How to de-rigester children

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby sosii » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:58 pm

rodgreenwell wrote:by "deregistering" are we not taking a "valuable future contribution" to the UK's massive debt burden away? uhmmm have a feeling that this valuable contribution into the future, worth a considerable undisclosed sum, will be difficult to give up by TPTB.....

If you consider that our BC forms a financing agreement of value in the global politics and financial arena, then deregestering could be a difficult nut to crack.... although (and not speaking as a parent) would it not be a great position to be in... aahhh as long as you do not want the benefits (and liabilities) that come with registration..


As to taking away rod, no I'm not suggesting that at all, the security of the person hass already being missused. The security can only be for the person within the community and for the good of the community, under PROPER ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT, servants of the people, not our masters.
I declare that I, being a sovereign free man on the land, am a living soul and that I am the only power and authority within my life.
User avatar
sosii
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:41 am
Location: Where I am

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby rodgreenwell » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:04 pm

sosii wrote:the security of the person hass already being missused
Absolutely sosii.... a travesty of the system we have allowed to engulf us and our children (not speaking as a parent)...

sosii wrote:for the good of the community, under PROPER ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT, servants of the people, not our masters
we can live in hope sosii, but I fear that unless we make a stand for our dignified rights en-mass, the servitude under which we "live" will only get worse....
rodgreenwell
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Budapest Hungary

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby sosii » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:35 pm

Here's one example of many, and I mean MANY MORE from the rat's nest...

Judgment of the Court of 31 March 1971.

Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities.

European Agreement on Road Transport.

Case 22-70.


1 . THE COMMUNITY ENJOYS THE CAPACITY TO ESTABLISH CONTRACTUAL LINKS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES OVER THE WHOLE FIELD OF OBJECTIVES DEFINED BY THE TREATY . THIS AUTHORITY ARISES NOT ONLY FROM AN EXPRESS CONFERMENT BY THE TREATY, BUT MAY EQUALLY FLOW FROM OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY AND FROM MEASURES ADOPTED, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THOSE PROVISIONS, BY THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS .

IN PARTICULAR, EACH TIME THE COMMUNITY, WITH A VIEW TO IMPLEMENTING A COMMON POLICY ENVISAGED BY THE TREATY, ADOPTS PROVISIONS LAYING DOWN COMMON RULES, WHATEVER FORM THEY MAY TAKE, THE MEMBER STATES NO LONGER HAVE THE RIGHT, ACTING INDIVIDUALLY OR EVEN COLLECTIVELY, TO UNDERTAKE OBLIGATIONS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES WHICH AFFECT THOSE RULES OR ALTER THEIR SCOPE .

WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY, THE SYSTEM OF INTERNAL COMMUNITY MEASURES MAY NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THAT OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS .

2 . THE POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE SPHERE OF TRANSPORT EXTEND TO RELATIONSHIPS ARISING FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND INVOLVE THE NEED FOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE THIRD COUNTRIES CONCERNED . THIS AUTHORITY WAS VESTED IN THE COMMUNITY BY REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT .

3 . IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 164, AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT MUST BE AVAILABLE IN THE CASE OF ALL MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS, WHATEVER THEIR NATURE OR FORM, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTS .

4 . IN THE EVENT OF ANNULMENT, PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO BE DEEMED NON-EXISTENT AND THE DISPUTED QUESTIONS RECONSIDERED IN ORDER THAT A SOLUTION MIGHT BE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMUNITY LAW .

IT IS THEREFORE INCONTESTABLE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS AN INTEREST IN PURSUING ITS ACTION AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL RELATING TO COORDINATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .

5 . WITH REGARD TO AGREEMENTS IN THE SPHERE OF TRANSPORT POLICY, THE COMMISSION IS ENTITLED TO MAKE PROPOSALS AND NEGOTIATE, WHILST IT IS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONCLUDE THE AGREEMENT .

6 . WITH REGARD TO NEGOTIATIONS ENTERED INTO BEFORE AUTHORITY WAS VESTED IN THE COMMUNITY, IT IS FOR THE INSTITUTIONS WHOSE POWERS ARE DIRECTLY CONCERNED, NAMELY THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION, TO CONCUR ON THE APPROPRIATE METHODS OF COOPERATION WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING THE DEFENCE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY; IN NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS, MEMBER STATES ARE AT ALL TIMES BOUND TO ACT TOGETHER IN THE INTERESTS AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 .

7 . ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 235 EMPOWERS THE COUNCIL TO TAKE ANY " APPROPRIATE MEASURES " EQUALLY IN THE SPHERE OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS, IT DOES NOT CREATE AN OBLIGATION BUT CONFERS ON THE COUNCIL AN OPTION, FAILURE TO EXERCISE WHICH CANNOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS .

8 . THE REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY ARTICLE 190 TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF REASONS IN THE CASE OF REGULATIONS, DIRECTIVES AND DECISIONS MAY NOT BE INVOKED BY THE COMMISSION AGAINST PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL IN WHICH THE FORMER HAS ITSELF PARTICIPATED .



Take a wild guess why I'm looking at transportation within the EU legislative framework when this post is talking about protecting our children? Notice the passage in bold.

The person is ACTED upon in commerce, via TRANSPORTATION every day.
I declare that I, being a sovereign free man on the land, am a living soul and that I am the only power and authority within my life.
User avatar
sosii
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:41 am
Location: Where I am

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby musashi » Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:27 am

My dear Hope,
When I first looked at the children forum and what was being posted there, I was convinced that commercial processes were at work. With that in mind I asked on the forum what the significance of the birth certificate was, and why it was necessary in order to take, or keep, the child. No one can answer, it seems, even though it is obviously a significant and vital paper. The answer is, of course, it is the evidence of the registration of the child to the state.
For the purposes of this letter, I have to assume you lack understanding of the maritime processes. If you don’t, then skip this and go on.
When a ship captain enters harbour he berths, gets a berth certificate from the h’masters, and is then free to enjoy the benefits of the port. No matter his nationality, when he is in port he is subject to port laws. The registration of the ship gives temporary authority over the ship, to match the h’masters responsibility to the ship and the captain. No responsibility without authority. His registration implies consent of jurisdiction over both his ship and himself, as the registration temporarily changes the sovereignty of the ship. The act of registration contains both an implicit expectation, and a promise of fulfilment of expectation upon performance of certain things.
Until the captain returns with his berth certificate, the ship remains in the lawful authority of the h’masters. Should the captain not return, then after seven years (the CESTUI QUI VIE ACT1666) he may be legally declared dead. The disposal of the ship will, of course, be addressed under some admiralty law. Salvage under the abandonment, perhaps. I haven’t bothered looking, but there will definitely be a commercial process whereby this abandoned property can be taken by the state. This process, or a similar one, will be at work in the child snatching business.
On the other hand, if someone else takes the berth certificate from the captain and presents it to the harbourmaster, then that one may legally take the vessel. The harbourmaster’s only obligation is to verify the legality and authenticity of the berth certificate and collect fees due – which closes the contract between them.
Possession of the berth cert is not proof of ownership – but rather proof that something has been registered. It is no more than a receipt!
A similar situation is almost certainly applying here, with the child snatchers, which is why the birth certificate is such a vital component of the process. The big difference being that the captain’s berth cert is private, whereas the birth certificate is in the public domain and available to anyone with the details and the money to pay. Certain details of the parentage are withheld from public documents, such as mother’s maiden name and father’s Christian names. However, such details are easily available to government agencies, so a true certificated copy can be obtained and the “vessel” released.
Those who have tried to return their birth certificates in an effort to release the child from the state, or to prevent them being taken have found that it was a useless exercise, and seemed to make no difference. There are two good reasons for this. The birth certificate is only one piece of evidence of your contract with the state. To rescind one contract with the state, and not all the others, makes as much difference as if you had rescinded none at all.
In order to be beyond the reach of the SS you must rescind every single contract you have with the state. To leave even just one, is to remain under the full force of the authority of the state. A library ticket is sufficient evidence of a state derived benefit to justify full state intervention into your life, and the lives of your dependents. Rescission of all contracts is the only way. Even then, it may be necessary to argue the final points in a court of law. A short list of the very many things that take you into invisible contracts with the state is shown here;
Bank accounts
Library tickets
Statutes
School
Voter registration
Passport
Using any tax financed service
Police
Courts
And the list goes on.....
It is a long list. Every one of them must be rescinded. To leave just one is the same as to leave all of them.
To take this route is to take yourself out of every single benefit the state has to offer. No social security. No employment act protection. No health and safety etc. The use of a statute is a contract with the state. Police and courts are a benefit of the state.
You must Notice every state agency – home office, dept of commerce, foreign office, taxman, and so on. Return the birth cert, cancel voter registration, school applications, in short any application you ever made to the state and rescind any and all contracts express or implied, invisible or adhesive. You have to shut bank accounts, get rid of mortgages and any credit agreements and take no council services. Absolutely nothing the state has to offer can you take - all that has to go, right down to the bus pass and the library ticket. If you receive zero benefit from any aspect of the state then you have no obligation to them and they have no authority over you.
The Clearfield Doctrine states that when a government issues commercial paperwork, like pound notes and securities (cheques), it reduces to the status of a mere corporation, with no power to enforce law except over those with whom they are in contract. They must be holder in due course of some paperwork which you have signed. At the moment they are holding any number of such papers which you have signed. Every one carrying an invisible contract with the state.
The invisible contracts, which the state takes us into, are the source of their authority over us. No contract – no authority - so all contracts must go. No exceptions.
The forced use of Bills of Exchange makes us all law merchants and, therefore, subject to Summary Judgement. Contracting with banks puts us into commerce and makes us taxable legal entities. These are evidences of contractual interaction with the state derived benefits of commerce. Having a national insurance number is evidence of your tax paying status, and being a taxpayer is evidence of contract with the state. As we are plainly in very many contracts with the state/corporation they do indeed have authority over us. It is one of the detriments to the benefits we receive.
Another reason why birth certificates have no effect when they are returned to the registrar is that the officially designated receiver of legal documents to the state is the Attorney General. You need to Notice the Attorney General of your rescission of the B.C. and all the other contracts. You then need to Notice all the other agencies with whom you have interacted and created contracts. It is a very big step to do all this and not one, I think, that very many people will be able to do in the near future.
One possibility occurs, though, having just said that. It may be possible for one person in a marriage, or relationship, to free themselves entirely from the state, while the other remains in contract, thus ensuring certain benefits still accrue. Though it must be borne in mind that any benefit received as a direct result of entering a contract, and shared with a third party, can make the third party as liable on the contract as though that third party had him/herself signed the contract. For example, you may be entirely free of contractual agreement with the state, but your partner takes a benefit like a tax break, or allowance. If you share in this benefit of increased funds then you are in receipt of the benefit offered by the state and can be taken into the contract as a third party beneficiary. In this way, ancient agreements which brought benefits, may be attached to us even though we never signed, agreed, or even knew of the existence of such.
I can assure you that the commercial law which has been transplanted onto the land operates under contract at all times. If a single item of evidence of participation in any state derived benefit can be produced, then the authority of the state can be imposed full force in exactly the same way as if a million bits of evidence were shown along with your signed confession.
Every application you ever made was a plea to enter a contract and receive the benefits thereof. All benefits have reciprocal detriments. Applying for anything from the state creates a multilayered host of invisible contracts which tie you into state jurisdiction. You need to break them all.
It’s just exactly the same as when the captain signs his ship over and goes into town. If the harbourmaster can show cause, then he can do what he likes with that ship. The captain has no say anymore. He registered.
I doubt that this is particularly welcome news, Hope, in that there is no silver bullet or quick fix to be had. The preventative course is the best, we know, so that unregistered children have no contractual handles the state can lift them with, so simple awareness of the contractual nature of all registration and acceptance of benefits should be protection enough for them. However, as the third party contractual example above showed, even if the child is not registered but simply shares in a state derived benefit, then the child may be presumed to be in contract and subject to state authority. The safest way is for the state not to know of the existence of the child.
Unregistered children’s names should never be handed out to any state employee under any conditions, so that even if an unregistered child should be snatched, they do not even have a name to do a search on. However, if you have taken the freeman route, then you will not need to withhold any names especially because you will not be applying for any state benefits or permissions. Also, you should never let any state employee know where you sleep at night.
Being contractually free of the state means that not one of their statutes affects you, and not a bit of their taxing powers can reach you. Being free of any contracts means that you do not need to tax your car – the benefits of the road traffic acts are not yours so there is no detriment to be had. You are no longer registered as a taxable subject – so you don’t pay tax. Any tax you pay, for example on petrol, or other goods, can be reclaimed from the state. Save your petrol receipts!
A great deal has to be thought about in this matter, as even just getting to this position will not be easy. It will take time to hunt down all the contracts you’re in, or the child is in – both must break the contracts, not just the child or the parent, and even then, with all contracts broken, with a chain of evidence to support this you will probably have to defend against some state apparatus who’ve intervened. A case or two won will settle the matter. Maybe.
Feel free to contact me on any or all points made here.
As I do not see any other way to restrict state intervention with children, I do not see any court case being won by any parent while they are inside the factual contractual setting with the state. The judge in any such case is limited by the contract terms and all he can do is review the terms and make a judgement on them. The terms of the state contracts are that they own us and our children and they have a contract to prove this. We have entered a contract with a corporate entity and the Clearfield Doctrine comes into play. The judge must always uphold the contract – he has no other legal choice. He may not even speak privately about the matter, no matter how he feels about it personally, because it is not a matter of public law but one of contract between individuals. The law of the contract is written into the contract and no-one, not even the judge, can vary or change those terms without the permission and willing cooperation of both parties. Even a knowledge of the deception used to get you into these invisible contracts would not help him, because deception is not a crime in Commerce – only in common law.
The law of merchant law, then, the law of contract is what binds us to the state, and what gives them the authority over us. No-one sensible would enter such unconscionable contracts so the state must trick us into them by making one thing lead like a portal to several other invisible contracts we did not know we were entering. Break them all, with due and proper Notice to all the right people. Build a body of evidence of non acceptance of state benefits, and they lose control and authority. Fail to rescind even just one and the full force of their authority may be exercised against you.
If the child is not registered then all this is unnecessary, unless you enter a contract somewhere along the way.
If the child is registered and has been taken, then convincing proof of your non contract status may very well retrieve the child from the SS. There are no guarantees, of course, except that they will fight to keep the property they stole by their deception and cruelty.
If a parent is aware of the SS interest in a child of theirs, there are certain steps he/she can take that would make finding and removing the child very difficult. It is quite lawful to write up a private fostering agreement, with no need to record or register the agreement. No fixed time need be entered as to the time the fostering would take place – simply an agreement that now and then, and when requested, the foster parent will take charge of the child. The written, signed and witnessed document should be sufficient to ensure the legal in loco parentis status, preventing any police action against the foster carers. This would not be very suitable for a long term situation, but might be useful short term in order to thwart SS interests in the immediate situation, and give some time to arrange other things.
To finish, I’ll say that Frank Harrison’s attempt to deregister his car was always doomed to failure. He rescinded his highway contract with DVLA, but he served the Notice on the wrong people. He needed to serve the legal paperwork on the Attorney General, as well as DVLA. Also, he only rescinded the one contract – maybe, as he did not properly serve the papers – and left all the others in play. As said above, if even just one remains it is evidence of state authority. If Frank wants to do his freeman driving thing then he must rescind all his contracts with the state. We cannot accept a benefit and not honour the detriments that that benefit brings. This is dishonour of the contract and any judge will find against you. Always!
For an understanding of the nature and effect of these invisible contracts I would recommend that you read INVISIBLE CONTRACTS, a letter to Frank May from George Mercier, and since published out into the patriot movement in the states. A copy of this book can be downloaded on the fmotl.org site, under the Musashi postings. Not an easy read, by any stretch of the imagination, but a vital one.
Read the first thirty or so pages, then skip to about page 230 and you’ll find everything I’ve talked about here in much better detail.
As said above, feel free to contact me on any point of this letter.
With kindest and warmest regards.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby sosii » Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:04 am

First off, great post Musashi, I was riveted (even read it twice).

I do hope nobody reading any unsolicited opinions in these posts would endanger their families looking for a quick fix. The total excision of the person and it's tacit or otherwise contracts is only to be undertaken with due diligence. This is for an adult, secure in their own self.

My hope has been in that by claiming the children's title before the state can we can cripple the SS, I've already got provisions in place with family for my children as you mentioned. The SS have proven very adept at ignoring these arrangements in the misguided "protection of the children". Although some progress has been made recently by grandparent apart. http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/

Article reads;

Glasgow City Councillors Vote “Yes” for
‘The Charter for Grandchildren’

A big unanimous “yes” vote plus a standing ovation for Grandparents Apart UK by Glasgow City Councillors on 18th February 2010 to accept ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ for mandatory use by professionals that work in the welfare of children. By this historic vote brave Glasgow Councillors have opened up a whole new aspect of child care and protection plus huge savings on the public purse.

The Charter for Grandchildren was created by the Scottish Executive in 2005 to accompany the Family Law Act (Scotland) 2006 as an advisory document but because it was just advisory Social Services and professionals dealing in the welfare of children were reluctant to change their policies to comply with it.

The Policy Development Committee (PDC) in Glasgow City Chambers will now decide to accept parts or all of the Charter. The Charter was produced by the legal team of a Scottish Government on evidence produced by a stakeholders group of which Grandparents Apart UK were a part of.


Pressure is coming at the SS and government from all sides on this issue.
I declare that I, being a sovereign free man on the land, am a living soul and that I am the only power and authority within my life.
User avatar
sosii
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:41 am
Location: Where I am

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby bustthematrix » Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:13 am

the worm that turned wrote:I swore and signed an affidavit stating on oath that I am the lawful and natural parent and guardian of my son and that I claim full and total ownership of any legal fiction, title or person created in his name BEFORE I signed the birth registration document. I showed this to the local registrar BEFORE she completed the register and informed her of what she was doing (she was totally oblivious to it). I then sent a copy (registered post) to the Registrar General of my affidavit and explained my actions at the birth registration centre.

Now any legal fiction or title or person they attempt to create belongs to ME the man. I will also be sending it to LOTS of other government offices here in the UK.

Next step might be to make a NOUICOR relating to the use of the title by anyone without my permission, with a fee schedule of 1,000,000 GBP for each unauthorised use!


Dear Worm

Once again, thanks for the above. Can you post a template for what you used please? I know someone in this position who has been delaying registering her baby who's now six weeks old. She and her hubby have agreed that it's best for them to register the birth but file an Affidavit affirming parental rights etc with the appropriate Govt. departments before doing so. But they're not sure what to place in the Affidavit!
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby sosii » Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:48 am

I'm on a new tract, perhaps we are trying to over complicate this.

My goal is simply to prevent any possible unlawful removal of children by SS, in all my research I've lost track of this.


Courtesy of the guys at freedomrebels.co.uk

Form 206 - Evidence of life
Declaration of person entitled to payment.

http://www.nocounciltax.com/content/pdf/forms/Annuity_Claim_Form_206.pdf

Accompany this with the notice of understanding and intent stating guardianship, ignore the de-registering. That can be undertaken by the child upon their majority as they need to understand. I believe we need to establish that the child will have 1st lien on any liability, will always be the creditor.

If we take away any monetary motivation, why would they bother?

Peace.
I declare that I, being a sovereign free man on the land, am a living soul and that I am the only power and authority within my life.
User avatar
sosii
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:41 am
Location: Where I am

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby sosii » Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:16 pm

Ok, after much reading, a lot of reading, I think I have it.

The common-law remedy of Recaption.

RECAPTION - From the 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon

The act of a person who has been deprived of the custody of another to which he is legally entitled, by which he regains the peaceable custody of such person; or of the owner of personal or real property who has been deprived of his possession, by which he retakes possession, peaceably. In each of these cases the law allows the recaption of the person or of the property, provided he can do so without occasioning a breach of the peace, or an injury to a third person who has not been a party to the wrong.

Recaption may be made of a person, of personal property, of real property; each of these will be separately examined.

1. The right of recaption of a person is confined to a husband in re-taking his wife; a parent, his child, of whom he has the custody; a master, his apprentice and, a master, his servant; but this must be limited to a servant who assents to the recaption; in these cases, the party injured may peaceably enter the house of the wrongdoer, without a demand being first made, the outer door being open, and take and carry away the person wrongfully detained. He may also enter peaceably into the house of a person harbouring, who was not concerned in the original abduction.

2. The same principles extend to the right of recaption of personal property. In this sort of recaption, too much care cannot be observed to avoid any personal injury or breach of the peace.

3. In the recaption of real estate the owner may, in the absence of the occupier, break open the outer door of a house and take possession; but if, in regaining his possession, the party be guilty of a forcible entry and breach of the peace, he may be indicted; but the wrongdoer or person who had no right to the possession, cannot sustain any action for such forcible regaining possession merely.


Face it, they committed fraud in their contacts with US. We are lawfully entitled to reclaim our children, is this not what we do in our NOUICOR? Their legislature classifies our common-law rights as property, how else can the 'remove' them within an ACT of Parliament.

I am working from the value entered into the security, as we can prove in our ucc-1 to have 1st lien on any liability to our PERSON as only we can possibly have given value to the PERSON. Would it be possible for the crown to prove it has added value to our children? I think not. So from the position of guardian/trustee we, with the correct process, reclaim that which we have undertaken to be responsible for by creating them. One can only assume that is virtually what the crown does to claim the bond in the first place, by our blatant ignorance and neglect of not claiming responsibility for the titles. Can I prove ownership? I think yes.

Am I making sense here?
I declare that I, being a sovereign free man on the land, am a living soul and that I am the only power and authority within my life.
User avatar
sosii
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:41 am
Location: Where I am

Re: How to De-register children

Postby bustthematrix » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:43 pm

I'm thinking a simple well worded Affidavit served to the right places should be enough.

There are just too many 'benefits' attached to 'registering' the birth of one's child not to do it!
bustthematrix
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: How to de-rigester children

Postby sosii » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:29 pm

The greatest threat in this situation is that the state can claim ownership making us merely the keepers, but at this point benefits/privileges are immaterial. To us, as sovereign human beings, benefits used by us would put us back under their authority. I'm thinking the individual is responsible to undertake this self-empowerment, our right to be responsible for our own creations, the living, breathing, pooping, puking souls is the issue. The process will undoubtedly require an affidavit of our understanding and a declaration of life.

No courts, no conflict, simply admitting our past ignorance, thank them for their offer to help but we're quite capable of this responsibility. At what point can they argue? I'm not taking anything away from them except that from a little of what I'm researching now is that there in most certainly a trust involved. We will have to express this trust and therein lies a whole new can of worms.
I declare that I, being a sovereign free man on the land, am a living soul and that I am the only power and authority within my life.
User avatar
sosii
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:41 am
Location: Where I am

PreviousNext

Return to Children

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests