A brief history of Birth Certificates

[martin earl]

In the United States, it seems the Birth Certificate was required for one thing originally.

To prove eligibility to receive a federal benefit!

http://cliotropic.org/blog/talks/und...0/#fnref-439-9

From the article: "US law had specified for over a decade that aircraft companies must only hire citizens, but the wartime boom made this requirement relevant for many more workers.3 Despite the importance of being able to prove one?s citizenship with a birth certificate, in the early 1940s, about 43 million Americans?nearly one-third of working-age population?had no such document."

[Seosaidh]

Despite the importance of being able to prove one?s citizenship with a birth certificate, in the early 1940s, about 43 million Americans?nearly one-third of working-age population?had no such document.


Important to who? Just kidding :-)

[walter]

In the United States, it seems the Birth Certificate was required for one thing originally.

To prove eligibility to receive a federal benefit!

bingo,
benefits means you are a beneficiary,
puts you in an equity position,
lowest form of title holder,

[shikamaru]

...puts you in an equity position,
lowest form of title holder,

Actually, equitable title holder is higher ranked than legal title holder.

Equity trumps law when there is a conflict.

Given many properties are held in trust, which court do you think adjudicates trusts? Courts in equity or courts at law?

Having only equitable or legal title is inferior to perfect title and perfect right where both are vested in one person and one only.
Splitting title is the beginning of imperfect rights and equity.

[Anthony Joseph]

There are new revelations regarding the BC and its USE...

Check out this site and listen to the 4-part broadcast.

Also, check out this blog and concentrate on the writings of "John".

There are some interesting things being brought to the forefront regarding the truth of the BC and the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust/estate utility NAMED on it.

[walter]

Shikamaru wrote:

Having only equitable or legal title is inferior to perfect title and perfect right where both are vested in one person and one only.
Splitting title is the beginning of imperfect rights and equity.

dead on and exactly my point,


In canada the vast majority of homes are held ?Fee Simple.?, i think in the usa its called ?condomium? or ?commonhold.?, am i correct with that?

These are legal terms,

This is the most common form of real estate title. In a fee simple (commonhold ) ownership, you have ?absolute ownership?

These titles are equitable titles right? because you have run of the place, you can grow a garden, you can sell it, you can put it in your will, you can charge for trespass, etc.

You are the benefit title holder, right? Beneficiary,

?fee simple ?,?commonhold? titles are subject to basic government rights such as taxation and subject to easements like building set-back lines, and water / wastewater etc,

and what you can do with the land, eg. recreational, industrial, commercial, etc.

this is a split title, its inferior on both sides to the perfect title,

both you and the government have different rights to the title because you hold opposite ends of the split title,
you being the equity title holder have to pay taxs and follow the easements otherwise a penalty will be applied and maybe even in the worst case the courts will take your equity title and hand it over to settle a debt acquired from a default,

Shikamaru wrote:
?Actually, equitable title holder is higher ranked than legal title holder. ?

equity title = 9/10th of the law
legal title = 1/10th of the law

but that doesn't matter, they are both different, apples and oranges,

the legal title holder has no use for the land so they collect a yearly fee for its use,
they don't want to hold the equity title, if they do they make no yearly fee,
they work in volume, volume volume and like it that way,

the equity title holder has use for the land, and it does matter if were not holding the legal title because we are now subject to the legal titles holder rules and fees,

so if we had perfect title then we have full use of equity with no restrictions or fees,

split title = torrens title system,
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437704404.html

why can the government guaranty a clear title in ?fee simple? ?commonhold? ?

they hold the legal title and carry 1/10th of the law so this secures a clear title free and clear of liens,

this is the same process done with the birth registration and car registration,

i am sorry Anthony Joseph,
i am running out of time and can't review your post,
i will look when i get back ,
i am off hunting for a week,
be back around monday or so,

[David Merrill]

There are new revelations regarding the BC and its USE...

Check out this site and listen to the 4-part broadcast.

Also, check out this blog and concentrate on the writings of "John".

There are some interesting things being brought to the forefront regarding the truth of the BC and the FIRST MIDDLE LAST trust/estate utility NAMED on it.

I may be missing something because I only glanced at the links. However I think the impression I got is so simplistic that it is useful.

The IRS will not accept any filing without the SSN space accurately filled in. Very much like a person is considered a 501(c)(3) corporation and the IRS is awaiting application under 508, the IRS simply sees any newborn child as dead (stillborn/aborted) until they receive the application for a SSN.

I think it may be as simple as that.

When I was born people waited until I was working my first job to apply. So I was dead to the IRS until then. Then we formed the ESTATE around my application. That was my legal quickening so to speak and termination will be by tradition, by death certificate. The blog you speak of begins:

I received the following info by email from Colleen. I haven’t verified any of the info, but if the info is valid...

What I can discern of Boris seems quite convoluted. It is like he is saying that when the IRS declares or recognizes you are alive that you are actually ALIVE meaning that you are (civilly) dead. Now this part I can make perfect sense of. I do not have a SSN or birth certificate.

I believe it is a matter of which estate you choose - mammon or God.

Many feel compelled to choose the mammon system and I understand and do not judge. Mainly because the remedy - redeeming lawful money is for persons who wish to terminate the status of state bank with the Federal Reserve. So it applies to persons. I have decided on my new World ID Card and Passport to have a Date of Birth again. The Name field which is actually used for Surname will remain blank. If a customs officer runs David Merrill and the DoB they will likely find a full legal name and inquire if it is my name? At that time I will be able to choose whether or not IT serves me to have or to "own" it. I will be making easement on to that survey - what I am calling mammon in this post.

I only watched the audio presentation until Boris told us that he will be reporting to the IRS Security Council, obviously meaning the UN Security Council. His recitation of UCC code numbers though, was a really big putoff for me having survived the Strawman Redemption only by immediately rejecting it like with Boris from my first exposure to it.

I think my simplistic evaluation has rendered going further into it a waste of my time. But with many things I choose not to research, I admit I remain ignorant!


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Dave at the WSA tells me that he has a stack of blank Passports to go through, already paid for but when it comes time to reorder he will change the top field from Name to Surname. Then OCDave (me) can honestly put his FAMILY NOMEN on my passport.

[shikamaru]

In canada the vast majority of homes are held ?Fee Simple.?, i think in the usa its called ?condomium? or ?commonhold.?, am i correct with that?

The United States and the several States have fee simple estates.

This is the most common form of real estate title. In a fee simple (commonhold ) ownership, you have ?absolute ownership?

Fee simple is qualified ownership, not absolute.
You pay rent to government for occupation of the land better known as property tax.

These titles are equitable titles right? because you have run of the place, you can grow a garden, you can sell it, you can put it in your will, you can charge for trespass, etc.

You are the benefit title holder, right? Beneficiary,

Title is a bundle of rights.
I've never heard of the term benefit title holder.

Legal title is actual ownership of property. Equitable title is the right to obtain full ownership of the property. Recall the term redemption?

?fee simple ?,?commonhold? titles are subject to basic government rights such as taxation and subject to easements like building set-back lines, and water / wastewater etc,

and what you can do with the land, eg. recreational, industrial, commercial, etc.

Because fee simple is an inferior title in comparison to radical title.
A fee simple estate is subject to the state powers of government including taxation, escheat, police powers, and eminent domain.
Land is held of (belonging to) government.

this is a split title, its inferior on both sides to the perfect title,

Title "splits" if you will if you get involved in commerce or a trust relationship.

both you and the government have different rights to the title because you hold opposite ends of the split title,

Actually, government claims to hold a title higher than yours i.e radical title. This is all practices of the Kings of England.

you being the equity title holder have to pay taxs and follow the easements otherwise a penalty will be applied and maybe even in the worst case the courts will take your equity title and hand it over to settle a debt acquired from a default,

Actually, it is the legal title which obligates a tenant to pay taxes for the legal title holder is owner of the property.
Issues of legal title and legal owner are left silent in courts of equity.

equity title = 9/10th of the law
legal title = 1/10th of the law

but that doesn't matter, they are both different, apples and oranges,

Actually, it does matter. If you possess not the equitable title, how does one redeem property?

the legal title holder has no use for the land so they collect a yearly fee for its use,
they don't want to hold the equity title, if they do they make no yearly fee,
they work in volume, volume volume and like it that way

This doesn't sound completely congruent. If an owner of property alienates himself of possession of the land, it is typically by conveyance, trust, or contract. In the case of contract such as a lease agreement, owner continues to retain legal title.

the equity title holder has use for the land, and it does matter if were not holding the legal title because we are now subject to the legal titles holder rules and fees,

What you speak of is a lease agreement.

so if we had perfect title then we have full use of equity with no restrictions or fees,

A perfect title is technically a title free of liens and questions of ownership.
Whether your title is perfect or not, it is merely fee simple and gives way to radical title.

why can the government guaranty a clear title in ?fee simple? ?commonhold? ?

they hold the legal title and carry 1/10th of the law so this secures a clear title free and clear of liens,

Again, think of radical title.

this is the same process done with the birth registration and car registration,

What one may be doing is alienating a portion of interest of their property to a public corporation in its commercial capacity and not its lawful capacity.

Perhaps this is why issues are adjudicated in administrative court .... it is a form of binding arbitration.

[David Merrill]

Thank you for posting Shikamaru. I know lacing a post with links takes a deliberate effort.

Walter, please style your posts so that paragraph structure keeps your points clear and together. Mostly though I find it difficult to tell when you are quoting or not. Sorry to mention it but I find your posts difficult to read.

We are trying to correct that character replacement problem.

[Michael Joseph]

ALL estates flow from a Throne - be it a king or a queen. And a Throne begs a Kingdom. And a Kingdom begs a Survey. Therefore all estates issued within a particular survey are subject to the Throne holding Allodial Title and therefore said Estates are ALL QUALIFIED.

There are no United e[States] absent a Throne and a Grant that proceedeth forth from said Throne. I believe a study of Sir Walter RALEIGH may be quite enjoyable. What was his Purpose?

Shalom,
MJ