 said that: "In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ...  It is so used in Section 1 of Article 14 of the Amendments of the Constitution ..."

The legal definition of the word "Birth" has two meanings, natural birth or coming into legal existence. Example: a corporation has a birth. "Birth" is the event, such as signing a form that creates legal existence in the eyes of the law. [It is a lot like Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, and Nicodemus couldn't understand that Jesus was speaking of corporate law]. We become officers/employees/agents of the corporate body by such events as "entering into society" or "initiation" or "being recognized" or "coming into legal existence" not by natural birth.

Now reread the first sentence of the 14th Amendment and tell me if you were both (1) born or naturalized into the government (2) AND SUBJECT TO the jurisdiction thereof ?

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade correctly stated, although irrelevant to the case, that the: "... word `person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn."

As I show in Appendix D, the word `person' does not include the Christian either. To suggest that non-persons can be killed, is the same kind of laws that Hitler used.

"Persons" have names in all capitalized letters. Christian names are not in all capital letters.

I am now going to prove that getting a Birth Certificate surrenders the child to the government. Don't take my word for it, just become familiar with the terminology, and then look at a birth certificate. Try to get a copy of the document signed by the doctor, not just the computer printout.

Black's Law Dictionary, "Christian name": "The baptismal name as distinct from the surname. The name which is given one after his birth or at baptism, or is afterward assumed by him in addition to his family name. Such name may consist of a single letter."

Black's Law Dictionary, "Surname": "The family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism. The name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents ....  The last name; the name common to all members of a family."

Gregg's Manual of English: "A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre."

Read that again. A name spelled in all capital letters is the name of a dead person. Your government considers you to be either a dead person or a fictitious name.

Black's Law Dictionary "Fictitious Name": "A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead."

Oxford Dictionary:

• "nom": Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name.

• "Nom de guerre": War name. A name assumed by or assigned to a person engaged in some action or enterprise.

• "Guerre": War, and as a verb, to wage war.

The U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 3 requires only the names of corporate and other fictional entities, or those serving in corporate capacities to be in all capitalized letters.

Now look at a Birth Certificate. Is the baby's name in all capital letters? Did the father name the baby or did the doctor, while exercising his duties as a licensed government agent, assign the name to the baby? Is there any hint on the legal document that the father named the baby? Does an all capitalized name differ in some essential particular from his true Christian name? If so, the implication is that it is meant to deceive or mislead. If not, then you've acknowledged that the all capitalized name is his true name, which cannot be a Christian name. Does your state birth certificate laws use the word 'person' when referring to the name on the Certificate?

The government now has proof that the baby is a "PERSON."  "PERSONS" have legal existence in the eyes of the law, and are subject to the statutes written by the legislature. "Sovereigns" are above the law written by their servants. The "PERSON" on the Birth Certificate will not be able to exercise the rights of a non-person. You, like Esau, gave up your birthright, which will not pass to your children.

There is something even more sinister here. Government cannot know about matters of childbirth. According to the Supreme Court's famous Roe v. Wade decision "State criminal abortion laws ... violate due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment protecting right to privacy."  That's right!  The Supreme Court says childbearing must remain strictly private. Why then is the doctor informing the government that a child was born? I suspect that the doctor is required to register government property. The government wants to secure another loan on the national debt and it needs collateral. A UCC-1 (Uniform Commercial Code) financing statement is not necessary because pursuant to UCC 9-302: "The filing of a financing statement otherwise required is not necessary or effective to perfect a security interest in property subject to (1) A statute or treaty of the United States which provides for a national or international registration or a national or international certificate of title or which provides a place for filing different from that specified ..."

Is the doctor giving the baby to whoever owns the government? 2Peter 2:3 (KJV) "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you ..." Now, if you don't think the government is owned, look at a Birth Certificate and tell me why the STATE NAME is all capitalized. Hint: it's not all capitalized in your original state Constitution.

Fictitious names exist for a purpose. Fictions are invented to give courts jurisdiction. Snider v. Newell 44 SE 354. That's right. "Corporations" are fictions created by government. "Persons" are also fictions created by government. However, real Christians, being non-fiction, were protected against the courts. They governed themselves.

Can a Christian use an all capitalized fictitious name knowing that to do so is "...with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead"? Now look at your driver's license or passport or birth certificate or voter registration. Can a Christian use an all capitalized fictitious name on any ID? Now go and try to get a government ID or Birth Certificate with a Christian name and see what happens. You cannot do it. Government cannot issue any ID with your Christian name on it. CHRISTIANS CANNOT GET A GOVERNMENT ID CARD. Christians are not part of their system, and DO NOT EXIST IN THE EYES OF THEIR LAW. Only non-Christians can get an ID (mark) of the beast. Only non-Christians can have a name of (of = created by) the beast. Only non-Christians can get the (ID) number of the Beast's name (name = authority).

Do you now confess that you have a Mark of a Beast, a name of a Beast, and a number of his name?

"Fictions" give courts jurisdiction. Could a fictitious, all capitalized, name of your state government be an image of the Beast? The Greek word for "image" that is used in Revelation's "image" of the Beast is the Greek word "icon" (Strong's 1504). Synonyms: "image," "artifice," and "fabrication." Also see: "ruse," "expedient." This icon that receives worship is not the same thing as an idol, which can also receive worship, although both are made by the hands of man.

Without an ID Card you will notice that you are denied the right to travel by car or by airline. Nor can you cash a check or open a bank account or get a home phone. Nor can you rent a Post Office Box (per Domestic Mail regulation DMM 951.142 even though the Post Office cannot accept a Social Security Card as identification). You can still officially get a job without a SSN. But soon, you will be officially unable to get a job. Your papers are not in order. Christians will be persecuted.

If you want to try an exercise in frustration, try to get the phone company to send you your bill with your real name on it to your real address. You cannot do it. You must worship the state god in order to get phone service. The state is the god that created the Corporation. Real people don't exist in the eyes of the law.

Conclusion: as suggested by the Baldwin case quoted above, claiming that you are a U.S. citizen (with a Birth Certificate, or on an SSN application) is enough proof that you were born into your federal government. "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).

Real people do not exist in the eyes of the law, because people are sovereigns, and the legislature cannot and does not write laws for their masters (Matt 10:24, and John 15:20).

Most government forms ask for a date of birth. A date of birth on a government form is not the date you took your first breath, it is the date the instrument was signed that made you property of the government. The U.N. is involved in "the official birth registration process" per Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 422.103(b)(2).

Here is further proof that government forms do not ask for the day you took your first breath: "Hearsay" is inadmissible in court. Although you were present on your born-day, you were not aware of any specific calendar system on that day, nor does your memory serve you well. It would be subornation of perjury for any government officer (with or without a form) to coerce you, under penalty of perjury, for inadmissible hearsay that you cannot recall. Federal Rules of Evidence rule 602 prohibits you from telling them your birth day.

I read a Brief article about an 1884 law textbook Parsons on Contracts with this quote from the chapter "Marriage is a Contract": "since the state married them, the children were fruits of the state."

How did you delegate to your servants the authority to divorce man from wife contrary to Mark 10:9? I knew that I could not cancel my neighbor's vows to God, so I knew that divorce court could not cancel anyone's vows to God. It sounds too Catholic to me. How can you delegate the authority to bastardize your neighbors' children?

It turns out that we did not delegate this authority. Apparently there are two meanings of the word `marriage,' one meaning "holy matrimony" and the other refers to a status within the government.

I always thought it peculiar that people who have a right to get married would have to beg civil servants for permission (license = permission) to get married. I read the 1877 U.S. Supreme Court decision Meister v. Moore 96 US 80, that a Marriage License was not required, nor do states confer the right to marry, and that marriage is based on contract. This is consistent with the Bible, and it makes sense that the Supreme Court would confirm that this most sacred of family rights does not involve government. Since your Constitution prohibits any state from impairing the obligation of contracts (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10), the sanctity of the family is safe from government interference.

Then I read the 1888 US Supreme Court decision in Maynard v. Hill 8 SCt 723, 125 US 190, where the Maynards had intermarried in the state of Vermont (meaning they had a license) and that marriage was NOT based on contract but upon a status, and the government could do whatever it wanted to do with the marriage because a state created the status of marriage.

Perhaps children are indeed fruits of the state. After all, when a slave owner allows two slaves to mate and they produce new property, the new property is registered in the owner's records. Is your birth registered in your father's family bible, or is your birth registered in your owner's records?

Asking for permission to get married is a confession that you do not have a right to get married. By applying for a marriage license, you've waived your right to get married.

When the law says that the state cannot recognize a common law marriage, it doesn't mean you're not married. It means the state cannot take your children nor divorce you. God's laws prevail. Your family is not part of their Corporation. Your family does not have existence in the eyes of their laws.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You should have known (as did the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105) that "A state may not, through a license tax, impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." By paying for a marriage license, you confessed that you did not have a right to get married. The power to tax is the power to destroy. What part of "let no man put asunder" don't you understand?

Notice that the definition of a Christian name is a name that is given one after birth or at baptism, or is afterward assumed by him in addition to his family name. You can assume a name that is not your government name. Examples: Saul became Paul, Simon became Peter (Cephas in John 1:42), Zacchaeus became Matthew, Didymus became Thomas, and the Thaddaeus of Matthew 10:3 and Mark 13:18 became Judas, son of James in Luke 6:16. Even John the Baptist's father had to rename his son (Luke 1:63) after the Holy Spirit had filled him "even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15 KJV). Just try assuming a Christian name and see what happens.

There are dozens of early court cases to prove that you can use any name you want to. However, merchants who control your buying and selling have been deceived by a beast power into asking for ID "proof that you are who you say you are." If these merchants were Christian, they should be saying: "I acknowledge your authority to be whoever you say you are. The government does not have a law impairing the obligations of contracts."

Early court decisions confirm that Christians must have names, and must reveal their name in court, but non-Christians did not have to have names. Non-Christians could be called anything, such as John Doe. If a Christian was called by a name other than his own, he could abate the court proceedings by claiming that there was a "misnomer." Everything is backwards now. Non-Christians get full government recognition with an all capitalized government name, and anyone who wants to keep their Christian name is treated as an enemy of the state. And furthermore, contempt of court is a life sentence without a trial.

More name games with children. Government cannot know the names or birthdates or family relationships of your children. Or even the existence of your children. They cannot even ask! Here are proofs that Birth Certificates are about government property, not about babies: 

• Roe v. Wade was a privacy case. Government could not know about procreation or child rearing, thereby allowing abortion in the first trimester to go unpunished because the abortion laws were written in such that they "... violate due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment protecting right to privacy ..."  Your family has a right to privacy.  Roe v. Wade went on to also state: "Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." 

• Yeager v. Hackensack, 615 F.Supp.1087, citing the authority of Roe v. Wade, confirmed that "Right to be free from compelled disclosure of names of household members is within right of privacy protected by Constitution." 

• Yeager v. Hackensack also confirmed that private utilities cannot request Social Security Numbers without first complying with the disclosure provisions of Section 7(b) of the Privacy Act. 

• Roe v. Wade cannot be an abortion case. It is only a privacy case. Proof #1: the Supreme Court will not hear cases unless the party is damaged (according to rules laid down in their Ashwander case).  Only Roe's privacy was damaged.  Roe was not arrested for having an abortion.  Roe did not have an abortion, she gave birth to a son who remains an active critic of the abortion laws. Proof #2: The abortion doctor who joined in the case was remanded back to state Courts for his punishment.  Roe v. Wade DID NOT legalize abortions.  A million repetitions of a lie do not make it true.

• Matters of child bearing or child rearing must remain strictly private.  This cannot be overemphasized.  Asking for the birth date of a child is such a gross violation of privacy, it is tantamount to asking to watch the birth!  I offer the following proof that matters of child bearing require this level of privacy: the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick recognized that sodomy laws must be enforced because: "The right to privacy does not extend to acts of consensual sodomy between homosexual adults."  "Procreation" is private.  "Sodomy" cannot be private. Any bureaucrat who asks for a child's birthdate is violating your most sacred family privacy. Treat him like you would treat Herod.

Here is a challenge: You can overturn Roe v. Wade if you can find ANY government Form that compels the disclosure of a child's name or birthdate or existence. [Unless, of course, the child is the government's child. Government property must be regulated. Which kind are your children?].

Midwives are now "required" to report home births to government so that a Birth Certificate can be issued, and a SSN will be issued pursuant to the GATT treaty.  Midwives under Pharaoh were also required to report the birth of Moses; so that civil government could process him (Acts 7:19) but these midwives lied to their government. Quiz: Is it right or is it wrong for Midwives to lie to government? When Jesus was a baby, all little boys in Bethlehem were to be processed by civil government. Is it right or wrong to escape lawful government processing of children?

For the advanced student: In Maynard v. Hill the Supreme Court referred to the Maynard's marriage with the term `status,' and every occurrence of the term `status' was in italics. I never found out what the italics signifies. If you want to do some research, find out what italics means in Supreme Court decisions, and keep in mind that Social Security is also not based on contract, but upon a status.  I was also about to study the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act of 1921, 42 Stat 224, (formerly 42 USC 161-175,) and the Federal Birth Registration areas of 1929, and Meeker v. US 350 US 199, and Chapter 135 Sect. 9, 42 USC 225 which gave the Children's Bureau power to enter homes and take children.