Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29-10-2010, 11:08 PM   #1
merlincove
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,537
Default Relinquishing the Birth Certificate contract

IMHO

The person is the entity that animates a birth certificate that is in itself nothing more than an extension of the state and it's accepted control over the person.

As far as i can comprehend, the numbers on the BC value the human being as a slave, and like the tattoos enforced on the Jewish population of Germany, the numbers are our slave numbers that tie us into a state controlled electorate: the numbers that turn the human being into a wager toward policy used to enslave us.

The birth certificate is the societal contract entered and agreed to through application of registration to centralised power – a contract that ties the human being into being a person (an item owned by and therefore under governance of the state) – tying the man and woman into contract with a centralised corporate entity and binding the man and woman to its rules, just like a contract of employment with any other corporation.

The numbers then equate to a payroll number, and where the applicant applies for any benefit, then the payroll number is applied through payments of National Insurance contribution – the national insurance equates to naught more than an insurance policy whose plan pays out in respect of illness, sickness, times of unemployment and retirement: whereas the BC pays the contracted party to attend to the corporations orders.

Where the NI number comes into effect in respect of the adult, tying the man and woman into state control through their application and affording them cover in certain eventualities as per any regular insurance plan – the BC then is a contract giving considerations in regard to social contracts whose reward is child benefit when the child is enrolled into statutory regulative accounts such as education, child welfare and inoculation programmes – the consideration being such a reward on the families side and enrolment into the given Statutory Acts on the side of the State.

The BC then is a contract (it also fulfils all aspects of contract law).

How can that contract be broken? How can one surrender the Birth Certificate and null the contract entered into for us by our parents?

Our parents received the benefit of the contract in respect of monies received, and the Statutory regulations set within such a contract were dully met in accordance with attendance of schools and for the most part enrolment into a vaccination programme.

As adults one might look at the structural contract and see that it applies to societal contract of obedience to societal rule, and as free thinking adults we have the right to apply our own understanding of Self into the equation, assert equality as a maxim of Common Law and step aside from Societal contracts that put our trust in others’ hands, taking up ones own Trust and attending to Self responsibility, taking the power of such away from Societies governors and bringing it back to Self.

Is it so simple as to lay claim to the Self as a divine entity existing under the rule of god alone and as equal to every other man and woman (sovereignty)?

A get out of any contract usually involves ‘buying out’ the trustee of the contract (re the BC contract / bond – the registrar signs on behalf of the state, atoning the BC as a bond {as per bond between one person and another** while your parent(s) sign on your behalf, fulfilling the bond) or paying a compensation to the trustee for any losses incurred in closure of contract.

So, as I see it, cancellation / nulling of the contract requires a consideration to be given to the trustee of such a contract – such may be a teller amount equal to proposed taxation payments, but as one is moving away from societal contract, taxation becomes irrelevant as it is in itself covered by the societal contract that no longer applies to the Self.

Surely, that the full terms and conditions of the Birth Certificate contract were not made available at the point of signature of the given referee’s and ‘informants’ – then the contract can be considered null and void and the slave number returned to centralised corporate HQ as it is no longer needed in respect of the emergence of Self from the person. Whereas the person is a child of the state / province, the Self is equal to the concept of adulthood, wherein the child becomes free of its needs of the state and surrenders all bonds (bondage) to such.

But then in acclaiming to Equality, I am eternally troubled by the concept that wherein every other man and woman retain such bonds and slave numbers, how can Equality exist wherein I do not retain such having relinquished such numbers and bondages?

It comes to pass then that every man and woman remains a child of the state, and as children have no (or at least limited) rights: their continued abstinence to becoming free of such by ‘growing’ into Self remains their own prison.

What are others thoughts on this?

Is it possible to break the societal contract papers that represent the BC – without attending to gain a certificate of death

And what do others think of my rambling theory?

Last edited by merlincove; 29-10-2010 at 11:32 PM.
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 12:13 AM   #2
lizardlover
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: At The Lounge
Posts: 648
Default

So what about countries that don't have a NI number or SIN number or SSN number, are they already free then and the evil NWO didn't bother to implement their evil scheme in those countries for some nefarious reason?
lizardlover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 12:19 AM   #3
merlincove
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,537
Default

They have less refined ways of slave control.

But the OP never mentioned such states, and deals directly with Birth Certs as per uk issue (predominantly) and commonwealth states, and i'd thank you for not attending to derail such with asides
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 01:09 AM   #4
mfrey0118
Senior Member
 
mfrey0118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 448
Default

Isn't the Strawman considered a Beneficiary? Can't a Beneficiary elect to stop receiving benefits by collapsing the Trust?
__________________
Deception, by its very nature, is a self-fulfilling prophecy, needing nothing more than a single act of compromise to unleash a fury that will not stop until everything in its path is consumed.
mfrey0118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 01:12 AM   #5
alisa2
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,735
Default

merlincove wrote:
Quote:
Surely, that the full terms and conditions of the Birth Certificate contract were not made available at the point of signature of the given referee’s and ‘informants’ – then the contract can be considered null and void and the slave number returned to centralised corporate HQ as it is no longer needed in respect of the emergence of Self from the person. Whereas the person is a child of the state / province, the Self is equal to the concept of adulthood, wherein the child becomes free of its needs of the state and surrenders all bonds (bondage) to such.
The government agency that created the birth certificate most likely will not purge it from their records unless by court order. In other words, if you intend to cancel the birth certificate, the only way of guaranteeing cancellation is to go through the courts otherwise your paperwork will probably be ignored by the gov. agency. You'd probably have to sue social security also because without the birth certificate (if you had any money invested in social security) you would not be able to apply for benefits due to no government I.D.

Birth certificates are equity. Social security is equity. Common law went out the window upon application of a gov. birth certificate. Most, if not all, law today is equity. Equity is not the common law, so if you want to sue you'd really have to have a good handle on what common law is to apply it and get remedy [under the common law] in your case.

Last edited by alisa2; 30-10-2010 at 06:55 PM.
alisa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 04:32 AM   #6
lizardlover
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: At The Lounge
Posts: 648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
They have less refined ways of slave control.

But the OP never mentioned such states, and deals directly with Birth Certs as per uk issue (predominantly) and commonwealth states, and i'd thank you for not attending to derail such with asides
I wasn't trying to derail anything. I was just trying to figure out if this was a scheme to register a BC which in turn leads to some sort of unique ID number that the government can track you by, why don't all governments do it? Why do some countries get off free, and if thats the case, wouldn't these countries be the perfect freeman utopia's?
lizardlover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 06:23 PM   #7
alisa2
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizardlover View Post
I wasn't trying to derail anything. I was just trying to figure out if this was a scheme to register a BC which in turn leads to some sort of unique ID number that the government can track you by, why don't all governments do it? Why do some countries get off free, and if thats the case, wouldn't these countries be the perfect freeman utopia's?

Kingdom of Bhutan: A government that remains free of corruption:
A place where they don't number their people and a place where weed grows in abundance unregulated by the government.

fast forward to 3:14... streets are paved with weed but virtually no one smokes it.


Last edited by alisa2; 30-10-2010 at 07:40 PM.
alisa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 08:35 PM   #8
lesactive
Senior Member
 
lesactive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,221
Default

Good post Merlincove. I have a few points to share regarding your thoughts that may help you see things a wee bit differently, or not!
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
As far as i can comprehend, the numbers on the BC value the human being as a slave, and like the tattoos enforced on the Jewish population of Germany, the numbers are our slave numbers that tie us into a state controlled electorate: the numbers that turn the human being into a wager toward policy used to enslave us.
I don't think it's the same type of thing as Jewish tattoos given the quasi-voluntary nature of the BC. We have a choice, harsh as it may turn out to be, to use the name or not. The tattoos were assigned to them and were an authoritarian violation of their natural rights. From what I can tell, at least according to statutes that I've read (Ontario, Canada), the name as it appears on the BC is an entitlement. It is in fact, specifically referred to as such. If it's an entitlement, as they say, then the gov't retains an interest in it and so by that adhesion we are held liable for its use. Now, given that courts have ruled repeatedly that one can go by any name one wishes so long as fraud is not the intent, I see that it is a choice to be recognized by the full legal name
and nothing is obligatory. It's what happens after the issuance of the BC

Quote:
The birth certificate is the societal contract entered and agreed to through application of registration to centralised power – a contract that ties the human being into being a person (an item owned by and therefore under governance of the state) – tying the man and woman into contract with a centralised corporate entity and binding the man and woman to its rules, just like a contract of employment with any other corporation.
Again, I believe it's a choice. Firstly, by the parents who initiate the registration, then by the holder of the BC through acquiescence of use. This is just hearsay to me but I read a tidbit from the Privy Council of Canada that stated, "use of the BC is what holds one liable to the statutes".
Quote:
The BC then is a contract (it also fulfils all aspects of contract law).
I partially agree, it's a type of one anyway. It doesn't fully kick into effect, as in holds your body and mind as surety, until you are mature enough to supposedly fully understand what the name represents and what kind of liability is involved when you use it in commerce and for political actions when seeking the benefits that the gov't bestows.

Quote:
How can that contract be broken? How can one surrender the Birth Certificate and null the contract entered into for us by our parents?
Instead of nulling/voiding the contract, why not alter its intent. As it is, when you use the name as based upon the BC you enjoy both the benefits and obligations (natch!) of ownership. If everything done in the name is tethered to the interest that the gov't has in it then true ownership is impossible. All rights in property fall to the Crown. Are we acting fraudulently by claiming ownership of property once we know to whom/what holds the original claim and inevitable ownership?

Again, I see it as a choice as to how the the BC is used. Perhaps the answer is as simple as surrendering just the equity interest in property. In this case, however, it would have to be the equity in everything, including when you labour for income. If you no longer use money but instead surrender it and the equity in the property you hold, voluntarily out of love for the rest of us who are also a part of you, how then can you pay anything? The courts state again and again that the owner of interest in a thing or property pays the obligations incurred as result of ownership, not necessarily mere use of that property. Someone has to pay so it would have to be, as a function of law, they who hold the equitable interest. Think of it as a gift. You reap what you sow.

Quote:
As adults one might look at the structural contract and see that it applies to societal contract of obedience to societal rule, and as free thinking adults we have the right to apply our own understanding of Self into the equation, assert equality as a maxim of Common Law and step aside from Societal contracts that put our trust in others’ hands, taking up ones own Trust and attending to Self responsibility, taking the power of such away from Societies governors and bringing it back to Self.
That may be an option but I'm not fully comfortable with relying on the words of others through the common law to assert responsibility. The language is as alien as the processes involved are labourious. If your intent is to leave the confines and benefits of 'society' then perhaps.

Quote:
Is it so simple as to lay claim to the Self as a divine entity existing under the rule of god alone and as equal to every other man and woman (sovereignty)?
Probably a bit more to it than that but I think that it's the best place to begin.

Quote:
A get out of any contract usually involves ‘buying out’ the trustee of the contract (re the BC contract / bond – the registrar signs on behalf of the state, atoning the BC as a bond {as per bond between one person and another** while your parent(s) sign on your behalf, fulfilling the bond) or paying a compensation to the trustee for any losses incurred in closure of contract.

So, as I see it, cancellation / nulling of the contract requires a consideration to be given to the trustee of such a contract – such may be a teller amount equal to proposed taxation payments, but as one is moving away from societal contract, taxation becomes irrelevant as it is in itself covered by the societal contract that no longer applies to the Self.
Careful of the "let 'em eat cake" scenario. Money is the cake. Give it all and you'll reap the 'rewards' without having to forsake the societal benefits you choose to partake in that aren't commercial. It would be your house to use, your car to drive, your hospital, your library, and etc. but the owner would be paying for it. So why then, would you need the money?

Same thing goes for the gov't interest. They don't want the physical property, it's useless to them. They want the money. If the property is held in trust by the gov't as a pledge/gift of equity they then have the full book value of that property to use as they require. Look at it this way: If the gov't has equitable and legal title interest in a property that took your labour to acquire, do you then think that they could take it from you? That's the other cake scenario. I know some here will balk at the thought of losing control over the fruits of their labour but we have to be honest and generous with ourselves and others if we're to begin to see how to act for each other, as one.

Quote:
Surely, that the full terms and conditions of the Birth Certificate contract were not made available at the point of signature of the given referee’s and ‘informants’ – then the contract can be considered null and void and the slave number returned to centralised corporate HQ as it is no longer needed in respect of the emergence of Self from the person. Whereas the person is a child of the state / province, the Self is equal to the concept of adulthood, wherein the child becomes free of its needs of the state and surrenders all bonds (bondage) to such.

But then in acclaiming to Equality, I am eternally troubled by the concept that wherein every other man and woman retain such bonds and slave numbers, how can Equality exist wherein I do not retain such having relinquished such numbers and bondages?
Therein lies the choice again. Unfortunately, we aren't given the information that might lead to understanding to make that choice, we have to sleuth that out ourselves. Which is why I'm grateful for forums like this that help to spread this kind of thing. "A man is presumed to know what he is doing." Hard to do when the keys are hidden.

Quote:
It comes to pass then that every man and woman remains a child of the state, and as children have no (or at least limited) rights: their continued abstinence to becoming free of such by ‘growing’ into Self remains their own prison.
Almost as it should be, indoctrination and propaganda are powerful tools wielded in the interest of those holding the reins. And I'm sure you recall the 5 monkeys experiment metaphor. It's a tough slog.

Quote:
Is it possible to break the societal contract papers that represent the BC – without attending to gain a certificate of death
I sure hope so. Though you might get a cheaper flight with a death certificate
__________________
felix- I have staff that do that for me.-k

Eggs, he's talking about cooking eggs.

Last edited by lesactive; 30-10-2010 at 09:31 PM.
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 09:23 PM   #9
freedavep
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 201
Default

Perhaps renouncing your citizenship would take care of that pesky ol' Birth Certificate. I don't see how someone who is "stateless" can have one.

Maybe you could write the Govt. and say you are switching over to the Amish faith and it's a sin (worshiping false gods) to be a part of a political body that is against your religion.

George Gordon in the States claims he doesn't have one, I think he stated that it's a "Rescission of Contract". But you might have to prove that a contract already exists.

Maybe it has to do with a "withdrawal of application" such as Social Security in the States.

I'll see what I can come up with. If we all put our heads together we'll come up with it.

I know where you're coming from, I'd like to have some sort of Confirmation from the Govt. that I'm no longer registered with them (legal entity).

Cheers
freedavep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 09:46 PM   #10
swiftex
Senior Member
 
swiftex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 1,668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
They have less refined ways of slave control.

But the OP never mentioned such states, and deals directly with Birth Certs as per uk issue (predominantly) and commonwealth states, and i'd thank you for not attending to derail such with asides

Ok, so we have a contract...



1. we are either in (abide by the terms of the contract),


a) one sided contract entered into without knowledge (contra proferentem);



2. or out (disassociate completely from the terms of the contract),

a. Learn a way to legally break the contract,


b. Learn a way to collect on the contract for it's balance up to the date of severance of the contract,


c. thereafter waive consent and benefit of the social contract...


__________________
*all swiftex posts are the property of this poster and not to be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without the express consent of it's author either directly or indirectly, over and under, in or out, in perpetuity;

Last edited by swiftex; 30-10-2010 at 09:48 PM.
swiftex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 01:23 AM   #11
tinyint
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Meerkat Manor
Posts: 20,806
Default

I guess my BC contract is null and void then.
The "state" doesn't exist anymore.
tinyint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 01:25 AM   #12
alisa2
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyint View Post
I guess my BC contract is null and void then.
The "state" doesn't exist anymore.

Birth certificates aren't needed for the state to exist. They are needed for the "welfare" state to exist.

Last edited by alisa2; 31-10-2010 at 01:31 AM.
alisa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 01:34 AM   #13
tinyint
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Meerkat Manor
Posts: 20,806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alisa2 View Post
Birth certificates aren't needed for the state to exist.
The "state" who signed my BC does not exist anymore. The signatory/contractor ceased to exist in 1990.
Now another illegal entity claims ownership without any legal base.

Its an interesting question, the OP raised in my/17 million cases, I never thought about before.

Last edited by tinyint; 31-10-2010 at 01:47 AM.
tinyint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 01:59 AM   #14
alisa2
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyint View Post
The "state" who signed my BC does not exist anymore. The signatory/contractor ceased to exist in 1990.
Now another illegal entity claims ownership without any legal base.

Its an interesting question, the OP raised in my/17 million cases, I never thought about before.

Birth certificates are needed for I.D. into the social security system which system is designed to keep you poor, hence the phrase "welfare state."

Here in the U.S. social security (i.e.,welfare) is a state function.
alisa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 02:08 AM   #15
tinyint
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Meerkat Manor
Posts: 20,806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alisa2 View Post
Birth certificates are needed for I.D. into the social security system which system is designed to keep you poor, hence the phrase "welfare state."

Here in the U.S. social security (i.e.,welfare) is a state function.
You don't probably get my point.

If a BC is signed and looks like this for example:



But the state and welfare does not exist anymore, but another illegal entity with welfare "takes over" the BC, but this entity also ceased to exist, how can they even claim ownership? Its basically fraudulent misrepresentation to me.

Last edited by tinyint; 31-10-2010 at 02:19 AM.
tinyint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 02:14 AM   #16
yozhik
Senior Member
 
yozhik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfrey0118 View Post
Isn't the Strawman considered a Beneficiary? Can't a Beneficiary elect to stop receiving benefits by collapsing the Trust?
Has the trust been expressed?
Is the SM the beneficiary or a trust in itself?

Why and how would the trust be collapsed?
By whom?
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 02:30 AM   #17
alisa2
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,735
Default

tinyint:

Birth certificates here in the U.S. look the same as yours. Ours have signatures and seals too.

I don't know what it means if there is no more state or state welfare. You would think that dissolving a state would make front page news.

I suppose it doesn't matter who took over the BC and would only become a problem if you wanted to sue.

Last edited by alisa2; 31-10-2010 at 02:31 AM.
alisa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 02:44 AM   #18
tinyint
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Meerkat Manor
Posts: 20,806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alisa2 View Post
tinyint:

Birth certificates here in the U.S. look the same as yours. Ours have signatures and seals too.

I don't know what it means if there is no more state or state welfare. You would think that dissolving a state would make front page news.

I suppose it doesn't matter who took over the BC and would only become a problem if you wanted to sue.
Well, the BC goes along with the citizenship, so it does matter big times.

As it is currently, only a birth certificate and that of parents, so a family tree, grant you here citizenship.
This means our passports and ID cards are basically no document/certificate of citizenship.
The state which claims to have citizenship, has in fact no own citizenship. Its a fraud.
Its impossible here, to get a certificate by our "authorities" to state that we are citizens of FRG (Ltd). They won't and can't do that. It'd be illegal by international law.

I guess this made it in the media, it was when the wall came down in 1989, and GDR and FRG ceased to exist 1 year later in 1990.

If you want to read more on what I am talking about, read this thread.
It will proof all this.
tinyint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 10:19 AM   #19
dontpushme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post
Has the trust been expressed?
Is the SM the beneficiary or a trust in itself?

Why and how would the trust be collapsed?
By whom?
who is the SM?
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2010, 10:32 AM   #20
yozhik
Senior Member
 
yozhik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,412
Default

SM = Strawman

[sorry]
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 AM.