The Certificate of Live Birth is a Pledge Document

[doug555]

"Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion!" Isa 52:2

A Bond is a Promise to Pay, a Pledge. We are being told the break this bond.

Those in power can LEGITIMATELY, and with PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY, make the PRESUMPTION that the American people PLEDGED their property as collateral for the national debt, as evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB)... UNLESS and UNTIL we REBUT that PRESUMPTION by expressing it rather as a TRUST relationship as the Grantor via an Indenture on the Hospital Birth Certificate (BC) having our footprints on it and a date prior to the COLB, and recording a notice of that under seal at a county register of deeds.

I believe the Beneficiary Transfer of Equitable Title (by indorsing bills) must be authorized by Grantor's indenture on BC. I think this is what we have been missing. They have plausible deniability to ignore our indorsed instruments since there is no specific grant of authority to the Trustee to apply the asset funds, much less demanding lawful money as those asset funds.

See attached... Stamp and Letter

These 2 documents are private and for educational purposes only. The Letter and Stamp are the main documents... the other supporting information is available privately upon request.

I believe the BC is Equitable, not Legal, Title, and must be "indentured" to provide the Grantor's authorization needed by the Beneficiary to transfer the equitable title of the Man's asset amount to the Trustee so the Trustee can legitimately use it to extinguish the liability amount the trustee holds, by operation of law.

The attached Letter and Stamp are the main documents... the rest is supporting information available privately upon request.

Using the BC with footprints from hospital pre-dates and thereby trumps the later county-registered "Certificate of Live Birth".

I do not think we need to go to the extreme of leaving the system entirely. I think we can use what is already in place... we just need to understand TRUST and the key trust instruments being used against us, which I think we can rebut the presumptions about them and use them to our advantage to overcome the slavery.

Perhaps we should create a very small "focus group" to discuss this approach on a Skype conference call . Brainstorming often helps if it is focused.

Doug
Skype: a-pilgrim555

[David Merrill]

Or perhaps such is basically saying: until there is a charge, activity or instrument of some kind, the balance is at zero. However there could be investment activity on the B/C BOND from its inception by Government fiduciaries hedging against risk. After all, aren't birth certificates typically actuarial (risk management related) in nature?

Birth certificates as I understand them are events recorded for the purpose of regional health records, like a census. Department of Health stuff. That is all they are.

What you are speaking of are SDR's in my estimation. Special Drawing Rights but that is based much more heavily on endorsement of private credit than on birth certificates.

I probed about briefly on the World Freeman Society website, where from Rob's video; Security of the Person he has made a terrible blunder releasing such blatant claims found at the 5:00 Minute Mark and the 1:00 Hour Mark.

This pastor cropped up:



The pastor producing it seems very convinced that the Schedule II and its annuity factoring figures are associated with the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act. But a closer look shows that the two documents have nothing to do with one another! The pastor looks at $7.91 (rounding up) as $7.9M for a trading price on Male infants under 1 year-old for example:

This is an instance of seeing what you are expecting to see. The pastor is deluded. He certainly seems to honestly think that Schedule II is associated with The Ownership Act there anyway.

Just to clarify though here is a great example of a million times factor explained atop a money table. Here is the Report and we find the Table clearly related to the Report.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[allodial]

The equivalent of the birth certificate for Federal Canada and Federal U.S. would be the SI # or Social Security card. It may have been that Mass. was originally based around a "share based" system.

[padreilluminato]

As far as I can tell, the BC is a registry of an event, most likely a birth event.

A certificate or extract was given to a holder, not a holder in due course, but a holder.

The option was never mentioned at first, DO NOT use the BC as identifiation, keep in a safe place.

So the assumption under the public fool system that the name which was given at birth merged with a family name (surname) was that of the child, and thus used as such.

Now if they are deriving a NAME or Name from the BC, well we know it is not identification, cannot idenity an individual, but certain a thing.

If you look in the vital stats act (canadian version):
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...79_01#section4

Name of child

4 (1) The surname of a child must be registered as follows:

(a) if only one parent completes the statement under section 3, the surname must be the one chosen by that parent;

(b) if both parents complete the statement under section 3, the surname must be a surname chosen by both of them;

(c) if both parents complete the statement under section 3, but do not agree on the child's surname, the surname must be

(i) the parents' surname, if they have the same surname, or

(ii) a surname consisting of both parents' surnames hyphenated or combined in alphabetical order, if they have different surnames;

(d) if a person who is not the child's parent completes the statement under section 3, the surname must be

(i) the parents' surname, if they have the same surname,

(ii) a surname consisting of both parents' surnames hyphenated or combined in alphabetical order, if they have different surnames, or

(iii) if only one parent is known, that parent's surname;

(e) in accordance with an order of the court under section 4.1 (1).

(2) Despite subsection (1), a surname must not contain more than 2 surnames hyphenated or combined, and if the mother or father or both have a hyphenated or combined surname, only one of the names in that surname or those surnames must be used.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (1) (c) (ii) and (d) (ii) and if subsection (2) applies, the one name to be used under subsection (2) is the name that alphabetically precedes the other.

You can see that they are talking about the registration of a SURNAME:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surname

There seems to be an equity split there (courts of equity), the given names and then SURNAME registered.

It would seem that liabilities are attached to such a document, and a warning as such was presented with each order of a BC, DO NOT use as Identification, keep in a safe place.

If not for ID then what is it used for ?

On most BCs I have seen it states NAME, not first, second or last name, and from Quebec since they have a civil code, the list is slightly different.

One would have to check the applicable vital stats act for his own State or Province.

Few other things to mention, yes it most likely is printed on a Canadian Bank note - Their Property
I have also seen were the BC had mentioned it is copyright of the crown, just like the acts and statutes - Also their property
I have heard in court on youtube a PRO-Secutor waived the copyright on the BC, and the judge turned to the alledged defendant and said, are you going to waive the copyright also....


Peace

Padre

[padreilluminato]

I am also in accordance with Doug to a point. If the man is getting statements of the accounting, then there is an issue.

The Trustee (Minister of Finance) first took care of the baby bonuses, then at some point when we used the BC to get a SIN, we subrograted that relationship to say we can do it on our own, we then RE-SIDED and took on the debtor position.

I believe the proper notification to the right parties would make a change in this presumption that the debtor is the State (bank of canada) and that the BC acknowledges there is a credit account open as to set-off the liabilities created in that NAME (trust/estate)

The proper why that I see it should be done, is send notice of proper lien by the NAME being the creditor and Canada and the province of being the debtors. Set up the collateral section and then fill out a financial statement and register it accordingly.

Divert all statement from then on to the proper parties and have them clear the account everytime.

This is just an educated guess, since I have seen the AFV and PN work. One must leave the liaibility on the one who created it in the first place. Why do they try so hard to get the NAME and if not given then you possibly go to jail ?

The account is wide open:
statement
1. Summary document outlining the status of an open credit account showing amounts due and paid. The term is commonly used interchangeably with "invoice" or "bill" by direct marketers.


Peace

PAdre

[Chex]

David: Do you have more of this

[Rock Anthony]

I second that inquiry!

[David Merrill]

Sorry. My post did not register.

I think you might get lucky searching Oaths and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. I cannot remember why I only saved a few pages but suspect there was some material I thought incorrect.

I have been doing some research on this with the Quatlosers and have confirmed more than ever that there is no account associated with the SSN or birth certificate that can be drawn against. What I believe is happening with A4V and BPNs is that the private credit is created into circulation - those are the credit notes FRNs that can be redeemed by demand.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/870...issorynote.pdf
http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/4...orymemoran.pdf
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5...orynotepay.jpg
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/594...orynotepay.jpg
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6...orynotewit.pdf


Among those:





With the IRS coming to US court for a writ of enforcement, getting it, and RUSSELL entering a BPN to pay it in full, with notice of being payed in full I would expect the judge to comment and even take exception. Sure enough! We have a misfiled docket entry - Doc 20 - scrubbed from the docket report.

So it may have taken 90 days for even a US District Judge to finally figure out what I mean. RUSSELL and McDOWELL had been generating private credit currency their entire careers by endorsing their paychecks. That private credit was out there, in circulation and RUSSELL was demanding redemption of $14,100 of it. They most certainly had endorsed that much currency creation during their careers so it is their for the purposes of Setoff.

[Chex]

It's just a state of mind

[zealous101]

found it: http://books.google.com/books?id=6Tc...page&q&f=false