Birth Certificate - What it is

[Michael Joseph]

Wet Ink signatures can also mean seals or company trade marks. Bills of exchange act.
The BC's which are all originals are never held by the issuing state.
What purpose would a BC have to sit with the issuing party? Absolutely nothing.

Mom and Dad granted the SOLB to the state by filling it up (not filled in) and delivering it.
Its a bailment with Mom and Dad becoming the bailor and the state become the bailee.

The BC switch's Mom and Dad as being the bailee and the state becomes the bailor.

Yes bailment is an act of transfer of goods but said act is without transfer of ownership. To deliver is to make the abandonment of the livery. If I make the livery of goods upon you for the use of another is not that a confidence reposed in you?

The BC and the SSN are expressly not to be used as ID but is this the common practice of the henchman [corporate policy]? Is it possible to show ID proving one's trust in the State? What can be used to prove said trust? If you say mail - how did you establish the residence? If you say utility bills - how did you establish the account? If you say a lease, then how did you establish the lease? Etc.

I hope someone will take up my challenge of how to prove trust in a system that requires its own issue to prove the trust. How do you come into possession of said issue without first proving trust? Origins cannot be dismissed. Where was the first trust deed? Who performed it?

Perhaps if you name is registered into the Book of Life - you will be granted access into the Kingdom. Registry of Birth....

[allodial]

This might an insightful link: The Birth Certificate.

The certificate is of course an original. They historically are certifications of the existence of an entry in the "register of births".

The thing so many people seem to dodge around the the significance of the name being on the register. Too much time has been spent on the certificate itself rather than getting to the heart of the significance of the entry in the register. Back in the day when someone requested a birth certificate, the register was checked for the name and DOB and if an entry was found a CERTIFICATE WAS MADE THAT THE ENTRY EXISTS. What is the significance of the name being in the register?

[ag maniac]

This might an insightful link: The Birth Certificate.



The thing so many people seem to dodge around the the significance of the name being on the register. Too much time has been spent on the certificate itself rather than getting to the heart of the significance of the entry in the register. Back in the day when someone requested a birth certificate, the register was checked for the name and DOB and if an entry was found a CERTIFICATE WAS MADE THAT THE ENTRY EXISTS. What is the significance of the name being in the register?

Well, if one claims it as their own & identifies with it......I'd have to say the following depiction is most accurate

[allodial]

And if Uncle Sam (some refer to as Uncle Samael) owns a person: he is liable for the person's debts.

[BLBereans]

And if Uncle Sam (some refer to as Uncle Samael) owns a person: he is liable for the person's debts.

True; whoever claims to own, takes the full liability of the thing owned. The person is useless and worthless without some one who lives transmitting energy and labor through it. It is presumed that will happen, and, said person's transmissions and transactions are speculated against and then used as the "collateral" behind the nation's currency.

The bottom line is that the living man's labor, time and energy is property that can only be rightfully claimed by said man. No one has a higher claim to that time, energy and labor than the man from whom these things derive.

These things can be given freely from the living to the living without the need of a "person". However, when one uses a person, one enters into the realm of the DEAD, and, depending upon how one acts when one transacts in said realm, one will either be treated as equal to, and part of, the realm (DEAD) or as a foreigner (alive). Those who are truly recognized as man (alive) cannot be held liable for anything in the DEAD realm because a man (alive), who always acts as such, would not lay claim to anything in the DEAD realm.

The BC is evidence of an event, I agree. The event was that a person was created (birthed) and was registered with the STATE OF ...

Did baby do this? Did mom and dad do this? Who created the person, who registered it and for what purpose? Why was the living presented with this evidence (CERTIFICATE)?

My point is that the baby, who is associated with the event which created the BC, does NOT own the BC or the person associated with it. When baby grows up and chooses to utilize said person, he/she can only lay claim to the time, energy and labor he/she produces as his/her property.

Property is NOT ownership; a claim of ownership implies a claim to the marketable title of a thing whereby profit and gain are either sought out and/or stored - kept for the benefit of ME.

That goes against the teachings of Jesus the Christ who is The King of the Heavens and the earth. Those who seek out riches, wealth and security in this world in the form of worldly ownership claims, are treated as enemies of the people (living).

The more "secular" people think the government is, the more evidence emerges of God's Will and Law being implemented. Not to say that ALL those who hold office in government are fully aware of this; God can use anyone and anything in order to fulfill His ultimate Will regardless if one is aware or not.

[xparte]

Very any PERSON BYE STANDING [the innocent bystander ]we as a certificate are a Gold deposit ,LB your explanation is flawless as all mankind was registered under false gods.The Birth.C. and Death.C. are "secular" in every mining operation books need balance walking in holy spirit separates weights and measures as suffering is to labour miners stake the claim searching for a heart of gold is a weight only in Christ is the true measure of a mans soul. \The Biblical Law is know innocent bystander .WE all see on this form that STANDING before God claims no bystanders Christ,s only crime explains be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. ... Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents?if i know thy self as that sheep yet be wise in that knowledge [NO ARGUMENTS snakes and ladders NO CLAIMS] the sheep's deception is his own.

[allodial]

True; whoever claims to own, takes the full liability of the thing owned. The person is useless and worthless without some one who lives transmitting energy and labor through it. It is presumed that will happen, and, said person's transmissions and transactions are speculated against and then used as the "collateral" behind the nation's currency.

Well maybe the state and the original purpose wasn't intended to be harmful to you and the reason state issues the certificate is so that you can use it to your advantage. But the disinformation is designed to make you not see that the state is willingly taking liability for the person as opposed to the bankster controlled MSM which has hidden the truth from you. Consider the trustee that hates you, vs. the trustee that loves you. The trustee that hates you knows how much you have and how wealthy you are would rather give you a million dollars buried under layers of cow poop and call it a sculpture hoping you will throw it away and not dig deeper.

Like I've mentioned over and over, cop asked me if I had a birth certificate. I replied that I was unaware of having (that means 'holding as a fiduciary or surety') any such thing. I asked, "Don't the birth certificates you are referring to belong to the State?" (He kept going on and shouting how we were "in the State of ..." trying to intentionally get me into an aggressive mode and thereby he undermined the King's Peace and offended the Crown in the process.--so I put the question to him about "the State" he was going on and on about.) He replied: "Yes." I asked "And so if it belongs to the State the 'names' on the thing you call a birth certificate also belong to the State then, right?" { I already knew the answers but figured but all his talk about "the State" the questions popped into my head and maybe subconsciously I felt it important to get the facts through his skull.} He replied "Yes." And I replied: "Well as far as I know I'm not the state. So how can any of those things be mine." He instantly said "I want you to leave!" Yet he was the one who got in my way and started the chat not me. I asked "How about me and my friend stay and continue to talk for a while?" He said "I want you to leave?" I said: "You know what. I decided that I will leave."

I have little respect for anyone who disrespects the office and the uniform while wearing it. Yet, I showed all of them love, patience and kindness throughout the entire 45 minute or so theft of my time.

Now before the BC question, I had been asked if I had a last name, SSN, date of birth, if I was unemployed. And I got ask those things TWICE by two cops including the tiny-sized duty officer. I am neither employed, employable, unemployed nor self-employed. I said however that I have the right to work. Employment is a servitude. I made it clear: no last name, no date of birth, no 'residence'. "Where is your house?" "North of here." "Is it in the city or is it in 'the count'?" "As far as I know its on the side of a hill not to far from {the forest or whatever obvious terrain marker} about {X} miles from here *pointing* straight that way I'd say." 100% honesty. "Where you born over here?" *cop points to the ground* "When you're a baby you don't tend to remember much of anything, right? As far as my family records show I was born in my family's private household." (just illustrations of Q&A)

I have even been asked if I have a "cell phone number". "What is your cellphone number?" {Last I checked ain't a cellphone!} Answer: "As far as I know my cell phone has a number. I'm unaware of having a cellphone number. Those are for cellphones aren't they?" This is truth. If you answer as 'having' (holding as in owning or being surety for it) they will take you as in ownership of a legal construct of a public utility--seriously. I was also asked about my home phone number. I was perplexed: "As far as I know that is the number of the telephone or telephone line itself. I'm unaware of it being MY number."

I had two forms of I.D.: one of which is a motorist competency certificate in card form. The other was a special driving license or evidence of the right to drive issued to me as non-resident (let's just say it was court issued)--neither ID were of U.S. State jurisdiction. He himself even asserted the validity of the license which he himself called a driver's license when he asked "Do you have any other license? Have you ever applied for any other license?" Now to apply for something means to do it willingly--and if you say yes you will be buying "the whole horse" of his meaning. To be a party to anything means to so WILLINGLY by definition. Keep that in mind. I had never been arrested or actually convicted of any crime. Truth is: I have never applied for any licenses, passports or anything of the kind he was suggesting.

I had earlier even asked him if he would like to shoot me or arrest me too because he was getting very red in the face and angry and spitting like a total psychopath. Honestly, I was 110% in the right. The first cop simply approached me out of curiosity. 'We just like to know who is out here?" I suppose going to a vending machine at night (as if that matters) to get two drinks and return to my car then drive to the same parking spot I left to talk PEACEFULLY and QUIETLY with a friend (having made ZERO noise or commotion) on the private parking lot of a crowded shopping center with a hundred workers buzzing away was something full of astonishment and wonder? TBH, the duty boss (3rd policy enforcement officer) came off as a total psychopath who shouldn't be holding office. He was angry over the realization that I'm not one of his subjects. The other two cops with him were pretty cool guys. If I ran the department, I'd probably have fired or demoted the duty boss and promoted the more senior cop (bigger guy and far more sane and in control IMHO.)

Keep in mind, not holding any public office of any kind == no last name. Wouldn't it be pretty odd for me to confess to all the liabilities of someone holding an office yet receiving ZERO benefits, pay. Why would I do something as freaking stupid as that? I have never received a single dime of benefits from the U.S. government. I haven't even received ('receiving' can be a crime, btw) a dime of unemployment, welfare. So not on the public payroll, not on the public dole, no free public housing, no free public car, no free public anything: why should I have any liabilities that go with having received something I never got?


So why was he angry? Cos I aint his b--subject.

[BLBereans]

Well maybe the state and the original purpose wasn't intended to be harmful to you and the reason state issues the certificate is so that you can use it to your advantage. But the disinformation is designed to make you not see that the state is willingly taking liability for the person as opposed to the bankster controlled MSM which has hidden the truth from you. Consider the trustee that hates you, vs. the trustee that loves you. The trustee that hates you knows how much you have and how wealthy you are would rather give you a million dollars buried under layers of cow poop and call it a sculpture hoping you will throw it away and not dig deeper.

It was not my intention to suggest that the state and the original purpose was intended to be harmful. In fact, I thought I suggested just the opposite.

Who gains an advantage when the state issued certificate is used? I say the state gets the advantage whether one uses it belligerently (as most people do due to the disinformation you mentioned) or peacefully and honorably.

[shikamaru]

It was not my intention to suggest that the state and the original purpose was intended to be harmful. In fact, I thought I suggested just the opposite.

Who gains an advantage when the state issued certificate is used? I say the state gets the advantage whether one uses it belligerently (as most people do due to the disinformation you mentioned) or peacefully and honorably.

Historical bit:

The Church originally administered births (baptisms), marriages (banns), and deaths (probate) in England.

[David Merrill]

I can see how a template of trust law might indicate this is true. However you indicate there might be some kind of monetary value or even any value whatsoever to this certificate?

I went through all this with a Canadian Freeman named Robert MANARD. There is a clause in the constitution there about "Security of the Person" he misconstrued miserably. You might be able to view this video by searching around for it - Security of the Person. The 5:00 Minute Mark had Rob telling the viewer (1:00 Hour Mark too) that the Canadian Birth Certificate was a stock certificate worth quite a bit of money - untrue.

He seems to have given up his quest to assert this myth.

Any beneficial interest certificate is only evidence of interest. The value of the property which one holds a share in can only be known when said property has a buyer. That is the beauty of trust. The BIC holder only holds an interest in personality. And that is generally reflected in avails proceeds etc. therefore the BIC itself is valueless. Therefore not taxable. The rich use this simple strategy. It is quite effective when one has a skilled trustee.

Nobody ever seems to be finding any real connection to the Birth Certificate of even Certificate of Live Birth to any redeemable value. This leaves me to believe it is nothing but a health record for tracking population for statistical and maybe even epidemiological purposes. There has been a comment about registration of a new CROWN ORGANIZATION, which might appertain to City of London and Vatican in conjunction - but without redeemable value I am still unconvinced that the Birth Certificate is a financial instrument.

So I focus on these two posts at the beginning of the thread. I am left to wonder how to describe:

If a properly issued trust value certificate is filled out and endorsed by the beneficiaries on the backside, then the original is returned to the Trustee in trust, it seems to me that the Trustee is full owner in trust. The Trust is still extant for the health, welfare and beneficial interest of the beneficiaries but with fully endorsed value returned to the Trustee the corpus of the trust, the real property is "owned" by the Trustee.

Now this applies to accepting debt for currency, then endorsing the debt, and returning it to a state or national bank. But this still seems to be a transaction completely independent of the Birth Certificate as an instrument. The Birth Certificate almost always plays a role in identification because you need one to get the Government-Issued ID card that identifies you to the Bank. So I am always watching for that evidence linking the BC to finances.

Holographic overlay tells me that guilt - Paul's Roman citizenship overlaid by his Benjamite upbringing in sacrificial law - converts God's love into currency.


Jesus better NOT come back, until MY church is in the black!