HOW CAN I GET BACK ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND A4V

[keertiji]

HI ALL, I AM NEW HERE - THANKS FOR HAVING ME!
ANYWAYS I AM A BRIT LIVING IN NZ AND GETTING QUITE INTERESTED, AS MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO BE, IN THIS WHOLE BC SCAM.
I WOULD OBVIOUSLY LIKE TO GET MY ORIGINAL BACK AND DO ALL THE A4V STUFF THAT I HAVE BEEN READING ABOUT.
BUT WHAT I AM FINDING IS A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT TO DO, BUT I CAN'T FIND ANY INFO ANYWHERE ON HOW TO DO IT.
IF ANYONE OUT THERE HAS A STEP BY STEP GUIDE AS TO THE ACTIONS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN TO ACHIEVE THIS PROCESS I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL.
THANKS


The title of this post was edited by Musashi as being a deceitful one. It suggests a solution when, in fact, it is yet another plea for help. Such disingenuous post titles will all be edited to reflect a more honest approach and, should the poster persist, all such posts will be irrevocably deleted. Continued persistence will lead to that poster being banned.

There are too many deceitful posters here on this site, now, trying to get as many people as possible to read their calls for help by writing a title that suggests there is something to be gained by reading it. It is dishonest, and a quick look at any of them will show that the people on this site who genuinely can help do not do so because of that very reason.

There are numerous examples of this and I, along with others, could have helped many times here but refuse to do so because the approach was dishonest, deceitful and designed to trick. You will not get my help like this. Nor will any competent other give it.

Musashi

[pitano1]

you will never get your mitts on the original,as that has been traded by the banks.

also it is not yours,as it is crown copyright.

you can however apply for what is known as`the long form birth certificate.

on this you will find the seals,that bind your given name to the satanic/commercial
surname.

i`m not sure,but i think you have to apply `either to the dept of ? in philidelphia u.s.a
or check with the head honcho of the register of birth/deaths in your country

ps if you can afford to tell them`to stick it up their ass,because this is the instrument
that ties you to their system.

[Cambio]

Hi.

Just been looking at this and got more research to do but check out what this site says.

http://www.educationcenter2000.com/redeem-certificate-of-birth.htm

Its discussing the authenticating of the birth cerificate. I think (still thinking to be honest but figure i may as well share to get more minds working on it), its aimed at getting the Government to Authenticate the birth certificate that they created, thus asserting that it is in fact THEY`RE property that THEY created and that it is a Traded Security.

"The Certificate Of Registration of Live Birth is By Banking Definition Termed “A Certificated Security” The application they made was known as “an application for a live birth certificate” and what issued from this application was known as a “birth certificate.”"

""the ‘company’, the “United States”[i] [or in our case the UK] kept the original application and gave your parents a copy of a birth certificate[/i]."

"The application they made was known as “an application for a live birth certificate” and what issued from this application was known as a “birth certificate” This created what is known as a “foreign situs trust account”."

Foreign Situs trust account. Blacks 8th gives this definition of Situs.

Situs: Latin The location or position (of something) for legal purposes. As in lex situs, the law of the place where the thing in issue is situated.

So, a trust account for a foreign "location or position of something for legal purposes". Sounds a lot like a Cetui Que Trust to me.

"Also when we filled out the Form SS-5 [i][here it would be the dole i imagine] we ‘allowed’ the ‘company’[UK] access to our account, our check book as it were, the pre-paid account that was set-up when our birth certificate issued. We gave them permission as signers to write checks on our account, and they do all the time. Keep in mind, this is the same account the bankers fractionalized and created huge, almost unlimited sums of “money”, and we became ‘co-business partners’, with the ‘company’. They are able to access and use our pre-paid account, for whatever they deem necessary.

…the ‘company’ then took the application and pledged your future labor as a guarantee for payment to the bankers, also known as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The bankers gave the company a credit for your application against the amount that the company owed the bankers, which at the time of your birth, was worth close to 1 million dollars. This transaction is what is referred to as a “money of account” transaction, as no real money changed hands. It was simply an accounting entry against the debt owed to the bankers, by the company.[/i] "

Sounds about right. We are the beneficiaries of the Cestui que trusts, but failing to realise and act upon it, apply for benefits etc, our government occupies the executor position and manages our Estate/Cestui que/Foreign Situs Trust.

[Centre][Centre]
"The bankers then took the [your] application, and used fractional banking lending. It is the birth certificate that is proof that an application was submitted. It is the application that is the real negotiable instrument and the birth certificate proves there is a negotiable instrument being used in commerce -- to borrow money."

"Right now, even though they have no legal right or claim or lien, the bankers control your “title” / birth certificate.

…you are the only one who can go to the ‘bank’ and redeem and regain control of the [your] birth certificate. Just like the car. The car gives value to the title to the car. You give value to the title, the [your] birth certificate.

Without you, the birth certificate is worthless."
[/Centre][/Centre]

So we all know this much, that our government seeks to reduce our status to that of slaves so that we are liable for summary execution with regards to the debts of the Cestui Que Trusts.

"Slaves conveyed in trust are subject to execution for the debts of cestui que trust"

[from "A New Abridgement of the Law with large additions and corrections Vol 10. pg-259"]

And from the same book:

"Courts of Law will protect the rights of a cestui que trust, against any person having notice of the trust"

......Which is pretty much what we have all experienced at court, whether it was the prosecution seeking "summary execution" against you for a debt, or whether you asserted yourself as freeman/executor or acted in any manner that showed you were aware of the existence of said trust..

Point being, Im trying to figure out myself whether or not getting the Birgth Certificate authenticated would be a good idea or if it could work against me. People moving or marrying abroad may need to get their Birth Certificates and other documentation authenticated before they travel.

How to authenticate my Birth Certificate for marriage in Mexico?
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100104140106AAs70Eb

This service is carried out by the apostille services or, interstingly enough the Foreign and CommonWealth Office (Foreign Situs account....?!!?) : http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/what-we-do/services-we-deliver/legal-services/Legalisation/030-Links/030-documents-we-can-legalise/Rule-7-Government-docs . taken form their site on documents they can legalize:

"Documents we can legalise: Documents issued by Government Offices, Companies House, and Chambers of Commerce

This section includes guidance for: Articles of Association, Certificate of Incorporation, Certificate of Memorandum, Certificate of Naturalisation, Certificate of Freesale and documents from: The Home Office, a Chamber of Commerce, Companies House, HM Revenue & Customs, The Rural Payments Agency"

Essentially documents form corporate entities regarding securities certificates.

So....Im not stating for fact here, but looking for discussion on these points.

If the Government can authenticate the Birth certificate, Because it is a security that they created.....this action of certifying, would give credence to anyones argument that the STRAWMAN is most definately government intellectual property which they no doubt own the copyright on.

My worry, is the application form found here under "Legalisation Application Form [Word version]"
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/what-we-do/services-we-deliver/legal-services/Legalisation/030-Links/010-How-to-apply/

Typical application form, MUST (legalese = may) fill in in BLOCK CAPITALS (legalese = maximum reduction of status)

Therefore, could you mistakenly, by applying to have your BC authenticated, and by virtue of filling out said application in theyre prescribed manner, only RECONFIRM that you are the STRAWMAN. Essentialy getting you once again to agree to being a tradable security and property of the government?

If so, how coud one gain the authentication without using their forms, or, if by using their forms, is it possible to send a cover letter (or even a copy of a filed UCC-1 financing form) to show that you are not the security. but the attorney-in-fact or authorized representative. I include the following simply for perusal as after some cosideration, clearly point towards the paradoxical contradictions any court is operating under when they try to enforce a debt liability on a human being.

"Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33.

...the primary issue of the above doctrine is in reference to the symbiotic nexus of the debt “Created Under HJR-192″ and the necessity of two parties (The American/British people sponsoring the credit and being in joint venture with government the debtor) as lying within the same operative facts [that were operating within a bankruptcy] (which is what requires that the public debt be discharged dollar for dollar.) This sets up a self executing dynamic that must and does arise out of necessity in our quasi relationship with the fed [BOE] as the fed has an obligation to each of us individually,(Emphasis on the Individual Account/ NI number) and that obligation is that each of us are a pre-paid principal to offer credit to the treasury and thereby, collateralize the fed [BOE] to do business as the debtor entity it is designed to be.

thereby... we come within the same set of operative facts under HJR-192 as the (or any) initial claim i.e. offer or claim initiated and thereby...　 that claim or offer instantly activates additional (Pre-Paid) legal rights otherwise dormant in the (alleged) debtor (taxpayer/transmitting utility) or defendant in possession [Of th birth certificate] through “its” attorney-in-fact or authorized representative, being the natural person. (Who by his or her nature is always within their own court of paramount or natural right......[this is the equivilent of "occupying the executor office" as far as i can tell])

The term “same set of operative facts” identifies the necessity of both sides of the account equaling ZERO.　 (Keep in mind, that this is all about the necessity regarding the remedy and/or relief through the bankruptcy and thereby re-organization process to avoid the imposition of a condition of involuntary bankruptcy/servitude or peonage upon each and every natural person.)

The justification for the defensive use of recoupment in bankruptcy is that there is no independent basis for a “debt,” and therefore there is no “claim” against estate property. Harmon, 188 B.R. at 425; § 101(5) (claim is a “right to payment” or “right to an equitable remedy”); § 101(12) (“debt’ means liability on a claim”)."

The last paragraph above where it says ".....therefore there is no “claim” against estate property", reminded me of when i was looking into the executor side of things. Pretty sure i read somewhere that the reason judges dont want executors in their courts, is because anyone who brings a claim against an estate without the executors permission is committing an act of fraud, an attack upon the estate so to speak.

The reason I find myself considering this more and more is because of the exerience i had in court. A County Court Judgement had been passed against my STRAWMAN when i was out of the jurisdiction. I went to court to set it aside. They had neither a copy of the CA or the Judgement. (How can the court convene to discuss the setting aside of a judgment without a copy of it). I basically asserted that I had not been afforded due process. They didnt feel that was important (Slave). I beat the court down I believe by "occupying the office of Executor/Administrator" when I stated that:
"If the hearsay Id been subjected to was true (regarding corporate entities/legal fictions), I could understand, accet and agree with what had happened. Whilst I as Lawful agent for MR STRAWMAN was out of the Jurisdiction, the true owners of that corporation, being presumably her majesty the queen, made administrative decisions regarding theyre property....which is perfectly fine and i accept that. [In other words admit that its a orporate entity]

If however, what the court is trying to assert is true, and that I and MR STRAWMAN are one and the same entity, then I would like to know who has been making my decisions for me, without my knowledge, and without my consent, since by their actions they are implying that I am a slave. Since slavey is illegal, if I am a slave, then I should like to meet my master [admit im a slave and give me a copy of the Court judgement bearing the signature of my slavemaster.....the judge whos been adminestrating/attacking my estate without my permission...act of fraud]"

Only after i stated the above did the Judge begin to act like a judge. In other words he ceased trying to tell me what to do, adopted an entirely different attitude, stopped acting as the prosecution and instead started asking them to provide the evidence id been requesting all along. If anyone would like to try the above statement in relation to CCJ passed without their knowledge/consent id be curious to hear what happens.

At the 2nd hearing the judge informed me there was no judgement. Not set aside/discharged or anything else. There is no judgement.....and no black marks on credit rating or anything. Guess they were that worried they didnt want to leave any evidence of theyre wrongdoing.

Something to think about anyway.

Any comments or thoughts welcome

[Dreadlock]

That link is misinformation or the author does not know what they are talking about.

The birth certificate belongs to the issuer. In the UK that is the Crown Corporation - hence the coat of arms at the top of every birth certificate.

"…you are the only one who can go to the ‘bank’ and redeem and regain control of the [your] birth certificate."

The person receiving the certificate does not own it, nor do they own the title that goes with it. You cannot "redeem and regain control" of that which is not yours.

The purpose of the birth certificate is to give the person title, which they can use to obtain certain benefits. However the title is not a gift, its use comes with rules and regulations and duties put upon the user.
People fail to understand this and think that they ARE the title. They also fail to understand that use of the title implies acceptance (consent given) of the rules that go along with said use.

[holy vehm]

Or its just a piece of paper with words and pictures on it.

I refuse to recognise the rights and authority of government and crown while they refuse to recognise mine and that includes its silly pieces of paper.

I play the game under protest and duress, through force and coercion, by deception and fraud.

[pitano1]

this rabbit hole is very deep,and convoluted.

it involves the occult/ecclesiastical roman law.

i believe it was pope boneface who laid claim of ownership of
mankind in 13.0.6.`mind body,and soul.
see papal bull unum sanctom.

the vatican holds title to every country on earth`including the city of london`
of course this is a claim made by a bunch of psychopathic nutters,and has been
lawfully rebutted.

but the roman cult refuse to act according to ecclesiastical law.
so like their officers of the courts,are acting in dishonor.

if you ever get to see a long form birth certificate,you will
find that it has a number of seals,some on the actual certificate,
and some on the edge.
the ones on the edge denote clean hands,`ecclesiastical term`
others pertain to skulldugary in various forms.`cant remember what`

the surname identifies you as an enemy of the state....commerce=warfare..also heraldry.
why do you think you are seen as the occupior.

see how we dont `sea`the bollix.
if i can find the vid this info came from i will post it here
i know its by a christian man named dan.his vids are very interesting
from an ecclesiastical/biblical viewpoint.

so getting back to the birth cert,as we know these things are in black,and
white,as above so below,the light,and the dark.`occult`

your surname=666 the number of the beast, or i should say
brings you into the system
along with your s.i.n/social security identitification number.
your given/christian name is of the light,and removes
all debt..debt=sin

this is the logic of the hermetic mystery college dating back for
millenia.
although i will admit that the birth certificate,was brought in to
finance the industrial revolution/n.w.o.

slavery has been the norm since man stopped being hunter
gatherers..eg.since some arshole dog priest found it possible
to get something for nothing through fear.`sirius..dog star.
astro theology.

points to remember.

most of the above is created through majik/cabbala,and false claims.
like the true vampires,that they are they need your consent.
to mess within `your` trust.

i`m afraid that, this is a very condensed version of the crafty
architects of the systems mirror of reality.
ps.

CROWN COPYRIGHT NOT TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION.

but,may be used to dab at any blood/bodily fluids...ehh..

[Dreadlock]

@ Cambio

The reason you succeeded in your case has nothing to do with you "occupying the office of Executor/Administrator" as it is impossible for you to do that for the Legal Fiction bearing your name. You can only act as the trustee for that name.

When you stated that you were out of the jurisdiction at the time the County Court judgement was passed, you were effectively stating that it was impossible for you to have been acting in the capacity of the fiction at the time. As you pointed out to the judge, if someone else was using the fiction at the time only the Crown could do so legally - making them liable for the claim against the fiction. Or if you and the fiction are one, then someone else acting on your behalf without your permission was impersonating you and therefore committing fraud. You defeated the claim by using inescapable logic, not by acting as an executor.

[Cambio]

Hi all. Thanks for your replies.

And thank you Dreadlock for a concise summary of what most likely happened.

I just want to say that I only posted for discussion and am glad people havent accused ME of spreading misinformation, lol.

The reason you succeeded in your case has nothing to do with you "occupying the office of Executor/Administrator" as it is impossible for you to do that for the Legal Fiction bearing your name. You can only act as the trustee for that name.

I had heard something along these lines before. ie - our "estate" is the Cert of live birth, which is stolen. Were then given the Birth Cert which the queen granted and thus, she is he executor/executrix of her own property. Iv also heard one can end up in jail by trying to act as executor de son tort.

Id stopped considering executor duties after i heard that. However I have been pondering on it again.....please dont take this as argument as im merely trying to clarify and put to test the knowledge i have accumulated thus far.......

If we can create a last will and testament, and Appoint an Executor to administrate our estate when we die.......then surely we must have that power to begin with....dont we? surely we cannot afford to anyone else, something which we do not possess!

Iv never seen a last will and testament......perhaps the estate is in the name of "john of the smith family" to get around that. Any comments welcome.

Also Im curious as to the Canons on positive law that Iv come across aswell. Referring to Pitano1 comments on the Roman Cult. Is that also disinformation as far as youve found out?

Canon 3228 apparently asserts that roman courts operate under 12 presumptions. One of these is the presumption that you will act as trustee, another presumption is that the government acts as beneficiary and executor. It states that acting as an executor is not enough and you must question whether or not the judge is seeking to act as an executor de son tort.....basically before he asserts that you are. Having looked at these, many of the "presumptions" are the same presumptions rebutted by peoples NOUICOR`s. spec:

Public record - Freemen/sovereign/lawul rebels ensure the matter is recorded
Public service and public oath and judges immunity - we are demanding their oaths which rebutts these preumptions
court of guradians - we rebut this by standing for ourselves and debating points of law showing that .....
incompetence - .....we are not incompetent
Court of trustees - by refusing to act as a person "slave conveyed in trust", thus rejecting the liability "debts of the cestui que trust".
Presumptions of summons and custody - are rebutted by returning the summons and attendint by "special appearence" or invitation.
Guilt - seems to be taken care of by affidavit of truth (which were all familiar with)

and then the trickier ones....in the vain of what weve been discussing regarding Executorship.....

Government as beneficiary/executor, and..
presumption of Executor de son tort - supposedly, the Gov, try to take our place as administrator of our estates, prosecutor assumes the role of beneficiary and (apparently) this needs to be rebutted as well a questioning the judges as to whether he seeks to act as executor de son tort.

I will copy the (supposed) excerpt from Canonum de lus positivium......if it is disinfo and your a moderator, feel free to remove. It is not my wish to spread disinfo....only post here for purposes of discussion so its "to hand".

Canonum De Ius Positivum
Canons of Positive Law
7.1 Article 299 - Roman Court
Canon 3224
A Roman Court is a Forum for the exclusive private business of a Law (Bar) Guild sanctioned by the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican, in which members of the guild presume certain roles on behalf of the "government" in order to make profit for the guild and its members through direct asset seizure and the commercialization of various securities, bonds and bailments.

Canon 3225
The meaning and source of the word "court" in respect of Roman Court is derived from the Latin word cautio meaning "securities, bond and bailment" as the primary commercial business of ancient Roman Cult sanctioned law guilds since the 13th Century.

Canon 3226
Prior to the creation of the Bar Associations in the 19th Century, the private Bar Guilds were known as "guilds" as well as "livery" companies and often by the name as Judges and Notaries since the 13th Century coinciding with the invention of Indulgences of the Roman Cult.

Canon 3227
In order to make “guild” money, called “Guilt” or “Guilty”, the Private Bar Guilds normally oversee a unique hidden trust for each controversy or “suit” that comes into the private Roman Court. Any bonds that are generated, called “Guilt bonds” are connected to the hidden trust, which the private Bar Guild members are sworn to deny exists.

The Presumption of the Court.

Canon 3228 : A Roman Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. Therefore, if presumptions presented... by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become fact and are therefore said to stand true. There are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand true being Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Executor De Son Tort, Incompetence, and Guilt:

(i) The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a lower Roman Court is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules; and

(ii) The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or “public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private "superior" oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath; and

(iii) The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of "public officials" who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartialty and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recuse themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath; and

(iv) The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of "public officials" acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions; and

(v) The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of "guilt" stands; and

(vi) The Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by "Custodians". Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and "things" not flesh and blood soul possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians; and

(vii) The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may be listed as a "resident" or a ward of a local government area and have listed on your "passport" the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the "Guardian" powers of the government and its agents as a "Court of Guardians". Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court);

(viii) The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume you accept the office of trustee as a "public servant" and "government employee" just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by "invitation" to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction - simply because you "appeared"; and

(ix) The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoint the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate); and

(x) The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort is the presumption that if the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a "false executor" challenging the "rightful" judge as Executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of "true" executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by not only asserting one's position as Executor as well as questioning if the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim; and

(xi) The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that you know your position as executor and beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient; and

(xii) The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead "guilty", do not plead or plead "not guilty". Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an affadavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you.



Based on notes from Dave Clarence training calls through October 23, 2010
Referencehttp://www.talkshoe.com/tc/39904 David Clarence with Angela

I dont know if you guys are familiar with David Clarence. I havent seen much of his stuff. I just grabbed the above when accumulating info to go through. In any case i find it good to try and consider all perspectives, even ones i dont agree with to expand my understanding of human nature.

I dont know if its easier in the US, lots of examples of executor letters etc.......but the only time you ever hear the word here is in relation to wills.

Now I only posted the above "Canons", because I want to know more. In other words, since Freemen/sovereigns/lawful rebels appear to be rebutting the vast majority of the above (alleged) "presumptions", i find it hard to reject it in its entirety, as to do so would mean to reject the accumulated works/templates of many others including Veronica, Roger Hayes etc.

Does anyone have more info on the above?

Could you send notice to a court, quoting canon law and rebutting the above presumption before you get there?

And how does the executor thing work here ie - if we can appoint one for when we die (as opposed to the queen/law society) but not have the power ourselves?

Im asking because of my situation. I earn little over £8000 a yr. Rent £5000, Gas/electric £1440, Water company want £480 council want £650. This all leaves me with the grand total of approx £500 to feed, clothe myself for the yr....not to mention telephone calls internet, bus fares etc etc.

If the Law says you need about £70 a week to live on, and at the same time asserts that I am liable to pay all these companies what they demand.....then surely it is in contradiction with itself....!!

This is what is leading me to look into these areas. If it is true that in commerce he who brings the liability must provide the remedy.....well that explains the remittances from the gas/electric company. Also the Local government finance act has the remedy embedded into it (seemingly) in section 13:

13 A Billing authority’s power to reduce amount of tax payable

(1) Where a person is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day, the billing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated may reduce the amount which he is liable to pay as respects the dwelling and the day to such extent as it thinks fit.

(2)The power under subsection (1) above includes power to reduce an amount to nil.

(3)The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to particular cases or by determining a class of case in which liability is to be reduced to an extent provided by the determination

This appears, at least to me to be an embedded remedy, thus meeting the conditions imposed by a chapter 1 bankruptcy regarding the "doctrine of discharge". What frustrates me is that councils will force someone out of there home and job simply because they cant afford the liability the council decides to make up that year. They need to meet their obligations and i have tried explaining to them that it is within their powers to reduce the amount to something i can afford.
I wrote to the CEO informing him of this. I have also requested their bonding company details....which they havent provided.

Summons arrived on the 26 th.

Now obviously.......Im happy to fight it (as i have no other option since compromise doesnt work). I really dont want to be written off as a slave so any info on how to "discharge", "set off" or "A4V" this liability would be great.

If what you say about executorships here is true, Is it still possible to appoint the judge a trustee and request he discharge said liability?

Ony got a few weeks so any help would be great. Im not a fully fledged freeman (if i couldnt engage at all with the system, then i simply coulndt survive,.....single lad, no one to engage on commerce for me), Iv never voted and I didnt sign the council tax application (after she infomed me it was most definately NOT a contract, but i had to sign I asked the lady why I would need to sugn.....since that would authorise a transaction of funds or bestow consent and she had informed me council tax was mandatory....if so why would they need me to sign anything?)

Anyway, rant over. Apologies. I aim to write a few lines and this happens.

Peace.