PROOF! Your Birth Certificate Makes You a Slave

Originally posted by eightfold

The interesting bit for me is that in all the explanations of the law regarding registering a birth that I can find online, none of them mention any consequences other than 'prosecution.' They also say "you must" an awful lot. I wonder if anyone's ever been successfully prosecuted?

I was curious, so I googled, and found something on the Torbay.gov site (them again!).
After six weeks, they send a request for registration. If you don't comply within some new, unspecified, time limit, you could be liable to a fine of £200.

Originally posted by Pimpish
I'm pretty sure that I'm not a slave, also anyone who has relatives that really were slaves should be offended.

Do you really think you're a slave? Are you on call 24/7 with no breaks and no pay? Do you live in a shack owned by your masters? Is it legal for you to be raped? Have you ever been chained to the ground? Or, are you free to do basically what you want, and come and post whatever you would like (as long as it is within the TOS) on sites such as this?

Gimme a break.

Your talking about a different time period of slavery. I would hope that no familes of previous slavery would be offended, that would make them proud to be a slave to take offense to such a statement.
Times have changed, do you live in a shack owned by your master? Sure, you live in a house owned by the Govt. Is it legal for you to be raped? Currently not in this time period since there are human rights etc. Freedom is not basic, freedom means that you can do what you want to, when you want to. Are you on call 24 hours a day? No, most likely 8 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. Slavery has never died, the "chains" still remain, just not as obvious as they were in the 13th century.

Sorry, ignore this.
I got confused about who I was replying to.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by Buzzed up lightyear


I completely disagree. I guess we just have different definitions of slavery.


*edit*

I meant the reason for being offended as to comparing the way you are living now to the same as people who were actually slaves. Thats completely insulting, you live a comparatively posh lifestyle compared to a slave, I am quite certain.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Pimpish]

See, the problem with calling people slaves is that people are bound to get offended. The government creates what is called a PERSON (spelled in all caps, as any corporation is.) upon registration at birth. Through registration you lose legal ownership and are given what is called 'usuary title', stating that it is the government's property, but you are allowed to use it in the way they choose, with restrictions. How you come to believe that you are your person is that they convince you that the NAME is yours, however it is not, it is theirs, and so you are bound to the legislation they have written to control you, the human being. They have you unwittingly acting in commerce, and are using your corporation's value -which is actually known as a ceste que trust, I believe- to float the billions of dollars in loans which is ultimately in your name.

Originally posted by purplemonkeydishwasher
See, the problem with calling people slaves is that people are bound to get offended. The government creates what is called a PERSON (spelled in all caps, as any corporation is.) upon registration at birth. Through registration you lose legal ownership and are given what is called 'usuary title', stating that it is the government's property, but you are allowed to use it in the way they choose, with restrictions. How you come to believe that you are your person is that they convince you that the NAME is yours, however it is not, it is theirs, and so you are bound to the legislation they have written to control you, the human being. They have you unwittingly acting in commerce, and are using your corporation's value -which is actually known as a ceste que trust, I believe- to float the billions of dollars in loans which is ultimately in your name.

Yes, I have heard of this. That is why your name is in all capitol letters with every legal document.. it must be spelled the exact same way.. hence the caps.. it's called a strawaman.

There have actually been people who fought this in court and won but they have to give up all their rights as a citizen - meaning they are not subject to the law anymore as a free person, they cannot obtain any help from the government. - like the video ATS had a while back about the guy driving without a drivers license. He did this and when the cops checked him out, they let him go.

now one clever way to prove or disprove this is to match your birth papers numbers to stock exchange information and see if they do talk about you.. your strawman name in all capitol letters.

and you could find laws that pertain to this as proof.

I would like someone to dig up either or both for proof.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
now one clever way to prove or disprove this is to match your birth papers numbers to stock exchange information and see if they do talk about you.. your strawman name in all capitol letters.

Yes, somebody ought to try this, because I think it would lead to disproof.

As I said before, there must be thousands of documents all over the world which have got the same number, all of them completely unrelated, simply because there are just the ten digits that people can play with.

Great thread. This is something that I wanted to post for a while. I have quite an in depth understanding of what this implies. As many may have guessed, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to your LEGAL FICTION.

To give you a run down, all law except common law (and Tort law in Canada) is contract law. This means that in order for you to be charged under any criminal or statute law, you must first be in agreement with their rules.

By birth, you were entered into a contract with the government that created your legal fiction, or "straw man" by your parents. In which, you, the flesh and blood person, is held legally liable for all the strawman debt and therefore, because you are now a legal entity by force of your name (in capital letters), can be held in the court of law.

Your birth certificate is nothing more than a bond issued by the government to be traded on the open market. The collateral, or assets behind it, is your expected earning/tax generation over the entirety of your life. Your REAL BC, contains your name as it is truly written; IE: John Doe, not JOHN DOE.

The funny part of this is that you as a flesh and blood person are only subject to common/tort law which states you must not infringe or inflict harm on any others (Or something to that extent). When you engage a police officer in discussing a breaking of the law you have entered into contract with him by answering his vague questions such as "Do you understand" which means, "Do you stand under my authority".

Without any verbal or written contract no police officer, judge or any other government/law figure has any jurastiction over you. The same goes for licensing and registration. By registering your property with the government you are handing over title to them (Legal ownership). They, in return, give you the "Right of use" which is subject to their terms and conditions. By merely possessing a driver's license, for example, is an automatic acceptance into their contract in which you must abide by their set rules (No speeding, stop at stopsigns, setbelts, etc). Create your own license, and it's considered an international license which limits the law enforcement in how it can prosecute you.

To put the OPs discovery into context, what that little document is stating is that without a registered birth certificate (Remember, register means handing over ownership) the state cannot take your children away for anything. Once you have registered your BC, your child is property of the government and it gives you "right of use". Sounds funky, but this is the reason why child services can take your children away or why they are forced into school.

What that document is stating is that without a BC, the government has no jurastiction over that child.

Some very interesting things to be learned with this topic and it is very important. If any of you have any questions regarding this, or how money is used or how your have infinite credit available to you (Due to you being the creditor to the gov't when they used your BC as assets to borrow money) by all means ask away I'll be more than happy to fill you guys in on this little scam.

Originally posted by metro

To put the OPs discovery into context, what that little document is stating is that without a registered birth certificate (Remember, register means handing over ownership) the state cannot take your children away for anything.

And I suggest that in practice they will.
Anyone who tries testing this theory will lose their children, and no amount of screaming "But I didn't register a birth certificate" will get them back".
This is what happens when people use their imaginations to invent legal theories and put them out on the internet- all common sense goes out of the window.

What that document is stating is that without a BC, the government has no jurastiction over that child.

Try telling the government they have no jurisdiction over a child.
Ingenious theories will mean nothing against the power and wrath of Social Services.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

Originally posted by Pimpish
Do you really think you're a slave? Are you on call 24/7 with no breaks and no pay?

Slavery has evolved over time. The donkey doesn't get whipped anymore - that's very inefficient. A carrot dangled in front of it is far more effective.

Slaves forced to work ridiculous hours are unproductive. Their energy becomes too depleted. Giving the illusion of being "free" motivates them to work harder.

The most basic form of mind control is repetition. You are repeatedly told you are "free" for a reason.

[edit on 23/7/10 by NuclearPaul]

reply to post by DISRAELI


Well, all you're spouting off is an assumption that "They are the gov't, therefore they can do whatever they want". Unfortunately, they can't. For the gov't to legally do anything towards you or your children, they must first have an interest in it to begin with. You're thinking along the lines that they want you to think. IE, "Gov't is all powerful, all bow to it". Sorry, but the Gov't is a corporate entity and by law it must abide by those rules.

You see, the constitution is not the rights of the individual - it's dictates the rights of a corporation.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by metro]

Balderdash.

The "thing" that makes you a "slave" is the world.

Human Nature.

You either follow or lead.

reply to post by metro


Do you know of any case where someone has won using the “strawman” argument?
The all caps thing–doesn’t make a bit of difference one way or the other.
Don’t try it in court–these folks did and lost. "claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons. ... completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this court's resources")
www.adl.org...
Can you show an international license that is recognized by the state?

Originally posted by Pauligirl
reply to post by metro

 

Do you know of any case where someone has won using the “strawman” argument?
The all caps thing–doesn’t make a bit of difference one way or the other.
Don’t try it in court–these folks did and lost. "claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons. ... completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this court's resources")
www.adl.org...
Can you show an international license that is recognized by the state?

Oh yes, most definitely and I can tell you exactly why it failed. If you refer back to my previous post, you'll see that I stated that at birth you are liable for your legal fiction. This means you are held liable for all debts and charges (both statute, criminal and commercial... all contract law btw). The first thing anyone must do in becoming a true "free man" is to reclaim their straw man. That is, Become Your Legal Fiction's Creditor, rather than it's debtor.This is achieved because, by contract law, there must be 3 elements in a contract for it to be valid. Consideration, disclosure and agreement. That is, you must receive something in exchange for signing, you must fully understand the terms and you must be in full agreement. In contract law, you must be of legal age to be able to enter into a contract. Therefore the only loophole available to us in our struggle is to contest the contract that we were entered into at birth (Due to being .. well, a baby). We did not receive consideration, nor did we agree or understand. Therefore, the contract is void and we cannot be held liable for our straw man. But you must provide proof of this for any of this to be true. The proof is your actual ORIGINAL birth certificate.

There are forms out there for your to lay claim to your straw man. I am in the process of obtaining this for myself. But in the case you brought up, from what you said he went into court and blatantly stated that because my name is in capitals I do not apply. Well, first of all by stating this he has already admitted he is the person in question and therefore liable. Second of all, if you want to fool the courts you must make sure to ask a fundamental question: "By answering this question, am I entering into a contract with the court?". They must say yes or no. If they say either, you are legally allowed to respond in just.

Like I said, they must have juristiction over you for their laws to apply. When you enter court, think of it as entering a game that is played by their rules - just like "life".

reply to post by Robbo2006

2 Not willing to alarm public of possable discovery of slave trade children............

They simply don't keep records of children returned to their parents, who did not have birth certificates. This doesn't mean that they were taken because they had no birth certificate. So, the child could have been taken for other reasons, other than not having a birth certificate. It would seem perfectly reasonable for them not to keep records with such detailed variables.

The question wasn't: "How many children were returned to parents, who were taken in the first place for not having a birth certificate." Rather, the question was something like, "how many children were returned to parents who didn't have a birth certificate?" I'm not seeing the problem here.

--airspoon

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Two questions;
If anyone thinks they are being "sold on the Stock Exchange";
How exactly do you think anyone can gain from that transaction?
How exactly is this transaction supposed to affect you? (It can't affect you very much, if you don't even know about it without videos like this)

For one thing, without the Birth Certificate, the federal government has no legal documentation about you (because you're recorded in your State) to go begging to the Federal Reserve Bank to "borrow money on the credit of the United States," as per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2, because they have no proof that you are under US jurisdiction. Whenever the feds go to the Federal Reserve, their "credit rating" is based, in part, on the perceived value of new Birth Certificates registered.
It also happens every time anyone becomes directly employed by the government itself, such as joining the military or taking the Oath of Office (no matter whether or not the position is elected or appointed). Why do you think the Federal Reserve still keeps loaning to the government? It's because the "credit of the US" increases for every new job filled in the government by somebody! Why else do you think the far-left liberal wingnuts in government are pushing so hard to grow the size of government, including the military? They want more credit from the Federal Reserve Bank! The Birth Certificate creates the job title of "PERSON" for you, regardless of whether or not you take a job in government & it's also what ties you to being liable for the national debt!

Everyone who enjoys natural birth within State boundaries (NOT on US territory, it's entirely different jurisdiction) is automatically granted Citizenship of the State itself. The only requirement to record the birth is to file the birth info with the Hall of Records for the county in which the birth took place...This is the only documentation needed to secure all Rights as enumerated under the Constitution & the Common Law. But the jurisdiction of the US government is limited to the possessions & territories (like Indian reservations, Guam, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C. itself, etc.) & those parcels of land given to them by the States, under the conditions set forth in the Constitution (establishment of post roads, forts & batteries, other needful buildings,etc). US jurisdiction also applies automatically to those people born on, living on or working on US Territory.

However, by registering the birth with the federal government, that places the child under US jurisdiction, as defined by the 14th Amendment. By reading the 14th, you can see that the US government is only obligated to uphold the rights as specifically included in the 14th Amendment & even then, it was originally intended only for the purpose of being applied as legal/court protection for the newly-freed slaves of the time. In short, US citizenship is a far lesser form of citizenship than birthright within State boundaries...Creating, literally, a population of Second-Class citizens.

Originally posted by metro
You see, the constitution is not the rights of the individual - it's dictates the rights of a corporation.

That's exactly right. We the People are the employers/owners (The SSN you were issued is your Employee Number, but if you have a Social Security Card that was re-issued to you after your 18th birthday, look on the back in the lower corner: That number is your Employer Identification Number), the government is our company & populated with our employees, & the Constitution is the contract of employment. Whoever takes the Oath of Office is bound by law to obey the Constitution or suffer the penalties...Which include, but not limited to, removal from office & indictment under charges in a court operating under the Due Process of Law. But We the People also establish the Constitution as being the Supreme Law of the Land, second only to the Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator. Well, look in the Constitution...It DOES specify that it is the Supreme Law of the Land within its own text! Through the 9th Amendment & other mentions of Common Law within itself, it also establishes that the Common Law is equally Supreme as the Constitution itself.

Originally posted by metro
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

Well, all you're spouting off is an assumption that "They are the gov't, therefore they can do whatever they want". Unfortunately, they can't.

This is also right...There are more limitations than there are Powers. The primary limitation is in the 10th Amendment. In short it says that anything not specifically included is expressly excluded. This is one of the most basic & widely upheld precedences in court there has ever been, down throughout the whole of American history.
It also establishes the organization of the three Branches, the specific Powers granted to each of those Branches & specific limitations on those enumerated Powers. You must also realize that the States would have never ratified it in the first place, because the States themselves weren't specifically granted the Rights they wished to retain...Thus, the Constitution itself already included the first 10 Amendments even before it was ratified! These Amendments (the Bill of Rights) enumerated the Rights of individuals & the States too. The 9th Amendment is what includes more Rights than those already mentioned specifically (& which are derived from the Common Law) & the 10th Amendment establishes that the States retain more Rights & Sovereign Powers than the federal government was granted. Also notice that the vast majority of the Bill of Rights establishes that the People (individually & as a whole) retain more Rights & Sovereignty than the States!

Originally posted by eightfold
If you could somehow 'op-out' of this apparent contract, then could you argue that statute law doesn't apply to you?

Yes, that would be the way it works.

Originally posted by metro
To give you a run down, all law except common law (and Tort law in Canada) is contract law.

Tort Law is also included under the American Common Law, as it enumerates Natural Rights & the punishments for violations committed on someone's Rights. When was the last time the government called for a Grand Jury? Can you find a still-functioning court of the Common Law (Trial by Jury as it was established in Article 3 of the Constitution)? Even though I was too young at the time to understand the ramifications of it, there was a period in which Congress was going through a lot of legislation designed to "reform" Tort Law...Resulting in making it more difficult & costly to pursue it.

It's only under Statutory Law when they can drag you into a courtroom without a Jury & every court that still exists claim the ability to hold non-jury trials! These are some of the Constitutional provisions enumerated for Tort Law. By ignoring any of the provisions of the Due Process of Law, the courts themselves commit "high crimes."
And not really all that surprising, the answer for how to "opt out" is contained within the "recourse & remedy" sections of the Uniform Commercial Code (The American source for all Contract Law). After all, if the government uses Contract Law to trap you, the only way out is also contained in Contract Law! For every contract, there's a way to get out of it & it's contained there. In this particular case, the parents who had their child registered could claim "lack of full disclosure & gross misrepresentation" of the Birth Certificate contract...And probably other violations of the UCC could be cited, depending upon your particular circumstances. But the number of violations are irrelevant because it only take one violation to void the contract; I don't remember the latin legal term right now, but it means "voided back to inception, as if it never existed." Even then, you may even be able to turn around & legally sue the government for abuse & misuse of your identity & yourself due to the illegal contract that THEY enforced!
To explain the two violations I mentioned a bit earlier: Were your parents fully informed of all of the ramifications & implications of the contract when the hospital personnel shoved a bunch of paperwork in ther faces & said, "You have to fill these out?" There's the "lack of disclosure." As for gross misrepresentation, what about the legal status & the level of authority of those hospital personnel anyway? Were they from the hospital's Legal Department, or were they the very doctors/nurses or other administrative people who don't have certified "legal authority" from the government in order to legally "offer" those contracts in the first place?

As far as the UCC goes, it would work best to voice your concerns to an attorney & request proper instruction & use of the UCC1 form & a certified affidavit stating your intentions to opt out & your reasons under the law for doing so. It's a bit more involved than that, but this is it in a nutshell...It may take a bit more paperwork & some waiting period as the "authorities" try to rebute your reasoning of the law, but if you can successfully counter every rebuttal within a specified time period, then you've won. Welcome to the Land of the Free!

-------------------Continued Below------------------

[edit on 24-7-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

---------------Concluded From Above-------------

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
There have actually been people who fought this in court and won but they have to give up all their rights as a citizen - meaning they are not subject to the law anymore as a free person, they cannot obtain any help from the government.

The only citizenship lost in this manner is US citizenship & any US benefits or help...The original State & Common Law Citizenship cannot be removed by them as they are your birthright, not granted by the federal government: You do indeed become a Freeman on the Land & a Soveriegn Citizen. As I stated earlier, you would be retaining your FULL Rights even as you give up your 14th Amendment Rights...Don't worry about that small loss, because those Rights ARE included under the Common Law anyway. Sounds like a bargain to me.
However, opting out successfully does carry a price afterwards...Just as the feds have no authority to tax you directly (by the Constitution & the choice of Congress, they can only tax by Apportionment, which is a tax on the States according to the population) & they can't apply Statutory Laws against you & you are also forbidden to receive any federally-financed aid or benefits from any federal programs...Of course, for many people, that's a trivial price.

If they try to use the 16th Amendment on you about taxation, the SCOTUS has ruled that the 16th Amendment grants no new powers of taxation to the government...so they must again refer to the main body of text in the Constitution. Most Constitutional Scholars have come to the conclusion that the 16th Amendment is pretty much the most useless & meaningless piece of crap they ever voted on, because of SCOTUS ruling. Of course, if you're dragged into court over this, you have to be very well researched...You need to research & cite (a good attorney will do the research for you...for a price) a number of court rulings in which the SCOTUS upheld this. After all, you have to remind most judges of these facts, otherwise he/she will rule in any way the mood strikes at the time.

But you also never have to fill out any tax forms again! I've seen a report published from several different sources that indicate that about HALF of the people don't pay taxes anyway...Much of this is due to those who are tax-exempt because they collect from federal programs, but there's a growing number (already in the 10's of thousands) of people who are just simply not under US jurisdiction any more. Take notice that people who are Sovereign Citizens, but not US Citizens cannot vote in federal elections: Since the current "government" literally is a corporation, if you're not tied to it, then you have no direct say over it. If you register to vote, you fall under their juridiction again. However, if at any time our country does manage to regain control of a functionally Constitutional government in the future, your Right to vote will be restored. In short, you have to keep a very careful eye on the origin of any contract that's ever presented to you, for the rest of your life. Any NEW contracts in which you enter just may give them a new hook on you!

No, I'm not a lawyer...That's why I've made multiple references to the effect that you need to seek out a lawyer to make this work.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

Thanks for your input metro and MidnightDStroyer. You're both well versed in this topic and doing a great job of elaborating on the wider implications.

Originally posted by Pauligirl
Do you know of any case where someone has won using the “strawman” argument?

Actually, yes! I just remembered I made a thread on the strawman thing a few months ago. Sadly it got no replies at all. But in it I included a video of a freeman of England using this information (Strawman and Common Law) to overturn an unjust claim regarding Council Tax:

Originally posted by metro

Well, all you're spouting off is an assumption that "They are the gov't, therefore they can do whatever they want". Unfortunately, they can't. For the gov't to legally do anything towards you or your children, they must first have an interest in it to begin with. You're thinking along the lines that they want you to think. IE, "Gov't is all powerful, all bow to it"

No, I'm actually arguing on two different assumptions.
a) The theory that these people are coming up with is bad law.
b) The government takes no notice of bad law.

Although, incidentally, the assumption you have attributed to me has more going for it, in practice,than you might think.



[edit on 24-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

We've wandered into the area of American constitutional law, when the OP was actually about the effects of British birth certificates.
It does seem to me, though, that your version of "being traded on the Stock Exchange" is very abstract and has no practical effect on the person "being traded".

I watched the video again, and I think I've tracked down where the theory came from. The man points triumphantly to the words on the certificate "This is printed on security paper".
The meaning of that is clear enough to anyone who reads it calmly." The phrase "security paper" means "paper that canot be tampered with easily", and there are obvious reasons why they should be using paper that cannot be tampered with.
But the man in the video seems to have jumped straight to another meaning; "security"= "something traded on the Stock Exchange". "Aargh! My birth certificate is a Security! I'm being traded!"

So this whole elaborate theory is based on a perverse misreading of an ambiguous word.





[edit on 24-7-2010 by DISRAELI]