Sep 01, 2013 6:43 PM

And he followed up with: But Bank of Canada must settle the accounts, as they are trustee and you are insolvent in their system.

..i think Dean Clifford gave you some GOLD there

Regulations

60. Form of register

(2) The register maintained pursuant to subsection (1) may be in a bound or loose-leaf form or in a photographic film form or may be maintained by any system of mechanical or electronic data processing or any other information storage device that is capable of reproducing any required information in intelligible written form within a reasonable time.

Marginal note:Canada Evidence Act

(3) The register maintained pursuant to subsection (1) is deemed to be a record for the purposes of the Canada Evidence Act and every employee of the Bank of Canada who supervises the inscription or registration of securities in the register is deemed to be a manager of the Bank of Canada for the purposes of that Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/page-29.html#docCont

So PIERRE DAOUST, the person, is INSOLVENT in Bank of Canada's system right ?

WHY is that ?

Bank of Canada must settle the accounts: HOW they do it ?....creating more debts ?

Who is the SURETY of PIERRE DAOUST the person ?

The only logical answer I can come up with is; The Quebec Government, and since they are an ADMINISTRATIVE zone in Canada, it has to be the Bank of Canada.

For the same reason why there is a RECEIVER[SHIP] GENERAL...we've been operating in BANKRUPTCY since 1933, who would actually realize/catch onto that, other than us Freeman-KOOKS such as ourselves.....Money is GOLD...they suspended Gold(MONEY) as PAYMENT back in 1933 with Order-in-Council no.16 on April 10....there is only THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER, and/or section 57.1 of the Bills of Exchange Act

Like Scott told me straight-out: "Money now is either DEBIT or CREDIT".....and like Mary Croft said: "THEY, now issue to us a CURRENCY, in the form of DEBT"

the old person identity is ownded by the government when I kill it I created a new legal person That is ownded 100 percent by the corporation which i can do business with

Yes Pete, what "Jeff" said. I am pretty sure that once we start a corporation, lien what we have to, place it in trust, that we can then start creating a new legal person(s).

yes the only reason that the able to play shirty on the man is because they lost on legal title to the old identity once you create a new name and trademark it from the corporation they cannot then take place sure on the new legal identity. because the business did not leave it up for salvage

I can create 10 new legal person in the next 3 hours.....what this has to do with anything ??

"Jeff", I know what you are trying to say, I think, but what the hell does that say?

Pete Daoust, you are not insolvent. CANADA is. No payments are made only exchange of debt which CANADA owes you. Just liquidation by discharge from one account to another.

The only thing I see that liening PIERRE DAOUST through a corporation would do is: No one will be able to fuck around with its surety....it won't kill it...

How could "I" be insolvent in the first place anyway....

..well- i think Scott would be the first to remind you that your parents DID sell you into slavery when they registered you with/to the Government after you were BERTHED (born)

Ha...I thouht that the only thing these two idiots did is gave the permission to the government to create a person for me... :-\

Jeff Rogers - Do you mean to say that we trademark the corporation's name?

And Derek Moran, Government do not register people, they register EVENTS....

A person creation is an EVENT

What is it are we saying EXACTLY when we say: ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ?

We are saying We are NOT the person, but we reserve ALL the rights that came with it.....is that what it is ?

So therefor "ME" has the ONLY avcess to its surety.....no one in this court can access it, and no one in there can prove that IAM surety.....

In court?...only a PARTY can have STANDING...and a PARTY is a PERSON- remember, the Government is more like a TRUST, therefore it is NOT a PERSON...you are the only one with STANDING, because you are the only PARTY...so you have the ability then to reserve ALL rights, not just YOURS/your PERSON's

What trips-us-up, is when we unwittingly-CONSENT to being the person as defined by such entities as the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Government of Canada's, etc. definition of what a PERSON is, which i would say is NOT our intended 'In Propria Persona'

the new legal identity is trademark by the corporation

this new legal identity can act in public without surety being attached to it it already has all rights reserved by the articles of corporation within the corporation

Is this what is considered to be our 'IN PROPRIA PERSONA,' Scott Duncan?

“person” includes a party to a proceeding;

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900194_e.htm

act in pro personna is poor person and we don't act in the person we act as a king for the person

we are considered vesels on dry dock when surety is attached. When surety is not attached we are vessels on the water acting as captain your grace are sir. safe harbor. is trust law

diff is that your "corporation/person" that you create and register with the state doesnt get sent out to have money borrowed against it by the STATE based on its abilty to generate energy..think about it...you can copy right that name as you created it....derka derka....corporation is a person remember? a trust is also considered a "person" in their legalese land of fiction...

its all about who owns legal and equity title to the person. I am creator of the corporate person and the legal identity.

Derka Derka

1. An expression commonly used by the inhabitants of East Bakalakadakah Street.

2. Used to refer to a person of Middle Eastern descent.

3. A nonsense word used to describe senseless babble.

:-D

team america...awesome movie....

A derogatory term directed towards people of Middle-Eastern/Islamic background. Words spoken by terrorists in the movie "Team America: World Police."

Hey...all of you....is it true that the government created a PERSON after my parents gave them permission to do so ?

Is it true that this was an EVENT

Is it true that right after this EVENT the government proceed with a debt creation and put that new PERSON in collateral for that debt TO BENEFIT "ME" ?

Hello's ???

when you run a perfected lien on the legal title name. it even has a historical event the date of the birth certificate is the date of the documents birth not ours

They can consider "ME" as in dry dock, cold dock hot dog, what do I care, if I have the truth with me ?

Is it true that this PERSON they've created has a SURETY hooked to it ?

not to benefit you...you use it by mistake what is the benefit to you?? you give no energy to that certificate, you use it to get other registrations for their benefit..of which you didnt create either..you asked for those by APPLICATIONS and they were issued to you..you volunteered for them...movie oliver.."may i have another sir"..hahahaha..the energy you gave to the other account you GIFTED!!! by way of their forms stating such....

an Admeral and General carry the same rank but when a general goes on a boat he is then subject to the Admiral on the Admiral goes on land they then subject to the general it's all about juresdiction

OK Rick Carne....I get EXACTLY what you are saying....but stay with me here for 3 minutes.....

It's ALWAYS the person who APPLY for everything right ?

in other words, the freaking driver on that DL is the PERSON.....not "ME" right ?

but this person does not have surety attached to it because we are the creator of it so they can't attach surety to it and its not like requesting it's the corporation requesting not me

WHO is the driver..."ME" or the PERSON ?

its the livng man believing he is that "person" and this is the fraud that they bank on....the living man operating the person,,sailing the vessel thru the open seas..with out a compass!!

Well, I can't do that no more.....I just can't...!!!

I will make them BANK for everything that is addressed to that PERSON.....

exactly...

I already started this, and Man does it ever fucking weird :/

BANK?

hahaha...yep...

I give them ALL possibilities imaginable to REBUTT me, I give them my cell phone number.....THEY JUST STAY COMPLETELY SILENT.....

WHO ELSE is doing this in here ?

Pete when you said BANK, did yo u mean PAY?

yes...

but the cell phone number is registered to a user that is the person...LOOK AT YOUR BILL! its to the NAME...

They can't pay, they can only BANK :D

this cell is supply to the person by another person :D

Same for the car, and the shoes, and shirt.... :D

So lets make them BANK......fuck it :D

this is why my old identity must die

The system operates on trust law, but we as a "private man" are not a party to that Name Trust/Estate. We are are just a private man who has been SPOLIATED by way of a foreign corporate military invasion and seizure of our private property, via their war powers they operate under via their rules of war on land AKA General Orders 100 (Lieber Code)

The Name (First Middle Last ) is a fictitious Name for the purpose of conducting commerce with. The fictitious Name is the most valuable commodity man has. Without it man cannot conduct commerce within the artificial commerce system. As the OWNER of that fictitious Name the owner is liable for it.

Under the Foreign Corporation known as United States, Inc., which was formed under the reconstruction act after Lincoln turned the nation over to the military due to its original government dissolving upon its board members walking out never to return, the Military formed itself the new corporation known today as the UNITED STATES.

Advance forward to 1933 when that military corporation known as UNITED STATES went into bankruptcy. Under executive orders by their commander in Chief of their Military in conjunction with their foreign corporate military board members commonly known as CONgress, Declared a State of Emergency under its War Powers which supersedes all their Civil Codes, Regulations and Polices.

Under their Declared State of Emergency by way of Executive Orders and Banking Emergency Acts they came in and SEIZED ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY via section 38 of their Lieber Code and ALL PROPERTY was turned over to the STATE!

The fictitious commercial Name (First Middle Last) is PRIVATE PROPERTY. That is not YOU the man. That is merely a fictitious Name man must have to use to conduct commerce with.

When you were born the hospital took the information, created the TITLE (Birth Certificate) for the fictitious commercial Name, and then sent that TITLE to the STATE so the STATE could registered the EVENT. Only the STATE never completed the delivery of that TITLE to the Name by sending the original to the parents. Instead the STATE kept the ORIGINAL by way of their Declared State of Emergency and SEIZED the TITLE to your PRIVATE PROPERTY via their War Powers under their Lieber Code section 38.

38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States.

The UNITED STATES having gone into bankruptcy came in and had to SEIZE all Private Property out of NECESSITY in order to continue to support its Army and bankrupt UNITED STATES CORPORATION.

Having SEIZED all your Private Property the commanding officer (Governor of State) signed into law their Vital Statistics Act causing for you the man (spoliated owner) to be issued a RECEIPT (Certified Copy of Live Birth) to SERVE you the "spoliated owner" to obtain indemnity for all claims against the fictitious commercial Name that the STATE became owner of by way of their Military SEIZURE and now the holder in due course of the original TITLE to that Private Property Name.

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

This seizure of ALL PROPERTY is also confirmed in their Senate records.

Senate Doc #43, page 9, second paragraph in the right column. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

We as a "private man" have NOTHING to do with the Name Trust/Estate. We are NOT an Executor, Administrator, Trustee, Beneficiary or Surety for that Name. We as a "private man" have been SPOLIATED by their having seized all our Private Property under their declared State of Emergency via their War Powers.

Our ONLY recourse is to use the RECEIPT they issued to us to SERVE us as "spoliated owner" to obtain indemnity.

This is also why there is NO MONEY for us to use. What can we possibly have any use of money for if EVERYTHING is all vested in the STATE? This is why they removed all money from the private sector under executive order and replaced it with their INTERNAL CURRENCY.

EVERYTHING we had and acquire is all taken by the STATE via their seizure of the Private Property Name the STATE holds original TITLE to, and everything acquired by that Name automatically becomes property of that Name which automatically becomes property vested in the STATE by way of the STATE being holder of the TITLE to that Name.

Rather than go to war against the STATE by being a resistor against their foreign military occupation and seizure of all Private Property and being deemed a belligerent, instead, go to PEACE by acknowledging they have seized all property by letting it all go (peaceful surrender) where the STATE now becomes liable for all claims against the Name they hold TITLE to.

Fuck you make me fucking pissed with that stupid old identity ....shit....

wow...do you ever write fast !! :D

Fuck!!!!

That is good and I have only scratched the surface of that

Rickk nice to meet you

There ya go Pete, you were looking for immunity, maybe you want indemnity...????

Where is what Rick Carne wrote ?....the long post there ? :/

two up from where you said "wow do you ever write fast"

Ok...it came back, it disaprear for a few minutes :/

all of the benefits and none of the liabilities

indemnity & going to peace....nice :D

"ME", will reach IMMUNITY by getting INDEMNITY for the person I have in my pocket named PIERRE DAOUST 26X-XXX-XXX

:)

you are stuck in civil law what we fight is Admiral/ maritime

Who fights what ???....and what are you talking about please...Chris Schulte, translate that for me please

only I will accept the identity that I choose to accept no other shell call me what I want to be called. why because f*** you thats why

I don't understand what you're talking about

nor do I.....

:D

the reason I won't use it in its proper form in public is because I don't want anybody else to take over its jurisdiction again

frisbee is plausible deniability

Question: How can a fictional entity/person be killed? Isn't it already dead, or at least incapable of life because it's a fictional construct?

Dude....you guys are losing me. What are you talking about now?

They were talking about a CIVIL DEATH I think.....

The term REDEEMED would be more appropriate I think

You go to the receiver general here in Canada, and you give the BC to them and say: I redeemed that thing

So then, what was Scott talking about when he was saying that 2 Justices killed JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN?

Did I remember that correctly?

He said JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN was a good man, paid his taxes....etc......

Agreed Chris, that's the only way it can make sense...which is another part of the rabbithole...a civil/fictional death

I just want this friggin rabbit hole downloaded into my brain by morning. Is that really asking too much?

Liening the person has the same effect,,,,it's still alive, but can not be touch by them

In fact, it's way better :D

legally dead

^yes. Dead to them

So then, how did 2 Justices kill JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN? Scott?

I think this ties back in with the servant king info, where 'Marcus' allowed/caused civil death of the person (or liened it out of the public and into the private realm) in order to be freed from its associated public liabilities...that's my take on it so far

A lien is a claim on the property of the legal title of a person

ahhhh....yes. CIVIL Death.

I don't think its a lien on the property, I think its a lien on the Title, yes?

Yes Pete Daoust, because it can still be used in commerce as an asset of the corporation (that holds the trust), whereas civil death would render it valueless.

CIVIL is the operative word here....

IMMUNITY is the operative word here :D

yes that's why the audio of someone calling for that person like they're alive its so funny

Pierre = An immuned belligerent :D

What about an immune indemnified belligerent schmuck? :D

Pete..to be immune or to have immunity from their system you must leave it...see "law of nations"

Rick Carne: "Rather than go to war against the STATE by being a resistor against their foreign military occupation and seizure of all Private Property and being deemed a belligerent, instead, go to PEACE by acknowledging they have seized all property by letting it all go (peaceful surrender) where the STATE now becomes liable for all claims against the Name they hold TITLE to."

I am pretty sure his point was NOT to be a belligerant. or IMMUNE. I think it was to have Indemnity

No Stuart, I am NOT a PERSON....the person is indemnified

how do we leave it?? Vacate....

Doesn't liening the person out of the public & into the private achieve that aim of leaving the system Rick?

Indemnity Recompense for loss, damage, or injuries; restitution or reimbursement.

An indemnity contract arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. The right to indemnity and the duty to indemnify ordinarily stem from a contractual agreement, which generally protects against liability, loss, or damage.

Vacate

To annul, set aside, or render void; to surrender possession or occupancy.

The term vacate has two common usages in the law. With respect to real property, to vacate the premises means to give up possession of the property and leave the area totally devoid of contents. To vacate a court order or judgment means to cancel it or render it null and void.

A person may vacate property voluntarily or involuntarily through the issuance of an eviction order by a court. Rental and lease agreements usually contain a provision concerning when and how the tenant is to vacate the premises at the end of the lease period. Many landlords require renters to make damage deposits, which are refunded after the tenant vacates the property if the landlord determines that no serious damage has been done and that the renter has not left behind Personal Property that must be disposed of by the landlord. Otherwise, the landlord may keep all or a portion of the deposit.

The other common legal usage of vacate refers to the canceling or rescinding of court judgments and orders. State and federal rules of Civil Procedure give courts the authority to modify prior judgments. A judgment is the definitive act in a lawsuit that puts an end to the litigation by specifically granting or denying the relief requested by the parties. Once a judgment granting relief has been entered, the plaintiff may legally collect the damages awarded by the court.

set aside ?...fun fact: the person named PIERRE DAOUST is on the pick-up truck's box.....ALWAYS....It dosen't enter my house.....

Inside the house is a no commerce implied/expected place :D

"the state now becomes liable for all the CLAIMS against the NAME THEY hold title to."

liable= surety. claims = liens.

acknowledge v. 1) generally to admit something, whether bad, good or indifferent. 2) to verify to a Notary Public or other officer (such as a County Clerk) that the signer executed (wrote, signed) the document like a deed, lease, or power of attorney, to make it certified as legal and suitable for recording.

So Rick Carne, can I set aside the person for a period of time determined by "ME" ?

Since I am its MASTER, I see no problem !

right your corporate books are at another location where the accounting is done and all papers are served on the corporation. my corporation is public but the trust is private so the books are done by the IRS hahahaha.

"The other common legal usage of vacate refers to the canceling or rescinding of court judgments and orders. State and federal rules of Civil Procedure give courts the authority to modify prior judgments. A judgment is the definitive act in a lawsuit that puts an end to the litigation by specifically granting or denying the relief requested by the parties. Once a judgment granting relief has been entered, the plaintiff may legally collect the damages awarded by the court."

Is this how JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN was killed?

yes like in a new identity it by joining the French Foreign Legion

Pete,....sure..but when a claim is made against the "Person" and the "person" does not respond, then the person will enjoy the benefits and privileges that go with that and unless your past as surety for that person has been corrected,.. you are it!! based on unrebutted presumtion the trick is if you answer then you have made a claim to not being that person and now you must prove that claim...

"the one that makes the claim must prove it"...

piercing the corporate veil

Would not proof be the simple thing of being the HOLDER of the certificate. In the end that really is all you are. Is the HOLDER.

no the STATE is the holder of the Certificate you have a certified copy....

The Birth certificate consists of 2 parts. 1) The EXTRACT information from the LBR printed on the face. 2)The certificate it self. 2 separate things.

you hold a COPY, that was CREATED by the STATE and certified as a copy by the state with is embossed seal..

The information of who the certificat belongs to is printed (thats the certified extract from the LBR) on the face of the certificate.

heheheeh..he all yours....

If I build a car and let you use it is it yours?....

go to sleep chad your drunk....

Go look at an Alberta birth certificate,,,both sides

Please tell me where it says that this certificate IS A COPY. it doesn't, just the info on the face is an extract of where it comes from as regards to identity.

I will wait patiently for your response.

here is this fast enough...when you applied for it the application you filled out stated that you would be getting a certified copy...derka derka....show me wherein it states that it is the original....you received it from the office of vital statistics same as where the one i mistakenly ask for came from..different country same fraud....

You have NOT answered the question. This SPECIFICALLY states "this certificate"

http://www.vitalcertificates.ca/birth-certificate/

go to sleep chad your drunk....

Read what is before you. I presented a document to you. Where does it say it is a COPY of a certificate?

And yes I have read that, how ever I dont care as I recieved THIS document which STATES OPTHERWISE

certified extract from......the original!! Hahahahahaha!!What is EXTRACT?

A portion or fragment of a writing. In Scotch law. the certified copy, by aclerk of a court, of the proceedings In an action carried on before the court, and of the judgment pronounced; containing alsoan order for execution or proceedings thereupon. Jacob; Whishaw.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/extract/#ixzz2dh16TKhO

carry on Chad!! get on with your bad self!!....

thank you Mr. Surety!

HOLDER. The holder of a bill of exchange, promissory note, check, or other commercial paper, is the person who has legally acquired possession of the same, by indorsement or delivery, and who is entitled to receive payment of the instrument. Person who is in possession of a document of title or an instrument or an investment security drawn, issued or endorsed to him or to his order, or to bearer or in blank. U.C.C. — 1-201 (20) Black's Law 5th Edition

What is HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

A term for the original holder of an instrument that takes it in good faith and exchanges something valuable for it. AKA protected holder.

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/holder-in-due-course/#ixzz2dh6Nthpz OPERATIVE WORD CHAD IS "ORIGINAL" holder in due course

Legal term for an original or any subsequent holder of a negotiable instrument (check, draft, note, etc.) who has accepted it in good-faith and has exchanged something valuable for it. For example, anyone who accepts a third-party check is a holder in due course. He or she has certain legal rights, and is presumed to be unaware that (if such were the case) the instrument was at any time overdue, dishonored when presented for payment, had any claims against it, or the party required to pay it has valid reason for not doing so. Also called protected holder, or bona fide holder for value.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/holder-in-due-course.html#ixzz2dh6uJKYt hehehehehe!! cart before the horse

wow Pete Daoust you really are a kamikaze :P

prove it is negotiable...or can be presented for payment where has it been expressed?...what did you use to get them to send it(the BC) to you....Hmmm? a Photo of the PERSON??? hahahahaha the States Identification card?? or the States SSI card?....

Carry on

I do not have to prove any thing. The photos show the ONLY thing I have from the Gov. They say otherwise from what you are saying.

I am just saying what is ON THE CERTIFICATE. Which is the only document I could bring forward.

I have NO IDEA why you are miss interpreting what I am saying.

no they do not say other wise..you are misinterpreting...you have a COPY=EXTRACT as do I..not the original!! where does it tell you that it belongs to you?

extract is..from the original...get it?...

If I have it in my possession, yet did not create it, did not sign it & it has a stamp/seal from a government body, with their letterhead (or other identifying mark at the top of it), how or why am I considered surety for it?

If I claim it as mine, isn't it true that I would be attempting to commit fraud by claiming something that isn't mine?

If someone else then attempts to claim it IS me, wouldn't they be aiding & abetting fraud?

Rick, it says ***The information on the face of this certificate is a certified extract from the REGISTRATION OF BIRTH***

JUST the information,,*****NOT THE CERTIFICATE IT SELF*****

you claim to be the name...look up usufruct....

JEESUS CRIKEY??I"M OUTTA here....

STOP saying stuff I have not said. I said I am the HOLDER, only

Rick Carne extract is..from the original...get it?...

Yes.....****The information on the face**** only

...."Chad Brodgesell The information of who the certificat belongs to is printed (thats the certified extract from the LBR) on the face of the certificate. about an hour ago · Like CHAD...WHERE DOES IT SAY IT BELONGS TO YOU???? it only has the NAME of the "PERSON" REGISTERED>> are you a MAN or a PERSON????

The word certificate mean copy thereof

go back and read what I wrote a find where i said it was mine as a man? I never did. It is to my person and as such I I am the beneficiary only

CERTIFICATE, n. (15c) 1. A document in which a fact is formally attested <death certificate>. See STOCK CERTIFICATE. 2. A document certifying the bearer's status or authorization to act in a specific way <nursing certificate>. 3. A notice by one court to another court of the action it has taken <when issuing its opinion, the Seventh Circuit sent a certificate to the Illinois Supreme Court>. Black's Law 9th Edition

The ONLY definition the certificate fits into is the first one.

The original document that the birth certificate copy was from is held and guess where in a safe. wait for it wait for safekeeping

http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/forms/vsa430b_fill.pdf....and you used your person to get it..

Please forgive my ignorance Rick, there is obviously some principle that I am missing re usufruct.

Your comment re: WHERE DOES IT SAY IT BELONGS TO YOU???? it only has the NAME of the "PERSON" REGISTERED>> are you a MAN or a PERSON????

I'm the man. I have (an extract, certificate, copy of) the person.

Are you suggesting that the Notice of Mistake would negate these presumptions re surety and/or my mistakenly claiming the name?

the legal title account needs to be closed

yes...thats what it is for..the mistake that you are the person...the living MAN that gives energy to the corpse...NO WHERE WILL YOU FIND IN THE DEFINITION OF "PERSON" THE WORDS" MAN" OR "WOMAN"...NATURAL PERSON IS A FRAUD as IS "HUMAN BEING".....you are MAN! unless you wanna be Mr. Surety...

Thank you Rick for clarifying.

NAMASTE muther fuckers!..goin for a ride!!...I love you CHAD!!...

goodnight guys I'm going to study some other field

You saying that I said things I did NOT.

I would suggest that you reread what I posted and NOT make assumtions.

Anyway, I am out of here as there is obviously now gain in asking a question then providing some provable background and having the question go off to EGO land and NOT on the question.

I'm guessing Chad Brodgesell, but from what I understand was being said here by others, a certificate by definition is not an original document.

Maybe Jeff Roggers can provide a source/definition supporting his statement: The word certificate mean copy thereof

So, my take on it is this: Even if the certificate itself IS an original, it is not the original document, but something derived from or separate from an original document.

I recall Dean Clifford saying somewhere along the way, is that the birth certificate is not to be used as a form of identification (as it identifies a person but not the man...my interpretation from what was said).

I wrote & asked births deaths and marriages (equivalent of Vital Statistics for NSW, Australia) if the BC can be used as identification or not, and to direct me to the relevant clubhouse rules for support of their advice.

I got an unqualified yes, but when I asked what it identified me as (man or person), I did not receive a response.

If the informant(s) on/to the BC were acting in the capacity of persons, and the registrar is acting in the capacity of a (legal/fictional) person then no one is operating in the capacity of a man or woman in the creation of the original document or the certificate derived from it. In other words, it only records fictions/events & cannot pertain to the man.

If we have claimed it/used it as identification to obtain other government benefits (SSN, passport, drivers licence etc), then we have claimed the name (at some stage) and consequently accept the responsibilities, benefits and privileges of our (misguided) actions. We continue to be accountable until we correct the record (Notice of Mistake), either one by one in response to various offers to contract,

OR,

lien the person(s) into the private trust, taking it/them out of the public realm once & for all.

That may be way off the mark as to what you were asking, but I hope it's accurate in principle & useful. ;-)

Even if I did provide proof. The point is who was the originator of the f****** document in the first place. it surely wasn't f****** me

The BC is NOT identification. I doubt anyone here would wish to hear my opinion of what the LBR and BC are. I never said that the BC was ID.

Certification refers to the confirmation of certain characteristics of an object, person,

WHOA... Rick Carne brings up a good point about 'EXTRACT,' i had never considered looking up that word before.

http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/E/e-0466.jpg

RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE: a non-negotiable evidence of debt, or debenture, issued by authority of a COURT of chancery...

http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/R/r-1001.jpg

yep a receipt of the property a courtesy of it by the government which f**** us

that was given/ delivered away at birth

oh and it gets worse. they're the ones financially responsible for raising the child but they convince us f****** dumb motherfuckers to do it robbing us of our equity

EXTRACT: ...In Scotch law, the certified copy, by a clerk of a court, of the proceedings in an action carried on before the court, and of the judgment pronounced; containing also an ORDER for EXECUTION or proceedings thereupon.

RECEIVER'S CERTIFICATE: a non-negotiable evidence of debt, or debenture, ISSUED by authority of a COURT of chancery...

a Birth Certificate says when it was "Issued" on it, right.....?

ISSUES (noun): ...the giving a thing its first inception; as the issue of an ORDER or a writ.

ISSUES (verb): ...as, an officer issues ORDERS, process issues from a COURT. To put into circulation; as, the TREASURY issues NOTES.

..the Birth Certificates used to say on the back of them- "Revenue Receipt...FOR TREASURY USE ONLY" !

http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/I/i-0645.jpg

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._730/FullText.html

I'm definitely interested Chad Brodgesell, I appreciate what you have to offer.

I must apologize to the group,.. I made a statement wherein I asserted that "no where will you find the definition of "person" will you find the word "man" associated with it..or something similar..anyway, I just read a case where it is Stated>>"A "person" has been defined as a man, considered according to rank he holds in society,with all right to which place he holds entitles him and duties it imposes,but as possibly including artificial beings,such as corporations. People v. Guzzardo, 124 N.E. 2d 39,41, 4th App. 2d 355.

Continue to make assumptions as to what I said when all you have to do is read what I wrote. Stuart Stone sry but I REALLY do think there is no real interest in what I might bring forward to the discussion. So far no one has addressed the actual BC. Now here is where others bring up other papers without addressing the actual documents. Kinda like "Let's NOT discuss the actual document but let's talk about this other paper" Thats a circle jerk which I will not participate in. Obviously I am to stupid ask a question and make comments in return. I shall now look at my actual documents and take them as false paper. Carry on.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_in_due_course

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZVWdYTUtFcI#t=215

Rick Carne..Quote:unless your past as surety for that person has been corrected

NOTARIZED PUBLIC NOTICE ?

Or NOTARIZED Public Notice of Mistake ? :D

All this from asking a question. This teaches me to NOT ask questions here. This shit is so important as EVERY THING FORWARD from the LBR and BC is FROM the LBR AND BC. Challenge, Both “BIRTH CERTIFICATES” are **BASICALLY** the same. They consist of TWO (2) parts, 1) the Certificate it self, 2) the information (which is an EXTRACT from the LBR) printed on the Certificate itself. To say that The Certificate is a **COPY** I think is FALSE. The Ontario BC **SPECIFICALLY** states at the bottom “Canadian Bank Note”. “Is anyone telling me that this is a *copy*?… It itself was printed AS A “Canadian Bank Note”, “Certificate”, “Promissory Note”, just in blank. The Alberta BC **SPECIFICALLY** states on the back **this certificate** (promissory note) and that the **EXTRACTED** information is printed ON THE CERTIFICATE.

So we have 1) The Certificate/ Bank Note itself which is **ORIGINAL** and then, 2) The **EXTRACTED** (the copied) information then printed on the **ORIGINAL** Certificate/ Bank Note itself.

I am PRESENTING the ACTUAL documents themselves for all to see AND READ. I am NOT producing ANY OTHER documents. PERIOD. Just the Birth Certificates themselves. I DO NOT CARE about ANY OTHER documents as THEY WERE NOT GIVEN/ASKED for regarding the Birth Certificates. ONLY what can be produced to be, by possession of.

So far I have heard that the Birth Certificate is a **COPY**. I call, BULLSHIT! The Birth Certificate itself IS ORIGINAL, it is the EXTRACTED information that is a copy. The Birth Certificate CONSISTS of TWO (2) PARTS. Using ONLY the documentation at hand (the Birth Certificates I have posted photos of), I CHALLENGE **ANY ONE** to PROVE otherwise what I have said in the past, or above, REGARDING the Birth Certificates. Do not forget, I am only using the ACTUAL documents themselves. ***READ the FUCKING Birth Certificates. *** As to what transpired with the signing of the LBR by our parent/parents and the BC I have an opinion based only on thinking about the subject matter regarding our rights that we gained the moment we were born on this land and what was then agreed upon on our behalf by our Parents. How ever that is another story and off topic regarding my comments above. Please Scott Duncan or other Admin Please FUCKING BAN ME because I keep getting drawn back only to get in to USELESS FUCKING arguments ***JUST BY ASKING A FUCKING QUESTION*** which by the way, STILL HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED! Proof is an answer, Opinion is not. Oh wait a sec....I can just leave. Fuck me.

Chad, I just thought of something Andrew said. Loosely quoted about asking the wrong questions "you can ask if the sky is blue, by that doesn't answer your question of how to fly". I've been thinking about this. What if we accept that IT IS what IT IS....(the sky is blue) and learn to fly. Now the question becomes....how do we take off?

I honestly am in the same boat as you....i only have theories of what the document is....but I know it REGISTERS the name in COMMERCE and creates a PERSON. After that, I am not positive. I think it is an indemnity coupon in the States under the Lieber Code Section 38. I think the more important question is:

HOW DO WE USE IT TO OUR BENEFIT?

I've spent about 2.5 years asking and learning HOW the sky was blue. That was mis-spent time because I still can't fly.....agree?

LOL - so Chad, out of curiosity as i havent really been following this thread.....what WAS your original question, btw? ;)