| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 04:05:19
|
This post relates to the topic Birth CERTIFICATES for Fictional Slaves found at:
topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=33&whichpage=1
As that topic had grown so long, I decided to start a new one. The second post on that topic is a downloadable sample of an "Asseveration of Christian Birth". A friend who had not gotten a Birth Certificate for his son asked me to draft up such a document so that he could apply for a Passport, so I downloaded this example and set to work.
BIRTH
The first thing that struck me was how many times this document used the word "birth". We are learning all the time, and this past year I have become convinced that our friend Mr. Webster gave us the true meaning of this word. Webster's 1828 Dictionary says this under "BIRTH":
BIRTH, n. berth.
"Birth", "berth" and "born" all come from the same root of "to bear". When you look up "berth" you find out that every definition has to do with ships. Why am I not surprised? So our "berth-day" is the day we were given a place within the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction of the State. And we are taught from before we can remember to think of our berth-day as a joyous occasion.
New Zealand was not settled by England until the mid-1800's, so the history is quite recent and accessible. It is also a small place with only one native race to make a treaty with, so deciphering the history is far easier than in America. What we have learned is that in law, the natives got treated quite differently from the Settlers. In essence, the settlers never got off the boat while the natives have been on the land all along. This determines the law they are under.
Law of the Land
It turns out that the only people with full access to the law of the land are those who are native to the land. Here in New Zealand, some of the descendants of the original inhabitants (Maoris) run circles around the judges by pulling out the old statutes that apply to the natives. These statutes have never been repealed, merely forgotten (by most).
But before you go thinking that those rules apply only to folks with darker skin than you, think about what a native is. If you are born on that land, aren't you a native? What may surprise you is that those statutes are consistent with "the law of the land". Jolly Old England's law of the sea could not be applied to the natives, at least not until they lured them into it with booze and welfare checks.
Nativity
After pondering for several hours today, I "accidentally" stumbled upon the word that summed up everything I was try to get across. I wanted to create a document that testified that a child was born as a native in his land. So I wrote up an "Asseveration of Nativity". Nativity is another word that means birth, but it does not mean "berth". So for the truth we want to testify to, nativity is the correct word, not birth.
I wrote up this document in the form of a Statutory Declaration, which is virtually the same as an Affidavit. "Asseveration" means "solemn declaration" so it says exactly what I was intending the document to be. Now the only thing left was to have the signatures of the parents appropriately witnessed.
Notary Public
In the British Commonwealth a Notary Public is a very different creature from what they are in the States. The equivalent to a U.S. Notary Public here in New Zealand is a Justice of the Peace. Like Notaries in the U.S., JPs are a dime a dozen. They are also appointed by the State and their authority is limited to their State (New Zealand is a State).
I doubt that the U.S. has an equivalent to our Notary Publics. Notaries here are much harder to find. They are also, as one Notary described to me, "an accident of history". They are appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury under Ecclesiastical Law. Consequently, their authority:
1) Does not come from the State
2) Is recognized internationally
So when you track one down, and he witnesses your signature, you have a document that is valid all over the planet, not just in your State. More importantly, this internationally recognized document was not created under the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction of any State.
Final bits
I will post the Asseveration of Nativity in the following post. Here are a few final things you need to know to understand it and adapt it to your circumstances.
- It was created to be used by anyone, be they Christian or not.
- I deliberately kept it to one page in length.
- For both reasons above it contains very little of the language from the Asseveration of Christian Birth
- I have used several Maori (native New Zealanders) terms to establish the claim to being native to the land and rebut the presumption of being "berthed" into the State.
- Aotearoa = Maori name for New Zealand
- Tangata Whenua = "people of the land"
If you don't already know, we are "people" not "persons", so this term by which the Maoris prefer to identify themselves is perfect for rebutting the presumption that we are "persons" in the sea of admiralty. Another presumption from the Birth Certificate that is rebutted is that the child is illegitimate, as nowhere does a Birth Certificate say that the parents are married.
Two modifications I would consider worthwhile, provided you didn't mind going onto a second page:
1) For Christians, putting back in much of the language from the Asseveration of Christian Birth (but with "nativity" instead of "birth")
2) Adding a Declaration and signature for the midwife who delivered the child. This adds a third and impartial witness.
I welcome any further suggestions to improve this.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
Edited by - Caleb on 05 Feb 2005 17:19:45 |
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 07:49:38
|
| Thanks, Caleb. Very interesting: birth = berth. It may or may not be useful and/or apply down under, but "births" used to be published in the local newspaper and recorded in one's family Bible. I don't know what the legal difference would be, especially "down under," but it can't hurt to write the facts of one's child's nativity in the family 1611 AV. |
 |
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 16:23:13
|
What is a Birth-day?
It is as simple as this. Two events took place on the day you were born.
1) A living soul (you) came into the world.
2) A fiction of law (a corporation) was created by the State
The Birth Certificate is a corporate charter, and the type of corporation it creates is a Corporation Sole. The "Berth-day" is the date on which the Corporation Sole was created. Just because it is the same as the day you were born does not make it your "Birthday". It is the Corporation Sole which was "Berthed".
Therefore, when I am asked for my Birthday I respond, "I don't have one, I am a living soul, not a Corporation Sole."
Walter, the game is the same here as it is in America. In fact, as near as I can tell, New Zealand is the 51st State! There are a few differences in procedure, but once you know the game a bit of digging reveals the shades of difference in how it has been implemented here.
Keep in mind that this game goes back several centuries, to at least the mid 1700's, so by the time we were born it was already all-pervasive. Mis-use of words was started well before we were born, which is why you must read the Dictionaries of the 1800's (Webster's 1828, Bouvier's 1856) in order to see what has happened.
A friend pointed out to me that there are only two birthday parties in the Scripture. In both cases a man lost his head. At Pharoah's birthday party in Genesis the baker was hung and at Herod's birthday party in the Gospels John the Baptist was beheaded. So how did a "Christian" culture end up celebrating "Berth"-days as we do? Somebody had a plan, and that plan involved embedding a number (the number of the beast) into our consciousness at a very early age.
Because New Zealand is such a small place, there is no need for a unique ID number for everyone similar to the SSN. Consequently, here you are asked for "name and birth date" the same way you are asked for "name and SSN" in the States. In the U.S. it is easy to mistake the SSN as the number of the beast, but just like everything else, the SSN traces back to the birth date as its point of origin.
So it really is this simple:
A Living Soul has a date of Nativity
A Corporation Sole has a date of Birth/Berth
Don't let the fact that these two dates are the same confuse you. We have been trapped by words, and I can sure you that every time you apply the word "birth" to the living, you are bearing false witness.
The sample "Asseveration of Nativity" is posted further below.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
Edited by - Caleb on 02 Feb 2005 22:34:51 |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 18:00:19
|
Caleb,
I once tried to find the legal meanging of "date of birth," as you know so many things said in particlar ways are given specific legal meaning. And ... I couldn't find it defined anywhere! This is amazing as other phrases used much less frequently are put into Words & Phrases or other compilations. Well, the best I could figure, a DOB has to do with the anniversary of an insurance contract. (I don't have the papers at hand to cite them right now.)
As for the birthdays in Scripture and the MotB, here is birthday you missed, maybe because it doesn't ~say~ *birthday* - and maybe you'll disagree with me -, but it is in relation to King Solomon.
1 Kings 10:14 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,
2 Chronicles 9:13 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and threescore and six talents of gold;
Now I'm theorizing this is tribute delivered once a year at ... his birthday. These 666 talents of gold were in addition to what the merchants brought. But this could be debated.
Nevertheless, 666 is right there. By operation of the DOB, aren't we gaining 'privileges' from 'government' to which we have no *right*? Tribute? In commerce? In admiralty?
On a side note, the SS# sure does have lots of tie-ins with 6-6-6. It's hard to see the 'coincidences' and not go "Hmmmm." |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 18:17:38
|
What really gets a policeman's goat is to say, "I have no birthday." Even backing that with, "No man can be compelled to incriminate himself." By admitting you are party to the contract you mention, you are incriminated in the action in assumpsit of bankruptcy.
I figure it along the lines of an occult triangulation. Astrology. Vestigial sorcery outlined in the Secrets of Solomon. Numerology in use as risk management algorithms by the Bank and Fund.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Solomon's_Sacred_Seal.jpg
Not as a conscious affront to God but it manifests in the trafficking in human flesh and bone, just the same.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 02 Feb 2005 22:23:28 |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 22:47:48
|
Asseveration of Nativity
Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom These Presents Come, and May Concern:
That on the Fifteenth day of the Eighth month
In the Year of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ, Two Thousand Three;
At Winchester, Aotearoa, being the land also known among the people as New Zealand;
Hugh-William
Was born a living soul to the family Smith
As testified to by two competent and credible witnesses:
I, Wayne-David, of the family Smith, Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa,
solemnly and sincerely declare:
One, That I am the flesh and blood Father of the living soul, Hugh-William;
Two, That this distinct appellation was given him by his mother and I;
Three, That I am the lawful husband of his mother, Virginia-Anne;
Four, That I did eye-witness my son borne alive onto this land of Aotearoa at Winchester;
Five, That he is therefore Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa and a rightful heir to my estate;
I, Virgina-Anne, born of the family Jones, Native of Canada,
solemnly and sincerely declare:
One, That I am the flesh and blood Mother of the living soul, Hugh-William;
Two, That this distinct appellation was given him by his father and I;
Three, That I am the lawful wife and femme covert of his father, Wayne-David;
Four, That from my womb I did bear my son alive onto this land of Aotearoa at Winchester;
And we make this solemn declaration conscientiously knowing the same to be true;
______________________________ ______________________________
Wayne-David: (Smith) Virginia-Anne: (née Jones)
“Declared at Christchurch this Fourth day of the Ninth Month
in the Year of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ,
Two Thousand Three, before me”
Notary Public
|
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2005 : 23:38:00
|
Dear Walter,
A very interesting insight in that you connect Solomon's birthday to 666, the number of the beast. Why would I disagree when you've just strengthened my point with a third witness? I find that when I rightly divide the word, I have just scratched the surface and soon others are confirming it with examples I would have never seen on my own. Thanks.
Regarding the meaning of Date of Birth, I too found an unusual silence regarding such a common phrase. But the more I learned about the Law, the more convinced I became that I was being deceived in some way, despite all the dictionaries giving the standard meaning and the KJV using the word.
What I have learned is that whenever I finally dig down to the bottom of a "legal" issue there is always one of three principles waiting for me there to confirm that I have found the root meaning:
1) Debt (i.e. look up Constitutor in Bouvier's to understand Constitution, you are surety for someone else's debt)
2) Commerce (The legalized theft engaged in by Merchants and Bankers, obtaining something in exchange for nothing, i.e. income = profit or gain)
3) Maritime/Admiralty law (i.e. Birth = Berth, a place to sleep on a ship)
The reason for Maritime/Admiralty law is simple. The State is not and CANNOT be the lawful government of the land. Therefore it cannot enforce "the law of the land", therefore it needs some other law to give it authority. The law of the sea is perfect for it can have as many variations as there are ships in the sea, whereas the law of the land is far less flexible.
And they get us to confess to being involved in Commercial and/or Maritime/Admiralty law by the words we use. Words like "driver", "employee", "income", "birth", "person", "vehicle", and more are deeply embedded in us from a young age. And when we fail to understand their meaning in law, we play right into the hands of the State. You can rest assured that if the cop or the judge is using a word while questioning you, it has a meaning in law that will give him jurisdiction over you when you answer his question based on the common meaning.
Of course the cop does not know this, so it is important to know how to state the truth in such a way as to avoid turning him against you. When you answer, "I don't remember" to the question of what is your birth date, it still implies that you have one. Thus, David's answer of "I don't have one" is a far better answer, and it is also true (now that you know what a berth-date really is). I have not had a chance to test this out since learning the true meaning of "birth", but I imagine you can really stuff the cop up by saying, "I'll be happy to give you my date of Nativity so long as you note that on the ticket by scratching through 'Birth' and writing 'Nativity'". He will not know enough to know that doing so most likely voids his ticket.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 06:59:58
|
Greetings and salutations brother Caleb:
Peace be unto you and yours.
Contrary to what you said in your original post here, "When you look up 'berth' you find out that every definition has to do with ships", this appears not to be the case, but the good news is, we believe that the exception actually enhances your perception. For the edification of the body of anointed here is the exception:
Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language - Third College Edition, copyright 1988, page 132
berth n. ...4 a position, place, office, job, etc.
We perceive that this "berth" is the "office of person" aboard the SHIP OF STATE.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 03 Feb 2005 07:08:29 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 08:05:05
|
The War Powers Act is the implementation of admiralty on the land. But insurance and revenue causes have always been in admiralty. See Story; Delovio v. Boit 1815. Federal Reserve Notes are outstanding insurance policies awaiting final claim in money. So about everything you want to argue is admiralty.
Caleb said:quote:
The reason for Maritime/Admiralty law is simple. The State is not and CANNOT be the lawful government of the land. Therefore it cannot enforce "the law of the land", therefore it needs some other law to give it authority. The law of the sea is perfect for it can have as many variations as there are ships in the sea, whereas the law of the land is far less flexible.
I disagree. There are specific rules; The Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims regulating. Being ignorant of these rules makes them seem arbitrary and capricious. See the footnote at the bottom of this Post*.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm#supp
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/search/display.html?terms=supplemental%20rules&url=/topics/admiralty.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001333----000-.html
andquote:
In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act:
"That the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act."
quote:
Carried over from the article quoting TWE Act...
Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty and jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental United States. And at the time of the original unamended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies' property in the courts was appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the enemy. We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.
The indication above is correct. A native is nothing but a man or woman before, prior to becoming the belligerent - the nom de guerre (Fr. Name of War in all upper case). However, that initiates the highest state of sovereignty - God-given unalienable rights.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_la-metaphysique.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier-qua-mathematica.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier-mathematical.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Scan3.gif
Metaphysics required for law link
endnote from Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Diagram1.jpg
According to common law, the law of the land, the initial libel (back to the initial police encounter and DOB and the policeman's filing a civil action against you. [The only forum where criminal penalties apply to breaching a contract is admiralty...ergo the gold fringes.]) will initiate the action to be in admiralty. Agent of a foreign principal (Bank and Fund = United Nations charter law; Division of Enforcement for the Department of Revenue). Examining the links above should convince the reader that this revenue ploy is the same old Red Herring (in training tracking dogs, they will drag a fish across the trail to train the dog to stay on the scent of the quarry). To get you into Tax Court. Let's use "traffic court" you can pay up or 'file' by saying you are 'not guilty'. Now you go get convicted wondering why the burden of proof fell upon you at the trial because you do not realize it was a tax/revenue matter and what the gold fringes were about; or that you were the one filing with a plea.
So Marty; be in charge of your own property. Do you have a birthday or Date of Birth? Who decides what you have? You will stump the policeman (at least it is consistent in my experience) even if he pulls up a record with your photo and SSN and birthdate. He is required to update that record with your testimony, "I have no DOB." "No, I do not have a birthday either." "No man can be compelled to incriminate himself."
Of course it helped that I gave him a certificate of search from the district court on "David Merrill" proving he had no judgment against me there.
The hyphen will mess you up bad. That has no place on that certificate except maybe the child's name being that the parents were silly enough to put it in. But the parents I doubt have hyphens in their true names. That kind of garbage will be dropped by the district court clerk,quote:
Steve Ehrlich; business manager for the Denver US Courthouse (chief deputy clerk)
"We don't do colons."
The theory of an expression about nativity is fine. It is just by the time you are hoping to use it, you are perceived to already be on an emergency enclave of the United States - the actual theater of war - where the Constitutional provisions including Writ of Habeas Corpus are prima facie suspended de facto. If you persist with that kind of ignorance you better pick up a $60 copy of Rules for Courts Martial - United States. That is where you are headed; a/k/a county/district (State) traffic court etc.quote:
Rule 201. Jurisdiction in general
(b) Requisites of court-martial jurisdiction. A court-martial always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdition. Otherwise for a court-martial to have jurisdiction...
The true name is the expression of nativity and peaceful asylum state. Keep that identity. Then refuse for cause and if they pick you up for failing to appear you have your libel and can file Libel of Review in the district court. The district and city attorneys will see this fairly quickly after a couple bouts with intelligent people. They will honor the R4C*. The counterclaim for the suitors is a revision that takes State bankruptcy into account and captures the gold fringes under Exodus 13:16 and Genesis 1:26-7 - law of the flag. Getting your car out of impound is in theory simple but not so in practicality. [Forfeiture of property is based on a crime committed. After they fail to prosecute you should be able to convince the lot manager he is liable personally for grand theft auto.]
Don't be the booty! [Have a birthday one day a year in the safety of family and friends. And see if you can get them on key next time they sing that silly little song!]
Regards,
David Merrill.
We are working on the execution of arrest under Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B). That was all that Crosstalk I removed upon request above:quote:
(B) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney certifies that exigent circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must promptly issue a summons and a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action. The plaintiff has the burden in any post-arrest hearing under Rule E(4)(f) to show that exigent circumstances existed.
When this right of arrest was removed from the States in 2000. Prior to then you could take a complaint directly to the county court clerk and execute summons and warrant. It simultaneously showed up in the F.R.C.P. Supplemental Rules. However the 'judges' are allowing the clerks to think their power to execute arrests are only from Certificates of Exigent Circumstances presented by the U.S. Attorneys and federal judges. That illusion is being corrected by intrepid property owners - suitors - courts of competent jurisdiction. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Feb 2005 09:19:17 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 09:13:31
|
Dear David:
We quote with emphasis: quote:
The hyphen will mess you up bad. That has no place on that certificate except maybe the child's name being that the parents were silly enough to put it in. But the parents I doubt have hyphens in their true names. That kind of garbage will be dropped by the district court clerk...
Is it any wonder that people are inflamed by some of your calloused remarks? Here are MS Words (2000) synonyms for "silly": stupid, ridiculous, impractical, mad, childish, inane, asinine, juvenile...take your choice, which one do you thinks fits parents, or in this case, Caleb, who has made a simple grammatical error by putting in a hyphen?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 03 Feb 2005 09:21:16 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 09:44:57
|
It is no wonder at all.
The parents on that document, and I do not know if the names are attached to anyone member here, bought into false doctrine. It is not a grammatical error or typo. Simply put, in the pursuit of their true identity, they changed the spelling of their names. I seriously doubt the parents' names were given to them with hyphens.
I am saying since they named the infant, that may truly be the infant's name... with the hyphen in the middle. In which case every time he is telling it to somebody he will have to specify, "With a hyphen" and that was just a silly burden to put on the child who may get ridiculed for such a funny convention.
That kind of trash, because it creates so much confusion instead of the simple truth should be treated for what it is. Offering it as a workable solution just compounds the problem in general. Albeit I admit if the authors of that confusion vested money and time in it, they will probably be a little disappointed to realize there is a much easier way to stay off the battlefield - with the truth.
Research nakar and nokriy - foreigner and stranger in Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and 23:20; feigning self to be another. If the truth sets us free then where does distorting truth, changing our names, get us?
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Feb 2005 10:03:48 |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 10:01:54
|
I guess I would have to personally consider myself "silly" for not only adding a hyphen between my middle and surname, but for also adding a colon in the same manner during my lifetime. Under the (paid) advice of a purported "Christian" PAYtriot group, I was suckered into their SILLY SCAM. I surely consider myself "stupid, ridiculous, impractical, mad, childish, inane, asinine, juvenile, silly" for having done so without learning more of what I was doing.
In that respect, I think there are many "silly" readers of this forum who have done the same as I did. May we all learn how to discern with the indwelling Creator's Spirit rather than with our worldly influenced minds...
I had a "Judge" refuse to recognize the hyphen as well as the local court clerk refusing to do the same. I have also had the same experience with using a colon. Whatever name the Courts may call themselves in the U.S., they simply do not recognize hyphens and colons. A way to see this for yourself is to look up any STATE or FEDERAL cases where you or someone you know has presented themselves a name using a hyphen or colon. In my cases, no court document reflects the hyphen or colon I insisted be shown within my "name".
Caleb, this topic post is excellent meat  |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 10:06:22
|
We all do silly actions on the way to a better understanding. Speaking for myself especially when somebody wants to convince me of conspiracy theory, I react like an alcoholic and someone is trying to coerce me into that first drink. I will not go back there. I am a recovering paranoid.
I flatter myself to think that most of the things I say make sense. Maybe that is why some people get inflamed. The graphics add a sense of authority to my Posts. My opinions should not be elevated above any others. Do not be fooled by my expert communications skills. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Feb 2005 10:11:21 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 10:09:31
|
And I think we could do all those things with love and respect...but then who am I?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 10:14:05
|
You made the presumption that the author of the document and the parents who added hypens are emotionally invested. I did not.
But you are more likely correct.
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 10:45:11
|
Knowing the truth and keeping a clear head works best.
The asseveration (allocution) of nativity would best be used like this. If you are expecting a child and mom is delivering in the hospital make it clear that you will be providing all the paperwork "required by law". This will eliminate any cause to harass or detain anyone at the hospital.
Have the asseveration signed by the witnesses, the doctor and a nurse, and all parties you wish; mom and dad etc. Then file the paper at the county health department and/or clerk and recorder. Then provide a certified copy back to the hospital within a few days of the baby being born.
Now you are set up to contest any entry into commerce by Birth Certificate.
Of course we will accept the above paper is a past event. And also presume that the traditional papers for the baby are now in place with the county and State. Still get the asseveration signed by the doctor and nurse and file at the county recorder. Then tell the hospital you want their documentation replaced with the certified copy you provide.
Here is the tricky/plain part. So watch closely. When the hospital tells you it is too late because they have already reported the traditional documentation to the county and State, simply instruct them to replace that documentation with this current documentation. You have already done that with the county anyway but the State certainly has falsified/erroneous (hyphens and family name added/legal name; ALL UPPER CASE) information that needs to be corrected. You may even have to go to the State capital to do the replacement yourself.
There is an excellent Topic about a Florida man's experiences. I am presuming that is all accurate.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Feb 2005 10:53:04 |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 18:27:08
|
Dear David,
I do not disagree with what you have cited regarding Admiraly jurisdiction. There is value in understanding exactly how it has been implemented in the present system. As I am not under the U.S. system any more, I have less motivation to study it from the U.S. perspective. We are under Admiralty jurisdiction here as well, but it has been implemented differently, so the U.S. example can only provide clues for us. I do not yet know where to find the rules as they apply to New Zealand.
I think you mistook my statement about the law of the sea being "flexible" to assume I share the view of many that the present system is "arbitrary and capricious". You are correct that ignorance of the rules makes the system appear this way. However, I have operated for the past two years on the belief that they are following definite rules, even if I do not know what those rules are. The flexibility has to do with the fact that they can make rules governing such things as bankruptcy, which has no place in the common law, and they can make different rules for the ship NEW ZEALAND than for the ship UNITED STATES.
Regarding the name issue, I am always interested in knowing more. If you can show me a better way, I will modify the document. This is such an important issue that I have started another topic to deal with it under The Roman World/Statute Law forum:
How to Write Your Name http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=430
Regarding using the Asseveration of Nativity in a hospital situation, I think this is great advice. One added point that goes along with it has to do with when the hospital comes to take your newborn's footprints. My understanding is that the reason they are instructed to do this is so that your baby sets foot in the fictitious paper world of the State before he sets foot on the land. So refusing to have your newborn footprinted would be another step in establishing the superior authority of your document. It would probably be worthwhile to have a ceremony on the same day where your newborn gets his feet dirty setting foot on the soil/land outside the hospital. You would then want another line to your declarations stating that he was NOT footprinted and you witnessed him setting foot physically on the soil of the land the same day he was born.
If this seems like too much trouble, just consider how much trouble they will go through to establish your newborn's fictional identity. This can only be rebutted effectively by an equal or greater amount of effort. And since their's is a well-oiled machine, it will take even more diligence on your part to override it.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
Edited by - Caleb on 05 Feb 2005 17:22:58 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2005 : 19:07:11
|
There are parallels in all the bankrupt nations of the world.
Since the Asseveration of Nativity is replacing the hospital's birth certificate anyway put the footprints go on the backside of the Asseveration.* But really aside from the suggestion of the infant's legal name for use later in life there is nothing commercially offensive about the birth certificate. Here in the US the hospital records the birth certificate, which is in upper and lower case lettering (at least they did in 1958) with the county health department and/or clerk and recorder and then somehow, either the hospital or county registers the asset ALL UPPER CASE into the State Department of Commerce.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certification3.jpg
Here is that Topic I mentioned earlier. http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=33&whichpage=1
I have not spent much time there but click on the floppy disk icons for the testimony of a Florida man.
Being in New Zealand, you want to play on the "authorities" by whatever you call them there wanting and even being eager for correct information. That is why I get so short about altering information; because that just compounds things into a confusing mess. So maybe if they refuse to correct erroneous or falsified information, suggest that you would summon a constable to report the matter?
The cashier at the district court would insist on misspelling the true name. It of course came off the cash register in all upper case but there is nothing to do about that. She would just insist on typing it in wrong. That is when it gets infuriating. [SOP is whenever the district court gets reluctant to file Refusals for Cause in the case jacket the suitor sends it back with a copy of the receipt to remind the clerk that is breach of $150 contract.] So I told her refund the money and unfile the case so we could do it all over again. She changed it by hand on my receipt but refused to change it in the register. Someone suggested later I might have asked her why she is not interested in doing things correctly?
The convention for names in English speaking nations is simple and since you have opened a new topic about "How to Spell Your Name", I will explain it in its simplicity there. Black's Law Dictionary Fifth Edition reveals something that it took me years to see.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* It is pretty ludicrous to assert the flesh and bone infant was walking suae potestate esse on the paper in fictionland anyway, not to mention the child is a little young to contract yet. Sure! Get his or her little feet muddy in a ceremony. Record a video of it in the family albums. Maybe even the doctors and nurses will enjoy something like that and learn something about the commercial registration they presume on all the other infants.
There are Biblical implications we are in the kingdom of heaven. "How to Spell Your Name" will probably provide some more meat. I really hope some of the rediculous abracadabra of the banking system will be dispelled soon. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 03 Feb 2005 20:10:30 |
|
|
|
devekut
Regular Member
uSA
25 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jan 2007 : 20:55:00
|
Greetings and Peace be with you all.
On the issue of words being used to denote admiralty jurisdiction: While drafing a document for recording, I became suspicious of the wording "of sound mind." I looked up the definition of sound and found that the word comes from the Old English "sund" which means "the act of swimming." "Sound" also refers to "an inlet, arm, or recessed portion of the sea."
See definition 4 at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound
Can such a word mean what I want it to mean ("in good condition"), or does its original meaning carry through and can be applied when convenient for the purposes of putting me back out in the water where I don't want to be? When someone states they are of "sound mind and body," are their "mind and body" unknowingly being put "out to sea" again under maritime jurisdiction? Could saying "I am of sound mind and body" mean that your entire being is a vessel out on or in the waters?
And does anyone have any opinions as to whether a bondservant of Yeshua, or Yahushua, can be "suae potestate esse"? The phrase means "having full power over one's own dominion" and I've seen it used in declarations by believers attempting to state the true nature of their jurisdiction and venue. However, if one is a bondservant of the Sovereign King, it would appear that one does not exercise "full power over one's dominion," but rather is handling their affairs in accordance with the dictates and law of a higher superior.
And as an ambassador of the King, "having full power over one's own dominion" would seemingly not apply. An ambassador serves in the interests of a higher superior.
A more accurate rendering would perhaps be, "bonded in service to the Anointed One to whom I must give an account; an appointed trustee of that which the Sovereign Creator has entrusted to my care."
Shalom,
devekut
"To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will;
it is at most an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?"
-Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
|
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 06 Feb 2007 : 07:36:00
|
Excellent, brother, excellent! Thank you very much.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
"BERTH" Certificates
