Registering a birth

[lottie]

Does anyone know what happens if you dont register your child within 42 days? I keep being threatened by everyone i know that i still havnt registered my baby and he's now 6 and a half weeks old.. way over 42days and ive looked online but cannot find any information on what will happen to me if i dont do it within this timescale... so im guessing its fear based bullshit as per usual with the government??!

All it says everywhere is 'It is a legal requirement that you register the birth of your child within 42 days.'

Nothing about the consequences if you dont!! :rolleyes:

Im sick of being threatened and the more im told to do it the less i want to... especially knowing what i do from watching the John Harris stuff!! :rolleyes:

[merlincove]

hey lottie

hope you both are keeping ok?

as far as i know there isn't any lawful requisite to, but as you say there is a lawful one :rolleyes:

They can't make you, they can not order you to do so, they can't make you do anything - and whatever is done by the masses is done through their ciompulssion to comply. one sheep does and the next simnply follow.

Gypsies don' t register their children, and beyond recieving benefit i think that is the onkly loss.

Baby might not be on the register, but baby is still entitled to care should there ever be issue with needing a hospital etc, through 'Duty of Care.'

i'm not sure if they can do anything to you for not complying to statute law. Within Equality they have absolutely no right to tell you to do anything uynder their own supposed possition of power over the masses, because equality equates to no one having power over anyone else. But i'm sure that you know all this?

They may pull a face at you and do some tutting, or shaking of heads. They may even offer you a look of concearn, but they can not make you register, and i don't believe that they can form any kind of punishment for you choosing a different way tio their rule.

:cool:

xxx

And i'm sure some who will be along soon to give you some proper and knowledgable advice.

[lottie]

Cheers merlin... this is the thing.. he's in need of a lot of hospital traetment and is still under treatment.. he's spent 4weeks in intensive care and although he's home - still requires medical intervention and impending operations!

Thanks for the kind words though xxxx

[lady_oblivion]

Well there we go. Bugger the registration and concetrate on you two. It sounds like you';ve been through a lot. I really dont know why they say 42 days or else, it dont make any sense.

I hope you too are all a ok and many good vibe your way"!

[rosix]

if I remember correctly, the Act pertaining to this issue is written using the word "must" - "must" in legalese actually means you may or may not, ie. you have the choice :) Just remember to never give anyone any jurisdiction and to never to do any paperwork mistakes

[lottie]

Well there we go. Bugger the registration and concetrate on you two. It sounds like you';ve been through a lot. I really dont know why they say 42 days or else, it dont make any sense.

I hope you too are all a ok and many good vibe your way"!

Ive asked everyone i know... 'what will happen if i dont do it within 42days'? no-one knows coz no-one's dared to do it- they just conform. The government know this... they know very few rebel agaist it...!! Trouble is ... i dont like being threatened... the more you threaten me the more i dig in my heels... silly really but if im going to do it i'll do it when im damn well ready and not because its a 'requirement' my boy being in hospital was more important than selling him to the state within their ridiuculous timeframe! :)

[lottie]

if I remember correctly, the Act pertaining to this issue is written using the word "must" - "must" in legalese actually means you may or may not, ie. you have the choice :) Just remember to never give anyone any jurisdiction and to never to do any paperwork mistakes

Yes.. you are right... i only just watched this the other day when i watched the John Harris talk from the June 13th conference. Thanks for reminding me! :)

[lady_oblivion]

Very true! Your little lad has a lot coming up which is far more important then signing a pice of paper, though it looks as though they can take it to prosecution, which seems just a little extreame IMO.

[burnttoast]

Does anyone know what happens if you dont register your child within 42 days? I keep being threatened by everyone i know that i still havnt registered my baby and he's now 6 and a half weeks old.. way over 42days and ive looked online but cannot find any information on what will happen to me if i dont do it within this timescale... so im guessing its fear based bullshit as per usual with the government??!

All it says everywhere is 'It is a legal requirement that you register the birth of your child within 42 days.'

Nothing about the consequences if you dont!! :rolleyes:

Im sick of being threatened and the more im told to do it the less i want to... especially knowing what i do from watching the John Harris stuff!! :rolleyes:

The "legal Requirement" they could be referring to is your "Marriage license" where you promised to do so....I know...I know bastards....however a remedy could be to register the child with "all Rights reserved" and state your Claim of being the Trustee for your Child while continuing with the benefits the "berth certificate" (misspelling intentional as it means the same thing)

Peace

[lottie]

The "legal Requirement" they could be referring to is your "Marriage license" where you promised to do so....I know...I know bastards....however a remedy could be to register the child with "all Rights reserved" and state your Claim of being the Trustee for your Child while continuing with the benefits the "berth certificate" (misspelling intentional as it means the same thing)

Peace

this applies to me even though im not married??!

how do i register him with 'all rights reserved?' .. sounds good :confused:

[boots]

this applies to me even though im not married??!

how do i register him with 'all rights reserved?' .. sounds good :confused:

You could use this template that starcat send me. Bless her.


Hi boots - unfortunately I don't have a scanner, but the text fits on to one of those 'Certificate" forms you can get, like they give at schools etc.
Commemoration is in big letters where Certificate would be, then the rest of the wording

Commemoration
of Sovereign Birth

This original and authentic document hereby commemorates and celebrates the Sovereign birth of the sentient living being that from this day forth shall be commonly known by the name:
~. . . . . . . . . . . .~
Born of the union of the . . . . . . . and . . . . . . . family bloodlines on the . . . dayof . . . . . . 2009AD upon the landmass known as Australia and claiming all inalienable birth rights upon this planet Earth, not part of or subject to any, Queen, Commonwealth, State or Corporate governments or it's boundaries or laws other than Common Law.

Born into a world without any lawful money in circulation backed by anything of value he/she shall not by any covenant or contract, implied, verbal or otherwise be enjoined with his/her person or agent in commerce and shall not be liable for payment of any debt owed by it, in any other way than by tender of his/her exemption, which shall be his/her date of birth and his/her autograph.

Any and all legal fictions created and re-presented in all-capital letters that resemble his/her true name or any aberration of it, including initialisation, are taken to be his/her property throughout his/her life as the transmitting utilities he/she may use as his/her agent in commerce.

Created for and on behalf of this Sovereign being, by his/her parents whom, having first-hand personal knowledge, hereby verify this document with their autographs and thumbprints in red ink to represent the blood that flows through their veins.

This day, the . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . 2009AD
by by

. . . . . . . of the . . . . .Family . . . . . .of the . . . . . . Family
FATHER MOTHER

(box for thumbprint) (box for thumbprint)

Hope you find it useful!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
witness

[burnttoast]

this applies to me even though im not married??!

how do i register him with 'all rights reserved?' .. sounds good :confused:

Well that's a bit of a wrench there on them (gov) Referring to the not married part.

Sign the BC er..Autograph the BC with all rights reserved up above and write right on the doc what you wish to have claim to.

I realize this is all being presented on my part in a roundabout way, but you are signing something that should be in your favor...all the best.

Peace

[delamo1999]

Does anyone know what happens if you dont register your child within 42 days? I keep being threatened by everyone i know that i still havnt registered my baby and he's now 6 and a half weeks old.. way over 42days and ive looked online but cannot find any information on what will happen to me if i dont do it within this timescale... so im guessing its fear based bullshit as per usual with the government??!

All it says everywhere is 'It is a legal requirement that you register the birth of your child within 42 days.'

Nothing about the consequences if you dont!! :rolleyes:

Im sick of being threatened and the more im told to do it the less i want to... especially knowing what i do from watching the John Harris stuff!! :rolleyes:


Good for you Lottie. I don't understand why there is such a big fuss about "registering" our children. Our ancestors would put the name and birthdate of their children in their family bibles. Also I don't get why women who choose to have hospital births are required to provide a name for their child before the child can leave the hospital. I hope to see more women follow in your footsteps on this one.

:)

[Ian2day]

Yeah I'm sure that you can record the birth in the loal parish register rather than registering it. Now can this be done without a christening taking place. Would a priest not insist on conducting their religious ceremony before entring the child in the book. Maybe worth just contacting by phone the local church that holds the parish register and asking them.

[yozhik]

Good for you Lottie. I don't understand why there is such a big fuss about "registering" our children. Our ancestors would put the name and birthdate of their children in their family bibles. Also I don't get why women who choose to have hospital births are required to provide a name for their child before the child can leave the hospital. I hope to see more women follow in your footsteps on this one.

:)

1. The family book is still valid. If I had known, what I know now, my children would NOT have been registered and would have been in a family book. End of.

2. They are required to provide a name because [I have been told] hospitals receive "spotter's fees" for registering births.

[yozhik]

Yes.. you are right... i only just watched this the other day when i watched the John Harris talk from the June 13th conference. Thanks for reminding me! :)

Somewhere ... deep in the bowels of this forum ... there is a post that describes an incident involving a family and the Child Kidnapping [Protection] Service ... something is telling me it was a post from Dondaz - but it was so many months ago and there has been so much info posted here; I'm essentially drawing straws out my ass.

From memory, a man and woman had their 4 offspring taken from them for alleged misdemeanours, meaning the state could steal their children ... errr ... repossess their property under the pretence of not maintaining them as per contact.

Anyway ... the KEY point is ... about a week later, one of the children was returned.

Why?

Because he/she had not been registered.
Take from that what you wish.
:)

[comma berenices]

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)
__________________


I went a hunting,i remembered the worm that turned posting this,i hope he won't mind me pasting it.

I hope it's helpful lottie.

[tien an]

Somewhere ... deep in the bowels of this forum ... there is a post that describes an incident involving a family and the Child Kidnapping [Protection] Service ... something is telling me it was a post from Dondaz - but it was so many months ago and there has been so much info posted here; I'm essentially drawing straws out my ass.

From memory, a man and woman had their 4 offspring taken from them for alleged misdemeanours, meaning the state could steal their children ... errr ... repossess their property under the pretence of not maintaining them as per contact.

Anyway ... the KEY point is ... about a week later, one of the children was returned.

Why?

Because he/she had not been registered.
Take from that what you wish.
:)

I remember this too.
As far as I remember, it was in a post by Dondaz.

Also, (to me in any case), I find it a little disturbing that a page on directgov.gov.uk which I found at about the same time as Dondaz's post is now missing.

I'll explain: In conversation with my wife (who, at the time didn't believe that registering a child passed ownership to the government), I marched over to the computer, called up the directgov site and within seconds found a statement to the effect that, in the case where a child has been registered, the government has 'ownership' of the child. (not using the word 'ownership', of course).
I've just spent the last three hours looking for that site and can't find it.

I'm sure lottie, if you (as moderator) can access parts of the forum that others can't reach, you can find the post that yozhik mentioned above.
I would also have a look at the directgov.gov.uk site.

I'm sorry I can't help you any more at the moment.

tian an.

[Ian2day]

The creation of a birth registration certificate forms a contract with the UK plc. When a child is over 9-12 years old it can return the document with a decleration of its own. Making said contract null and void. A party can not be held to the terms of a contract if it is unfair to do so. Is it fair that a child is contracted to the UK plc without its informed knowledge.

One point to note is that there use to be the poor law and the workhouse. Were they created under common law? If so then perhaps the alternative is not so bad afterall. They use to employ the child catcher in Victorian times that role later became the school welfare officer or wag woman as she was known to us. If not created under common law, or it has been recinded or repealed, then is it fine? Me, I would ensure, what exactly I was doing, when it came to declaring a child a freeman indentured, so to speak.

[tien an]

The creation of a birth registration certificate forms a contract with the UK plc. When a child is over 9-12 years old it can return the document with a decleration of its own. Making said contract null and void. A party can not be held to the terms of a contract if it is unfair to do so. Is it fair that a child is contracted to the UK plc without its informed knowledge.

One point to note is that there use to be the poor law and the workhouse. Were they created under common law? If so then perhaps the alternative is not so bad afterall. They use to employ the child catcher in Victorian times that role later became the school welfare officer or wag woman as she was known to us. If not created under common law, or it has been recinded or repealed, then is it fine? Me, I would ensure, what exactly I was doing, when it came to declaring a child a freeman indentured, so to speak.

Really?
That's news to me (I'm not disputing it).
Can you provide a link or a reference point Ian?

tian an.

[scotty99]

As we know, everything about this country is privatised, so needs the two parties to contract. With the corporations, they try and cover the exits, so while you will be fine now not signing a birth certificate, try getting a passport for your little one without a birth certificate.If you want to go abroad, then guess what you have to do.

Would be good if we could find out if we can legally can a passport without a birth cerfiicate, or whether its another its another tactic to get you to contract. Must be against human rights to stop a law abiding citizen leaving a democratic country for a holiday/deny thema passport??

They find various ways to get you to conform, bit like the "your child will be a risk if not vaccinated, therefore he/she cant attend school until....."

[Ian2day]

Really?
That's news to me (I'm not disputing it).
Can you provide a link or a reference point Ian?

tian an.

My rationalle is that in family court proceedings. A child when of an age of sufficient maturity, is asked its wishes when it comes to deciding who it is going to live with. However this is merely taken into consideration in some cases. If a child can show intellectual understanding of the isuue then I dont see how its wishes can be lawfully or legally (not sure which) not acted on by their system.



As we know, everything about this country is privatised, so needs the two parties to contract. With the corporations, they try and cover the exits, so while you will be fine now not signing a birth certificate, try getting a passport for your little one without a birth certificate.If you want to go abroad, then guess what you have to do.

Would be good if we could find out if we can legally can a passport without a birth cerfiicate, or whether its another its another tactic to get you to contract. Must be against human rights to stop a law abiding citizen leaving a democratic country for a holiday/deny thema passport??

They find various ways to get you to conform, bit like the "your child will be a risk if not vaccinated, therefore he/she cant attend school until....."

A passport is not required to enter into another country that has signed to the Hague treaty. Ports are of admirality law I expect. Therefore a passport allows the holder to pass in and out of the PLC's contracted ports.

This has all been mentioned in other threads. The Hague treaty, supports human beings of flesh and blood to travel. Human beings may use a family Bible or an International Family Certificate once notarised as a true document. I suspect that a notarised/certified copy of the Hague treaty pertaining to travelling unpeded from one country to another, is all that is required to enter another country to visit, live or work. So contact the Hague and ask for a certified/Notarised section of their treaty. A small fee will probably be required. It may be in Latin or Legalese so a translation into English et al may be required. Which would also need to be notarised as accurate. Once obtained that is it. You can go anywhere that has signed to the Hague treaty.

[tien an]

lottie, have a look at this thread too...you might like to take a leaf from Wormy's book.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=815385&postcount=1


Best of Luck,

tian an.

[tien an]

My rationalle is that in family court proceedings. A child when of an age of sufficient maturity, is asked its wishes when it comes to deciding who it is going to live with. However this is merely taken into consideration in some cases. If a child can show intellectual understanding of the isuue then I dont see how its wishes can be lawfully or legally (not sure which) not acted on by their system.



Whilst I don't disagree with your way of thinking Ian, with respect, this is only your opinion.

tian an.

[Ian2day]

Whilst I don't disagree with your way of thinking Ian, with respect, this is only your opinion.

tian an.

Ah it is only an opinion if it is challenged. So if a Notice of intent or understanding is served adn it is not refuted or challenged by anyone then it becomes law does it not?

[comma berenices]

lottie, have a look at this thread too...you might like to take a leaf from Wormy's book.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=815385&postcount=1


Best of Luck,

tian an.

I posted this .post 17.

[tien an]

Ah it is only an opinion if it is challenged. So if a Notice of intent or understanding is served adn it is not refuted or challenged by anyone then it becomes law does it not?

No.
Now I disagree.

Of course it is not fair that a child is implicated in a contract when it had no say in the matter, however, there is a vast difference between a 9-12yr-old being asked who it would rather live with (a decision based on emotions), and an adult authoring a complicated document refuting statute laws which, after study and comprehension, it considers to be unlawful.

I'm surprised you could reach that conclusion.

How could a child possibly be asked to determine anything more complicated than who it would rather live with?
Would you, for example, expect them to express an opinion on which parent gets to keep the house, the car, any shares/stocks that the parents might hold?
How can you make the comparison?

But let's not forget the point of the thread, which is to find a way for lottie to not apply for a birth certificate?

back to topic....

tian an.

[yozhik]

As we know, everything about this country is privatised, so needs the two parties to contract. With the corporations, they try and cover the exits, so while you will be fine now not signing a birth certificate, try getting a passport for your little one without a birth certificate.If you want to go abroad, then guess what you have to do.

Would be good if we could find out if we can legally can a passport without a birth cerfiicate, or whether its another its another tactic to get you to contract. Must be against human rights to stop a law abiding citizen leaving a democratic country for a holiday/deny thema passport??

They find various ways to get you to conform, bit like the "your child will be a risk if not vaccinated, therefore he/she cant attend school until....."

This is where their plan and deception is so fucking genius; you do not require a passport to leave the country ... the passport is to enter the country you are travelling to.

If the passport was needed to leave, then it would breach the slavery rules. However, by all nations agreeing to require a passport to enter them [funny how they all collude on this] then they can all require it of their "citizens", without breaching any slavery convention.

So country A and Country B agree that a citizen from the other country requires a passport to enter ... which in actuality, is slavery by proxy.

Genius system.

[Ian2day]

No.
Now I disagree.

Of course it is not fair that a child is implicated in a contract when it had no say in the matter, however, there is a vast difference between a 9-12yr-old being asked who it would rather live with (a decision based on emotions), and an adult authoring a complicated document refuting statute laws which, after study and comprehension, it considers to be unlawful.

I'm surprised you could reach that conclusion.

How could a child possibly be asked to determine anything more complicated than who it would rather live with?
Would you, for example, expect them to express an opinion on which parent gets to keep the house, the car, any shares/stocks that the parents might hold?
How can you make the comparison?

But let's not forget the point of the thread, which is to find a way for lottie to not apply for a birth certificate?

back to topic....

tian an.

I disagree on the grounds that. A child of the ability due to age and maturity who can decide which parent to live with. Can make the considered decision that it would rather be the property in trust, of its parents than the state. If explained in the English language and not in Legalese ;) what said implications are.

However, I agree about getting back onto the subject of not registering the birth. Perhaps the best place to ask is somewhere that is recognised under law as being entitled to record births. I can only think of a Parish register held by a church at this time. Can a GP who delivers a child, record a birth and then sign a decleration. Stating that the child is of that mother. They are used instead of noteries, are they not, for other matters.

[yozhik]

A passport is not required to enter into another country that has signed to the Hague treaty. Ports are of admirality law I expect. Therefore a passport allows the holder to pass in and out of the PLC's contracted ports.

This has all been mentioned in other threads. The Hague treaty, supports human beings of flesh and blood to travel. Human beings may use a family Bible or an International Family Certificate once notarised as a true document. I suspect that a notarised/certified copy of the Hague treaty pertaining to travelling unpeded from one country to another, is all that is required to enter another country to visit, live or work. So contact the Hague and ask for a certified/Notarised section of their treaty. A small fee will probably be required. It may be in Latin or Legalese so a translation into English et al may be required. Which would also need to be notarised as accurate. Once obtained that is it. You can go anywhere that has signed to the Hague treaty.

This is not how I comprehend the situation, but am [very] happy to accept it, if correct and accurate.

My comprehension is that the passport is not required as long as you obtain permission to enter the country, by way of invitation.
As Rob Menard commented; in tribal times, you wouldn't go rushing into another tribe's camp without first signalling that you come in peace!
[Rob - if you read this and didn't make this comment ... I apologise :) ]

From what I have read and interpreted, you require a Family Book, which has been notarised and preferably Apostilled.
A bible with pages for recording family events is the most common form of Family Book.
The notary attests to it being sworn in front of them and it being a statement of truth; the Apostille attests the validity of the notary ... and ... I believe, writes it into legislation as a statuted document and recognised by signatories to the Hague Convention.

Then, by writing to the respective Embassy/Consulate, you outline your plans to travel to their country and that you have peaceful intent ... from which to receive an invitation to do such.

So then you have your I.D (Family Book) which also pass as travel documents, as they have been notarised and Apostilled; and you have your permission from the receiving country to cross into their camp.

No passport; no RFID chip.
That's the THEORY ... not sure about the reality ...

[tien an]

I posted this .post 17.

sorry...missed your post.

Peace,

tian an.

[yozhik]

But let's not forget the point of the thread, which is to find a way for lottie to not apply for a birth certificate?


Ummmm ... how about simply not applying for a birth certificate?
Sometimes the most effective solution is the one right in front of us.
:)

They can [attempt] to fine you ... and threaten you [oooh ... I'm scared] ... but they can not MAKE you sign anything or force you to apply.
That comes under the heading of "signing under protest and duress, threat and coercion", does it not?
Which makes any contract signed, null and void ab initio and unenforceable.

In fact ... that may even be worth exploring as an option.
Apply for the registration, signing it as above; under protest and duress, threat and coercion.

They would be hard pressed to dispute this condition, given there is threat of punishment/fine if you do not do it and undeniable coercion.
Even if they state, "but it is your obligation under section yada yada of the Bullshit Act" ... that is still coercion and their threat is real and genuine.

In fact, you may even go so far`as to be bold and cheeky [if questioned about the conditional application) and quote International Law for pre-emptive measures when battling terrorism [which is precisely what the government is conducting upon each and every one of us].

"... the weight of authority seems to favor [sic] the permissibility of a preemptive response, providing that three conditions are met: first, the terrorist threat is real and genuine; second, the terrorist threat is immediate and imminent, allowing no time or available mechanism for negotiation or deliberation; theird, the preemptive response taken is [...] necessary and proportional to the perceived threat. In any event, a critical concern over preemptive self-defense will remain." source (http://books.google.ru/books?id=nrukUFsrUVQC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%22threat+is+real+and%22&source=bl&ots=MKH2pztk-L&sig=swPh0Dya4vdW2KPjHyuX0LSnfcU&hl=ru&ei=3hKMStGEMcb3-Abp4vzNDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22threat%20is%20real%20and%22&f=false)

In my humble opinion, all three conditions are adequately met for this preemptive lawful action. :)

[Ian2day]

This is not how I comprehend the situation, but am [very] happy to accept it, if correct and accurate.

My comprehension is that the passport is not required as long as you obtain permission to enter the country, by way of invitation.
As Rob Menard commented; in tribal times, you wouldn't go rushing into another tribe's camp without first signalling that you come in peace!
[Rob - if you read this and didn't make this comment ... I apologise :) ]

From what I have read and interpreted, you require a Family Book, which has been notarised and preferably Apostilled.
A bible with pages for recording family events is the most common form of Family Book.
The notary attests to it being sworn in front of them and it being a statement of truth; the Apostille attests the validity of the notary ... and ... I believe, writes it into legislation as a statuted document and recognised by signatories to the Hague Convention.

Then, by writing to the respective Embassy/Consulate, you outline your plans to travel to their country and that you have peaceful intent ... from which to receive an invitation to do such.

So then you have your I.D (Family Book) which also pass as travel documents, as they have been notarised and Apostilled; and you have your permission from the receiving country to cross into their camp.

No passport; no RFID chip.
That's the THEORY ... not sure about the reality ...

Although I have said it myself. I would doubt that you need to prebook an entrance. As the country has signed upto the Hague treaty. This in itself would be an invitation for a human being to enter unpeded by any borders into a country.

This being a freeman and not having a passport was explianed to me by some bloke called Bob nearly 20 years ago now. So my memory is a bit sketchy. When ever he was addressed as a person. He would say. 'No, theres no such thing as a person. I am a human being, a man. A person is not real, its a title/invitation, its made up. Its not real like you and me are'.

[comma berenices]

sorry...missed your post.

Peace,

tian an.

No problem,i remembered the worm that turned had the same problem,I think it may be the way forward,and hopefully stop the authorities dead in their tracks.

peace:)

[tien an]

Ummmm ... how about simply not applying for a birth certificate?
Sometimes the most effective solution is the one right in front of us.
:)

They can [attempt] to fine you ... and threaten you [oooh ... I'm scared] ... but they can not MAKE you sign anything or force you to apply.
That comes under the heading of "signing under protest and duress, threat and coercion", does it not?
Which makes any contract signed, null and void ab initio and unenforceable.

In fact ... that may even be worth exploring as an option.
Apply for the registration, signing it as above; under protest and duress, threat and coercion.

They would be hard pressed to dispute this condition, given there is threat of punishment/fine if you do not do it and undeniable coercion.
Even if they state, "but it is your obligation under section yada yada of the Bullshit Act" ... that is still coercion and their threat is real and genuine.

In fact, you may even go so far`as to be bold and cheeky [if questioned about the conditional application) and quote International Law for pre-emptive measures when battling terrorism [which is precisely what the government is conducting upon each and every one of us].



In my humble opinion, all three conditions are adequately met for this preemptive lawful action. :)

I have to agree...to everything.
Thanks for your lucidity...as f***ing usual!

tian an.

PS But then again...it seems the BC and associated bond can be so useful (until the house of cards falls, of course).

[yozhik]

PS But then again...it seems the BC and associated bond can be so useful (until the house of cards falls, of course).

Which it is.

It's been [cunningly] labelled a "global financial crisis".

The elite's game of gambling on USD$1.5 Quadrillion ($1,500 Trillion) worth of derivatives, written on the back of nothing, in denominations of fiat currency, pulled out of a magicians hat at Bretton Woods, trading an undefined value of every human being, without their consent, knowledge or participation.

Also known by the phrase;
"oh fuck, we've been rumbled ... what the fuck do we do now? Quick - burn it all ... while they're battling the fire, we'll make something up from the embers."

[just like they did on 9/11 when the WTC7 "burnt" to the ground ... as Max Keiser has repeatedly stated; WTC7 was the REAL reason for 9/11 ... the Twin Towers were the elaborate decoy]

[Ian2day]

The global economic collapse is orchastrated though. So it is all going to plan. Now tht most people have a burdon of debt that cant be paid off. Slavery is back, well it never whent away. There was just too manyof us to have visiable chains any more. So it was switched from physical control to psychological control.

[dondaz]

Hey Lottie. Congratulations on your baby son. I didn't know you were expecting. Way to go mum!:)

Donna spent the past two days in hospital with our new baby, possible reflux problems. She's back home now and doing well thank god.

Been looking into the registration process myself for a while now, it's quite manipulative, but not without its lawful remedies. Still have a bit to learn so I'll be posting my findings and asking a few questions shortly.:)

[lottie]

Hey Lottie. Congratulations on your baby son. I didn't know you were expecting. Way to go mum!:)

Donna spent the past two days in hospital with our new baby, possible reflux problems. She's back home now and doing well thank god.

Been looking into the registration process myself for a while now, it's quite manipulative, but not without its lawful remedies. Still have a bit to learn so I'll be posting my findings and asking a few questions shortly.:)


Excellent- thanks Daz... tell Donna well done and congrats n'all that jazz... i totally sympathise.. my boy's suffering really bad reflux at the moment... hope your new bundle is well again asap... let us know your findings re- birth registry asap!!

Hopefully catch up with you all at another meet up when we're strong enough to go again!! Love to the kids and Donna x

[wildhorse]

congrats lottie....hope your beautiful baby boy starts to pick up.

the hassle you are getting is from programmed robots malfunctioning. you are a new mum with a baby that needs care and they are nagging you about a registration ??? wtf???

priorities indeed...

will they grab your hand and force you to write your siggy?

you have the knowledge that so many on this board wish we had when our bundles came into this world. Please use it, not loose it ;)

maybe just saying you will not registering the birth, but thanks for the invite, is all you need to say right now. If it gets heavier, then up the level of info back at them. You have all of our support on here.

don't panic about health care, or let them blackmail you with that one...what about the stories of some children that receive help from the NHS from other countries...dont tell me all of them had to register before their care was allowed to continue?? ;)

we get pregnant, get midwives imparting all their fear mongering illnesses about birth onto mothers and fathers, so that we hand over our power to them and the drs and the hospital, terrified of 'complications'. We comply to their hospitals rules and regs for our baby's birth whilst in labour. Men told by midwives how to show his partner support, or allow him to cut the cord. Oh cheers! How about catching his own baby? Surely this joint act of love, a couple birthing their own baby into this world is far better a stable platform from which to bring up a loving stable human being?

What is a very spiritual thing is actually a woman giving birth in slavery on every level. No wonder women come home feeling 'wronged' and men thinking 'was I even a part of that?'

so no, they cant enslave your baby either....tell em to fuck off infact (just
got bit empassionate there :D)


all the best to you xxxxxx

[pri01]

They have the registrars located in the maternity hospital from my recent experience. My daughter had her baby 6 weeks ago and was encouraged to book an appointment whilst she was there. It was all quickly arranged and she, her partner and baby were taken to an office to complete the registration.

That's real handy and makes sure no-one slips outside the net.

Sorry, is it a registar registrar or registerer?:o

[yozhik]

That's real handy and makes sure no-one slips outside the net.

Sorry, is it a registar registrar or registerer?:o

I think the correct spelling is; P - I - M - P

[tien an]

I think the correct spelling is; P - I - M - P

:D HA HA HA!

tian an.

[pri01]

I think the correct spelling is; P - I - M - P


Thanks, I'll quote that next time.:D Not too soon though I hope.