Sep 02, 2013 3:20 AM

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. ;-)