Meet your strawman PDF

[Dreadlock]

The following is a very interesting read and it rings true though I have not verified or falsified any of it yet.

http://one-heaven.org/canons/positive_law/article/100.html

It would seem that the main presumption at work here is the presumption of stillbirth which is an excuse for the formation of the c'est que vie trust which is used as collateral to offset the bankruptcy of the Crown or whatever bankrupt country you were unfortunate enough to be born into. This trust is a secret trust meaning the government does not have to admit it exists. However:

As all Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created on one or more presumptions based on its original purpose and function, such a Trust cannot be created if none of these presumptions can be proven to exist.

It seems the burden of proof has been shifted to the unwitting parents who have no idea that they have to rebut anything. Such rebuttal would be very easy to do - if only you knew, as a parent, what the hell was going on in the first place. So it would seem anyone can register their child without there necessarily being a c'est que vie trust created (and therefore a legal fiction) simply by making the appropriate rebuttals.

[wanabfree]

Are people realy still peddling this crap?

They are not acting upon some fiction, they are comeing after you, the real man or women, by labelling you a “legal person”, they are saying you are somebody who can be controlled, just like livestock on a farm, in other words it’s a form of branding.

Your Birth certificate is essentially a livestock certificate, they believe they own you, and when you own something, just like the slaves of old, you need a means of controlling them.

So how are they going to do this?

That’s simple, you need information on people, so your name, D.O.B. and address is a pretty easy and effective way of monitoring, tracking, and keeping a physical, as well as a psycological form of control over you.

By having such information on you they can determine you have, and have had, a past, present and future on which they can trace, track and monitor you with and ultimatelly tax you.

Remember the girl, born in spain, but never had a “British birth certificate”?”, she turned 16, and couldn’t get a job?, and so she was forced to get one, or get put in a position which would make her live so diffuilcult, and miserable, she would not be able to function in society, that’s not about consent or strawmen, it’s about control, and without that piece of paper, they can’t fully do so.

What was it the soldiers had to do first before even considering an escape from a Nazi prisoner of war camp?

That’s right “forged travel papers”?

So why was that?

They had to break into the “Matrix” in order to travel freely, why because it was controlled, just the same as it is now, only today it’s alot more sofisticated, but nothing has chnged just the technology.

Do ya get it yet?

If you keep buying into this “strawman” crap, and believing “goverment” is never acting upon the fiction, and not the real man or women, your seriously deluded, and ignoring the facts right in front of you.

They are coming after you alright, and they don’t distinguish between fictional entities and the real thing, it’s the real thing their after, and that’s anybody on their databases, and capable of being found, tracked, traced, forcibly extorted, and ultimatelly controlled.

they are creating a means of control, not a legal fictional entity, any label will do, so long as it has the same effect, a means to an end.

[Dreadlock]

Hmmm, let's leave the troll under the bridge and continue our discussion...

That Royal registration document is giving us even more info than I at first thought. It's a goldmine of info in fact if you apply a little deductive reasoning...

As I pointed out earlier neither William, Kate or George have surnames though Kate used to have one which is clearly written as MIDDLETON.

What has happened? How can her surname have vanished. How come none of them have surnames?

Well we know their family name is Windsor, so the obvious conclusion is that surname does not equal family name. None of them could supply a surname because they simply don't have one.

So what is a surname? Well according to that document it is the last name of the legal fiction. Hmm that's news to me but I assume it is correct as it is on an official royal document. More on this later...

So how come Kate lost hers? As a commoner she had a legal person (strawman), was bonded and was surety for the national debt via joinder with her strawman just like the rest of us. When she married William her social status was raised a few notches to that of princess.

How can a princess be bonded or be surety for a debt? The horror! And so her strawman has simply been scrapped. No more bond, no more surety, goodbye joinder.

The Royals have no legal person or strawman to begin with and those who marry into the family have their strawman killed off. Probably applies to all nobles in the country too - dukes, earls etc.

Now let's check that word "surname" in law dictionaries:

Black's 1910 2nd Ed

SURNAME. The family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism ; the last name ; the name common to all
members of a family.

The name over and above the Christian name? What the hell does that mean? From my experience older dictionaries are better. I wasn't disappointed...

Bouvier's 1856

SURNAME. A name which is added to the christian name, and which, in modern times, have become family names.
2. They are called surnames, because originally they were written over the name in judicial writings and contracts. They were and are still used for the purpose of distinguishing persons of the same name. They were taken from something attached to the persons assuming them, as John Carpenter, Joseph Black, Samuel Little, &c.

So a surname is not a family name. The Royals clearly know that and so don't use one. The omission is not a mistake, it is deliberate and correct as we would expect of the Royal Family. It's the rest of us making the mistake.

Now let me draw your attention to "They [the surnames] were taken from something attached to the persons assuming them..."
Hmm now what do we, as persons, have attached to us? Well in the past it was literally anything. Our occupation (carpenter, cooper etc), our location etc.
But nowadays it's, wait for it, OUR STRAWMAN, OUR LEGAL FICTION.

And this is why Kate's maiden surname is MIDDLETON and not Middleton. MIDDLETON is a surname, an attachment, the last name of the strawman. Middleton is simply the family name.

What do you reckon guys? Do you follow the reasoning?

[Freeman Stephen]

This kind of petty bickering wont be tolerated for long here. Theres a temporary forum at consent.freeforums.org I've set up with a hope of producing something positive out of what has transpired at tpuc. We dont want fmotl to become like that. Maybe we can build a better tpuc with a more permanent address from consent.freeforums.org.

Please,consider.

[holy vehm]

As the thread has deviated, i shall return it back on track by deleting a few comments that serve no purpose to the original post.

[pitano1]

you may like to watch this while order,is being restored..

some interesting facts,about the b.c/all caps name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFykQwImGwM

[Dreadlock]

Thanks Pitano, very interesting.
I noticed that idiot Bill Turner uses dictionaries! What is he thinking? He's just like the other idiots on this forum who use dictionaries too - myself included.

@5:37 he does make an error when he says
"When title is transferred a trust is formed, your birth registration transfers title to a foreign situs trust."

It's the same error made in the PDF at the start of the thread. Registration transfers nothing. However the INFORMATION contained in the registry results in the creation of a foreign situs trust (FST). If the correct information was registered there would be no FST created. The information provided by our parents kills us in "law" hence the FST is created. If the information was such that we were deemed to be alive no FST could be created. It goes back to what I said in an earlier post. The Royals are doing it right - we are doing it wrong.

I think the "registration" error is simply due to people not choosing their words carefully. Bill obviously knows it is not registration which is the problem, but what is registered.

@18:10
"You must gain a name by reputation and then you can claim what is rightfully yours."
Is that what Kate did by marrying William? Sounds likely. There's no denying she seems to have lost her strawman.

What did you think of my surname analysis?

[squark]

I got a voter registration URGENT REMINDER just the other day. I have put it all in the return envelope with a NOTICE OF URGENT REMINDER, reminding them I asked for clarification 12 months ago and they still didn't reply. I hope they do because the next list of stuff to clarify is of much greater substance.

There are about 8 BOXES on the one page, why....etc
The relevant bit here is "USE BLOCK CAPITALS to complete this form." Then they give my name and initial (lower case), followed by my SURNAME. Capitus diminuitia media.
Are they "using" block capitals, is it a "legal style" we should be aware of. Most people would CARRY ON LIKE THIS. NAME AND SURNAME. They themselves use both upper and lower cases, breaking their own rule.......So, is the rule what it seems to be or is it for the legally aware an opportunity to set them straight. I am Squark Squark not Squark SQUARK.

Fair to me, is to tell them (if we ever get beyond question 1! FFS!) Squark Squark, when they get it wrong you correct them and warn them if they do it again you will claim FRAUDULENT CONVERSION has gone on in an attempt to deceive.

I do believe if its your name and your person,(that is what they say), then what you are and what you have are not the issue. OK I have a STRAWMAN. If it is mine, like they say it is, I may do as I choose with it. Like leave the Society. If its not a voluntary society, its a prison.

So what about their PERSON, the UK. You may be charged with being an unlicensed person within the UK. And that is fine if you are within the UK. Is the UK like the Catholic Church. You can be in Vatican City and yet not be within the Catholic Church. Its the Mark Stevens approach.

The UN Human Rights stuff talks about, persons, everyone, women, states, organs of state, nations. You have the right to a nationality, and also the right to associate (ie Join a club/society)

There needs to be a film called "Meet Their Strawman", or maybe "If this is a shop, show me to the exit."

Think about which person you are within at bedtime tonight guys. Is it the one you truly love> HaHaHa
It may feel warm and friendly but pretty soon roles will be reversed and they will want to fuck you.

[squark]

Ah ha

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=9022

The Government is a Person!

We are making progress folks, slowly but yes??

[wanabfree]

the only progress your making is in reification, and conflating the facts.

Goverment is just a group of people, why make it any more of an issue than that ?.

oh don't tell me me, because the bureaucrats call it a "person" now suddenly it becomes something else entirely different, because they used a different word ? shock horror

remember what the judge allegedly said "a person is a person" a healthy dose of circular reasoning.

by de-humanising goverment, and by pretending it's something other than just people, your creating a fantasy, bureaucrats call it a "body politic".

read the "CAB Book" and they readily admit local goverment/councils are a political body/corporate, all this means it's a political concept, a figment of the imagnation.

so next time a bureaucrat want to call a person a "corporation" why do you have to buy into it ?.