Have you seen 'London's Burning' trailer on BBC?

[digitalgain]

true, but even when you see the custody seargent just refuse to give your name and say that is the property of the state, i have no claim to that name, i am a free person/spirit.

what will happen then, you guessed it they will let you go (unless you have actually committed a crime)

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by digitalgain

The area devastated by fire was central London, After the fire the City Of London (The Financial Crown District was created)

From Temple bar in the West to the Tower Of London in the East (North of the river).

This spawned the Corporation of London (now the Financial District)

By the Crown then registering every new born as a corporation they are liable to statutes and acts. Basicialy we are entered in to servitude within 42 days of being born, the Crown register us as a Corporation!
It is a supposed legal requirement to register every birth (and death) within 42 days to the supposed birth & death registrar.
Note the use of the word registrar, what it really means is registering! Registering a corporation!

Check your birth certificate and note these 2 salient points:
"NOT TO BE USED AS PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION"
"PROPERTY OF THE CROWN"

The Royals are registering every person born in the UK as a corporation,
Why do you think the Police ask you 2 questions...
Name & Date Of Birth!
They are tricking you in to a contract with the Crown, By telling them your name and date of birth you are accepting a contract with the Crown!
You are accepting you are a registered corporation wit the crown, you are accepting that registered contract (your birth certificate).

This is how they hold us in servitude, we are not free, we are not a democracy, we are a bunch of slaves asleep serving a tyrannical system.

If every person in the UK denied being who there are registered as on their birth certificate then we could easily topple this Royal scam!

IT SAYS "NOT TO BE USED AS PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION"
SO DENY BEING THAT PERSON ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE,

THIS IS THE SCAM THAT HOLDS US IN SERVITUDE!

BY REGISTERING YOU THE ROYALS HAVE STOLEN YOUR FREEDOM. YOU ARE LOCKED IN TO THE SYSTEM.

I have a British Birth Certificate and it says neither "NOT TO BE USED AS PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION" [B]nor[/N] "PROPERTY OF THE CROWN".

Obviously I am not in servitude.

[digitalgain]

What does it say at the bottom of this certificate?

http://www.pask.org.uk/Certificates/...an-Michael.jpg

1. A certificate is NOT evidence of identity
2. Caution, there are offences relating to falsifying or altering a certificate and using or possessing a false certificate CROWN COPYRIGHT

so a certificate is not and cannot be used as evidence of identification.

and CROWN COPYRIGHT,
maybe you are retarded but that means the Crown OWN it, it is their property.

Can you not see the scam? it is so bleeding obvious!

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by digitalgain

What does it say at the bottom of this certificate?

http://www.pask.org.uk/Certificates/...an-Michael.jpg

1. A certificate is NOT evidence of identity
2. Caution, there are offences relating to falsifying or altering a certificate and using or possessing a false certificate CROWN COPYRIGHT

so a certificate is not and cannot be used as evidence of identification.

and CROWN COPYRIGHT,
maybe you are retarded but that means the Crown OWN it, it is their property.

Can you not see the scam? it is so bleeding obvious!

My Birth Certificate is the original one issued at my birth in 1943 and is handwritten. I see yours is a copy issued in 2009 so the format has obviously changed in that time.

Obviously a certificate cannot be used for identification because there is nothing to stop anyone applying for a copy of my certificate, or yours, and then pretending to be me or you on the basis of having a copy of the birth certificate. I think it may now be more difficult to get a copy since people had applied for certificates for someone else using the method written about in the book 'Day of the Jackal'.

As for Crown Copyright it is not me who is retarded sunshine. I suggest you look up the meaning of copyright and then come back to me. The Crown/State owns the blank Certificate and the design of that certificate, not the person detailed on it.

"Crown copyright applies "[w]here a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties".

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by dolores1

Digitalgain the SODs also had a rushed meeting that night in Parliament in 1666 with a very few members and produced the act "Ceste Que Vie" - are you alive! After which they then declared every man and woman dead!

This act is still current and you have 7 years after you are born to claim your rights and your rights to your wealth; held in your name as a bond! This is what the SODs trade on the SE daily! YOU! US and our children! Bond slaves to their system!

The "Ceste Que Vie" says nothing of the sort. Here is a link to it

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ch...1/introduction

Please read it and then quote where it says what you think it says.

Here is an official explanation of the Act.

"The Cestui que Vie Act 1666 is still in force but parts of it have been
amended or repealed over the years. Specifically:

The preamble was amended by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948;

Section 2 was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948;

Section 3 was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863; and

Section 4 was amended by the Statute Law Revision Act 1888.

The Act provides for the recovery of a lease where the life tenant
has disappeared for seven or more years and there is no proof that the
person is still alive. In this situation, the Act gives the court the
power to declare the life tenant dead. Th ere are very few references to
the statute in the textbooks I have checked, suggesting it is little used.
The following extract was taken from Halsbury's Statute Volume 20
(2009 reissue).

In the normal form of a strict settlement (which by virtue of the
[1]Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, s 2, cannot in
general be created on or after 1 January 1997) a limitation to a life
tenant invariably precedes one to a tenant in tail in order to restrict
the tenant in tail's power to bar the entail. Save where there is a trust
for sale, the land will fall within the [2]Settled Land Act 1925 (see s 1
of that Act) and, if the life tenant is of full age, he will be the
statutory tenant for life under s 19 of that Act, in whom the fee simple
should be vested in trust for himself and the remaindermen. The Cestui que
Vie Acts 1666 and 1707 help to ascertain whether a life tenant is still
alive."

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...ls_of_past_act

[elshaper]

I thought this was London's burning thread but 2 out 3 pages are all about birth certificate
So why does this thread deserves a sticky? OP is on warning too

[dacey69]

This trailer strikes me as extremely symbolic also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6z7_o1ck4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6z7_o1ck4

[wakeupworld]

Originally Posted by digitalgain

Look on a birth certificate and you will see it says:
A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY

So it is not legally proof the bearer is the person named on it.

THAT IS THE SCAM

So if it cannot be used as evidence of identity then why do the Police ask for this information?
Because if you accept this document you accept being a corporation and not an individual free person (which you are or at least were before the Crown registered you on your Birth Certificate).




And thanks for those links majorlee

There is no doubt in my experience that even some peace officers know that the person is a legal fiction.
Not 100% sure that the name and birth certificate are crown copyright, as someone pointed out to me which I never thought about, maybe the only paper is crown copyright?

As for the BBC clip certainly is a bizarre choice that could well be a pre-warning of what is planned for London during the Olympics, may as well name it now not the Olympic games, but The Olympic Flames

[digitalgain]

the crown owns the original certified document and you are issued a copy of this document, it is not the original.
that is why your version is copyright (it is a copy) (the crown own the original certified document)
which your parents willingly submitted on the birth record (recorded by a registrar) IE registering that person as a corporation.

They hound you to submit within 42 Days and "apparently" it is a legal requirement, although i would like to see the Law that enforces this!
You can go to any register office to register the birth of your baby. If you go to the register office in the district where the birth took place, they can issue a birth certificate straight after the registration.

It is a con! Once you have registered a birth you have enslaved your child to statutes, acts etc etc taxes and so on.

Go check Santos Bonnaci on Youtube, he explains it thoroughly

[wakeupworld]

Originally Posted by digitalgain

the crown owns the original certified document and you are issued a copy of this document, it is not the original.
that is why your version is copyright (it is a copy) (the crown own the original certified document)
which your parents willingly submitted on the birth record (recorded by a registrar) IE registering that person as a corporation.

They hound you to submit within 42 Days and "apparently" it is a legal requirement, although i would like to see the Law that enforces this!
You can go to any register office to register the birth of your baby. If you go to the register office in the district where the birth took place, they can issue a birth certificate straight after the registration.

It is a con! Once you have registered a birth you have enslaved your child to statutes, acts etc etc taxes and so on.

Go check Santos Bonnaci on Youtube, he explains it thoroughly

I know of Santos and the info you gave i`m aware of that to the point of is the copyright for the (bond) paper or for the name, otherwise it`s guessing games and presumptions and assumptions. However I`m inclined to agree with you but have no (that dreaded word) proof.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by digitalgain

the crown owns the original certified document and you are issued a copy of this document, it is not the original.
that is why your version is copyright (it is a copy) (the crown own the original certified document)
which your parents willingly submitted on the birth record (recorded by a registrar) IE registering that person as a corporation.

They hound you to submit within 42 Days and "apparently" it is a legal requirement, although i would like to see the Law that enforces this!
You can go to any register office to register the birth of your baby. If you go to the register office in the district where the birth took place, they can issue a birth certificate straight after the registration.

It is a con! Once you have registered a birth you have enslaved your child to statutes, acts etc etc taxes and so on.

Go check Santos Bonnaci on Youtube, he explains it thoroughly

The law about registering a child is the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 which you could easily have looked up for yourself. The Birth record goes into a register and the Birth Certificate is a copy of the details entered in the Register. The Certificate is copyrighted not the information on it.

The suggestion that a child is registered as a corporation is absolute nonsense and there isn't a shred of evidence to prove it. The idea that by not registering a child that same child is not obligated to obey the Law and pay taxes is hilarious. Good luck with trying it!

As for Santos Bonnaci he talks a lot of crap. His videos are full of errors which are easily pointed out and disproved.

[digitalgain]

Originally Posted by rapunzel

The law about registering a child is the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 which you could easily have looked up for yourself. The Birth record goes into a register and the Birth Certificate is a copy of the details entered in the Register. The Certificate is copyrighted not the information on it.

The suggestion that a child is registered as a corporation is absolute nonsense and there isn't a shred of evidence to prove it. The idea that by not registering a child that same child is not obligated to obey the Law and pay taxes is hilarious. Good luck with trying it!

As for Santos Bonnaci he talks a lot of crap. His videos are full of errors which are easily pointed out and disproved.

Yes, yet another ACT, not a LAW
HUGE DIFFERENCE!

[innocenti]

There's a vid on youtube I saw once, explaining how a birth certificate is how to sign your child over to the state. If that child needs to go into care for instance, social services can just take it because you have signed it over to the authorities already.
Apparently same with a vehicle logbook. When they say "We can crush your vehicle-we have a legal right to" This is why.
Think the vid was tied in with the brummie man who was filming 2 police officers.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by digitalgain

Yes, yet another ACT, not a LAW
HUGE DIFFERENCE!

You may think an Act is not Law but most people will disagree as I do.

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by rapunzel

You may think an Act is not Law but most people will disagree as I do.

Yes, it is law - but it can only be legally enforced by consent.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by phildee3

Yes, it is law - but it can only be legally enforced by consent.

Prove it.

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Prove it.

Let T be a cluster tree. Let p be an open formula in L, whose free variables are the symbols of T. Let O be an om-space that is dense and unbounded above. If one instantiation Z of T in O satisfies p then every instantiation of T in O satisfies p.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by phildee3

Let T be a cluster tree. Let p be an open formula in L, whose free variables are the symbols of T. Let O be an om-space that is dense and unbounded above. If one instantiation Z of T in O satisfies p then every instantiation of T in O satisfies p.

And don't forget to divide the result by zero.

[snakesnladders]

aliens have been directing the course of human history here since civilisation began.

the wiped humans out in the great flood - myths worldwide confirm there must have been such an event; whenever it took place. there is a sumerian flood epic called the epic of gilgamesh. noah's name here is utnapishtim. this epic refers to giants.

a reason given for the great flood was that 'god' (one of the alien leaders) wanted to wipe out the race of giants. (and was mostly successful in doing so)... see reports of fossilised giants found in america and the uk....
all nations have legends of an ancient race of giants, including the australian aborigines. they say the first people to live here were giants. i heard it direct from an aboriginal elder, in fact.

they wiped out some immoral (so the bible says) humans in the city of sodom and gomorrah; which sounds as if it sustained an atom bomb hit to me...

you should read WILLIAM BRAMLEY'S book GODS OF EDEN from amazon.com if you want info about how aliens have been intervening in human affairs by starting wars; using ufos; starting plagues to trim populations etc...

he notes that in those days it was believed the gods were bringing the black death plague to kill humans around the world. the plaque was preceded by a 'foul mist' which people of those days thought brought the plague. it probably did too - i.e. chemical/biological alien weapons of mass destruction.

only in these so called enlightened times we are all assured it was caused by fleas.... believe what you choose....

anyway; for more info read William Bramley's book...

it all ties in with this thread about the olympics i think....

[dolamite]

I noticed this yesterday in an Adidas Olympics commercial

NEW London 2012 Olympic warning hidden message!!!!!!!!!!!!.wmv - YouTube

NEW London 2012 Olympic warning hidden message!!!!!!!!!!!!.wmv - YouTube