Meet your strawman PDF

Meet your strawman PDF

Postby holy vehm » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:32 am

"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:29 am

Some dodgy info in this. Such as:

The registering of a baby's birth actually passes "ownership" of the baby to the Local Authority and that, and that alone, allows the Local Authority staff to take the child away from the parents if they ever want to do that.


Utter nonsense. Registration conveys no rights in ownership regardless of what is being registered.
Read this with a discerning eye - as you should everything!
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby holy vehm » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:40 pm

If one does not register with society, one can not use its benefits. To receive benefits one must also except the obligations placed upon them by that society.
Something is being given up and thus you no longer have full ownership over it.
So what is being given up or surrender or exchanged?
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:22 pm

When you join a society you agree to abide by its rules and give up or surrender any rights which you would normally have which run contrary to those rules.
E.g. We all have the right to bare arms in our natural capacities. But as members of the UK society we give up that right. If you leave the UK you have every right to own a gun without a license and still live in the geographical area of the UK, as gun ownership is not against the law - merely against the rules of the society (This is theory of course! In practice the government will absolutely try to jail anyone who has a gun without a license just as they try to screw people who drive without a license).

In return for abiding by the rules we are given benefits by the society. No one joins a society unless they benefit in some way from it. You join (register with) a golf club to benefit from use of the golf course, a tennis club for its tennis courts etc.
In no way are you giving up ownership of yourself, or your children, by registering. You are free to leave a society whenever you want.

If you break the rules of a society you are punished in some way or kicked out. The UK uses fines and prison sentences and of course used to have a death sentence. The UK never kicks people out because individuals are worth more to the society even if they are in jail (for the most part).

Most societies demand payment for membership. The UK is far more devious and makes its money via the birth certificate bond.

In summary, when you join a society you voluntarily give up any rights you may have which contradict its rules and regulations and generally pay a fee of some sort.
In return you receive benefits, privileges and obligations and may be released from certain duties that you may otherwise have.
None of this involves the surrender of ownership of anything tangible - such as a baby. A register is nothing more than a database.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby Freeman Stephen » Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:57 am

Did the government give you your baby? What right do they have to threaten you with the abuse of the force of law if you dont register the birth of your baby? Its simply none of their business unless you voluntarily register, but voluntarily registering is not an option when the abuse of the force of law is pointed at your head.

So what if you dont register. What if you protect your child from the abuses of the force of law? What if you do register and end up with a child hook lined snd sinkered into registering their baby, snd their babys baby,intergenerationally until the system deems that line of human cattle surplus to requirement?

The government wouldn't do that! They've been doing it throughout history. Just statistics on a piece of paper to ensure maximum compliance with government policy.
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby pitano1 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:07 am

correct me if i`m wrong.
i think the act of registering...anything,is to bring it into the public side of acounting.

this has commercial conotations...ie public`limited liability=the state will wipe your arse
private=full comercial liability=you mess up..you`pay dearly

i have not had time to read the link yet,but if i remeber correctly.
A BIRTH CERTIFICATE]..is suject,or consists of.roman law..maritime,and amiralty
law.
which..creates chttal property...the produce of the birth.
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:56 pm

Registration is just the act of recording information. You are right about the commercial nature of the birth certificate. At least the ones issued to members of the public.

When the state steals children they are simply creating and presuming joinder between the fiction and the baby. The poor parents have no idea what's going on and of course think the fictional name is their baby.
It's the same old trick they play again and again.

I'd like to point out that earlier in the year we saw the royal couple William and Katherine register their baby. Does anyone actually think for one moment that they did not know exactly what they were doing and what it meant?
Does anyone actually think they gave away ownership of their baby to the state?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-george/10218854/Royal-baby-Duke-and-Duchess-of-Cambridge-register-birth-of-Prince-George.html
Notice how the Telegraph calls it a standard birth certificate. Standard my arse!

Note that their baby is registered with the use of lower/upper case letters and not all caps. Also the baby apparently has no surname.
William also apparently has no surname.
Catherine apparently has no surname, though as a maiden her surname was MIDDLETON.

All three of them have titles but notice the order of the title with the name. In the case of William and George it is title, name, title. With Catherine it is name,title, title. Thus:
His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge
His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge
Catherine Elizabeth her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge

Is there any significance to the difference in order? (Almost certainly yes) If so what is it?

There is no account number anywhere on the certificate (mine has one) nor does the certificate bear the Crown coat of arms (mine does).

Suppositions: This baby has not been bonded. It is not the act of registration which is important in and of itself, but rather the information that is recorded when registration takes place. As informants the Royals inform correctly as to the status of their baby. As informants the rest of us have no idea as to what is going on and are tricked into informing incorrectly.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby pitano1 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:24 pm

i cannot see...a birth... CERTIFICATE...in that bullshit telegraph article
just some inform...tion.

so the baby parasite..is unbonded.


cer·ti·fy (sûrt-f)
v. cer·ti·fied, cer·ti·fy·ing, cer·ti·fies
v.tr.
1.
a. To confirm formally as true, accurate, or genuine.
b. To guarantee as meeting a standard: butter that was certified Grade A. See Synonyms at approve.
2. To acknowledge in writing on the face of (a check) that the signature of the maker is genuine and that there are sufficient funds on deposit for its payment.
3. To issue a license or certificate to.
4. To declare to be in need of psychiatric treatment or confinement.
5. Archaic To inform positively; assure.
v.intr.
To testify: certify to the facts.
[Middle English certifien, from Old French certifier, from Late Latin certificre : Latin certus, certain; see certain + Latin -ficre, -fy.]
certi·fier n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
certify [ˈsɜːtɪˌfaɪ]
vb -fies, -fying, -fied
1. to confirm or attest (to), usually in writing the letter certified her age
2. (tr) to endorse or guarantee (that certain required standards have been met)
3. to give reliable information or assurances he certified that it was Walter's handwriting
4. (Law) (tr) to declare legally insane
5. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) (tr) US and Canadian (of a bank) to state in writing on (a cheque) that payment is guaranteed
[from Old French certifier, from Medieval Latin certificāre to make certain, from Latin certus certain + facere to make]
certifier n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
cer•ti•fy (ˈsɜr təˌfaɪ)

v.t. -fied, -fy•ing.
1. to attest as certain; confirm: He certified the truth of her claim.
2. to testify to or vouch for in writing.
3. to guarantee; endorse: to certify a document with an official seal.
4. to guarantee (a check) as to authenticity of signature and sufficiency of funds to cover payment.
5. to declare (a person) legally insane and committable to a mental institution.
6. to certificate; license.
7. to assure or inform with certainty.
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:09 pm

Yup you are right. I missed the obvious. Nowhere on that document does it say "Certificate of Birth" although it has been signed by a deputy registrar so... registered but not bonded.
The big question. What do the rest of us do, or not do, that results in the creation of a bonded Certificate of Birth?

The PDF Holy Vhem linked earlier on the birth certificate quotes Black's 2nd Edition. I've checked this and the quote is correct. In full it states:

STILLBORN. A stillborn child is one born dead or in such an early stage of pregnancy as to be incapable of living, though not actually dead at the time of birth. Children born within the first six months after conception are considered by the civil law as Incapable of living, and therefore, though they are apparently born alive, if they do not in fact survive so long as to rebut this pre­sumption of law, they cannot inherit so as to transmit the property to others. Marselis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 41, 21 Am. Dec. 66.


The PDF also quotes Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 as stating

[MATERNITY. It is either legitimate or natural. The former is the condition of the mother who has given birth to legitimate children, while the latter is the condition of her who has given birth to illegitimate children. Maternity is always certain, while the paternity (q.v.) is only presumed.


I've checked this also and can confirm that the quote is correct. The PDF also states that
According to Ecclesiastical Law an Estate can only be held in Trust by a man.

I haven't checked this but it certainly sounds plausible.

So it would seem from the evidence that two things are happening to the general public which do NOT happen to Royals.

1. The presumption of the child being stillborn. Either the presumption is not made with Royals or the Royals immediately rebut it. I suspect the former.
2. The presumption of illegitimacy. Again, either the presumption is not made with Royals or the Royals immediately rebut it. I suspect the former.

These presumptions may be the excuses that the state needs in order to create a bonded Certificate of Birth.
Thoughts anyone?
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Meet your strawman PDF

Postby pitano1 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:59 pm

i suspect this is where, the papal bulls come into their own.

apparently according to Ecclesiastical law,our estate is...our body,and our hand,is our will.
soo.unless we can nullify the papal bulls put in place,by pope boniface..we can never
own anything..period

i think the reason,that the pope has a triple crown..relates to three claims.
basicly...he has title to..the body,and soul of the people,all the countrys
and the wealth...something along those lines.?

or as` good old george carlin said,...its a big club..n..we aint innit
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Next

Return to The Person (legal fiction)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests