Birth Certificate - What it is

[doug555]

The man-child is the "naked owner", having the reversionary interest in the usufruct as the holder of the Certificate of Live Birth receipt for the infant, and upon proof of life of the infant not being a decedent. http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...ct-merger.html

All one should ever need do is "redeem" the "trust receipt" with the "issuer" (Registrar or Bankruptcy Trustee) because until the living dude shows up with "equitable interest claim" via the "trust receipt", that account is held in trust for use by the Fed Res and Treasury for "care and maintenance" of the "estate" held in "trust" which is just the "usufructuary interest" of the "child" associated with the "event" and "the administrator and "usufructuary" of the "agricultural estate" (BC) have "monetized" the "account receivable" (Live Birth cert) and now need to "service" the "account payable" (Live Birth cert) of the usufruct because usufruct is inherently a "dual bookkeeping system" ... account receivable ("fruit harvested") + account payable ("usufructuary duties") = "usufructuary interest" http://www.iamsomedude.com/equity_set-off.html

What (trust) law made this possible?

Who did this?

Where did it all start for all of us? There has to be a starting point.

What gave them the right? Where is our consent?

And where is the law that said they can do this?

Other than the “Mother Of All Black Ops": What Edward Mandell House said to Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/House.htm

Where is the contract?

Good questions...

Present and actual "Transfer of res" is an essential element of trust.

Does not a "delivery" occur in the "delivery room" when the mother delivers her baby-child from her womb?

Then, does she not "inform" of this event on a piece of paper which she signs, as the "informant"?

Then, is there is no proof of legitimacy of this event by a registered marriage, does not the presumption of illegitimacy stand as fact after 7 years of not being rebutted (no claim made on the child being legitimate, and not a decedent)?

Does the state not rightly assume liability and ownership of such unclaimed property (the estate of the child)?

Yet, does not this property revest when the proper owner appears?

See: http://usufructremedy.blogspot.com/p...t-receipt.html

Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone
BOOK 2, CHAPTER 7
OF FREEHOLD ESTATES, OF INHERITANCE

... of which Titius is seized in his demesne as of fee. The fee-simple or
inheritance of lands and tenements is generally vested and resides in some
person or other; though diverse inferior estates may be carved out of it. As
if one grants a lease for twenty one years, or for one or two lives, the fee simple
remains vested in him and his heirs; and after the determination of
those years or lives, the land reverts to the grantor or his heirs, who shall
hold it again in fee-simple. Yet sometimes the fee may be in abeyance, that
is (as the word signifies) in expectation, remembrance, and contemplation
of law; there being no person in esse, in whom it can vest and abide;
though the law considers it as always potentially existing, and ready to vest
whenever a proper owner appears.

Now, how can one appear on the record as grantor, or heir thereof, of the property in question?

Would not a record such as this, or one that is similar in substance of form, suffice?