Birth Certificate Estate-Two Birthdates Exposed!!!

I will post about whatever topic I know is relevant to the mess this Nation and its citislaves are caught up in.

Your uneducated and unproven OPINIONS notwithstanding, I will call BS where I see it and what YOU would like has nothing to do with it.

Start you own damn thread about whatever you like and I will be happy to leave it alone and let the blind lead the blind down the path of destruction.

It would be funny if it did not have real world consequences like prison and loss of life.

you may think this is all fun and games, but as I have said, the .gov does not take people messing with this stuff lightly, so proceed at your own risk.

So how would one go about claiming the bc and colb from the state registrars office of their 5 year old child?
In the state of California. ???
Any and all help guidance is mightily appreciated.

Start at the State Registrars office, or the hospital where the child was 'delivered'.

Maybe read the actual documents signed with the hospital or the State and learn to look up legal definitions of words you think you know the meanings of.

Simply start at the beginning (the very first time you signed any agreement/contract for services) before the actual nativity of your offspring.

You have less than 2 years left, so get started now! And this thread is not where you should be spending any more time.

If you have any more questions, you can post them here:

Thread: Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul

and I will help the best I can, that way, certain others on this thread will not accuse me of "spam".

parents were supposed to claim the BC? dont thinks so mr redtext knowitall. i have heard that the father was supposed to claim the child by declaration though.

then you go on to say the parents had ownership then failed to claim the title.. whatever.


you sure seem to prefer contempt over courteousness (court eousness) by using adversarial argument and controversy with profanity thrown in.

not very honorable IMO do you even know what these words mean and why they are so important?

has the cop good guy vs bad guy not worn off yet or do you have high blood pressure or something?

and you say that there are no claims outside the constitution. that laughable!


Im no longer responding to your dishonorable, profane rants, it just doesnt make sense to do so.

I would simply go to the State Registrars office and say "I am here to claim the BC of my offspring, where do I start?"

Remember, your childs' feet prints are on that paperwork, you have the proof of claim right there on your living childs feet. Learn to ASK questions, there is no law against asking questions, when they start telling you to "consult an attorney" or "we cannot give legal advice" you know you are asking the correct questions.

Be VERY careful about filling out "paperwork" that requires ID or "legal name" from you and know you do not "have to sign" anything you do not fully comprehend (not UNDERstand, which is a legal term to stand under their definitions).

The man or woman have unalienable rights, the "legal person or HUEman, Citizen, rezIDent, legal name" (colored person at law) has nothing, so be very careful with "legal name", addresses, giving ID.

Just ask questions and see where those documents are NOW, even if you cannot GET them now.

read the thread. I posted info to a .pdf that might be helpful on just that, it is what another man did and his childrens records were sealed and Private. look for the link from the ecclesia org I posted a couple of pages back.

you may want to do it that way or consider other options.

the data dump link with KW has lots of info that will help you decide how to go about it the best way for you and yours.

Thank God for small miracles, feel free to stop posting at all since nothing you have posted makes any legal or lawful difference to the topic at hand.

I for one will be happy to continue to post without your moronic and utterly unfounded "thoughts" and suppositions, I think YOU are here to misdirect, confuse and detract from the truth of the matter.

Babies cannot enter into contracts and once of age, anything the parents did or did not do at the birth or thereafter have any legal or lawful bearing on the now 'adult' without said adults express consent or new contracts being put in place.

That is the truth you seem to what us to ignore.

Now run along and do not dishonor your statement not to respond to me again, child. Now the adults can proceed.

Or they could go ASK at the state Registrars office or hospital, but that makes too much sense for the true seekers who think sitting around endlessly sharing feeling, thoughts and ideas while never actually ever DOING anything is "honorable".

Faith without works is dead and so are persons forever seeking and never doing.

reader here are encouraged to observe the dates on the first two posts in this thread.

i think red text guy and the lawful money crowd are psyops.

the behavior pattern of this poster is obviously destructive instead of constructive.

i rule him in contempt of my court, and that is a court of consciousness.

poor little baby still thinks he can control what is not his to control.

🦄 does this unicorn make you feel better?

Babies cannot be bound by contracts, nor "law".

Babies cannot "consent".

"Parents" is a legal term.

Fathers and Mothers are co creators of offspring.

Legal constructs of parents have no legal, moral or lawful jurisdiction over any competent adult man or woman.

Want to know how to end the presumption, assumption or real trust between ANY 2 parties? Like say, you and the Government?

Here it is, ready? Say these magic words to any agent of any Government or "official" and see what happens:

"ON AND FOR THE RECORD: I DO NOT TRUST YOU".

There, the trust is GONE! nothing more needs to be said or done, answer any and all questions with that FACT and "they" will have no control over you unless you have actually harmed another man, woman, child or property of another.

thats it, "ON AND FOR THE RECORD I DO NOT TRUST YOU."

When a ship pulls into its berth (birth) and delivers the "goods", it does not turn over title to the "goods" to the harbor master. Only a manifest (birth record) is provided so the harbor master knows what the "goods" are. The harbor master only holds the "goods" for a fee until the rightful owner claims the "goods". The harbor master does not own the "goods". If the fee is not a paid and the "goods" not claimed, a lien is filed and the "goods" are auctioned off to satisfy the lien. The harbor master must hold the proceeds of the sale, in excess of the lien amount, for the owner of the goods to claim. Whether the owner of the "goods" claims those excess proceeds is up to the owner. The ship is long gone!

So there's your answer to who owns the "goods". The deliverer (bailor/mother) does not own the "goods". The receiver (bailee/govt) does not own the "goods". Who else is left to claim the "goods" (the body, soul and mind) of the cargo? Or if the cargo has been sold, claim the excess proceeds of the lien sale? ;)

And fees cannot be paid without redemption from the 1933 bankruptsy and the 1977 default.

As has been pointed out already.

The infant was declared DEAD because the harbor master Record keeper (the Registrar of deeds) was never contacted by the parents of Infant and after 7 years of sitting in the Birth, (see Declared death in absentia " "If the death is thought to have taken place in international waters or in a location without a centralized and reliable police force or vital statistics registration system, other laws may apply." maybe the hosptial is the harbor and the "discharge of the infant is into international waters???) the Property (goods and services) where, after 7 years presumed "lost at sea" by the State and seized and re-registered for the benefit of the new owner in rem.

To leave out the facts of maritime law after using maitime law to make your case, you ignore the foundation of your entire claim of redemption even being possible for goods and services that have been deemed dead (lost at sea) and then are liened since 1933.

There is no way to obtain the "gold or silver coin at face value" to pay ANY fee for your claim without first removing the LIEN on the property (the gold or silver you are using to pay with).

The redemption clause found in 12 USC 411 is there for that exact reason, because the use of FRN in any form creates a "first lien on all goods and services in the economy". (that link was already provided and ignored).

To deny those facts of law makes the entire emancipation of any goods or services impossible, that is not my opinion, it is a function of law (martime AND law of the land).

ALL GOODS AND SERVICES ARE FIRST LIENED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE. All means all, redmeption of any goods or services ((paymment in lawful money of the Untited States ((31 USC 5115)), is NOT possible without proof of demand for lawful money on the record recognised by the Government, The Federal Reserve and in accordance with their statutes AND laws (law of the sea AND law of the land).

Every jot and tittle must be fullfilled:

"The word tittle is rarely used. Its most prominent occurrence is in the Christian Bible at Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (KJV)."

That is Gods law and mans and it stands without your agreement, ignore it at your own risk.

That's all well and good but if the "goods" are auctioned for lack of payment of lien (which I maintain is literally a Treasury auction), the lien is satisfied by the proceeds of the sale, per UCC! I've said numerous times that the lien payment by the "owner" only applies if the "goods" were not sold at auction to satisfy the lien.

Near the end of her life Ayn Rand showed some hypocrisy; reference:
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

QUOTE: In 1964 Nathaniel Branden [Branden ran an institute promoting Objectivist philosophy and was a sexual partner to Rand in spite of the fact that she was married] began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, which led to the closure of NBI. Rand published an article in The Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life". Branden later apologized in an interview to "every student of Objectivism" for "perpetuating the Ayn Rand mystique" and for "contributing to that dreadful atmosphere of intellectual repressiveness that pervades the Objectivist movement." In subsequent years, Rand and several more of her closest associates parted company.

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking. In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney's office, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare. During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.

END QUOTE

Ayn Rand was anti-socialist and anti-communist in her speeches and writings, but when offered benefits - took the benefits.

Continuing from there;

Cultural Marxism - Why are we in Decline
Video: [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] (1hr, 23.3 min)

One point I repeatedly make is that the elite bankers push socialism for the masses and private ownership of the banks. The effect is to finally vest ownership of everything - all land, industry, natural resources, and even the people's intellectual and physical labor - becomes vested ownership to the banks.

Much of what I write is to create a system of socialistic ownership of the banking system by all of the people and private ownership of everything else. This simple proposal reverses the communist model.

www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message980789/pg69

then the onus is on you that is what happens. Also, if the goods were never paid for in the auction with redeemed lawful money, they were never paid for in the first place, your continued use of the term "payment" is highly suspect because debt cannot pay a debt. Ignoring that fact does not change the fact.

that also does not address the fact that BC is not was not your property in first place.

What exactly does any of what did or did not happen have to do with you now? What standing do you have over or on the BC?

What claim do you have on any of this and how exactly does the alleged document or auction effect you? What are the damages you are claiming?

see what a psychopath looks like in writing?

the red text guy is a good example..



Levi, what has any of that got to do with the Birth Certificate?

Thats a huge "if" and proceeds when dealing with fiat currency and merchant currency are not redeemed and are simply more debt discharge.

DEBT CANNOT PAY DEBT. You seem to be confused on that fact.

what evidence are you relying on to make the determination that there was a treasury auction?

see what an idiot is in writting? fellow man is a fool and has zero. and who is the "red text guy?"

I am a man and you an incompetent child with nothing to show for your talkshoe education of an alleged process that you have not even done yourself.

Idiot.

Do you have a bank account Levi?

Do you use money or not?

I agree with your assesment of the ills of international bankers, so these are just questions, not accusations.

agree that a debt can not pay a debt but you seem to not know what a fact actually is.

FACT = A thing done.

I disagree that BCs are auctioned off by the treasury or anyone else in government nor the Federal Reserve.

It is more likely the BC is used as "collateral" to issue currency bonds to underpin the National debt from whatever source needed or sought. Same goes for all "titles" to any property, goods or services "in" the "US".

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 71408469

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 71917929

appear to be the same psychopath.

still projecting, I see.

and if there is a psychopath here, it would be wise not to push your luck.

idiot.

and? the issue at hand is the concept of "discharge" and/or payment of debt, not the definition of fact.

...and TWO birth hospitals!

its all just made up anyway.

Dates, times, Cities, States, laws, statutes ALL are fictional legal creations from lines on paper, created to imprison the ignorant in a paper cage of mind. Nothing more than spells and majik.

it would be wiser to ignore his orchestrated distractions that have nothing to do with the topic.

"im from the government and were here to help" LOL