Email to Registrar General

[the worm that turned]

I may well have just opened up a huge can of whoop ass on myself but hey what the hell!

I have attempted to ascertain information regarding registering the birth of a child from my local council, however they referred me to the Registrar General. So heeding their advice I have written (via email) the following to them

" To the Registrar General for Births and Deaths,

I would like to make a query regarding the registration of births in England and Wales. I have attempted to have my questions answered by my local council, however they appear unable, unwilling, or not suitably qualified to answer my questions. As the General Registrar for Births and Deaths in England and Wales I assume that if you cannot answer my questions then no person can.

Question 1: Is it UNLAWFUL under Common Law for a parent that is a human being to not register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom?

Note to Question 1: I understand that it is illegal, as stated on the official and publicly available Home Office website (www.gro.gov.uk) for a PERSON (legal fiction) to not register the birth of a child within 42 days, as stated in the relevant ACT of Parliament.

Question 2: What are the benefits of registering the birth of a human being?

Question 3: Can you categorically confirm that the registration of a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON for that particular human being?

Question 4: Can you confirm whether Her Majesty the Queen of England, or indeed the human being commonly referred to as Queen Elizabeth the Second, has her own Birth Certificate registered with your office?

Question 5: Do any of Queen Elizabeth the Second's children, commonly known as Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, or indeed her grandchildren, Prince William or Prince Harry, have receipt of a Birth Certificate and are therefore registered with your office?

This email is sent to you this day, the 19 (nineteenth) of February 2009 (two thousand and nine) with good faith and no ill will or malice and should be deemed as a hand written document. A confirmation of receipt by your system will be deemed as a receipt by you, the Registrar General. I expect a response within 7 days of the date above to my questions mentioned above. If no response is recieved within 7 (seven) days of the date above I will assume that the responses to the questions are as follows:

Assumed Response to Question 1 if no response is received: It is not unlawful under common law for a parent that is a human being to not register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom.

Assumed Response to Question 2 if no response is received: There are no true benefits to registering the birth of a human being because you are actually creating a legal fiction, or PERSON in legal terms, to which statutes, acts and other contracts can be applied to enable money and other bonds to be associated to this legal fiction.

Assumed Response to Question 3 if no response is received: You as Registrar General cannot categorically confirm that the registration of a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON because this is exactly what the process of registering a birth does.

I do not assume to know the answer to Questions 4 and 5 however I assume that you do and refuse to tell me.

I eagerly await your response within 7 (seven) days.

I do not give the receipient of this email any permission to publish this email or the contents contained within it to any person, human being, other agent, or any third party without my prior written consent, other than to ensure its safe delivery to the Registrar General for Births and Deaths in England and Wales. Any breach of this will be deemed as an act to personally harm me as a human being and will be punishable to the maximum allowable level under Common Law.

Regards,

[Name removed by me], family name [Name removed by me] the human being and not [Name removed by me] a legal fiction "

Not sure if this was a clever move but I want answers. Anyone else care to send a similar email (safety in numbers ;)) and/or comment?

[arten]

Nice one, I hope you publish their reply ;)

[informationx]

I may well have just opened up a huge can of whoop ass on myself but hey what the hell!

I have attempted to ascertain information regarding registering the birth of a child from my local council, however they referred me to the Registrar General. So heeding their advice I have written (via email) the following to them

" To the Registrar General for Births and Deaths,

I would like to make a query regarding the registration of births in England and Wales. I have attempted to have my questions answered by my local council, however they appear unable, unwilling, or not suitably qualified to answer my questions. As the General Registrar for Births and Deaths in England and Wales I assume that if you cannot answer my questions then no person can.

Question 1: Is it UNLAWFUL under Common Law for a parent that is a human being to not register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom?

Note to Question 1: I understand that it is illegal, as stated on the official and publicly available Home Office website (www.gro.gov.uk) for a PERSON (legal fiction) to not register the birth of a child within 42 days, as stated in the relevant ACT of Parliament.

Question 2: What are the benefits of registering the birth of a human being?

Question 3: Can you categorically confirm that the registration of a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON for that particular human being?

Question 4: Can you confirm whether Her Majesty the Queen of England, or indeed the human being commonly referred to as Queen Elizabeth the Second, has her own Birth Certificate registered with your office?

Question 5: Do any of Queen Elizabeth the Second's children, commonly known as Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, or indeed her grandchildren, Prince William or Prince Harry, have receipt of a Birth Certificate and are therefore registered with your office?

This email is sent to you this day, the 19 (nineteenth) of February 2009 (two thousand and nine) with good faith and no ill will or malice and should be deemed as a hand written document. A confirmation of receipt by your system will be deemed as a receipt by you, the Registrar General. I expect a response within 7 days of the date above to my questions mentioned above. If no response is recieved within 7 (seven) days of the date above I will assume that the responses to the questions are as follows:

Assumed Response to Question 1 if no response is received: It is not unlawful under common law for a parent that is a human being to not register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom.

Assumed Response to Question 2 if no response is received: There are no true benefits to registering the birth of a human being because you are actually creating a legal fiction, or PERSON in legal terms, to which statutes, acts and other contracts can be applied to enable money and other bonds to be associated to this legal fiction.

Assumed Response to Question 3 if no response is received: You as Registrar General cannot categorically confirm that the registration of a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON because this is exactly what the process of registering a birth does.

I do not assume to know the answer to Questions 4 and 5 however I assume that you do and refuse to tell me.

I eagerly await your response within 7 (seven) days.

I do not give the receipient of this email any permission to publish this email or the contents contained within it to any person, human being, other agent, or any third party without my prior written consent, other than to ensure its safe delivery to the Registrar General for Births and Deaths in England and Wales. Any breach of this will be deemed as an act to personally harm me as a human being and will be punishable to the maximum allowable level under Common Law.

Regards,

[Name removed by me], family name [Name removed by me] the human being and not [Name removed by me] a legal fiction "

Not sure if this was a clever move but I want answers. Anyone else care to send a similar email (safety in numbers ;)) and/or comment?

Ive been doing the same kind of thing. My personal approach is softly, softly. I think there is a greater chance of success by little bits & bobs. I wish you success!

[informationx]

Also I can help you with question 4.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/include/flas...e.asp?decade=0

Look in the royal archive folder.

Cheers.
__________________

[the worm that turned]

Also I can help you with question 4.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/include/flas...e.asp?decade=0

Look in the royal archive folder.

Cheers.
__________________

That link doesn't work. Can you tell me what it said there?

Cheers

[the worm that turned]

Ive been doing the same kind of thing. My personal approach is softly, softly. I think there is a greater chance of success by little bits & bobs. I wish you success!

I don't think they will reply anyway, and if they do are they going to reveal the biggest secret??? I think not!

What are we supposed to do, just bend over and take it? :mad:

[informationx]

That link doesn't work. Can you tell me what it said there?

Cheers

Damn it!

They have updated and changed the website. Yes, it was a link to a flash based presentation of the queens life. Part of it was showing her birth certificate. It looked exactly the same as all the others as far as I could see.

I look around and see if I can find a cached version of the page.

Cheers.

[the worm that turned]

Nothing yet! what a surprise

[arten]

If u get no response send it to your MP and number 10.:cool:

[the worm that turned]

Just had a response which is as follows:

"Dear Mr [removed by me]
>
> Legislation states that All babies must be registered within 42 days of the
> birth.
>
> Registration is an administrative duty and is a record of the facts at the
> time of birth.
>
> The advantage of holding a birth certificate is that numerous government
> departments, agencies etc. require sight of a birth certificate before
> processing any application (eg. school attendance, passports, driving
> licences, any social security benefits.
>
> The Queen and all royal children are registered and will have access to
> birth certificates.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> [removed by me]
> Births Deaths and Adoptions Branch"

Not really answering questions 1 to 3 and can't really say that I can see any advantages from those answers! I will continue seeking the truth. That is all we can do...

[the worm that turned]

My response to the above reply by them:

"Dear [removed by me],

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email directed to the Registrar General. Can I assume from the fact that you have replied that you are indeed the Registrar General for Births and Deaths in England and Wales? If you are not the Registrar General then my initial email has not been responded to as requested and my notice of 7 (seven) days from the date of that email remains in force.

Assuming that you are the Registrar General then I would like to clarify the following from your response:

You state: Legislation states that All babies must be registered within 42 days of the birth. Registration is an administrative duty and is a record of the facts at the time of birth.

I am aware of this fact as it is in legislation, i.e. an act, however my question referred to whether or not it was UNLAWFUL under common law to not register the birth of a human being. Please refer to Question 1 in the original email.

You state: The advantage of holding a birth certificate is that numerous government departments, agencies etc. require sight of a birth certificate before processing any application (eg. school attendance, passports, driving licences, any social security benefits.

I fail to see how these are advantages to me and any child I may bring into this world. I assume that in a "free" country any human being brought into this world by me should be entitled to attend a school, travel out of the United Kingdom or drive a vehicle without needing to be registered with a government office. If this is not the case please ensure that you as Registrar General, or if you are not the Registrar General then they themself, confirms this to me in their response, as a lot of people would be interested to know this.

With regards to social securtiy benefits, I assume that these are entitlements to people that are unfit or unwilling to work. I can only pray that any child of mine will not require these, particularly as I intend to care for my child myself, rather than requiring the state to pay for it.

I look forward to hearing from you to confirm that you are indeed the Registrar General, or if you are not then to actually receive a response from the Registrar General themself, and in either case to answer my questions properly, particularly questions 1 and 3.

Again, I do not give the receipient of this email any permission to publish this email or the contents contained within it to any person, human being, other agent, or any third party without my prior written consent, other than to ensure its safe delivery to the Registrar General for Births and Deaths in England and Wales. Any breach of this will be deemed as an act to personally harm me as a human being and will be punishable to the maximum allowable level under Common Law.

Regards,

[removed by me], family name [removed by me] the human being and not [removed by me] a legal fiction"

[arten]

Why not ask them about selling your BC to the Federal bank? Ask them what advantages there are if you are a Freeman. Ask them about slavery and press them on the legal issue. Is this statute law? Commercial law or Common law. I fucking hate these pricks LOL:D

[the worm that turned]

OK. So if any of you are still following this thread, here is an update...

Following my original email of 19 Feb 2009 to the Registrar General I received a reply from a "casework manager" on 20 Feb (already posted on here with my response).

Clearly the 7 days notice I provided has past for ALL 5 questions to be answered by the Registrar General, thereby validating my assumptions for the unanswered questions.

BUT...

last night at 19:14 I received an email from the Deputy Registrar General, who is replying on the behalf of the Registrar General. I will include his response below but in short, he comfirmed that -

"I am not aware of any common law in connection with the statutory duty to register a birth."

He also informed me of the advantages of registering the birth and that if a person does not register the birth then the registrar may seek an alternative informant to register the birth!

In both responses by the Casework Manager and the Deputy Registrar General they have failed to answer Question 3, which is:

"Question 3: Can you categorically confirm that the registration of a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON for that particular human being?"

Of course I have replied and thanked him for his time however I have reminded him that I require an answer to Question 3, because at present my assumed response is now my accepted belief, unless I hear different.

Lets wait and see if I receive a response.


Full details of response by Deputy Registrar General (with personal details removed):

Dear [removed by me],

[removed by me] is not the Registrar General. He is a casework manager who has delegated responsibility in matters concerning the registration of births and deaths. However, since you specifically request that the Registrar General answers your questions, he has asked me as Deputy Registrar General to reply on his behalf.

As you are aware there is a difference between legislation and common law. Common law is developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes, and it is law created and refined by judges. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. The body of precedent is called 'common law' and it binds future decisions. I am not aware of any common law in connection with the statutory duty to register a birth.

It is, however, unlawful under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 for a person upon whom a duty to register a birth is imposed by the Act not to register the birth. The Act requires a birth to be registered within 42 days of its occurrence. If the parent(s), or other person upon whom a duty to register a birth is imposed, fails to register the birth he or she is liable to a fine and the registrar may seek an alternative informant to register the birth.

Turning to your point about the advantages of holding a birth certificate, birth records and the certificates produced from them are used for a wide range of legal, administrative, genealogical and family purposes for which there is a need for evidence of information about the person such as name, and date and place of birth. Unless this evidence can be produced, considerable difficulties may be experienced in obtaining certain documents and services, for example driving licences, passports, social security benefits etc.

Yours sincerely,

[name removed by me]
Deputy Registrar General for England and Wales
Executive Director, General Register Office
Identity and Passport Services

[tien an]

You've got to hand it to them; they're being quite forthcoming with the information, albeit in dribs and drabs...

Keep pressin' 'worm that turned', there's plenty of juice there yet!

Heavenly Peace.

[the worm that turned]

You've got to hand it to them; they're being quite forthcoming with the information, albeit in dribs and drabs...

Keep pressin' 'worm that turned', there's plenty of juice there yet!

Heavenly Peace.

I agree, getting the second in command to reply is impressive. I obviously stirred things up there a bit ;)

Looking at the response, I think the section saying "birth records and the certificates produced from them are used for a wide range of legal, administrative...purposes" is quite revealing in itself. Perhaps not the admission I was looking for though!

[arten]

M8 all good stuff but if you allow them to address you has Mr they are addressing your legal fiction, don't let them do that watch how Rob deals with that in his film Rob's very cunning plan. ;)

[the worm that turned]

M8 all good stuff but if you allow them to address you has Mr they are addressing your legal fiction, don't let them do that watch how Rob deals with that in his film Rob's very cunning plan. ;)

I know what you are saying but until I make an NOI and COR I can't really claim that I am not MR. Besides, I end each email without my title. I can't stop them calling me MR if that's what they want to do. Cheers though for advice :)

[the worm that turned]

For those still awake, this is getting quite interesting at last...

First their reply to my request for them to simply answer this question

"Question 3: Can you categorically confirm that the registration of a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON for that particular human being?"


Response by General Register Office

Dear [removed by me],

I do not think your question no. 3 can really be answered with a simple yes or no. Registrars are notified of births by the Health Service and check these notifications before registering a birth to ensure that no registrations are created falsely. The information for the registration is given to the registrar by the parents or other qualified informant to the best of their knowledge and belief. A warning notice is displayed in the registrar's office stating that any person who gives false information for a registration is liable to prosecution for perjury. The certificate (ie certified copy of the entry in the register) issued may then be used for purposes such as those mentioned in my previous email.

I hope the above background information is useful. I note that you accentuate the word person and presume that it is a significant word for you in your enquiry. Unfortunately I am not qualified to make comment on whether it is or is not a 'legal fiction', this could only be confirmed to you by a lawyer. All that I can say is that it is not a term that features specifically in the legislation that we work to. However, if you wish to obtain further information about any legalities surrounding the creation of a birth record I would suggest that you seek legal advice.

Yours sincerely,

[removed by me]
Deputy Registrar General for England and Wales
Executive Director, General Register Office
Identity and Passport Services


followed by my response to them...


my response

Dear [removed by me],

Thank you for your reply. I find it quite worrying that you cannot confirm whether or not the creation of a birth certificate and record of birth creates a legal fiction, or PERSON, in the name of the human being (man) being "registered" with you. I personally do think this is an easily answerable question for someone in your position.

With all due respect, I actually recommend that you seek legal advice to determine whether or not your company, organisation, corporation or whatever you class the General Register Office as, are actually creating a legal fiction or PERSON with every registered birth. If, and believe me this is still an if, the General Register Office are creating a legal fiction or PERSON with every registered birth without the express permission or consent, at least not knowingly, of each informant or parent, this could be deemed by some as a fraudulent activity.

If I were in your position I would be very keen to find out if I was an employee of an organisation that could be involved in fraudulent activity on a grand scale.

I would be interested to discover your findings, as I know are thousands, if not millions of others.

With regards to your comment that a legal fiction or "person" is not being used in legislation you work to. You have contradicted your previous email, which states:

"The Act requires a birth to be registered within 42 days of its occurrence. If the parent(s), or other person upon whom a duty to register a birth is imposed" my emphasis added.

When you speak to your company's legal representative it is probably a good idea for you to request a definition of what a "person" is. Black's Law Dictionary is a good place to start but an Internet search can also reveal interesting results such as:

[B]person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

So as you can see, it is not as clear cut as you might at first think. I would assume as a JP, you should have a firm grasp of the law and therefore the definition of a man as opposed to a person.

So I politely ask you again, please can you provide me with the answer to my original question 3. If you are not in a position to answer this question please pass it upwards to someone that can. I will continue with my legal advice and again I thank you for your response.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Again, I do not give the recipient of this email any permission to publish this email or the contents contained within it to any person, human being (man), other agent, or any third party without my prior written consent, other than to ensure its safe delivery to the Registrar General for Births and Deaths in England and Wales. Any breach of this will be deemed as an act to personally harm me as a human being and will be punishable to the maximum allowable level under Common Law.

Regards,

[removed by me] the human being and not [removed by me] a legal fiction.

[spoonogsback]

Interesting correspondance you have going there.......Wormy......LOL
But are you really expecting them to answer your questions and let the "cat out of the bag"?
Perhaps you are just trying to educate them which is important and admirable.
I make the following suggeston to you not because I am not prepared to but because you already have a nice little conversation going with them and their answer might be of interest to all watching your posts.
What about the Numerical information on the Bonded certificates that are used as financial and fiscal instruments both locally and abroad?
Their acts only refer to Persons there is not one act I am aware of where they mention this act blah blah blah is for Men to obey!
Oh BTW! perhaps you should reconsider using the word Human, a hue is colour of man.
I when pressed to say what it is that I am simply say the most accurate information I can give you is that I am called a man by others such as me. I cannot be sure however if that is what I am because God never told me. So it's an assumption but its the most accurate that I have to offer at present for your acceptence. If you wish to call me something else and you wish for me to be responsible for whatever that may stand for I will accept it and all responsibility that comes with that on the condition that you prove to me it is true and correct in reality and not a fiction that may cause me harm in some way.

[the worm that turned]

Interesting correspondance you have going there.......Wormy......LOL
But are you really expecting them to answer your questions and let the "cat out of the bag"?
Perhaps you are just trying to educate them which is important and admirable.
I make the following suggeston to you not because I am not prepared to but because you already have a nice little conversation going with them and their answer might be of interest to all watching your posts.
What about the Numerical information on the Bonded certificates that are used as financial and fiscal instruments both locally and abroad?
Their acts only refer to Persons there is not one act I am aware of where they mention this act blah blah blah is for Men to obey!
Oh BTW! perhaps you should reconsider using the word Human, a hue is colour of man.
I when pressed to say what it is that I am simply say the most accurate information I can give you is that I am called a man by others such as me. I cannot be sure however if that is what I am because God never told me. So it's an assumption but its the most accurate that I have to offer at present for your acceptence. If you wish to call me something else and you wish for me to be responsible for whatever that may stand for I will accept it and all responsibility that comes with that on the condition that you prove to me it is true and correct in reality and not a fiction that may cause me harm in some way.

Thanks for the reply. I think the cat is already well and truly out of the bag, it would just be nice for one of them to admit it. I love the answer he gave "I do not think your question no. 3 can really be answered with a simple yes or no.". errrr, yes it can. It is either Yes or No, unless he means that some people are excluded from having a legal fiction created against them because they explicitly instruct the GRO against it (perhaps by means of an affidavit as I mentioned in another thread on here). Nonetheless it seems a very strange response to give - bloody fence sitter, he must have splinters up his posterior end!

As for your comment "What about the Numerical information on the Bonded certificates that are used as financial and fiscal instruments both locally and abroad?" are you referring specifically to the Birth Certificate or do you mean a bond created as a result of the legal fiction (PERSON) that is created following the registration of the birth?

Cheers

[the worm that turned]

Any suggestions on whether I should make this information known to my MP? I notice that when I receive any correspondence from my MP he ends his letters:

JOHN DOE MP

(obviously he is not called John Doe ;))

So it would appear that he is fully aware of the scam too, which would mean that he is acting as a person when dealing with his constituents and therefore is only subject to limited liability!!

Sounds like they are all in on it. As I have said before, it all probably stems from the FREEMAsoNs!

[tien an]

Hi wormy...


My local MP is Damian Green, shadow immigration minister.
I may be (very) wrong, but I've spoken to the man face to face on many occasions - he just oozes honesty and seems to be a decent guy.
He also signs his own correspondence (:eek:), and doesn't use Upper or Lower Case to write his name...he just signs it.

Ashley Mote, (MEP for SE England) is another that I've taken to trusting.
(We'll see how wrong I can be).

Both of these MP's have a solid view on immigration and the status of people in the UK.

I'd start here (as far as MP's go.)

Hope that helps.

[the worm that turned]

Hi wormy...


My local MP is Damian Green, shadow immigration minister.
I may be (very) wrong, but I've spoken to the man face to face on many occasions - he just oozes honesty and seems to be a decent guy.
He also signs his own correspondence (:eek:), and doesn't use Upper or Lower Case to write his name...he just signs it.

Ashley Mote, (MEP for SE England) is another that I've taken to trusting.
(We'll see how wrong I can be).

Both of these MP's have a solid view on immigration and the status of people in the UK.

I'd start here (as far as MP's go.)

Hope that helps.

If they are not my constituent MPs will they listen to me? Cheers for info though. :confused:

[Ian2day]

Maybe if you could find a job description for the Registrar General which outlines their job titles roles and responsibility's under the law. Then you could quote this section to them and request that they meet with your enquiry.

[tien an]

If they are not my constituent MPs will they listen to me?

Sure; which is why I included their specific roles as MP's/MEP's.
Of course, if you're not in the SE of England, Ashley Mote may not be your constituent MEP, but Damian Green is shadow immigration minister and should be well up to speed on the status of persons, foreign or otherwise, in this country.


...there's a method to my madness...honest!

[adzboarder]

Good luck the worm, this is excellent stuff and interesting reading. Thanks! :)

[the worm that turned]

Following up with the Deputy General Registrar he has now confirmed that he has nothing further to say as there are a lot of other people that have questions that need answering and I have had my time!! See official reply by him below:

Dear [removed by me],

I am sorry but I am unable to add to the information I have already given
you. My staff and I have spent considerable time answering your enquiries
and I do not think that we can add any further to our replies. To be fair
to other members of the public who are in correspondence I do not propose
to enter into further correspondence on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

[removed by me]
Deputy Registrar General for England and Wales
Executive Director, General Register Office
Identity and Passport Service

So there you have it. When pushed into a corner to give honest honours just shut up and tell people you are too busy! Unreal!!!

Where to now???

[the worm that turned]

I have written the following to my MP using the website www.writetothem.com (http://www.writetothem.com):

Dear [MPs name removed by me],

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL - URGENT MATTER REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

[Personal information removed by me but does not affect the message of letter]

As a responsible adult I do not want to follow herd mentality and just do what everyone else does, or what is perceived to be the right thing to do without first looking into it. This goes for many areas such as vaccinations and for the purposes of this correspondence, Registration of Birth.

I wanted to know exactly what the pros and cons of registering your child in the UK are before just blindly doing so. As such, I wrote to [removed by me] County Council in the first instance, but they were of no help. So I wrote to the Registrar General of Births and Deaths in England and Wales and asked the following 5 questions, with a notice period of 7 days to reply, or I would assume certain answers, which were made clear in the email:

Question 1: Is it UNLAWFUL under Common Law for a parent that is a human being to not register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom?

Note to Question 1: I understand that it is illegal, as stated on the official and publicly available Home Office website (www.gro.gov.uk)for a PERSON (legal fiction) to not register the birth of a child within 42 days, as stated in the relevant ACT of Parliament.

Question 2: What are the benefits of registering the birth of a human being?

Question 3: Can you categorically confirm that the registration of a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON for that particular human being?

Question 4: Can you confirm whether Her Majesty the Queen of England, or indeed the human being commonly referred to as Queen Elizabeth the Second, has her own Birth Certificate registered with your office?

Question 5: Do any of Queen Elizabeth the Second's children, commonly known as Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, or indeed her grandchildren, Prince William or Prince Harry, have receipt of a Birth Certificate and are therefore registered with your office?

I initially received a response from a Casework Manager, who confirmed that the Queen and her offspring do have access to Birth Certificates. He also confirmed that legislation requires me to register a birth and that to gain social benefits, schooling, passports require sight of a birth certificate.

I wrote back to this Casework Manager and requested for him to pass my original email to the Registrar General as he clearly did not or could not answer all of my questions.

Well after the 7 day notice period had expired I received a response from the Deputy Registrar General for England and Wales, David Buckley JP. He repeated a lot of what was said by the Casework Manager and also confirmed that "I am not aware of any common law in connection with the statutory duty to register a birth", which was also what I believed to be the case. He then reiterated that "considerable difficulty" may be found in receiving passports, driving licences, social security benefits without a certificate.

So following this, I now have answers to questions 1, 2, 4 and 5. You will note that so far I have not received a response to question 3, which is to me the most important. I pressed David Buckley on this again and stated that it was a simple enough question to answer, and that as a JP he must surely be aware of the difference between a legal fiction (PERSON) and a human being, or man. He answered with the following:

"I do not think your question no. 3 can really be answered with a simple yes or no."

So he is not denying or confirming anything to me. He then followed with some information about the provision of false information at birth leaves the informant being subject to perjury (a basic attempt to skirt around the question being asked). He also then attempted to make light of the PERSON terminology and stated:

"I note that you accentuate the word person and presume that it is a significant word for you in your enquiry. Unfortunately I am not qualified to make comment on whether it is or is not a 'legal fiction', this could only be confirmed to you by a lawyer. All that I can say is that it is not a term that features specifically in the legislation that we work to."

Well this is a ridiculous statement for a JP to make, particularly as in his previous email he quoted directly from the Births and Death Registration Act 1953, including the term PERSON in it!

I wrote back one final time to receive a response and highlighted the points I have just made to you and his final response to me was as follows:

"I am sorry but I am unable to add to the information I have already given you. My staff and I have spent considerable time answering your enquiries and I do not think that we can add any further to our replies. To be fair to other members of the public who are in correspondence I do not propose to enter into further correspondence on this matter."

Now to me that is totally unacceptable, as this person is put in his position to act on behalf of the Government to assist members of the public. The Government is put in place by the public to act on the public's behalf. You are voted into a position of authority to act on the behalf of people like me and therefore I request for you to follow up directly with David Buckley JP, Deputy Registrar General for Births and Deaths in England and Wales and demand an answer to my Question 3. If he is not capable of answering, please ensure that someone within the GRO is found who can answer this question.

The answer to this question is extremely important and I feel requires your urgent attention. As a parent I do not feel comfortable in a Government office potentially creating a legal fiction in the name of our child for purposes I am unaware of. I hope you can understand my concerns here.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

[removed by me] (all lower case)

Of course I will keep this thread updated with any response...

[tien an]

Well done, wormy!

Talk about being focused...

[malvern]

it's great to see these letters and emails , just think if everyone , even just once a month , wrote/email on one given subject ie flouride, chemtrails and so on each month also run a weekly do not use of choosen goods .....
if everyone wrote in to the companies , mp and councils all around the country , just think of the answer that would slip out when we pooled the results together, let alone the shock they would get having to answer question they do not wish us to ask ....but everyone with the same subjects but many different directions .....


nice ...keep up the paper trail and hard work everyone





freedom is the grandchildren we are the grandchildren

[jimmi]

I noticed that in one of the replies the word 'parent' is used when referring to the 'informant' for the birth certificate, anyone know what parent actually means?

[the worm that turned]

I'm sure my actions have rustled a few feathers, but I am determined now to bring about the truth. If I start receiving any threats or anything I deem as threats I will make you all aware of them and at that point reveal my true identity - just to cover my back ;)

But don't worry, FEAR is all in the mind - :)

[tien an]

Which of the people in your avatar best describes you?
Diana Dors, Ronnie B. or Ronnie C.?

Safety in numbers, wormy, but don't worry too much, will you?

Tien An.

[the worm that turned]

Which of the people in your avatar best describes you?
Diana Dors, Ronnie B. or Ronnie C.?

Safety in numbers, wormy, but don't worry too much, will you?

Tien An.

Great question Tien An! I'd like to say Ronnie B due to the fact that I think I am funny (hopefully others do too) but sadly a lot of others might say Ronnie C, including the wife who has a lot of the assets of Diana Dors (:D)!

Sadly I sent the "Ice cream man found dead at the bottom of a well with hundreds and thousands all over him - Police are looking into it but think he may have topped himself" joke to someone earlier.

The old ones are the best eh!?

[the worm that turned]

My favourite is still the - man doing a crossword joke, when he says to wife - "I'm stuck on the last word, the clue is Postman's sack". She says "How many letters?"

Hundreds of em!!!

Awful!

[yozhik]

I noticed that in one of the replies the word 'parent' is used when referring to the 'informant' for the birth certificate, anyone know what parent actually means?

Black's 5th (pages 1003-1004)

Parent. The lawful father or mother of a person. One who procreates, begets, or brings forth offspring.
By statute, "parent" has been defined to include (1) either the natural father or the natural mother of a child born of their valid marriage to each other, if no subsequent judicial decree has divested one or both of them of their statutory coguardianship as created by their marriage; (5) any individual or agency whose status as guardian of the person of the child has been established by judicial decree.


Right from the outset we have the definition we would EXPECT to see.
The lawful father or mother of a person. One who procreates, begets, or brings forth offspring.

One could be forgiven for reading this and closing the book.
It has confirmed everything we have been brought up to believe a "parent" is.

However, we're then greeted by;
By statute, "parent" has been defined to include

By statute?
Really?
So in statute, the word means something different?
Hmmm ... interesting. Let's explore a little more ...

(5) any individual or agency whose status as guardian of the person of the child has been established by judicial decree.

Does that latter definition not smell more than a little bit fishy?

Why the words; "the person of the child" ?
These words show clearly that there is both a person and a child; there are two separate entities.

Surely, in normal, everyday language, the words "the person of" are completely redundant. In normal, everyday language, the definition;
"any individual or agency whose status as guardian of the child has been established by judicial decree"

... would make sense and SHOULD mean the same as the definition given. It simply removes the (seemingly) redundant words. That is, assuming a "person" is a sentient, living, breathing, human being.
Given that nothing in legalese happens by accident, one can only assume that the addition of the words "the person of" is significant.

I suggest that herein lies the core of the deception;
guardian of the person

Establish guardianship of the person and you gain guardianship of the child.
Given the Courts have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with commerce, gaining a "judicial decree" to place guardianship into the hands of the law owners, is not only possible; it is extremely probable ... as is evident by the multitude of rulings regarding CPS that have placed offspring into the care of others, and flown in the face of common decency and common sense.

I'm immediately reminded of the couple who had their children taken from them as a result of abuse allegations, that have since been proven to be false ... and yet despite being cleared of all charges and having received an apology; they can not be reunited with their offspring. The courts have ruled that the breaking up off the family will be upheld, despite the fact that it has also been subsequently admitted it was done in error.

judicial decree ... guardianship of the person (of the child) ... job done.


EDIT
Also, regarding the birth certificate and the use of the word "informant" ... I would also suggest that this is used because the father or mother of their offspring is NOT the father or mother (parent) of the legal fiction (child).

The man and woman do not create the "person", so on the document (birth registration) that is used to establish its creation, they can not be identified as the creators. technically, they are merely the informants; those giving the information to assist in the creation of the legal fiction.

Does that make sense?

.

[tien an]

Hot damn!
Once again you astound me, yozhik.

Is the following from an earlier Black's Dictionary?

" The lawful father or mother of a person. One who procreates, begets, or brings forth offspring. "

You've done your homework very well.

Heavenly Peace.

EDIT:

" EDIT (yozhik)
Also, regarding the birth certificate and the use of the word "informant" ... I would also suggest that this is used because the father or mother of their offspring is NOT the father or mother (parent) of the legal fiction (child).

The man and woman do not create the "person", so on the document (birth registration) that is used to establish its creation, they can not be identified as the creators. technically, they are merely the informants; those giving the information to assist in the creation of the legal fiction.

Does that make sense? "

Yes it does make sense, to me anyway.
In a bid to rid your offspring of the shackles of the 'person', does then the breaking of the relationship between the offspring and its 'person' necessarily destroy the ciste que trust, or bond that is created with, as basis, the Berth Certificate?

That's the answer I'd really like to know.
Yozhik; surely you've heard of the concept?
Can you point me in the direction of evidence that this happens?

Again, well done.
Tien An.

[the worm that turned]

Hot damn!
Once again you astound me, yozhik.

Is the following from an earlier Black's Dictionary?

" The lawful father or mother of a person. One who procreates, begets, or brings forth offspring. "

You've done your homework very well.

Heavenly Peace.

EDIT:

" EDIT (yozhik)
Also, regarding the birth certificate and the use of the word "informant" ... I would also suggest that this is used because the father or mother of their offspring is NOT the father or mother (parent) of the legal fiction (child).

The man and woman do not create the "person", so on the document (birth registration) that is used to establish its creation, they can not be identified as the creators. technically, they are merely the informants; those giving the information to assist in the creation of the legal fiction.

Does that make sense? "

Yes it does make sense, to me anyway.
In a bid to rid your offspring of the shackles of the 'person', does then the breaking of the relationship between the offspring and its 'person' necessarily destroy the ciste que trust, or bond that is created with, as basis, the Berth Certificate?

That's the answer I'd really like to know.
Yozhik; surely you've heard of the concept?
Can you point me in the direction of evidence that this happens?

Again, well done.
Tien An.

Yozhik and Tien An - Great discussion here.

Basically, from the response given by the Deputry Registrar General to my Question 3, it is clear that a legal fiction IS created, because if it wasn't he would have just said NO (not sure that logic is 100% sound but I think you probably agree with me)!

So how do we test this theory. Perhaps someone could register their child but under their terms and conditions. Bear with me but I have a couple of suggestions:

1 - Create an affidavit as a natural parent stating that your child (give name and family name) was born on xx date at xxx and xxx is the natural mother and I am the natural father etc, but then say I do not give permission for any person, company etc to create a legal fiction in the name of this child. Take this to the Registrar's office when you register the birth. Also send a copy to the Inland Revenue and to the Registrar General at the GRO.

2 - Attempt to register your child but hand amend the registration information to score out "Informant" and replace it with "Natural Parent". Do not sign if they refuse to do this. This could be done as a type of Notice, i.e. I accept your offer that the Births and Deaths Act requires I must register the birth of my child within 42 days, and I am totally willing to do this, however I do not wish to act as an informant, I wish to act as the natural parent, I also do not give permission for you to use another person who is not the natural person to act as an informant to my child.

Now both of these examples are playing within their rules and you are attempting to meet your "obligation" to register your child.

What do you both think? (or anyone else for that matter)

EDIT: Also do you think it is possible/worthwhile to apply a Trademark to your childs' name?

[yozhik]

2 - Attempt to register your child but hand amend the registration information to score out "Informant" and replace it with "Natural Parent". Do not sign if they refuse to do this. This could be done as a type of Notice, i.e. I accept your offer that the Births and Deaths Act requires I must register the birth of my child within 42 days, and I am totally willing to do this, however I do not wish to act as an informant, I wish to act as the natural parent, I also do not give permission for you to use another person who is not the natural person to act as an informant to my child.

Now both of these examples are playing within their rules and you are attempting to meet your "obligation" to register your child.

What do you both think? (or anyone else for that matter)

EDIT: Also do you think it is possible/worthwhile to apply a Trademark to your childs' name?

The fact that ANYONE can act as informant and the role of the natural parent is inconsequential, speaks volumes.

It's also a damning fact that the natural parent's permission is not required, to pass over information about the offspring.

Actually ... on that point ... it would be an interesting argument to consider whether this constitutes a breach of the Data Protection Act.
I mean ... where is the establishment of consent for the exchanging of personal information?

[the worm that turned]

The fact that ANYONE can act as informant and the role of the natural parent is inconsequential, speaks volumes.

It's also a damning fact that the natural parent's permission is not required, to pass over information about the offspring.

Actually ... on that point ... it would be an interesting argument to consider whether this constitutes a breach of the Data Protection Act.
I mean ... where is the establishment of consent for the exchanging of personal information?

Good point and another good reason to go back to the GRO. I have now sought legal advice (as requested by the Deputy Registrar General). I eagerly await their response now!

[aldrin]

KUTGW 'The worm..', inroads are being made, i can see that even with my very limited knowledge on the subject!!

[ag3nt5mith]

Great stuff keep it coming, I'm following this one very closely.

Couldn't we draft a claim of right over the offspring's person and then operate in the capacity of agent for that person?

Or,

Could I say that:- I recognize the application for registration of birth as a contract? Furthermore, I will accept the contract once they have fully answered all my questions regarding the definitions of some select words that they have used within said contract? Child, Parent, Informant, Person... etc...

Conditionally accepting their offer leaves me in honour and I doubt they will truthfully answer all my questions on their own full commercial liability.

Pheww, hope I got all that right, I've got to get this all perfected as I have 8 weeks (approx) before this becomes a very immediate situation.

The notice doesn't have to be long even.

I John-Doe of the Smith Family, do here by claim all right & duties to my offspring,

Further more, I claim that any and all legal fictions created in the name of my offspring will be held in trust by myself until such time that my offspring can competently manage his/her own affairs,

Further more, I claim the right to operate as the agent for the fore-mentioned legal fiction, any action/correspondent regarding this PERSON will be address via the Legal entity known as 'MR. JOHN DOE SMITH'.

Any breach of this notice will activate my own fee schedule and the fee schedule of my offspring... etc...

You catch my drift?

Sorry I haven't written many notices, so this may in-fact suck eggs... :D (Still learning here, my skulls pretty thick lol...).

I hope I've added something worth while to the conversation here.

Can some one get Rob to glance at this for us? If memory serves me correctly, isn't this what set Rob off on his amazing journey in the first place?

Peace. :)

[the worm that turned]

Great stuff keep it coming, I'm following this one very closely.

Couldn't we draft a claim of right over the offspring's person and then operate in the capacity of agent for that person?

Or,

Could I say that:- I recognize the application for registration of birth as a contract? Furthermore, I will accept the contract once they have fully answered all my questions regarding the definitions of some select words that they have used within said contract? Child, Parent, Informant, Person... etc...

Conditionally accepting their offer leaves me in honour and I doubt they will truthfully answer all my questions on their own full commercial liability.

Pheww, hope I got all that right, I've got to get this all perfected as I have 8 weeks (approx) before this becomes a very immediate situation.

The notice doesn't have to be long even.

I John-Doe of the Smith Family, do here by claim all right & duties to my offspring,

Further more, I claim that any and all legal fictions created in the name of my offspring will be held in trust by myself until such time that my offspring can competently manage his/her own affairs,

Further more, I claim the right to operate as the agent for the fore-mentioned legal fiction, any action/correspondent regarding this PERSON will be address via the Legal entity known as 'MR. JOHN DOE SMITH'.

Any breach of this notice will activate my own fee schedule and the fee schedule of my offspring... etc...

You catch my drift?

Sorry I haven't written many notices, so this may in-fact suck eggs... :D (Still learning here, my skulls pretty thick lol...).

I hope I've added something worth while to the conversation here.

Can some one get Rob to glance at this for us? If memory serves me correctly, isn't this what set Rob off on his amazing journey in the first place?

Peace. :)

Cheers - some great points here. I would love Rob to take a look at this thread and add his wisdom to it.

[the worm that turned]

My solicitor said he is not qualified in this area and couldn't help. He couldn't recommend anyone either??? :confused:

[Ian2day]

Got me thinking is there a need to even use their documents? Can you not use your own forms. As long as it meets the requirements of the applicapable law to record the birth. I am sure that you could issue cheques from your bank account on anything. As long as it contained the correct information. So maybe a load of people attempting to record a birth or pay any Local Authoruty charges or even court fines with a cheque/form made out of a toilet seat would be a bit of a token protest. If they then refused your attempt at payment etc, you could deem the account as settled/your obligations as met!

[yozhik]

Maybe I've missed something ... but why are we debating ways to amend their forms?
Why do we even agree to submit a birth record?
Family bible with recording of birth is MORE than sufficient.
Hell - if you want to go to the extremes ... get the Bible recording notarised and then have that Apostilled, as illustrated by Ian2day in this post;
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=863631&postcount=1

Why register the birth if you have this?

[the worm that turned]

Why register the birth if you have this?

Wife not keen to experiment with our kid!

[yozhik]

Wife not keen to experiment with our kid!

Cool ... I understand.
I'm a dad too :D

Just do one thing :) ... explore and research about the Family Bible (if you haven't already). This is tested, verified and official. It is common law that stands up, even to the rigour and trickery of contemporary statutes. There's even a very recent example of it being accepted somewhere in this forum ... but do you think I can find it?

[the worm that turned]

Cool ... I understand.
I'm a dad too :D

Just do one thing :) ... explore and research about the Family Bible (if you haven't already). This is tested, verified and official. It is common law that stands up, even to the rigour and trickery of contemporary statutes. There's even a very recent example of it being accepted somewhere in this forum ... but do you think I can find it?

I have done and I want to get a decent bible that has space to enter details. Question though, does it need to actually be a holy bible, or could it just be a book that contains my family's details? What do you think? Have you seen any decent bibles?

On a separate note I'm about to start a new thread on Council Tax, as I have just received my new "bill" and I want to go about this correctly. Please look at the new thread and offer some advice if you can (that goes to all not just Yozhik ;))

[the worm that turned]

The local Citizens Advice Bureau are not interested either, trying a few more solicitors now.

I am now considering that a NOUI to the Registrar General at the General Register Office might be a good idea. Along the lines of - I understand that according to the Births and Deaths Act I am obliged to register the birth of my child, which I am willing to do, so long as you accept my understandings. I am therefore not in breach of the statute and it will force them to tell me the truth or leave me alone! I will type up a draft and post on here.

[yozhik]

I am now considering that a NOUI to the Registrar General at the General Register Office might be a good idea. Along the lines of - I understand that according to the Births and Deaths Act I am obliged to register the birth of my child, which I am willing to do, so long as you accept my understandings. I am therefore not in breach of the statute and it will force them to tell me the truth or leave me alone! I will type up a draft and post on here.

Would this not mean you stand under the obligations?

[the worm that turned]

Would this not mean you stand under the obligations?

OK, so better wording would be???

"I am aware" or "I recognise"

[yozhik]

OK, so better wording would be???

"I am aware" or "I recognise"

Hmmm ... good question. :)

You could make a statement and then conditional acceptance of that statement.

(statement)
According to the Births and Deaths Act [I]a person is obliged to register the birth of [my] a child.

(statement with conditional acceptance)
I accept this as an obligation pertaining to me upon proof that;
1) (for example) the definition of "person" in the Act, applies to me.
2) (for example) registration of offspring does not create a legal fiction - a "person".
3) (for example) registration of offspring does not facilitate transfer of guardianship of the child, by creating guardianship of the person of the child, to any individual or agency.

Sorry - not at all coherent or complete, but hopefully you will get my meaning.
I have also read elsewhere the suggestion that to make the conditions a negative statement helps strengthen the request for proof of claim, as they are then faced by the harder task of proving a negative. :)

[the worm that turned]

Hmmm ... good question. :)

You could make a statement and then conditional acceptance of that statement.

(statement)
According to the Births and Deaths Act [I]a person is obliged to register the birth of [my] a child.

(statement with conditional acceptance)
I accept this as an obligation pertaining to me upon proof that;
1) (for example) the definition of "person" in the Act, applies to me.
2) (for example) registration of offspring does not create a legal fiction - a "person".
3) (for example) registration of offspring does not facilitate transfer of guardianship of the child, by creating guardianship of the person of the child, to any individual or agency.

Sorry - not at all coherent or complete, but hopefully you will get my meaning.
I have also read elsewhere the suggestion that to make the conditions a negative statement helps strengthen the request for proof of claim, as they are then faced by the harder task of proving a negative. :)

That kind of makes sense and now makes my huge NOUI letter seem a little ridiculous!! So how do you go about making the negative statement, example please

[the worm that turned]

Just received the following from a solicitor, so does that mean that a legal fiction is or isn't created?? - very helpful!!! Good to see affordable legal advice being given to the public!!

Dear [name removed by me]

Your e-mail enquiry has been forwarded to me to respond. I am a partner in the firm's private client department.
It seems to me that there is no question of any legal fiction being created by the registration process as you suggest. As you have already been advised , the rules regarding the compulsory registration of births stem from an Act of Parliament and the process never existed under the common law, that is the customary law . The present rules originated in a statute passed in 1836 and I am afraid you and your wife are bound by the rules whether you like it or not.

No doubt you will come back to me if I can assist further, but you should be advised that my firm's charges for work by a partner are £250 per hour plus VAT.

Yours Sincerely

[name removed by me]

[chesterd]

Isn't that just like a solicitor to try and keep the controversy going.Solicitor = Law Society = Temple Bar = Crown = BANKSTERS.:D
Me thinks he thinks you don't think :D:D
Peace Chester

[yozhik]

Just received the following from a solicitor, so does that mean that a legal fiction is or isn't created?? - very helpful!!! Good to see affordable legal advice being given to the public!!

Dear [name removed by me]

Your e-mail enquiry has been forwarded to me to respond. I am a partner in the firm's private client department.
It seems to me that there is no question of any legal fiction being created by the registration process as you suggest. As you have already been advised , the rules regarding the compulsory registration of births stem from an Act of Parliament and the process never existed under the common law, that is the customary law . The present rules originated in a statute passed in 1836 and I am afraid you and your wife are bound by the rules whether you like it or not.

No doubt you will come back to me if I can assist further, but you should be advised that my firm's charges for work by a partner are £250 per hour plus VAT.

Yours Sincerely

[name removed by me]

What was the name of the 1836 statute?
Interesting that he also uses the word "rules" (twice); never the word "law".

The present rules originated in a statute passed in 1836 and I am afraid you and your wife are bound by the rules whether you like it or not.

Rules? Hmmmm ... legalese is never spoken or written carelessly. :)
Think about it; it would have been very easy and logical for him to state;
The present LAW originated in a ... you and your wife are bound by the LAWS ...
QUESTION: So why didn't he write this? Why did he tip toe around the use of the word "law"?

Oh - and lets not also overlook his use of the word "bound".
Isn't this a word associated with slavery? :rolleyes:

[yozhik]

That kind of makes sense and now makes my huge NOUI letter seem a little ridiculous!! So how do you go about making the negative statement, example please

Look at 2) and 3) in the examples given.
They are both stated in the negative.

[chesterd]

If it weren't for the 250 quid of worthless paper money being involved, I'd ask one more question of Mr Solicitor and that would be.......You say...."It seems to me that there is no question of any legal fiction being created by the registration process as you suggest."
I would ask him if the "ME" in that sentence is "ME" the solicitor who gets his definitions from a law dictionary or "ME" the certified plum duff who wants to get you back for 250 quid and argue the toss.

Peace Chester:)

[the worm that turned]

Yozhik - I'm with you know.

I am still confused about this solicitors statement "It seems to me that there is no question of any legal fiction being created by the registration process as you suggest." That to me is ambiguous, does it mean there is a legal fiction created?

My interpretation and emphasis added:

It seems to me that there is no question [it is without doubt] of any legal fiction being created [legal fiction(s) are created] by the registration process as you suggest.

[the worm that turned]

If it weren't for the 250 quid of worthless paper money being involved, I'd ask one more question of Mr Solicitor and that would be.......You say...."It seems to me that there is no question of any legal fiction being created by the registration process as you suggest."
I would ask him if the "ME" in that sentence is "ME" the solicitor who gets his definitions from a law dictionary or "ME" the certified plum duff who wants to get you back for 250 quid and argue the toss.

Peace Chester:)

I replied and told him that only solicitors and premiership footballers could afford those fees anyway and asked for clarification of his ambiguous statement for free!! Will it arrive...

[chesterd]

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting.Although maybe going round there and making him hold his lol.Just joking :D
Good luck decyphering any answer you get.One suggestion for the future, you may wish to look on Ebay for a Enigma Solicitor Machine :D:D:D
Peace Chester

[rob menard]

Hmmm ... good question. :)

You could make a statement and then conditional acceptance of that statement.

(statement)
According to the Births and Deaths Act [I]a person is obliged to register the birth of [my] a child.

(statement with conditional acceptance)
I accept this as an obligation pertaining to me upon proof that;
1) (for example) the definition of "person" in the Act, applies to me.
2) (for example) registration of offspring does not create a legal fiction - a "person".
3) (for example) registration of offspring does not facilitate transfer of guardianship of the child, by creating guardianship of the person of the child, to any individual or agency.

Sorry - not at all coherent or complete, but hopefully you will get my meaning.
I have also read elsewhere the suggestion that to make the conditions a negative statement helps strengthen the request for proof of claim, as they are then faced by the harder task of proving a negative. :)

DO NOT SAY "I ACCEPT UPON PROOF OF CLAIM..." for then you open the door to them saying "Good" as soon as you say "I accept" and your words will be seen as an acceptance and not a conditional acceptance. You do say "I CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT UPON PROOF OF CLAIM." The word 'conditionally' is vital and MUST precede the acceptance, not follow it.

Rob

[yozhik]

DO NOT SAY "I ACCEPT UPON PROOF OF CLAIM..." for then you open the door to them saying "Good" as soon as you say "I accept" and your words will be seen as an acceptance and not a conditional acceptance. You do say "I CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT UPON PROOF OF CLAIM." The word 'conditionally' is vital and MUST precede the acceptance, not follow it.

Rob

I stand corrected by one much wiser than I :)

It was my (mistaken) comprehension that the condition was created by the "upon proof of" request.

Thanks for the clarification Rob.

[chesterd]

Rob you're just too accurate for those pesky legal fellows.:D
No wonder they don't like you very much you're always messing with their click.
You remind me of the lil pigeon from "catch the pigeon" with Dastardly and Muttly.Always scuppering their evil plans....."I'll get you Penelope Menard....":D:D

Peace Chester

[the worm that turned]

Response from the solicitor - not sure what a legal fiction is!! I'm not a solicitor and I bloody know what one is!!!!

"With regard to your query, I do not understand the expression"a legal fiction", I am afraid. In the context of the registration of births , an entry creates nothing more or less than an official record of an event with certain specified supporting details. I do not see that this creates anything which could be called a legal fiction."

[yozhik]

Response from the solicitor - not sure what a legal fiction is!! I'm not a solicitor and I bloody know what one is!!!!

"With regard to your query, I do not understand the expression"a legal fiction", I am afraid. In the context of the registration of births , an entry creates nothing more or less than an official record of an event with certain specified supporting details. I do not see that this creates anything which could be called a legal fiction."

Not surprising ... do you really think a indoctrinated, legal repeater-robot is going to allow the term "fiction" to apply to his world? That would mean having to either admit or awaken to the possibility that he has been completely and utterly deceived, by studying and striving for "status" in a non-existent world, rendering everything he has believed to be true, worthless and pointless. He has become a player-in-a-suit in a realtime, offline, pseudo Dungeons and Dragons simulation. It's all fun and games until you realise its just a game ... That's a hard hurdle for any man or woman to jump!

[chesterd]

Ahhhhhhh a nice tempting response.He's looking through the holiday brochures as we speak.:D
Or maybe just maybe like most of them he really doesn't know what you're talking about.Maybe reply with something along the lines of....." well I searched Black's law 4th edition dictionary and found the following :

Fictio .. The object of a fiction was to give the court jurisdiction

Fictio Legis Inique Operatur Alicui Damnum Val Injuriam : A legal fiction does not properly work loss or injury.

Or Bouviers Law Dictionary :
It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every LEGAL FICTION must have equity for its object. 10 Co. 42; 10 Price's R. 154; Cowp. 177. To prevent, their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors, who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it, under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness, which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact, what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench. 4 Benth. Ev. 300.

He'll probably say he doesn't understand that.But worth a try

Peace Chester:)

[the worm that turned]

Ahhhhhhh a nice tempting response.He's looking through the holiday brochures as we speak.:D
Or maybe just maybe like most of them he really doesn't know what you're talking about.Maybe reply with something along the lines of....." well I searched Black's law 4th edition dictionary and found the following :

Fictio .. The object of a fiction was to give the court jurisdiction

Fictio Legis Inique Operatur Alicui Damnum Val Injuriam : A legal fiction does not properly work loss or injury.

Or Bouviers Law Dictionary :
It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every LEGAL FICTION must have equity for its object. 10 Co. 42; 10 Price's R. 154; Cowp. 177. To prevent, their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors, who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it, under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness, which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact, what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench. 4 Benth. Ev. 300.

He'll probably say he doesn't understand that.But worth a try

Peace Chester:)

I'll send it but I'm sure he does know really. Worrying if he doesn't!

[the worm that turned]

Reply from my MP - (note whilst reading that he completed it with his name in capitals and MP at the end)

Dear [name removed by me]

I acknowledge receipt of emailed letter of the 18 March.

I have read this correspondence very carefully indeed and have to say that I believe I share the view expressed by [Deputy Registrar General]: I am, I fear, unclear as to the thrust of the point that you appear to be seeking to make and not being a lawyer do not appreciate that there is any difference, or what you described as a "legal fiction" between a person and a human being.

If you can clarify further your concern and the reason that lies behind this query then I will naturally be pleased to see if there is anyway in which I can obtain further informaton for you.

With my best wishes.
Yours sincerely

[name removed by me]

So I am to believe that what we are all discussing on here is absolute codswallop as now my MP, 3 solicitors and the citizens advice bureau all seem to think I am a madman or genuinely have no idea of what I am talking about, or are at least pretending not to!

[tien an]

No, wormy...

They don't necessarily think you're mad at all.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall at your MP's surgery when you explain 'how it all works' to him/her.
He / She has already said that it would be a pleasure to help you:

"If you can clarify further your concern and the reason that lies behind this query then I will naturally be pleased to see if there is anyway in which I can obtain further informaton for you".

It may well be that your MP is blissfully unaware of 'what goes on'.
This in itself isn't bad, but once you explain it to them, it would be interesting to see where, exactly, they'd like to help...

[the worm that turned]

No, wormy...

They don't necessarily think you're mad at all.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall at your MP's surgery when you explain 'how it all works' to him/her.
He / She has already said that it would be a pleasure to help you:

"If you can clarify further your concern and the reason that lies behind this query then I will naturally be pleased to see if there is anyway in which I can obtain further informaton for you".

It may well be that your MP is blissfully unaware of 'what goes on'.
This in itself isn't bad, but once you explain it to them, it would be interesting to see where, exactly, they'd like to help...

I'm currently replying to my MP now and I am making it all very clear to him, including the use of capitilisation as taken from this useful website and accompanying pdf - http://groups.google.com/group/county-notary_highest-office-in-law/browse_thread/thread/ccdecc201b7ecda6.

Naturally I will keep you all posted but methinks that a 2 day turnaround will not occur this time by my MP :)

[killmicrosoft]

the worm that turned
http://video.google
com/videoplay?docid=-1131942400352901009&q=Esoteric%20Agenda&total=42&start=0
num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

vid not working


but this one does

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6030443037963555139&hl=en

[the worm that turned]

the worm that turned


Not sure what you want me to see on this vid, it is 2 hrs long!! Is there a particular message in it you were trying to make me aware of?

Cheers - The Worm

[yozhik]

I concur with your hesitation :)
Introducing a concept to the MP, with a 2 hour video with a heavy leaning towards secret societies and symbolism, in my opinion, is a mistake.

I would suggest awakening those around us with a gentle nudge, rather than a full-on, balls out, nuclear explosion! :D

[killmicrosoft]

the worm that turned
its in the link that you sent your mp

[ag3nt5mith]

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious here, has anyone sent these people a link to say Robs magnificent deception?

Perhaps we should give it try.

Educate them.

Peace.

[the worm that turned]

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious here, has anyone sent these people a link to say Robs magnificent deception?

Perhaps we should give it try.

Educate them.

Peace.

Go for it!

[yozhik]

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious here, has anyone sent these people a link to say Robs magnificent deception?

Perhaps we should give it try.

Educate them.

Peace.

I was thinking about this just yesterday and trying to answer the question; "what is the best introductory video" that we have in our arsenal?

For me, some of these videos are either too long or too "heavy" for the newbie. I mean, most people are scared off or its just too much information to deal with in one sitting and they feel threatened by their entire world being questioned, at once.

It is intimidating.

Then what happens is there are some (of "us") who then simply dismiss them as programmed sheeple, or as ignorant, or as part of the dumbed down masses.

What isn't recognised or admitted is that we have failed in our efforts to communicate. Far easier to blame them for not understanding than it is to take responsibility for poorly communicating.

I am writing from first hand knowledge and experience; my mother being the target of my efforts. :)

Despite giving her my best stuff, she rejected it.
Too much symbolism, too much focus on "the powers that be" and the whole Rothschild/Illuminati issue.
I particularly remember pointing her at a short Anti-Terrorist clip from his youtube collection, thinking to myself, "this will get her!" ... only to be ridiculed for sending her a clip of "a clown in a ski mask ... why does he have to wear a mask? what has he got to hide? how can anyone take a man who dresses up like a clown seriously?"

(sigh)

But I persevered ... and eventually found a video that resonated.
I can't even remember what it was now.
Finally, we had been able to communicate.
It wasn't just me telling something, hoping that it got through.
It was communication; the effective transference of information, resulting in a desired behaviour.

My point is, we need to choose videos - not because we like them - but because they will communicate the information effectively ... and communication requires measurement of resultant, desired behaviour.

[zaniwhoop]

Yes Yozhik, a really straightforward and clear introductory video would be a really good idea, not that I think that will be very easy to accomplish, as it is a bit of a complicated topic. I have tried to write a simplified intro by adapting others works and adding bits etc.

I will see if I can put some effort in ASAP. Rob's Bursting Bubbles was excellent, though on first watch I was left thinking it was only applicable to Canada. John Harris's It's an Illusion really did the trick for me and reading the material on http://www.fmotl.com, so some sort of a combination of the three styles.

Anyway great thread here. I'm lookin' forward to seeing any outcomes.

Love and Light

Simon

[richanpoor]

after reading thru the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 it seems the minister in charge over the Registrar General is the Chancellor of the Exchequer! It seems this was amended in 1996 from the Secretary of State.

You could probably include any letters requesting info to the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary for the Treasury if the RG does not answer your questions.

Here is the link for the act at OPSI - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1953/cukpga_19530020_en_1

Interpretations is in Part III, 41 (Page 5 of 7)

The Financial Secretary is Stephen Timms (he describes himself as a Christian Socialist according to Wiki)

also there is Yvette Cooper (married to Ed Balls) who is second in command at HM Treasury who is Chief Secretary of the Treasury.

[zaniwhoop]

And here's a transcript version http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1836Act.htm

XIX. And be it enacted, That the Father or Mother of any Child born, or the Occupier of every House or Tenement in England in which any Birth or Death shall happen, after the said First day of March, may, within Forty-two Days next after the Day of such Birth or within Five Days after the Day of such Death respectively, give Notice of such Birth or Death to the Registrar of the District notice it was just may in the original. I guess this is where the may turning into must was spotted. Also interesting to note they forgot to put any penalty in place for the parents.

Love and Light

Simon

[the worm that turned]

And here's a transcript version http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1836Act.htm

notice it was just may in the original. I guess this is where the may turning into must was spotted. Also interesting to note they forgot to put any penalty in place for the parents.

Love and Light

Simon

According to Rob of the family Menard (correct me if I've misquoted you Rob) that in legal terms Must means May anyway. The penalty is still only level 1 of the standard scale, which I believe is only £200 anyway. The way they try to frighten people into this (including my wife) is tell you that you can't get benefits, passport, schooling etc, which other than the benefits is BULLSH*T. And if you are bringing a kid into this world to let them have freebies, then in my opinion you shouldn't be bringing them into this world.

[the worm that turned]

Looking throught the act (AGAIN), I have just seen the following:

35 Offences relating to registers

If any person commits any of the following offences, that is to say—

(a)if, being a registrar, he refuses or without reasonable cause omits to register any birth or death or particulars concerning which information has been tendered to him by a qualified informant and which he is required by or under this Act to register;

If as a qualified informant I tell the registrar to enter the details as John Doe in lower case and add a note to the register that says, as a qualified informant I DO NOT GIVE PERMISSION FOR A LEGAL FICTION TO BE CREATED IN THE NAME OF THIS CHILD and he refuses then he is liable to a fine of £1000 pounds.

This might be the way forward, but I WILL be writing to the Financial Secretary. And why would a financial secretary be necessary for a bloody birth record?!?!?!? Need I ask!

[scotfree]

I recieved the following:

Dear Mr Allison

Thank you for your e-mail of 18 March 2009 to the Registrar General for
Scotland which has been passed to me to provide a response. I can reply
only in relation to the registration system in Scotland. There are
different systems for the registration of life events in England and
Wales and in Northern Ireland.

You might like to note that compulsory registration of life events began
in Scotland in 1855. The registration of births is currently governed
by the Registration of Births, Death and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965
and under section 14 of that Act there is a legal requirement for all
births (including stillbirths) that take place in Scotland to be
registered within 21 days. The keeping of registers of such events
provides the public with authentic evidence (in the form of a birth
extract [commonly known as a "birth certificate"] ) that an event, to
which legal consequences are attached, has taken place. A birth extract
can be used to present to others when evidence of an event is necessary.

As I mention above, the registration of events in England and Wales is
governed by different legislation and falls within the responsibility of
the Registrar General for England and Wales. I am therefore unable to
comment on the position with regard to birth certificates issued in
England and Wales or to comment on the position with regard to the
registration of the births of Her Majesty the Queen, of her children or
of her grandchildren. You might wish to contact those responsible for
the registration of births in England and Wales at the following
address.

Births & Deaths Section
Room D209
General Register Office
Trafalgar Road
SOUTHPORT
PR8 2HH

Email: registering.births@ons.gsi.gov.uk

I hope you find this helpful.

Yours sincerely

John

John McCafferty
Head of Registration Process Branch
General Register Office for Scotland
New Register House
3 West Register Street
Edinburgh
EH1 3YT
Tel: 0131 314 4456

-----Original Message-----
From: info@freemanhighland.co.uk [mailto:info@freemanhighland.co.uk]
Sent: 18 March 2009 13:27
To: GROS Records
Subject: To the Registrar General for Births and Deaths

" To the Registrar General for Births and Deaths,

I would like to make a query regarding the registration of births in
Scotland. I have attempted to have my questions answered by my local
council, however they appear unable, unwilling, or not suitably
qualified to answer my questions. As the General Registrar for Births
and Deaths in Scotland I assume that if you cannot answer my questions
then no person can.

Question 1: Is it UNLAWFUL under Common Law for a parent that is a human
being to not register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom?

Note to Question 1: I understand that it is illegal, as stated on the
official and publicly available Home Office website (www.gro.gov.uk) for
a PERSON (legal fiction) to not register the birth of a child within 42
days, as stated in the relevant ACT of Parliament.

Question 2: What are the benefits of registering the birth of a human
being?

Question 3: Can you categorically confirm that the registration of a
human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth
Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called
a PERSON for that particular human being?

Question 4: Can you confirm whether Her Majesty the Queen of England, or
indeed the human being commonly referred to as Queen Elizabeth the
Second, has her own Birth Certificate registered with your office?

Question 5: Do any of Queen Elizabeth the Second's children, commonly
known as Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, or indeed her
grandchildren, Prince William or Prince Harry, have receipt of a Birth
Certificate and are therefore registered with your office?

This email is sent to you this day, the 18 (eighteenth) of March 2009
(two thousand and nine) with good faith and no ill will or malice and
should be deemed as a hand written document. A confirmation of receipt
by your system will be deemed as a receipt by you, the Registrar
General. I expect a response within 7 days of the date above to my
questions mentioned above. If no response is recieved within 7 (seven)
days of the date above I will assume that the responses to the questions
are as follows:

Assumed Response to Question 1 if no response is received: It is not
unlawful under common law for a parent that is a human being to not
register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom.

Assumed Response to Question 2 if no response is received: There are no
true benefits to registering the birth of a human being because you are
actually creating a legal fiction, or PERSON in legal terms, to which
statutes, acts and other contracts can be applied to enable money and
other bonds to be associated to this legal fiction.

Assumed Response to Question 3 if no response is received: You as
Registrar General cannot categorically confirm that the registration of
a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth
Certificate in Scotland does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON
because this is exactly what the process of registering a birth does.

I do not assume to know the answer to Questions 4 and 5 however I assume
that you do and refuse to tell me.

I eagerly await your response within 7 (seven) days.

I do not give the receipient of this email any permission to publish
this email or the contents contained within it to any person, human
being, other agent, or any third party without my prior written consent,
other than to ensure its safe delivery to the Registrar General for
Births and Deaths in Scotland. Any breach of this will be deemed as an
act to personally harm me as a human being and will be punishable to the
maximum allowable level under Common Law.

Regards,
David Allison
Ross-shire, Highlands, Scotland

************************************************** *****************
This email has been received from an external party and has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.
************************************************** *****************




************************************************** ******

This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return.



Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.

************************************************** ******

[the worm that turned]

I recieved the following:

Dear Mr Allison

Thank you for your e-mail of 18 March 2009 to the Registrar General for
Scotland which has been passed to me to provide a response. I can reply
only in relation to the registration system in Scotland. There are
different systems for the registration of life events in England and
Wales and in Northern Ireland.

You might like to note that compulsory registration of life events began
in Scotland in 1855. The registration of births is currently governed
by the Registration of Births, Death and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965
and under section 14 of that Act there is a legal requirement for all
births (including stillbirths) that take place in Scotland to be
registered within 21 days. The keeping of registers of such events
provides the public with authentic evidence (in the form of a birth
extract [commonly known as a "birth certificate"] ) that an event, to
which legal consequences are attached, has taken place. A birth extract
can be used to present to others when evidence of an event is necessary.

As I mention above, the registration of events in England and Wales is
governed by different legislation and falls within the responsibility of
the Registrar General for England and Wales. I am therefore unable to
comment on the position with regard to birth certificates issued in
England and Wales or to comment on the position with regard to the
registration of the births of Her Majesty the Queen, of her children or
of her grandchildren. You might wish to contact those responsible for
the registration of births in England and Wales at the following
address.

Births & Deaths Section
Room D209
General Register Office
Trafalgar Road
SOUTHPORT
PR8 2HH

Email: registering.births@ons.gsi.gov.uk

I hope you find this helpful.

Yours sincerely

John

John McCafferty
Head of Registration Process Branch
General Register Office for Scotland
New Register House
3 West Register Street
Edinburgh
EH1 3YT
Tel: 0131 314 4456

-----Original Message-----
From: info@freemanhighland.co.uk [mailto:info@freemanhighland.co.uk]
Sent: 18 March 2009 13:27
To: GROS Records
Subject: To the Registrar General for Births and Deaths

" To the Registrar General for Births and Deaths,

I would like to make a query regarding the registration of births in
Scotland. I have attempted to have my questions answered by my local
council, however they appear unable, unwilling, or not suitably
qualified to answer my questions. As the General Registrar for Births
and Deaths in Scotland I assume that if you cannot answer my questions
then no person can.

Question 1: Is it UNLAWFUL under Common Law for a parent that is a human
being to not register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom?

Note to Question 1: I understand that it is illegal, as stated on the
official and publicly available Home Office website (www.gro.gov.uk) for
a PERSON (legal fiction) to not register the birth of a child within 42
days, as stated in the relevant ACT of Parliament.

Question 2: What are the benefits of registering the birth of a human
being?

Question 3: Can you categorically confirm that the registration of a
human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth
Certificate in England and Wales does not create a legal fiction called
a PERSON for that particular human being?

Question 4: Can you confirm whether Her Majesty the Queen of England, or
indeed the human being commonly referred to as Queen Elizabeth the
Second, has her own Birth Certificate registered with your office?

Question 5: Do any of Queen Elizabeth the Second's children, commonly
known as Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, or indeed her
grandchildren, Prince William or Prince Harry, have receipt of a Birth
Certificate and are therefore registered with your office?

This email is sent to you this day, the 18 (eighteenth) of March 2009
(two thousand and nine) with good faith and no ill will or malice and
should be deemed as a hand written document. A confirmation of receipt
by your system will be deemed as a receipt by you, the Registrar
General. I expect a response within 7 days of the date above to my
questions mentioned above. If no response is recieved within 7 (seven)
days of the date above I will assume that the responses to the questions
are as follows:

Assumed Response to Question 1 if no response is received: It is not
unlawful under common law for a parent that is a human being to not
register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom.

Assumed Response to Question 2 if no response is received: There are no
true benefits to registering the birth of a human being because you are
actually creating a legal fiction, or PERSON in legal terms, to which
statutes, acts and other contracts can be applied to enable money and
other bonds to be associated to this legal fiction.

Assumed Response to Question 3 if no response is received: You as
Registrar General cannot categorically confirm that the registration of
a human being and the subsequent creation of a record of birth and Birth
Certificate in Scotland does not create a legal fiction called a PERSON
because this is exactly what the process of registering a birth does.

I do not assume to know the answer to Questions 4 and 5 however I assume
that you do and refuse to tell me.

I eagerly await your response within 7 (seven) days.

I do not give the receipient of this email any permission to publish
this email or the contents contained within it to any person, human
being, other agent, or any third party without my prior written consent,
other than to ensure its safe delivery to the Registrar General for
Births and Deaths in Scotland. Any breach of this will be deemed as an
act to personally harm me as a human being and will be punishable to the
maximum allowable level under Common Law.

Regards,
David Allison
Ross-shire, Highlands, Scotland

************************************************** *****************
This email has been received from an external party and has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.
************************************************** *****************




************************************************** ******

This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return.



Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.

************************************************** ******

Great email :D

It is interesting that the system is different in Scotland and England although we are all within Great Britain and under the corporation of the United Kingdom! The part about there being "legal consequences" attached is also interesting. Perhaps you could delve for further info. Also, as I did, if you don't get the answers you want I would urge for them to escalate to the actual Registrar General (not fob you off with a pen pusher in the office).

[yozhik]

At least you got a reply ... it wasn't the reply you should have got to your questions ... but it was a reply ... I'm just not sure if him sending an email answering his own questions, instead of yours, is relevant.

Your questions was; Is it UNLAWFUL under Common Law for a parent that is a human being to not register the birth of a child in the United Kingdom?

His answer was; You might like to note that compulsory registration of life events began in Scotland in 1855. The registration of births is currently governed by the Registration of Births, Death and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 and under section 14 of that Act there is a legal requirement for all births (including stillbirths) that take place in Scotland to be registered within 21 days.

Ummm ... yeah, ok ... thanks for the political answer; now, could you please answer the question that was actually ASKED; not the one you wish was asked?

He wasn't asked what was deemed legal by statute; he was asked what was lawful under common law. All he is doing is quoting chapter and verse, giving set answers to set questions. Thing is; you didn't ask one of his set questions.

My comprehension of the situation is, that by his inability to address that which he was asked, he is unable, not permitted or ignorant of the correct and relevant answer.

[arten]

Hi Wormy
I have been following this thread with interest and wanted to make a couple of observations. Firstly, they TPTB set up society and in order to get everyone on side their are obvious benefits in belonging to society and agreeing to abide by their rules.
Like I have mentioned elsewhere on this forum I think it is impossible for certain members of that society to drop out, i.e white collar workers being a prime example.
With regard to this question surrounding the word "Legal Fiction", according to the 3rd edition of Blacks Law Dictionaray that is how they define a person.
Breaking the words legal fiction down by returning to the etymology of the words you get Bollocks and the following for fiction:

2 a: an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction>

So a legal fiction which is a person is based on, is bollocks because it is only an assumption :)

I have to agree with the Anti Terrorist when he says use your person wisely. I will be using mine at the ballot box to vote for my NOTA candidate.

[the worm that turned]

Hi Wormy
I have been following this thread with interest and wanted to make a couple of observations. Firstly, they TPTB set up society and in order to get everyone on side their are obvious benefits in belonging to society and agreeing to abide by their rules.
Like I have mentioned elsewhere on this forum I think it is impossible for certain members of that society to drop out, i.e white collar workers being a prime example.
With regard to this question surrounding the word "Legal Fiction", according to the 3rd edition of Blacks Law Dictionaray that is how they define a person.
Breaking the words legal fiction down by returning to the etymology of the words you get Bollocks and the following for fiction:

2 a: an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction>

So a legal fiction which is a person is based on, is bollocks because it is only an assumption :)

I have to agree with the Anti Terrorist when he says use your person wisely. I will be using mine at the ballot box to vote for my NOTA candidate.

Thanks Arten. I too will be using my person wisely. I will go ahead with registering my child next week but it will be with my eyes wide open, a copy of the relevant act in my hand, my family bible duly completed and a usb microscope and laptop to reveal to the registrar the INVALID mark if it is visible :D

[the worm that turned]

I have created an affidavit and had it sworn in front of a solicitor. I must admit he gave me some strange looks and then said that an affidavit "should" only be used in court and that he felt this would "probably" not carry much weight.

Regardless, I went ahead with it. The actual content includes details about my son (unregistered so far with GRO), including place of arrival (not birth), date of arrival, location of arrival, mother's name etc. It then says what his name is in John James format, no mention of family name. There is no need to say family name to start with because he is part of my family and therefore it is a given! And it states that he is born a free man on the land.

Then the interesting bit starts, basically stating that if ANY entity (e.g. person, man, company, body corporate etc etc) attempts to classify or create a title using the JOHN JAMES DOE (plus loads of other variations) format then as natural parent, lawful guardian, I take full ownership of any such title, person or legal fiction. It then goes on to state what will happen if I or my wife die before he reaches the age of 18.

Now this is all good, and I intend to show it to the Registrar when I register my son soon, however I NEED HELP TO DETERMINE WHETHER I NEED TO SEND THE ORIGINAL TO ANYONE TO FURTHER ESTABLISH ITS LAWFULNESS OR LEGALITY.

Who should I send it to? The Queen, the GRO, House of Lords, High Courts, etc etc. ANY advice greatly appreciated.

[1694]

Can we put this to rest:

http://www.gerv.net/writings/foetal-personhood/

Birth certs are nothing to do with person hood.

Whether or not your future tax revenue is used as an asset to secure borrowing using your birth cert is still open. The chancelor the exchequer bit was an interesting find.

[yozhik]

I have created an affidavit and had it sworn in front of a solicitor. I must admit he gave me some strange looks and then said that an affidavit "should" only be used in court and that he felt this would "probably" not carry much weight.

Regardless, I went ahead with it. The actual content includes details about my son (unregistered so far with GRO), including place of arrival (not birth), date of arrival, location of arrival, mother's name etc. It then says what his name is in John James format, no mention of family name. There is no need to say family name to start with because he is part of my family and therefore it is a given! And it states that he is born a free man on the land.

Then the interesting bit starts, basically stating that if ANY entity (e.g. person, man, company, body corporate etc etc) attempts to classify or create a title using the JOHN JAMES DOE (plus loads of other variations) format then as natural parent, lawful guardian, I take full ownership of any such title, person or legal fiction. It then goes on to state what will happen if I or my wife die before he reaches the age of 18.

Now this is all good, and I intend to show it to the Registrar when I register my son soon, however I NEED HELP TO DETERMINE WHETHER I NEED TO SEND THE ORIGINAL TO ANYONE TO FURTHER ESTABLISH ITS LAWFULNESS OR LEGALITY.

Who should I send it to? The Queen, the GRO, House of Lords, High Courts, etc etc. ANY advice greatly appreciated.

Sorry to be stupid and ignorant ... if you have gone through this process, why are you still wanting to register your child?

I swear; if I knew then, what I know now, my daughter would NOT have been registered.

[the worm that turned]

Sorry to be stupid and ignorant ... if you have gone through this process, why are you still wanting to register your child?

I swear; if I knew then, what I know now, my daughter would NOT have been registered.

There is more than one parent to this child and dad's experiments are not acceptable by mum!!! :(

[the worm that turned]

Can we put this to rest:

http://www.gerv.net/writings/foetal-personhood/

Birth certs are nothing to do with person hood.

Whether or not your future tax revenue is used as an asset to secure borrowing using your birth cert is still open. The chancelor the exchequer bit was an interesting find.

Well my affidavit is not exclusive to birth certificates creating a person, and if you read the entire thread you will see that even the Deputy Registrar General cannot confirm nor deny (even upon pressing) whether a birth record and birth certificate does indeed create a legal fiction or person.

All I am asking is DO I NEED TO SERVE AN AFFIDAVIT TO PARTICULAR PEOPLE TO MAKE IT MORE LAWFUL/LEGAL?

Thanks

[1694]

Well my affidavit is not exclusive to birth certificates creating a person, and if you read the entire thread you will see that even the Deputy Registrar General cannot confirm nor deny (even upon pressing) whether a birth record and birth certificate does indeed create a legal fiction or person.

All I am asking is DO I NEED TO SERVE AN AFFIDAVIT TO PARTICULAR PEOPLE TO MAKE IT MORE LAWFUL/LEGAL?

Thanks

Everything you think of as law is a "legal fiction" they are just rules made up by man, concepts.

Animals live by law, we have rules and we call them laws, or give them "force of law", "colour or law" etc.

AT 16 weeks from conception what actually changes? Nothing, that is just what the rules are, just legal fiction. Like the days of the week, we all agree to call them Monday, Tuesday etc. but they are just made up concepts, fictions, to an animal a day is just a day.

[firstlook]

Everything you think of as law is a "legal fiction" they are just rules made up by man, concepts.

Animals live by law, we have rules and we call them laws, or give them "force of law", "colour or law" etc.

AT 16 weeks from conception what actually changes? Nothing, that is just what the rules are, just legal fiction. Like the days of the week, we all agree to call them Monday, Tuesday etc. but they are just made up concepts, fictions, to an animal a day is just a day.


Very true. At the end of the day, you have to ask your self, What gives Law and Structures of government, authority?

Our acceptence and willingness. Thats it. Bottom line. You can choose what you want to "follow" and "follow" through with.

[1694]

Very true. At the end of the day, you have to ask your self, What gives Law and Structures of government, authority?

Our acceptence and willingness. Thats it. Bottom line. You can choose what you want to "follow" and "follow" through with.

Add to that "might", the power of the rule makers to enforce the rules with force.

Very often you will find if you try and break the rules you are met with law.

[rjl9332]

might? what might?

1694 you forget - a statute is a legislated rule of society given the force of law by consent of the governed. No consent, no force by their own definition. You have been conned my friend. There is no authority - none whatsoever - that you haven't granted those who would pretend to rule you. Peaceful, Lawful rebellion is the answer.

[1694]

might? what might?

1694 you forget - a statute is a legislated rule of society given the force of law by consent of the governed. No consent, no force by their own definition. You have been conned my friend. There is no authority - none whatsoever - that you haven't granted those who would pretend to rule you. Peaceful, Lawful rebellion is the answer.

You have totally miss understood, or been sold the lie by those selling.

Might, the might of the enforecers, be they soldiers or policemen, paramilitary or militia. Those who will come for you with force if you break their rules. They will enforce law, the law of the jungle, the laws of physics that dictate how a bullet will tear through your fragile body.

I have already explained this many times.

a statute is a legislated rule of society given the force of law by consent of the governed.

Right, a speed limit statute, is just a rule, it cant stop you from going faster than the speed limit, unless you agree to abide by it, if you dont agree you can totally break the speed limit, piece of piss.

However, if the police arrive they will enforce the rules using law, batons, asps, CS gas, tazers etc. All those things obey the actual laws of physics and so does your body.

Can you walk throug a wall? No. Laws of phyiscs prevent it.

If we cut a doorway in the wall but make a rule "with force of law" and call it a law saying you cant pass through it, can you pass through it. Technically yes, the "rule" is just a concept it cant phyisically stop you, it only works if you agree to it, or concent to it.

What about if we put two big well armed enforcers infront of the doorway to enforce the rules, then we are back to law. Can you overpower or out smart the enforcers.

Laws = physics/nature/the jungle

Everything else (common and statute) just rules, and rules only work if you obey them.

That is what is ment, someone else has miss interpreted the concepts, either by idoicy or by design, and is selling their home brew BS. The rules are made by the rulers to rule you, there is no way out using their rules.

They make their rules, you make yours, in the end the law decides, and the law is what it always has been and always will be, un affected by man made rules.

[the worm that turned]

getting back to the thread in question... DO I NEED TO SERVE MY AFFIDAVIT TO ANYONE ELSE TO MAKE IT LEGALLY/LAWFULLY BINDING?

[rjl9332]

You have totally miss understood, or been sold the lie by those selling.

Might, the might of the enforecers, be they soldiers or policemen, paramilitary or militia. Those who will come for you with force if you break their rules. They will enforce law, the law of the jungle, the laws of physics that dictate how a bullet will tear through your fragile body.

I have already explained this many times.

a statute is a legislated rule of society given the force of law by consent of the governed.

Right, a speed limit statute, is just a rule, it cant stop you from going faster than the speed limit, unless you agree to abide by it, if you dont agree you can totally break the speed limit, piece of piss.

However, if the police arrive they will enforce the rules using law, batons, asps, CS gas, tazers etc. All those things obey the actual laws of physics and so does your body.

Can you walk throug a wall? No. Laws of phyiscs prevent it.

If we cut a doorway in the wall but make a rule "with force of law" and call it a law saying you cant pass through it, can you pass through it. Technically yes, the "rule" is just a concept it cant phyisically stop you, it only works if you agree to it, or concent to it.

What about if we put two big well armed enforcers infront of the doorway to enforce the rules, then we are back to law. Can you overpower or out smart the enforcers.

Laws = physics/nature/the jungle

Everything else (common and statute) just rules, and rules only work if you obey them.

That is what is ment, someone else has miss interpreted the concepts, either by idoicy or by design, and is selling their home brew BS. The rules are made by the rulers to rule you, there is no way out using their rules.

They make their rules, you make yours, in the end the law decides, and the law is what it always has been and always will be, un affected by man made rules.

agree with you. in addition, as is clearly obvious by the sentiments of people on this site and many others, who are people in real life too, we would rather have a representative government and not a runaway one. So therefore if the 'rules' are to be obeyed we can bring the govt to heel by sticking to processes of common law and not fictional statute hiding the real admiralty/commerce game by knowledge and application of both.

[rjl9332]

getting back to the thread in question... DO I NEED TO SERVE MY AFFIDAVIT TO ANYONE ELSE TO MAKE IT LEGALLY/LAWFULLY BINDING?

if its a nouicor it needs to go to all the agencies that your person has a contract with (DVLA, GRO etc)

[the worm that turned]

if its a nouicor it needs to go to all the agencies that your person has a contract with (DVLA, GRO etc)

It is actually an affidavit (sworn statement by me) confirming that I am the lawful guardian and natural parent of my son (currently unregistered and still within the 42 days timeframe for registration). It states that as the natural parent I claim full and total ownership of ANY legal fiction or title assigned to my child.

I intend to show it to the Registrar before entering a record in his little book. I just want to know who else it is advisable to send to.

I wrote to the Judiciary Office and they weren't interested in providing me any advice.

All advice greatly appreciated

[1694]

agree with you. in addition, as is clearly obvious by the sentiments of people on this site and many others, who are people in real life too, we would rather have a representative government and not a runaway one. So therefore if the 'rules' are to be obeyed we can bring the govt to heel by sticking to processes of common law and not fictional statute hiding the real admiralty/commerce game by knowledge and application of both.

ARg, Common law is a legal fiction too, it is no more powerfull than the legal fiction of statute law, they are both just "rules."

If you want a representative government you achieve it with law Im afraid, not trying to play clever with the rules.

The process of common law could find you guilty of a statutory crime even without the statute, it would however still be a legal fiction and only backed by the force of the enforcer, ie the court bailiff. If you were sentaced to jail but no one stoped you from just walking out of the court and carrying on with your life then that common law is just as ineffectual if you refuse to consent to it, unless there is an enforcer using the laws of phyiscs to imprison you.

Ignore all this statute, common law, admiralty law, commerce bullshit. Just understand that there are rulers, who use rules to rule you, their rules will however bend to law and so will yours.

Common law is a legal fiction too, and there is no defining rules for common law, just because the last case went one way, doesnt mean your similar case will go the same way.

[the worm that turned]

ARg, Common law is a legal fiction too, it is no more powerfull than the legal fiction of statute law, they are both just "rules."

If you want a representative government you achieve it with law Im afraid, not trying to play clever with the rules.

The process of common law could find you guilty of a statutory crime even without the statute, it would however still be a legal fiction and only backed by the force of the enforcer, ie the court bailiff. If you were sentaced to jail but no one stoped you from just walking out of the court and carrying on with your life then that common law is just as ineffectual if you refuse to consent to it, unless there is an enforcer using the laws of phyiscs to imprison you.

Ignore all this statute, common law, admiralty law, commerce bullshit. Just understand that there are rulers, who use rules to rule you, their rules will however bend to law and so will yours.

Common law is a legal fiction too, and there is no defining rules for common law, just because the last case went one way, doesnt mean your similar case will go the same way.


getting back to the thread in question... DO I NEED TO SERVE MY AFFIDAVIT TO ANYONE ELSE TO MAKE IT LEGALLY/LAWFULLY BINDING?

[1694]

getting back to the thread in question... DO I NEED TO SERVE MY AFFIDAVIT TO ANYONE ELSE TO MAKE IT LEGALLY/LAWFULLY BINDING?

You could send it to Santa Clause if you like, it will be as much use.

[the worm that turned]

You could send it to Santa Clause if you like, it will be as much use.

Very useful advice thanks. Anyone else care to top that one?

Santa Clause indeed! Does he even exist or is he a legal fiction too?

[1694]

Very useful advice thanks. Anyone else care to top that one?

Santa Clause indeed! Does he even exist or is he a legal fiction too?

I mean that seriously. Any rate, you are on your own path. Keep us informed of how it goes, good luck.

[the worm that turned]

I mean that seriously. Any rate, you are on your own path. Keep us informed of how it goes, good luck.

So you seriously think I should send something to a fictitious character to help me to attempt to help humanity move on from a "potential" method of slavery.

OK - no offence intended but I think you may be on the wrong section if you do not believe in the Freeman movement at all. Don't get me wrong you are entitled to your views but if they are not helpful here (i.e. send something to santa claus) then there isn't much point contributing, unless you are deliberately attempting to disrupt a thread I created relating to birth registration.

If you want to set up a separate thread picking apart Freeman philosophy then go do it, but not on this thread please.

[rjl9332]

ARg, Common law is a legal fiction too, it is no more powerfull than the legal fiction of statute law, they are both just "rules."

If you want a representative government you achieve it with law Im afraid, not trying to play clever with the rules.

The process of common law could find you guilty of a statutory crime even without the statute, it would however still be a legal fiction and only backed by the force of the enforcer, ie the court bailiff. If you were sentaced to jail but no one stoped you from just walking out of the court and carrying on with your life then that common law is just as ineffectual if you refuse to consent to it, unless there is an enforcer using the laws of phyiscs to imprison you.

Ignore all this statute, common law, admiralty law, commerce bullshit. Just understand that there are rulers, who use rules to rule you, their rules will however bend to law and so will yours.

Common law is a legal fiction too, and there is no defining rules for common law, just because the last case went one way, doesnt mean your similar case will go the same way.

1694 your rhetoric, and it is rhetoric, is pointing only in one direction, and it is not peace. You speak of law as being might is right, those that rule having the most of it. I disagree. This is an egoistic approach which has been used to solve problems in the past and the faults are clear for all to see. they are all around you. If you fight and win, you become what you fought. It's literally that simple. If however you change through spreading information, knowledge and awareness then you give rise to an unstoppable 'force' - the removal of authority of those that pretend to 'rule' you. We consent to this, we need not to.

[1694]

1694 your rhetoric, and it is rhetoric, is pointing only in one direction, and it is not peace. You speak of law as being might is right, those that rule having the most of it. I disagree. This is an egoistic approach which has been used to solve problems in the past and the faults are clear for all to see. they are all around you. If you fight and win, you become what you fought. It's literally that simple. If however you change through spreading information, knowledge and awareness then you give rise to an unstoppable 'force' - the removal of authority of those that pretend to 'rule' you. We consent to this, we need not to.

If you look at the example I give, with the doorway I always include "outsmart the enforcers." People are just people, if you can convince the enforcers not to enforce then the law that backed the rules of the rulers is gone and the rules lose their force of law.

You are still miss understanding what law is. Law is reality, it is not governed by man made rules, yours or theirs.

My orignal point was to explain what the term:

"given force of law by those who consent to be goverened"

It is not what you want to believe, it means as I have explained, that what we call law are actually just made up rules and can be broken if we choose. That is not to say we can legally break the rules, just that the rules themselfs dont carry any force, it is only the enforcers who add force of law to a conceptual rule.

So you can't just write a letter to refuse consent to a rule and expect to be immune from prosecution. You dont have to consent to the rules for them to be applied to you, sorry to burst your bubble (of deception).

So for the last time, when we talk of law we mean the laws of phyiscs (not the theories of man, but the acual laws of the universe,) those are actual laws, they are how the universe works. I droped an apple it hit the ground, the laws of gravity. I could pass a statute that states no apple droped will hit the ground, now unless we have someone to catch every apple that is ever dropped that apple doesnt give a flying fuck about my made up rules, it obeys the law of gravity.

So now you understand the distinction between law and force of law, you can see how no legal concept is a law, it is given force of law by you if you agree to it OR it is backed by actual law when enforcers use their might to apply the rule to you, or you dont get caught, overpower the enforcers, or outsmart the enforcers.

Do you understand now the difference between law and a rule called "law" by man? If so you will see why the idea you can unconsent to laws because you have to consent to it for it to work as a stand alone doesnt exempt you from prosecution.

[the worm that turned]

Well the time finally came today where I provided details of my son to a woman (I forget her name) to enter in a little register.

I must admit she was a bit surprised when she read my legally binding affidavit, although she did think it was a good idea and that more parents should do it!!

The affidavit (although immediately poo-pooed by 1694 above even though he has no idea of exactly what is in it!!) has also been sent to the General Registrar. I will also be sending it to a number of other Government Offices.

THe next step (now that I as natural parent and lawful guardian am the owner of any legal fiction created in my son's name) will be to create a NOUICOR with an appropriate fee schedule which outlaws the use of any legal fiction created in my son's name, with a fee schedule attached. Not sure of my fee yet but I think approx £10,000,000 for each use of MY son's legal fiction, held in trust to me, without my permission should suffice for now.

I asked the local registrar why she has put the name of my child in capitals, even after reading my affidavit, and she said it is THE LAW. I said "is it?". THen it was explained to me that this was a historical thing for when they were hand written to make sure people can read it, so I said, "but you have just printed this from a printer!". No answer. I said I recommend you look up writing names in capital letters when you get home. SHe looked a bit concerned.

Let's hope she has started to wake up...

(BTW - There was mention that someone saw INVALID written on the copy certificate they were given, anyone know where this was on the certificate and was it in the UK?)

[tribe_of_david]

I watched a show last week on Edge Media channel 200 on SKY tv. It was a 2 hour show with John Harris on. Basically talking about the Freeman of the land. During the show he mentioned a story that he was going to validate at a later date as he didnt know the full facts, but the story concerned a woman who had her 4 children taken into care by the Authorities. A day or so after her children were taken into care the Social services returned with 1 of the children. They told her that the child did not belong to the Authorities as it was not a registered child, She had never registred this childs birth, But had registered the other 3 children. Hope that made sense worm, iM sure u will getmore info on this story from John Harris website or him himself if u contact him. Ive read all of this post and he covered most of what has been said in that show, basically saying when registering a birth then u are signing over the rights of the child ect, and this is what cretes a national insurance number, and basically it becomes a slave to the system.

[the worm that turned]

Keeping you up to date following from my last post on this thread...

I sent a copy of my affidavit to the General Register Office accompanied by an explanation of my morning with the local Registrar (registered delivery).

I have now received a response from the GRO thanking me for the information, they confirmed receipt, referred to my son in lower case and using only his first names (no mention of family name) and explained that the affidavit will remain on file and even gave me a reference number for it. The letter came from a real woman (not just a name) and was signed.

So take from this what you will but I know that I have done everything in my power to ensure that my son remains a free man on this land and that any title, legal fiction or person created in his name is MY property until he is old enough to take ownership himself.

Is this the way forward for our future generations? We now have 18 years to work this system out to work in his favour and not against him...

[stemcg1983]

Keeping you up to date following from my last post on this thread...

I sent a copy of my affidavit to the General Register Office accompanied by an explanation of my morning with the local Registrar (registered delivery).

I have now received a response from the GRO thanking me for the information, they confirmed receipt, referred to my son in lower case and using only his first names (no mention of family name) and explained that the affidavit will remain on file and even gave me a reference number for it. The letter came from a real woman (not just a name) and was signed.

So take from this what you will but I know that I have done everything in my power to ensure that my son remains a free man on this land and that any title, legal fiction or person created in his name is MY property until he is old enough to take ownership himself.

Is this the way forward for our future generations? We now have 18 years to work this system out to work in his favour and not against him...

well done fella

[sindakit]

looking good so far, congrats on that :D

[tien an]

Keeping you up to date following from my last post on this thread...

I sent a copy of my affidavit to the General Register Office accompanied by an explanation of my morning with the local Registrar (registered delivery).

I have now received a response from the GRO thanking me for the information, they confirmed receipt, referred to my son in lower case and using only his first names (no mention of family name) and explained that the affidavit will remain on file and even gave me a reference number for it. The letter came from a real woman (not just a name) and was signed.

So take from this what you will but I know that I have done everything in my power to ensure that my son remains a free man on this land and that any title, legal fiction or person created in his name is MY property until he is old enough to take ownership himself.

Is this the way forward for our future generations? We now have 18 years to work this system out to work in his favour and not against him...

Inspiring stuff...he's going to thank you later, I'm sure of it.

[pdcdp]

errr.... maybe i missed something but...

how's he going to operate in the public? does he still get his share of the motherbond without NI? are you now totally liable for public consequences of his actions? is he definitely going to be smart enough to fend for himself? will he ever be unemployed and desperate for benefits?

i understand your logic, don't think it was the smartest move though (unless you're letters covered all bases...)

a 'person' is just a public pass-through entity, there's nothing at all evil about it aside from the lack of disclosure...

[the worm that turned]

errr.... maybe i missed something but...

how's he going to operate in the public? does he still get his share of the motherbond without NI? are you now totally liable for public consequences of his actions? is he definitely going to be smart enough to fend for himself? will he ever be unemployed and desperate for benefits?

i understand your logic, don't think it was the smartest move though (unless you're letters covered all bases...)

a 'person' is just a public pass-through entity, there's nothing at all evil about it aside from the lack of disclosure...

He can still be a person if he wishes. He can be anything HE wants to be.

Thanks for your concern though. All I have done is ensure that he is the owner of any title, legal fiction or person created in his name. Not sure how that can harm him. He still has a birth certificate and I am sure when the time comes he will be sent an NI card. He can enter a state school if we wish him too etc etc.

As for unemployment we will cross that bridge when we come to it but no member of my family has made a single benefit claim in at least 3 generations so I hope he will continue this trend.

I am responsible for him and for his actions however a judge would no doubt pass judgement on his level of responsibility under common law (i.e. if he harmed someone at any age a judge would decide the outcome and in any case he wouldn't say "Ah but sir, you own the legal fiction for your son therefore you must go to prison on his behalf!". So, yeah, in answer to your questions I feel I have covered all bases but only time will tell.

[pdcdp]

ah, coolio :cool:

wouldn't want anyone burdening their kid on a fashionable whim, or to claim glory/look cool/whatever... actually i'm scared of kids so i wouldn''t really care, but that's not the point...

haven't looked into the child aspect of sovereignty for the above reason but figured i would look into creating a limited birth contract, so as to provide the protection of society but dispel any assumptions of authority without direct consent.

and to get the bond set up in the kids favour if possible....

[decim]

1694's opposition intrigues..the link directly below is in his signature & the other link below that is linked to the first site.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/ whois

http://www.ossianbooks.co.uk/ whois

Corrour Lodge, Loch Ossian, < google this & find who commissioned it and who's 48,000 acre estate it is on that esate & incorporates the whole of Loch Ossian.

1694?
27 July – The Bank of England is founded through Royal Charter by the Whig-dominated Parliament to raise capital by offering safe and steady returns of interest guaranteed by future taxes. A total of £1.2 million is raised for the war effort against Louis XIV by the end of the year to establish the first-ever National Debt.


Pure conspiracy of course, nothing to see here....move along now...

[the worm that turned]

This is the affidavit I sent to the GRO and they responded giving me a reference number and telling me it was on file at their offices. Yozhik has already suggested that I send it to various others, such as Treasury Office, Secretary of State (not sure which), Chancellor of the Exchequer, Court Funds Office and on notice board of town hall and courts.

Yozhik - you also mention sending the Notice AND affidavit? I didn't send a formal notice with it but I did send a covering letter which I will include in the next post.

I strongly believe that if this is an effective way of dropping people out of the system (or taking ownership back) by not putting future generations into it, then it could be the way forward. People have always said that children are the future!! :)

Affidavit content

WILL POST TOMORROW - TOO MUCH EFFORT AT THIS TIME!!

[yozhik]

1694's opposition intrigues..the link directly below is in his signature & the other link below that is linked to the first site.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/ whois

http://www.ossianbooks.co.uk/ whois

Corrour Lodge, Loch Ossian, < google this & find who commissioned it and who's 48,000 acre estate it is on that esate & incorporates the whole of Loch Ossian.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20031005/ai_n12586329/

Dr Lisbet Rausing serves on other boards and committees including the Harvard Board of Overseers, and Yad Hanadiv.

“The Third Sector” in Israel (i.e. the non-profit sector)
Israel’s top three charitable funds:

* Keren Yedidut of Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein (International Fellowship of Christians and Jews) - $70m
* Sacta Rashi Foundation - $50m
* Yad Hanadiv Foundation (Rothschild) - $30-50m (There doesn’t seem to be a site for this fund. An article in Haaretz describes it as one of the most secretive foundations, and their recipients are not allowed to tell anyone that they were helped by Yad Hanadiv! Talk about upholding one of the highest levels of charitable donations according to Judaism - anonymity)

:rolleyes:

[angelthecat]

Just a thought someone may play with. If there is penalty to be faced by not registering a child then that contract would be performed under duress, which is tort, would that not in itself be grounds to grounds for an annulment of the contract

[the worm that turned]

As promised the actual affidavit sent and acknowledged by GRO (names and personal details changed) this is in no way presented as advice to be adopted by anyone, it is merely for educational or for some entertainment purposes, any use of it by anyone is done at their own risk:

----------------------------------------

Affidavit of Joe Bloggs

I Joe Bloggs (name) of [address excluding post code] (address), [Job] (occupation)

MAKE OATH and say as follows:

On the twelfth (12) day of March in the year two thousand and nine (2009) I witnessed my son being born at the [Hospital name and address].

My wife and I have named our son Junior and he is a free man on this land.

As the natural parents of Junior, I and my wife, Jenny Bloggs, are the lawful guardians and take full and total responsibility and ownership for him until he reaches an age where he is capable of taking full and total responsibility and ownership for himself, as deemed by the Common Law of England, or as deemed by myself or my wife.

In the instance that any man, person, body incorporate, body corporate, company or any other entity whatsoever attempts to classify or give title to our son, such as but not limited to creating the title of a person (“person”), which may or may not also be known as the term “legal fiction” and which may or may not be included or requested in any statute, legislation or regulation, using any names or titles such as but not limited to JUNIOR BLOGGS, Junior BLOGGS, J BLOGGS, and with or without the prefix Mister, Mr, Master, Mstr, Doctor or Dr, then I, as the father, natural parent and lawful guardian of Junior, claim full and total ownership and control of any such title, person or legal fiction created in his name until he reaches an age where he is capable of taking responsibility for himself, as deemed by the Common Law of England, or as deemed by me or my wife, at which time full and total ownership and control will pass to the man Junior of the family Bloggs.

If I should die before the twelfth (12) day of March in the year two thousand and twenty seven (2027) then the full and total ownership of any title, person or legal fiction created in the name of my son, Junior of the family Bloggs, will pass to my wife, Jenny Bloggs, until our son, Junior, reaches an age where he is capable of taking responsibility for himself, as deemed by the Common Law of England, or as deemed by my wife, at which time full and total ownership and control will pass to the man Junior of the family Bloggs. If both I and my wife should die before the twelfth (12) day of March in the year two thousand and twenty seven (2027) then any man named as the lawful guardian in our last Will and Testament will become the full and total owner of any title, person or legal fiction that may or may not have been created in the name of our son, Junior, until he reaches an age where he is capable of taking responsibility and ownership for himself, as deemed by the Common Law of England, or as deemed by any man named as the lawful guardian in our last Will and Testament, at which time full and total ownership and control will pass to the man Junior of the family Bloggs.

This affidavit is binding in common law and is hereby actioned.



____________________________________
Signature

SWORN AT (address)
this day of year
before me,


____________________________________
(A Solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths)

[yozhik]

Nice work. :)