May 31, 2013 12:32 AM

Register or to not register WHAT ?

Children Pete.

I would say....Register these monsters

Register & they have tabs on you or in this case your children- for life. Don't register & they'll do their damndest to put you in a position where you either follow our rules or pay the price- which is ultimately banishment from society. They got everyone scared of their shadow. Be a good standing citizen. Make us richer & follow our rules..or else. If you can live without registering the little ones, the better off they'll be- or not- depending on their upbringing & teachings of law & life!

Amish, Mennonites, etc. registered in the highest authoritive society

Jessica N Clint Bender, is that true ?

Commonly referred to as Eccliastical jurisdiction for a simpler way to phrase it the "church" is the state. This is why most anabaptists do not have birth certificates or social security numbers. They are listed on the "church" roster and listed in the "book" it is a registration of sorts within "their" system ;)

Ecclesiastical I mean

In Sweden all citizens newborn are registered in the Lutheran Church , even if the parents are atheists. In Quebec, certificates of baptism was the only ID required until 1984~6.

Is this "book" or roster is shared with the GOVERNMENT ?

No, but i am sure they have copies, my friend has several Free mason bibles, if the price is right...........people are corrupt by nature

just like Jews they covet lineage

rule #1 Questions deflect Surety. Never 'understand', objectively deny everything by asking a question. they are NOT your friend, THEY are picking a fight with you.

ask what the purpose for such a device? does it create any obligation on any party (who and what)? (the holder in due course) so, Demand possession of the original document, first draft, not a copy/stamped/certified/ not the original is not good enough [period].

simply state, the first party to sign the document retains the original. They can not sign it untill AFTER you. do everything at a bank.

Interesting David. Is Scott not interested in commenting on this subject? All the other comments are not exactly answering the question I pose. David has a very good point. I have been asked by quite a few expecting parents what purpose the registration of a baby fills/serves. It is not something that is spoken about much. The only things I have heard are; 1) That it is a recording of an event and proof of a share in the resources of the land mass one is born to. 2) That registration poses an obligation to the registrar party to "protect" and "serve" the registered to their best interest and benefit. 3) That it is a forming of a Trust (which I think is the same as #2 put simpler)

Before the formation of a Trust between a registrar and the parents, the baby was obviously entrusted to the mother and father by law of nature. It would negate to me then that as mother and father (assuming the child is not being harmed) they have ultimate ruling over what IS best for the child and as long as they are willing to speak to each other (even if only the mother OR father is willing) then there is no place for a third party to intervene. The only intervention, that may be necessary (possibly having to use force), would be to bring the unwilling party to the table of discussion.

I would think that everyone knows, when adults do not come to terms peacefully, it ALWAYS harms the child. From where I stand, the tactic of all governing bodies to gain control of society completely, is to make sure the parents are robbed of the ability to come to terms themselves. This sets the stage for the collapse of the original trust.

Come on Scott Duncan. Tear my posts into shreds. I do like it rough sometimes. I definitely learned long ago NOT to come here for hugs and "It will be OK."'s

Scott Duncan is only interested in commenting when the subject is incorrect. David Johansen is not saying anything wrong. Why would I comment? I already KNOW 2+2=4. I'm not going to cheeer like a mindless parrot, everytime I see it. :P

You aren't saying anything incorrect, Cara.

I can't help you here. :P

This all being verified by you then I would think Derek could DEMAND that they ONLY bring her to the table of discussion.

Cara is in prime candadacy position to be able to tell an important somone that they can go f themself unless they can show proof of claim and full disclosure prior to the commencement of any contractual proceding/arangement. demand they state the nature and cause of the specific reasons why and FULL disclosure with regard to... and remember, original = holder in due course. if you receive no benefit, you really have no reason to...