Citizenship defined lost in translation.

"Title 8, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code defines a national and citizen of the United States "at birth". Note that this legal definition does not include the phrase "natural born."

* a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; "

So then can one be born here and NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Lets investigate some.

" The 2008 Florida Statutes

Title XXIX PUBLIC HEALTH Chapter 382 VITAL STATISTICS View Entire Chapter
382.013 Birth registration.--A certificate for each live birth that occurs in this state shall be filed within 5 days after such birth with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred and shall be registered by the local registrar if the certificate has been completed and filed in accordance with this chapter and adopted rules. The information regarding registered births shall be used for comparison with information in the state case registry, as defined in chapter 61. (1) FILING.-- (a) If a birth occurs in a hospital, birth center, or other health care facility, or en route thereto, the person in charge of the facility shall be responsible for preparing the certificate, certifying the facts of the birth, and filing the certificate with the local registrar. Within 48 hours after the birth, the physician, midwife, or person in attendance during or immediately after the delivery shall provide the facility with the medical information required by the birth certificate.
(e) The mother or the father of the child shall attest to the accuracy of the personal data entered on the certificate in time to permit the timely registration of the certificate.

** **
[[ Parents are just a witness to an event that happened, that’s it, nothing more. ]]
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition
ATTESTATION, contracts and evidence. The act of witnessing an instrument of writing, at the request of the party making the same, and subscribing it as a witness. 3 P. Wms. 254 2 Ves. 454 1 Ves. & B. 362;3 Marsh. 146; 3 Bibb. 494; 17 Pick. 373."

Summarizing what we have here so far:

- The registrar registers

- The person of the facility files

- parents are witnesses

Can you see here now that it was not the parents who registered nor filed for a Certificate of Live Birth?
A woman in our local group here is a nurse who had worked in a county hospital in a birthing center and she said now after the application data is entered in by staff to a computer that sendi the information electronically to the the state, the application itself is then shredded and thrown away.

Continuing on the Certificate of Live Birth was never meant to be used as identification purposes,
but we acting in a belligerent manner did it anyway using as identification to get other government owned identification, Thus subjecating ourselves to the jurisdiction thereof.

There is a couple court cases floating around out there stating that the COLB/BC is not to be used as identification, I will add those in here when I can find them again, in the mean time check out this video and listen to just the first 1 minute of it at least: ( 1 minute is not a whole lot at all considering how many minutes you stare at your screen in a day )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoOLF7wWY9w

So you should be able to get some clarity of why I would backtrack to see where we went wrong.
Is it unlawful to be born? If not then should we have a unalienable "natural" right to live without statutory justification accepting such a thing as a benefit?

The birth certificate serves to incorporate the child into the body corporate of the United States and of the State.
The body politic would be the legislature, judiciary, and executive branches of government.

The body corporate and body politic together is government. Government would not be much without subjects whether persons or property to govern :).

The birth certificate is evidence of citizenship.

I had a nice thread at ol' SJC2 on my theory titled "Incorporation Theory". A person can be brought into a body through some formal method such as a ceremony or document. A person can be invested (robed) with a quality.

I need to make a short treatise out of it sometime.

This "Incorporation Theory" came to me from book titled, "The King's Two Bodies". The King was obviously a physical human being, but was also vested (robed) with the powers of Sovereignty and Kingship as well as being the body politic of the nation. The subjects form the body corporate.

Another subject worthy of deeper study is 'investiture'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

The birth certificate serves to incorporate the child into the body corporate of the United States and of the State.
The body politic would be the legislature, judiciary, and executive branches of government.

The body corporate and body politic together is government. Government would not be much without subjects whether persons or property to govern :).

The birth certificate is evidence of citizenship.

I had a nice thread at ol' SJC2 on my theory titled "Incorporation Theory". A person can be brought into a body through some formal method such as a ceremony or document. A person can be invested (robed) with a quality.

I need to make a short treatise out of it sometime.

This "Incorporation Theory" came to me from book titled, "The King's Two Bodies". The King was obviously a physical human being, but was also vested (robed) with the powers of Sovereignty and Kingship as well as being the body politic of the nation. The subjects form the body corporate.

Another subject worthy of deeper study is 'investiture'.

---

Through my research and study the past couple of years I have found this to be nothing but patriot banter with no backing. Nowhere on the COLB or BC does it say anything about citizenship. A couple court cases have shown that the COLB/BC was not to be used for identification purposes, yet we did it anyway by going out and getting social security cards,
voters cards and drivers license, this is when we have put are mark on a document under penalties of purjury that the " name " on that original document was a U.S. Person.
We basically testified against the name which we were not to do and this is what the moo ha is about when people talk about enslavement,
look in the mirror, we did it to ourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTckFl0jPN8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

Through my research and study the past couple of years I have found this to be nothing but patriot banter with no backing. Nowhere on the COLB or BC does it say anything about citizenship.

---

Your research on this point is flawed. No disrespect to you as a being.

This has nothing to do with patriot banter and everything to do with public corporate customs, historical law, and jurisprudence.

How about we take it straight from the horses mouth: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00b92ca60aRCRD

Quote:

---

Proof of U.S. Citizenship and Identification When Applying for a Job

Your U.S. passport is your best proof of U.S. citizenship. Other official documents can be used, as described below.

Are you a citizen born in the United States?

Your birth certificate provides proof of citizenship. If you need a copy of your birth certificate, contact the Bureau of Vital Statistics in the State in which you were born. We do not issue any kind of citizenship document to a person who is a citizen by birth in the United States.

---

There are court cases affirming and reiterating my point above, but it is overkill at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

A couple court cases have shown that the COLB/BC was not to be used for identification purposes, ...

---

My point spoke upon citizenship as well as alluding to a purpose of the birth certificate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

yet we did it anyway by going out and getting social security cards,
voters cards and drivers license, this is when we have put are mark on a document under penalties of purjury that the " name " on that original document was a U.S. Person.
We basically testified against the name which we were not to do and this is what the moo ha is about when people talk about enslavement,
look in the mirror, we did it to ourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTckFl0jPN8

---

I do agree with you that people do much to enslave themselves by their own hand and mouth as anything.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider the "Incorporation Theory"?

Allow me to restate that the birth certificate takes a human baby child into a political society and its resultant body corporate.

In this case, there are two political societies we are speaking upon: these United States as well as the several (individual) states (nations).
We should review such terms of body politic, body corporate, and incorporate.

Certificates, licenses, permits, identification, and the like all have to do with the law of evidence as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Your research on this point is flawed. No disrespect to you as a being.

How about we take it straight from the horses mouth: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00b92ca60aRCRD



There are court cases affirming and reiterating my point above, but it is overkill at this point.



My point spoke upon citizenship as well as alluding to a purpose of the birth certificate.



I do agree with you that people do much to enslave themselves by their own hand and mouth as anything.

Perhaps you would like to reconsider the "Incorporation Theory"?

Allow me to restate that the birth certificate takes a human baby child into a political society, a body corporate.

In this case, there are two political societies we are speaking upon: these United States as well as the several (individual) states (nations).
We should review such terms of body politic, body corporate, and incorporate as well.

Certificates, licenses, permits, identification, and the like all have to do with the law of evidence as well.

---

Thanks for such a quick response and explanation.

What you have shown me here though is Public opinion, not the law. We both should know by now even the IRS prints out brochures and other such notices which are taken out of context and do not show the law in it's entirety which is an intentional bias I believe. Through an employer I worked for had spoken to their corporate attorney, after explaining some of my positions to exemptions of withholding and what I just mentioned. He said that he understood and agreed with my position, but warned me the powers that be might not like it. This was labelled as a "non-exempt" position when I applied, I made some statements on the paperwork which triggered HR to contact me and I immediately asked to speak with their corporate attorney.
I worked their 6 years and most of the withholding was exempted the entire time. The only thing taken out was medicare in which he showed me the statute that said they had to take it out,
not even state taxes were taken out.
If that is not right from the horses mouth, not sure what is, however this conversation was not recorded, all I can do is when I get something worked out for a scanner then I will post up the paystub so you can see it for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

What you have shown me here though is Public opinion, not the law. We both should know by now even the IRS prints out brochures and other such notices which are taken out of context and do not show the law in it's entirety which is an intentional bias I believe.

---

This is a partial error.

There are three aspects of "law" if you will: written, spoken, and enforced. The aforementioned is courtesy of Lord Edward Coke.
I did stipulate that there are court cases affirming what I have just given you. These court cases (case "law") serve as the "spoken" form of law.

There are other government websites stipulating the same conclusion: that a birth certificate serves as PROOF of citizenship. If requested, I will dig for those court cases.
There is a strong administrative law aspect to all of this.

The concept of identification will parallel and run through birth certificates as well.

Perhaps it would help to give my perspective on how I research?

As to the title of this thread, citizen means subject.
This definition of citizen as subject comes to us from English Common Law most particularly from the 14th century onward.
The concept of citizenship goes all the way back to the Greek and Roman empires.

Civilian can also mean a teacher, professor, student, or practitioner of Roman Civil Law. I found this definition while reading through a treatise on Admiralty Law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

This is a partial error.

There are three aspects of "law" if you will: written, spoken, and enforced. The aforementioned is courtesy of Lord Edward Coke.
I did stipulate that there are court cases affirming what I have just given you. These court cases (case "law") serve as the "spoken" form of law.

There are other government websites stipulating the same conclusion: that a birth certificate serves as PROOF of citizenship. If requested, I will dig for those court cases.
There is a strong administrative law aspect to all of this.

The concept of identification will parallel and run through birth certificates as well.

Perhaps it would help to give my perspective on how I research?

---

I do admit in backing up your previous statement about the matrimony part I can see your point though:

HEIR. "One born in lawful matrimony"
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

What makes it lawful? Because of the "unilateral agreement" between parent-persons and state-persons or even recording in the bible between the parents because you only need 2 or more witnesses correct?
Never the less it is a recorded event in which a piece of paper describes a baby, but we are no longer babies, have we not grown into adults capable of accepting the position as Son and Heir?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

I do admit in backing up your previous statement about the matrimony part I can see your point though:

HEIR. "One born in lawful matrimony"
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

---

I made no statements concerning matrimony, however there are important connections between marriage and the State particularly for those who have availed themselves of a marriage license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

What makes it lawful? Because of the "unilateral agreement" between parent-persons and state-persons or even recording in the bible between the parents because you only need 2 or more witnesses correct?
Never the less it is a recorded event in which a piece of paper describes a baby, but we are no longer babies, have we not grown into adults capable of accepting the position as Son and Heir?

---

There are many definitions concerning the term law. So the question, "What is law?" is an excellent question although a deep and complicated one.

One definition that I like is that the Sovereign is not subject to the law, but is the author and source of it.
Law, in one sense, is will. Will of the political power holder. In most countries, this political power holder will take the form of a monarchy. In others, it will be a republic of one form or another.
Law, in another definition, is a rule with a penalty.

Both Lord Edward Coke and Lord William Blackstone have excellent writings concerning their opinion on Law and English Common Law.

In a completely different context, you are correct. Law can be an agreement between parties.
There is the maxim, "Contract makes the law ...."
The above is why the freedom to contract is a most dangerous freedom in deed. Powerful enough to make a servant out of a freeman. This happens everyday for most with employment, applications, licenses, permits, and more.

Some updated details about signing authority for the name, keep in mind this is just updates of our progress, cannot prove anything yet as we have not tried to use it anywhere yet:

In the Canadian Vital Statistics Act
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/sta...1990-c-v4.html

Admissibility of certificates, etc.
46. (1) A certificate purporting to be issued under section 44 or a certified copy of a registration purporting to be issued under section 45 signed by the Registrar General or Deputy Registrar General or on which the signature of either of them is reproduced by any method is admissible in any court in Ontario as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified, and it is not necessary to prove the signature or official position of the person by whom the certificate or certified copy purports to be signed.

The following notation is from a local Coresource study group member in reference to the above:
===================
On another note...
I have had three of the Certificates of Indemnity returned to me authenticated by the STATE OF MICHIGAN. I just received them back yesterday. The verbiage on the authentication cover document is quite interesting. The verbiage indicates that the Registrar does in fact, by action of signing/putting his/her signature to the Certificate of Live Birth, does so in and through the full faith and credit that has been granted to them in the capacity of their office. Now, where do you think this, "full faith and credit," originated?

This is only made possible through the presumption of the pledge made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on behalf of the People of the Republic United States of America to the UNITED STATES, INC. bankruptcy of 1933, which became the Receiver of the Bankruptcy. I also think it is possible that this is a nexus point revealing if we have not made our intent known through expression of who we put our Trust into, but rather have allowed it to be implied it through our action(s), thus allowing for the presumption to have standing and the full force and affect of law.

Furthermore, I also believe that this pledge can be properly rebutted, rescinded, and revoked, ab inito, nunc pro tunc, in a peaceful manner, and this would change a lot of things. Perhaps even bring to a conclusion the conquest that needs to be complete, per Lincoln's General Orders 100. In the spirit of this, I wrote the following for another friend by inspiration to help encourage them in their time of need. I think part of what I have written herein below, could apply for just such an expression and covenant of Trust dedicated and declared for the purpose of Giving, Forgiving, and Trust in honor of Love and for the Love that Loved Us first, the foundation through which all such things are made possible.

> there was a separation in thought here when establishing identity in court: >

"Furthermore, you may consider this formal notice that I do not consent to be recognized by that name, firstly because it is not my creation and I had nothing to do with its creation, and secondly, because I do not claim to own it or be the owner of it in any fashion. Therefore, mark my words, it was never my will and intent to gift or pledge to you the energy of my life, labor, body, soul, and spirit through such an entity/creation directly or indirectly, expressed or implied.

Therefore, however you determine to settle this matter, is fully under the jurisdiction of your own power and authority, of which I AM determined to not interfere, for I AM a peaceful inhabitant sent of my Father who I AM one with as an Envoy to help you settle this matter honorable."

"Now, is there anything more that I can help you with? If there is nothing more for me to help you with, and seeing how this issue does not involve me and that you are fully capable of settling it, I will be taking my leave of you now."

====================

There is another guy through a private group I am not in contact with in Georgia that got authentication " through the elections office " that has the same verbiage of " full faith and credit",
not to mention the video that had been show from canada of making the same statements about what he got.

The point of Authentication again was to eventually prove out that the Authenticated COLB could act as a passport here in the states as stated from Mark from canada in his video.

Summarize tracking of the COLB/BC:

- " Revenue Receipt " , linked to indemnification as stated in the Liber Code.

- Authenticated in the intent of " full faith and credit" mentioned in more then 1 authentication, also stated on U.S. Currency.

We are getting closer to the goal of proving this out that the authenticated COLB/BC standing on it's own could be used as a passport in our travels without actually having to apply for some separate passport under penalties of purjury, also as stated in the above canadian statutes that registrar generals have signing authority for the name in court room situations (passing through commerce) ' just passing through.
Your body (state of me) was born from the soil and it shall return to the soil when the creator says your time on this earth is up.
Another guy in our study group has a interesting online name in accordance to this " Dan of the Dust ".

Have a great day.

This is interesting and an awesome find!
http://idhistory.ncidpolicy.org/hist_identity_bc.html

Quote:

---

* Birth Certificates *

In England, where English Common Law arose, even into modern times a birth certificate is not given official regard as an identity document, although the novel phenomenon of demanding it as such has very recently arisen parallel with this same novel trend in the U.S. [and has led to a 2004 statute in Britain authorizing issuance of new birth certificates in some cases, despite its official status as NOT being an identity document]. Indeed, the early advent of birth certificates bore no impact upon the ability of an individual to change identity at will, initially being devoid of identity information specific to any individual, and the complete and universal disregard for their existence in daily business and life prevented their existence from infringing upon that right. That is, birth certificates were not solicited for any purposes except later in contested inheritances of noble titles, and so their rare existence did not disclose the existence of any former identity of an individual, and such information remained strictly private throughout life.

Presently, in U.S. law, a birth certificate continues this legal tradition and does not dictate an individual's contemporaneous legal identity, and is Constitutionally prohibited from doing so. (Marbury v. Madison (S Ct., 1803); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); Harman v. Forsenius (S Ct., 1965); Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (S Ct., 1989); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); et al.; Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); et al.). In order to make any use of a birth certificate subsequent to birth in proper accordance with the rule of law, it is necessary for states to issue new birth certificates to an individual upon identity change, and without cross-reference to any prior identity information or certificate, at the sole direction of that individual. Failure of any agents of the state to do so constitutes felony violations of law. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1001, 1028, et al.).



The concept of the birth certificate appears to have derived from customs among nobility, where it was originally applied strictly among nobility. It was a determination of a putative heir to a noble title, and the role of this certification was to ensure the ongoing lineage of that particular noble title. Acknowledgment and acceptance of a child as an heir by a noble family was optional, and at the discretion of the noble head of household. Such 'certifications' were issued directly by heads of noble households as acknowledgments of a potential heir and inheritance right of that heir, and could be issued or revoked at any time by that noble (the putative heir could be disowned) to any individual able to fulfill the duties of the role of heir to that title, even an individual biologically of another lineage (the noble could adopt any child or adult as an heir).

During later times of increasingly stringent patrilineal patriarchy, family noble lineage became predominantly patrilineal (passing from patriarchal head of household to patriarchal heir), and gender role associations by such certifications slowly emerged. The right to inherit noble titles also came to be determined more formally in the order of seniority of potential heirs, giving rise to an interest in determining the order of the acquisition of a potential right to inherit, later becoming more stringently the order of birth (hence documentation of dates of birth, and increasingly consistent issuance of such certifications at birth).

In other words, the 'birth certificates' were certifications of noble lineage and inheritance right that came to be based upon reasonably demonstrated ability to properly fulfill the social role expectations of a patriarchal heir to a family lineage. Any heir without such acknowledgment was not a noble patriarchal heir, and therefore was not documented by such certification. In short, the ancient legal role of a 'birth certificate' was more akin to the modern legal role of a will for noble titles (and the estates associated with those titles). But, again, to ensure the ongoing lineage of that particular noble title. This is why, to this day, the stigma of an 'illegitimate', or 'bastard', conception is so extreme, and nearly on par with feminizing epithets directed at putative males.

Such 'birth certificates' were also not originally in the form of paper documentation, but in symbolic form, such as a grant of right to wear a noble family crest or shield or other symbols on armor or clothing, or go into combat under the standard or banner that represented the noble family, with the putative heir granted the greatest leadership authority (second to the nobleman patriarch himself) under that standard or banner. In these early forms, there were no representations of identity information specific to the individual heir, but only familial information and the putative rights of inheritance to familial noble title. Modern birth certificates sometimes retain vestiges of these early traditions in the form of disclosing parental identity information on the face of some birth certificates.

In general, a putative heir had ongoing opportunity to earn acknowledgment of paternity and masculinity (patriarchal suitability), and the right to inherit, from the putative paternal nobleman throughout life, and could even re-earn it again subsequent to being disowned. Later, when the system of nobility was banished from the U.S., this control over "birth certificates" at law was transferred from the patriarchal nobleman to the free individual, conforming it to the same standard (dictated exclusively by the individual) as for identity change dating to earlier times when name was the full extent of identity. (Marbury v. Madison (S Ct., 1803); Christianson v. King County (S Ct., 1915); Harman v. Forsenius (S Ct., 1965); Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (S Ct., 1989); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (S Ct., 1992); Lawrence v. Texas (S Ct., 2003); Jonson v. Greaves (KB, 1765); Entick v. Carrington and Three Other King's Messengers (KB, 1765); et al.). Consequently, by common law within the U.S., the power to issue, withdraw, change, reissue or entirely omit a birth certificate is entirely at the discretion of the individual described by that birth certificate. This individual power clearly remains wherever and to whatever extent legislatively enacted laws, pursuant to case law, have not abrogated.

However, it is this history of determination of worthiness for inheritance of a noble title that leaves, to this day, a most profound social shaming in being deemed an 'illegitimate' or 'bastard' child.

---

There is more. Check it out.

Yes, that is quite interesting, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

Some updated details about signing authority for the name, keep in mind this is just updates of our progress, cannot prove anything yet as we have not tried to use it anywhere yet:

In the Canadian Vital Statistics Act
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/sta...1990-c-v4.html

Admissibility of certificates, etc.
46. (1) A certificate purporting to be issued under section 44 or a certified copy of a registration purporting to be issued under section 45 signed by the Registrar General or Deputy Registrar General or on which the signature of either of them is reproduced by any method is admissible in any court in Ontario as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts so certified, and it is not necessary to prove the signature or official position of the person by whom the certificate or certified copy purports to be signed.

The following notation is from a local Coresource study group member in reference to the above:
===================
On another note...
I have had three of the Certificates of Indemnity returned to me authenticated by the STATE OF MICHIGAN. I just received them back yesterday. The verbiage on the authentication cover document is quite interesting. The verbiage indicates that the Registrar does in fact, by action of signing/putting his/her signature to the Certificate of Live Birth, does so in and through the full faith and credit that has been granted to them in the capacity of their office. Now, where do you think this, "full faith and credit," originated?

This is only made possible through the presumption of the pledge made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on behalf of the People of the Republic United States of America to the UNITED STATES, INC. bankruptcy of 1933, which became the Receiver of the Bankruptcy. I also think it is possible that this is a nexus point revealing if we have not made our intent known through expression of who we put our Trust into, but rather have allowed it to be implied it through our action(s), thus allowing for the presumption to have standing and the full force and affect of law.

Furthermore, I also believe that this pledge can be properly rebutted, rescinded, and revoked, ab inito, nunc pro tunc, in a peaceful manner, and this would change a lot of things. Perhaps even bring to a conclusion the conquest that needs to be complete, per Lincoln's General Orders 100. In the spirit of this, I wrote the following for another friend by inspiration to help encourage them in their time of need. I think part of what I have written herein below, could apply for just such an expression and covenant of Trust dedicated and declared for the purpose of Giving, Forgiving, and Trust in honor of Love and for the Love that Loved Us first, the foundation through which all such things are made possible.

> there was a separation in thought here when establishing identity in court: >

"Furthermore, you may consider this formal notice that I do not consent to be recognized by that name, firstly because it is not my creation and I had nothing to do with its creation, and secondly, because I do not claim to own it or be the owner of it in any fashion. Therefore, mark my words, it was never my will and intent to gift or pledge to you the energy of my life, labor, body, soul, and spirit through such an entity/creation directly or indirectly, expressed or implied.

Therefore, however you determine to settle this matter, is fully under the jurisdiction of your own power and authority, of which I AM determined to not interfere, for I AM a peaceful inhabitant sent of my Father who I AM one with as an Envoy to help you settle this matter honorable."

"Now, is there anything more that I can help you with? If there is nothing more for me to help you with, and seeing how this issue does not involve me and that you are fully capable of settling it, I will be taking my leave of you now."

====================

There is another guy through a private group I am not in contact with in Georgia that got authentication " through the elections office " that has the same verbiage of " full faith and credit",
not to mention the video that had been show from canada of making the same statements about what he got.

The point of Authentication again was to eventually prove out that the Authenticated COLB could act as a passport here in the states as stated from Mark from canada in his video.

Summarize tracking of the COLB/BC:

- " Revenue Receipt " , linked to indemnification as stated in the Liber Code.

- Authenticated in the intent of " full faith and credit" mentioned in more then 1 authentication, also stated on U.S. Currency.

We are getting closer to the goal of proving this out that the authenticated COLB/BC standing on it's own could be used as a passport in our travels without actually having to apply for some separate passport under penalties of purjury, also as stated in the above canadian statutes that registrar generals have signing authority for the name in court room situations (passing through commerce) ' just passing through.
Your body (state of me) was born from the soil and it shall return to the soil when the creator says your time on this earth is up.
Another guy in our study group has a interesting online name in accordance to this " Dan of the Dust ".

Have a great day.

---

Updating on the Authentication process, I found related information in Florida statutes associating registrar as trustee, plus more:

The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)


Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONSChapter 678
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: INVESTMENT SECURITIES

678.4071 Authenticating trustee, transfer agent, and registrar.―A person acting as authenticating trustee, transfer agent, registrar, or other agent for an issuer in the registration of a transfer of its securities, in the issue of new security certificates or uncertificated securities, or in the cancellation of surrendered security certificates has the same obligation to the holder or owner of a certificated or uncertificated security with regard to the particular functions performed as the issuer has in regard to those functions.View Entire Chapter
History.―s. 4, ch. 98-11.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0678.4071.html

I just got word through the grapevine about other study groups, the same guy who got a hospital bill taken care of got a second one and another interesting event a man in Texas who's wife died over complications of a long battle with cancer and a huge hospital bill had taken a certified copy of the death certificate tendered to the window of the billing clerk via certified mail and got the whole hospital bill settle in full, he had got a letter back telling him so.
Unfortunately I have no direct contact with these people and since this was done in the private it has to stay in the private.
I got some stories about hospital bills taken care of in the past, but I do things differently these days in how to take care of them as shown similar success with vehicle taxes.

You all will get some enjoyment out of this attachment, someone in our groups sent this to me, a response from a Vital Stats Office. Also shows a little proof of things I mentioned:

- Not to be used as identification

- Certificate is only proof that the original exists somewhere, the only artifact we have to go on is the seal of the one holding the original in trust.

There is a contradiction in this thing though, if it is not suppose to be ID then how else are you suppose to get these other documents it mentions you use it to get. Could it be they are making you an offer to contract as trustee with your high office as Heir?
Seems a bit of a demotion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTckFl0jPN8

[ see attachment ]

Great Info Matla

So if the birth cert is not to used as Identification, does that mean a drivers license is not a valid form of Identification. How does one establish identification. I guess it would be the same as it has always been. What you claim. Frederick Burrell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick Burrell

Great Info Matla

So if the birth cert is not to used as Identification, does that mean a drivers license is not a valid form of Identification. How does one establish identification. I guess it would be the same as it has always been. What you claim. Frederick Burrell

---

There is a couple of schools of thought on all that, we are working on it to prove it out one way or another, I hate to even go into the details about them schools of thought because we have no proof yet so we continue on with some next steps.

- I hear rumors that a couple of guys in different parts of the country walked into a DMV office and explained their position, in the end got a DL without signing or paying.
That is one of the next things on the agenda this will prove out. The one I have now needs a mailing location corrected, so will see what I can do with it.
Also the one in my possession I first got back in 1985 when they were still allowing religious objections for not giving a SSN, about 3 years ago I went in there to
ask some questions, one I asked was the number they put in, they would not give it to me even though I had the instrument referencing their computer entry,
I asked if it ended in a certain last 4 numbers that I knew was the SSN and he said no it does not, so whatever they have in there who knows.

The creator gave man earth as a gift to take care of (stewardship) and these corporations and government have taken resources away from that gift to do what they
do, so therefore we demand consideration, that consideration is the recycling of credit in their system, this is the indemnification mentioned a few times as realted
to Coresource education. One man who wishes to remain anonymous shared with me a letter that I seen with my own eyes that said basically and not specific that
they were thankful that the user returned the the credit so that someone else could also use it for their education. This man used Coresource Solution education
material to settle the amount owed.

Will keep you all up to date on that progress of course.

You probably see this video before but it’s worth repeating.

No man can serve two masters; we need evidence as well.

"A man cannot serve two masters"

The flesh =man

two masters

One the indwelling spirit, the christ within

two the ego, mind that usurpted the place of spirit.

which one rules you house, or is it divided.

Just my interpretation of your quote. I find I like it better than the implied one as it does not create a controversy with TPTB.

Why not just remove your self from the body politic by renouncing your US citizenship and claim national status. Its not a lengthy process. Many are doing it to avoid income taxes when they move out of the country. Correct your error of using the birth cert for purposes it wasn't intended for. There has been a mistake. fB

Why not just remove your self from the body politic by renouncing your US citizenship? The Irs Code states

The Treasury Department (issuer of debt notes) and IRS (enforcement of debt notes) have authority to issue regulations under IRC ? 877A that your worldwide property has been sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation or residency termination.

Who gave them authority over your property is 1 unanswered question? I like persons names with faces.
2nd who gave anyone authority over you? Pessimism.

Irs tries their self-made remedy for that, that corporation does not make law.

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was simply an exercise of a States "numerous and indefinite" powers.

Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State.

Framer James Wilson said, "a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union."

These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Read more here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chex

Who gave them authority over your property is 1 unanswered question? I like persons names with faces.
2nd who gave anyone authority over you? Pessimism.

Irs tries their self-made remedy for that, that corporation does not make law.

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was simply an exercise of a States "numerous and indefinite" powers.

Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State.

Framer James Wilson said, "a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union."

These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Read more here

---

This has changed due to:

a) the Civil War
b) 14th Amendment

Prior to the Civil War what you stated above was the case.

A night and day difference between Scott v. Sandford (1856) and the Slaugher-House cases (1873).

Place (public) of birth -> locus celebrationis. Intrinsic allegiance of a "creature of State"? If you are "First Middle Last" you might be a creature of a State. Consider the following:

Quote:

---

It is irrefutably impossible for I, ....., to have become by birth subject to the State of ....

---

I posted this in another thread, but it fits in nicely here as well. Anyone with a Social Security Card is considered "Federal Personnel":

5 USC ? 552a - Records maintained on individuals
(a) Definitions.


(13) the term ?Federal personnel? means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).