Civil Registration Act 2004 (ireland)

[seanie]

I was looking into the Freemanery in ireland can't seem to find anything on it,
a while ago someone posted a tread about the amish and freemanery, the following an excerpt from the amish document

the best way to defend yourself against Contracts of Adhesion is to go back to the very seminal point of contract formation and attack the very
existence of the contract at its origin, by proving that you did not accept any benefits, since the adhesion contract, like all other contracts, came into effect whenever benefits, offered conditionally, were accepted by you. And where the records show that benefits have been accepted, the liability will always follow. Viewing this from a Judge's perspective, this means two things: When did you decline the benefits, and how did you
decline the benefits?

i found this while looking for information on registering births

The Civil Registration Act 2004 requires the parent(s) of a new-born child, not later than 3 months from the date of the birth, to attend in person before any registrar of births, to provide such information as is required to register the birth and to sign the register of births in the presence of the registrar.


here's a link to the civil registration act 2004 http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a304.pdf

can anyone that is law savvy help me to de-construct the act, i checked the legal definition of parent i got this the lawful and natural father or mother of a person so the laful and natural father or mother of a fictitious entity riiiight :confused:

[seanie]

i was looking again would you need to really look at the eariler act

Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland), 1880
here's a link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0036/print.html

[yozhik]

can anyone that is law savvy help me to de-construct the act, i checked the legal definition of parent i got this the lawful and natural father or mother of a person so the laful and natural father or mother of a fictitious entity riiiight :confused:

When I was looking through this area (not this specific law, but same subject) I was most disturbed about the definition of a parent, which seemed to come down to; those with parental rights and duties.

Parental rights, as illustrated by many divorce proceedings, come down to nothing more than visitation and the like. Parental duties appear to be defined as "maintenance".

What we seem to have is all of the responsibilities, but the (insert assumed master here) assumes all ownership rights. Now, I know the word "ownership" is an emotive one and sends us all into headspins, but I can't find a better word to describe it.

When "Family Services" takes the child away from an "abusive situation", they are in fact repossessing the asset of the corporation from an environment that may damage the goods and devalue its saleable security worth ...

Also, from ancient times, the child of a slave is born as a slave, and automatically becomes the property of the Master. So, if Mum and Dad haven't got their shit together and both remain bound by their birth certificate (which is proof of the owner's title to them), then little junior comes in to this world with few options, other than to free himself/herself of the shackles placed there out of ignorance, by the two people who had been given the duty of maintaining him/her, on behalf of the state owner.

Example

From the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, PART III section 13;
"parent" includes a guardian of the person and any person at law liable to maintain an infant or entitled to his custody;

In law, includes means; is restricted to.
So parents, according to this Act, is limited to;
1) a guardian of the person
2) any person at law liable to maintain an infant
3) any person at law entitled to his custody

Just for amusement, you might also like to see the definition of person, in this specific section of the Act;
"person" includes any school or institution.

So it has nothing whatsoever to do with a human being.
It is specifically (includes) referring to a school or an institution.

Pretty fucked up, when you think about it.

[yozhik]

i was looking again would you need to really look at the eariler act

Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland), 1880
here's a link http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0036/print.html

This Act mentions nothing re: an obligation or compulsion to register. It relates more to what information is required in the registration process.

[seanie]

thanks yozhik, i'm really interested in this subject just reading with lawful excuse, good book.

i'm thinking this subject might be a bit more straight foward then people think,
if you can claim your right, you dont actually have to worry about act/statutes
as they dont apply to you anymore, not to say that you can go around doing anything you want but you just don't have to deal with the bullshit hassle anymore.

the thing is though it only takes one person to do it in each region after that the rest can follow, i do understand that i should study and learn the law and language. as there is no point parrioting off a few one liners and not understanding it.

also i have got a summoms to court for non display of Tax disc and it's due, in around four months, I was wondering would i have to serve my NOU/COR before i can claim they have no jurisdiction.

what i'm really looking for is the original contract with the Irish Corporation, and i'm assuming that it starts with my birth cert/pps bond number.

PS, i will upload the summons i got if anyone wants to help with it. as i said if i can achieve this i have no problem and would take pleasure helping others in ireland achieve the same goal

[thebarfly1]

yeah it'd be great to see how you get on seanie, im based in laois and giving this thing some serious consideration, and trying to learn as much as i can, best of luck with it anyway. It'd be interesting to see how the irish society reacts, because as far as i can gather, no irishman appears to have gone down this route before