U.N. inadvertently confirms “Freeman” concept
[I’ve noticed another surge in views of this blog entry particularly from “Godlikeproductions”. I have read all the new comments and can I just say, with every respect, some of you are getting bogged down in minutiae, missing the point and starting to talk as if “what do we do without law?” This blog is NOT about having no law, it is simply about the absolute admission by the UN – and therefore all bodies underneath it including ALL governments – that STATUTORY LAW is what we know it to be and that they use that law purely for the basis of increasing every control on society. People en masse, then understanding this, could and would have a perfectly formed argument together to attack the very basis of STATUTORY laws. There would be no need to approach it all with all the other freemen arguments which they shall evade and make changes in law to evade. You attack the very fundamental issue and you demand COMMON LAW. But it needs a mass of people to understand and work together to create the voice needed. Nothing needs done by force just force of will and concrete proof. I have given you the proof.]
This is not, in any way, a “quick fix” for just a few people to take on the system. What it is, is a factual, verified, “report” on what it is and how it is that the present system uses the legal fiction known as the “person” to totally control a life (and a corporate life) from birth to death. Due to ignorance within a democracy, there is no way of any one person (I should say, human) taking on this system and winning with this absolute, proven, verified logic. Verified, no less than by the U.N. itself – it is, in fact, manipulation and control hidden in clear sight. Article 6 of the U.N Declaration of Human Rights actually destroys their entire construct where itself, it states what I show on the following blog. Please read this blog also and simply work through the logic. I assure you, there is not one legal Barrister, judge or lawyer who can argue against this logic. Logic is NOT what the legal world works on because, if it did, it would simply fall apart. https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/the-human-rights-act-deception-2/
I have seen this blogpost now go viral and have read many comments on it from various other blogsites. Many people are speaking about the dangers of leaving the system and also the benefits of having no Birth registration. I would, therefore, ask the reader to read very carefully what is being said because, in fact, there is no need to leave the system. There is no need for having no birth certificate and having no conferred benefits. There is only ONE need to be stated ON the birth certificate to “kill” the issue of the state and the legal UN articles which are corrupt and deceptive. That statement is provided as an addendum at the bottom. It is simple and entirely effective but ONLY when the human race understands what has occured. We live in this “democracy” (and to the US reader, democracy was NEVER what your founders intended) which deems that the majority rule. If the majority are ignorant and uneducated about what is written here and are unable to grasp the reality and logic of it, then we will never get the mass of people to demand the statement – and what it means – to be inserted.
However, there is one other point I wish to make: OWS need to understand this because this is at the heart of everything. If they do not understand this then they are throwing rocks at a machine and the machine will prevail.
I have been studying this issue for some time now and while I have to state I do not perceive myself as a “Freeman” simply because I do not align with any particular movement, I have, in the past few years, been compelled to look at what it is that gives an entirely corrupt government and judiciary (and it is I can assure you) the “power” to consider themselves the authority by which they can introduce any and all “law” that they wish which, many times, impinges upon personal freedoms from freedom of speech to smoking to how fast you drive your car to coercing you to pay taxes. Let me explain in a short couple of sentences why I took this path:
I went before a court which I then proved, a year or two later, never had jurisdiction in a case. According to THEIR own law, there were two conditions, either one of which which would allow their jurisdiction and neither one was satisfied by either party and the COURT AND LAWYERS knew this all along! They didn’t care but became incensed I found out and decided to coerce me at Supreme court level. I have all the proof of this and, at the time, I gave it to the British government (FCO). I received a letter from Meg Munn saying they would do nothing for me even though it was a direct assault on my human rights. This court was going to jail me (with no record and based upon “contempt because I exposed their corruption in court) for a second time unless I handed over my ENTIRE wealth to the other party (even though I proved to the court via 5 years of bank statements that the other party had stolen £35,000 from me, which they accepted but didn’t care – the other party had the children). I had advised my lawyer to go into court and strike the whole proceedings and while he accepted that I was right, he refused to do so because it would embarrass HIM AND embarrass the COURT. He obviously had words with the opposition lawyer about my findings and with the court and it was, at that point, the coercion began. I was to “negotiate and do a deal” with the other party who had perjured themselves in court and in affidavits over and over again (seen and accepted by the court but ignored) otherwise I was going to jail again for not abiding with a court order which, I had proven, was based upon false evidence. The FCO, then, were going to allow another court to abuse my human rights when it is their stated principle to uphold the human rights of every UK citizen. Why were they willing to do this? The excuse was because they could not interfere in another sovereign nation’s legal system. I hope you realise what a joke this is! It all depends upon which country’s legal system they are being asked to interfere with. If it is Syria’s or Sudan’s (and THEY are sovereign nations) then it’s ok. If it is a country accepted by the west (which it was) then no, they won’t. The hypocrisy and corruption is so obvious to me now. It ended then, with me literally running for my life (I know it sounds dramatic but it is fact), jumping on a plane back to UK and finishing the whole thing off in the Royal Courts of Justice. Faced by a lawyer and barrister who laughed when I entered court saying I was representing myself. They were not laughing at the end of the day however when I explained the entire jurisdiction issue. The barrister had written to the court in England saying they had jurisdiction to hear the case because the two parties were domicile in England. When I pointed out to him that the other party was asking the court to uphold the other country’s court order which had assumed jurisdiction being held in the other country based upon DOMICILITY there, the barrister realised he was whipped! Here is where it gets interesting: The result was that, in absolute fact, the other party to the case is now an unrecognised bigamist. That is what our “law” allows!
“Domicile” and why that Barrister shit himself: set15
But then that Barrister, himself, broke the law by not advising the Court (The Royal Courts of Justice indeed) that the overseas proceedings were entirely null and void and that, now with re-marriage, the other party is a bigamist because the original divorce was illegal! Nice eh?🙂
During all of this, the other party demonised me to my kids who were only 10 and 12 when it started. They still don’t seem to understand the incredible lies the other party has told them (and the Singapore court) and that now, the man the other party is “married” to is, of course, the same man they were told was “just a friend”.
Two daughters, who are now nearly 20 and 18 and they despise me because I only have one way to show them their father didn’t ever lie to them and that is by showing them the lies of their mother which creates their impressions of me. But then, you don’t win because the last thing these girls wish to do is admit to themselves that they can see these lies. I’ve lost almost a decade of a relationship with my own kids and no matter I can prove every single last element of perjury and brainwashing of them by the other party, the law doesn’t give a damn.
So, back to the issue:
It would seem strange that the U.N. itself could possibly confirm something as “bizarre” as a Freeman concept, I agree, but one only needs to read the following and, hopefully, if you have a logical mind, you will appreciate it quite clearly.
The U.N. states:
“Registration means proof of legal identity. It is vital for securing recognition before the law, protecting rights such as inheritance and making children less vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.”
“Under international law then, every child is entitled to registration of their birth, including children born to irregular migrants.”
Now, please consider carefully, the word “entitled” above. It would sound like an offer, a choice wouldn’t it? “You are entitled to such and such if you so choose to accept”. But the reality is that, in each state/country, you HAVE no choice. The State will punish ANY parent who, on your behalf as a baby, does not wish to CONTRACT with the state. The State’s propaganda machine, however, is great and the ignorant populace will be led to believe you are, somehow, abusing your child. They will say “we cannot confer benefits on this child because LEGALLY, it does not exist” Therefore, you as a parent will be demonized.
Again, directly from the U.N.
“The child who is not registered at birth is in danger of being shut out of society – denied the right to an official identity, a recognized name and a nationality. In 2000, an estimated 50 million babies – more than two fifths of those born – were unregistered. These children have no birth certificate, the ‘membership card’ for society that should open the door to the enjoyment of a whole range of other rights including education and health care, participation and protection.
This Digest examines the situation of children who are denied a fundamental human right and who, in legal terms, do not exist”.
UNCF Innocent Digest No.9 March 2002: birthregistration_Digestenglish.pdf
So there you have it in the UN’s own PLAIN language: In LEGAL TERMS they don’t exist. IF then, in legal terms, they do not exist then, by definition, the legal world can have NO AUTHORITY over them. They are EXPLICITLY saying this. There is no room for misinterpretation. It is precise. The UN and legal world spell out the ADVANTAGES of having a birth certificate (all the benefits) but not the DISADVANTAGES which they trust you will not even begin to consider.
“The value of birth registration continues to be overlooked, according
to the report. It says that registration is a critical measure to
secure the recognition of every person before the law, to safeguard
the protection of his or her individual rights, and to ensure that
any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed.”
“Registration at birth is a fundamental human right that confers a distinct legal identity on every child. This paper emphasizes that, while a person’s name may be their most distinctive “mark” of individuality, additional information – such as age, family ties and nationality – promote the child’s right to legal protection by parents and by the state.”
“every child is entitled to State protection against exploitation and abuse. In the case of the unregistered child, however, he or she has no guaranteed protection of a specific national jurisdiction.”
“Birth registration is a permanent and official record of a child’s existence. It can be generally defined as the official recording of the birth of a child by some administrative level of the state and coordinated by a particular branch of government. Registration at birth is a fundamental human right that confers a distinct legal identity on every child.“
“Ideally, birth registration is part of an effective civil registration system that acknowledges the existence of a person before the law, establishes his or her family ties and tracks the major events of that individual’s life, from birth, to marriage and parenting, to death. A fully functional civil registration system should be compulsory, universal, permanent and compulsory.”
“A birth certificate is the most visible evidence of a government’s legal recognition of the existence of a child as a member of society.”
“In the Occupied Palestinian Territory, for example, Palestinians have been motivated to register their children in order to establish legal identity. On the basis of this registration, identity cards are issued which designate whether the child was born in Gaza, the West Bank or Jerusalem. This in turn establishes categories of the population subject to controlled mobility, leading to stigmatized treatment and additional discriminations.”
“….without a birth certificate it is difficult for an unregistered child, or that child’s family, to seek legal redress.”
“Experience from the field indicates that the registration of every child is a practicable possibility, even in challenging circumstances. To give just one striking example, in Afghanistan, between May and October 2003, a total of 775,000 children were successfully registered, representing 97 per cent of the target group of all girls and boys under one year of age. This was achieved using trained volunteers who accompanied polio vaccination teams as they made house-to-house visits to immunize young children.”
The entire document is very well worth a read but I think we get the picture very clearly Council of Europe.
Now, I am NOT suggesting that people should not register their child’s birth. No, no no. What I am saying is that EVERYONE should understand, from this, that the existing corrupt system – top to bottom – which allows some to “break the law” (such as elites, wealthy, corporations – who are considered ‘legal persons’) is using the registration of your birth – WHICH IS ACTUALLY A TRUST SET UP BY YOU AND THE STATE WITH YOU AS SOLE BENEFICIARY, THEREFORE, YOU and ONLY YOU, dictate how that trust operates and what its “laws” are – uses it AGAINST YOU where and when it sees fit. And they will and DO use it corruptly particularly if you prove to be an “annoyance” to them.. You have to understand that statute law (the legal world) requires consent and they ASSUME you have given them consent to act ‘on your behalf’ because you have been REGISTERED with the state – just as you register your car and the state (DVLA) has been given authority by YOU to tow away your car – which then allows them to ACT upon your person in accordance with ANY and ALL statutes that they see fit. But this is in YOUR IGNORANCE of how this deception works.
By registration of your child, you have entered – and entered them – into a contract with the state which SUBBROGATES their inherent, god given, human rights which are UNALIENABLE – UNLESS you subbrogate them! This has been done deceptively, fraudulently because, as with ALL CONTRACTS, one must be afforded FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS. YOU WERE NOT GIVEN FULL DISCLOSURE OF WHAT THE RESULTS OF YOUR ACTIONS WERE BY REGISTERING THE BIRTH!
“Let he who allows himself to be deceived, be deceived”
So consider this because this is the result of the population’s ignorance regarding how the birth cerificate and REGISTRATION of your child is actually used against you. You give the state the power and authority to remove your child from you in precisely the same way you give the DVLA power and authority to remove your car:
The bottom line is this: While it is right that all children should live in safety, be registered, be confered the benefits of society – education, the necessities to operate in the world etc. The states are using “carrots” of benefits (which, in fact, as we are seeing are a huge cost to each individual in society because, as you know, being part of that society and a taxpayer for instance, has you liable for the losses of the banks) to ensure you register your child and hand authority to the state which then allows the state to use the legal system against you. Before you transferred authority to the state, your child (and you) had unalienable rights bestowed only by God. You were a completely free human being only limited by the true law (no harm, injury or loss to another human being). Since contracting and registering for all those “benefits”, the LAW SOCIETY, on behalf of the State, has removed, deceptively, all power from you and DO NOT, in fact, bestow upon you, the man or woman, human rights because you already HAVE rights which can never been taken from you AS a man or woman. Neither does the state abuse your unalienable rights because you have effectively transfered the authority to them to act upon your LEGAL PERSON. You have created a LEGAL PERSON. A LEGAL FICTION with which you play in the “game of life” like the piece you use in monopoly. That piece is not YOU but you control the piece and if you did not have it you would not be able to play the game. That is PRECISELY how your Birth Certificate (Registration with the state) is being used. That is your game piece in the game of life and it is being deceptively used against you.
So what is the solution? Have no birth certificate?
No. The solution is that we put the State on notice that we now appreciate what they have been and are doing and we advise them, very clearly, that it is fraud and deception on their part and we are now taking control over our trusts. The registration of your birth created a trust (even though you nor your parents thought of this or considered it, you just did what everyone has done). The TRUSTEES of that trust are the public servants. Public servants serve the PUBLIC. YOU are the public and the Judge, Police, government are YOUR servants. GOD KNOWS they do not wish you to understand this but I think the above makes it quite clear.
They treat YOU as a trustee in YOUR ignorance. You are NOT the trustee, you are the BENEFICIARY of that trust and as such, only YOU can appoint the administrator of it. The Judge is acting as administrator in your ignorance. YOU need to advise him/her that he/she is WRONG.
The U.N. has given you absolute confirmation here that it is the birth certificate and ONLY the birth certificate which creates a legal personality which the legal world can recognise an act upon. If they cannot confer benefits on you because you are not recognised legally, then they cannot POSSIBLY argue that they can hold you to legal statute law. Common law yes – absolutely. No harm, injury or loss and there MUST be an injured party. But other than that, they have NO authority over you.
THIS IS WHERE FREEDOM AND TRUTH BEGINS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO BREAK THE COMMON LAW. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HAVING THE ABILITY TO CAUSE HARM, INJURY OR LOSS. THIS IS ABOUT REMOVING THE SUBBROGATION OF YOUR RIGHTS BY A CORRUPT SYSTEM WHICH IS ABUSING ITS POWER.
Now, here is another interesting comment in the UN digest document:
“Similarly, an unregistered child is unlikely to be able to obtain social protection from the state. In Israel, the fact that many Palestinian children born in camps are unregistered seriously jeopardizes their access to Israeli public health and welfare services”.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sick!
Consider this seriously for a moment: Is it possible that, due to the lack of legal recognition and, as the UN has stated, these children DO NOT LEGALLY EXIST, that to massacre such children AND adults is no crime at all legally?
DO NOT THINK THIS IS A FLIPPANT REMARK!
Think about this. HOW does a Palestinian child (or parent) or a person from a country or region (think native peoples – Papua New Guinea etc) bring a charge of murder or genocide or any charges into a court of law if they have no STANDING because they have no birth certificate therefore, no legal identity? How does a people then find justice? Answer: THEY DON’T. There IS no other mechanism.
So think of the massacre of native American Indians by those who stole their land. Those who stole the land were recognised in “law” as existing. They HAD birth certificates. The British system would, therefore, consider these “savages” as non-existent. If they did not exist in law then they both, could not be confered benefits NOR would anyone miss them or be able to act LEGALLY on their behalf. So, we massacred nobodies. In legal terms IT DID NOT HAPPEN! THINK about that!
But here’s another thing: While the UN and the state say you cannot be given any benefits – and let’s take health and medicine for a moment shall we? – if you do not have a birth certificate and therefore, do not exist. DO YOU THINK FOR ONE MOMENT THAT, IN PALESTINE AND ELSEWHERE, THESE CHILDREN AND ADULTS ARE EVER TURNED AWAY FROM HOSPITALS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF NATO or AMERICAN/BRITISH or ISRAELI BOMBS? DO YOU?
So then you tell me? WHO is the most humane? Those who would turn their backs on their people because they LEGALLY DO NOT EXIST such as that which the UN and western states subscribe to? Or those who see a human being suffering and the LAST thing they think about is “Do you have a birth certificate?” and “Do you have enough of these “bills of exchange” to pay to live? Quite literally then, the western idea is of having a Health service which acts as a “Highwayman” – “Your money or your life!”
To further point to the seriousness of that earlier remark think of slavery. Think of American Black slavery. They were not recognised as people with rights BUT, while all that changed and they were then conferred benefits of statehood, allowed passports, “given” rights through their registration, do you think for one moment that the same group of elitist psychopaths were going to make everyone equal?
“We have stricken the (slave) shackles from four million human beings and brought all laborers to a common level not so much by the elevation of former slaves as by practically reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.”
– Horace Greeley – (1811-1872) founder of the New York Tribune
No. They then used and abused the system of registration which they “wrap up in ribbons” with nationality and passports and driving licences, education, health etc while, quietly they are using it to tax you, to fine you and to suck the wealth from humanity deceptively.
“The money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.”
– Democrat Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.
They STILL have their slaves because they set the system up to ensure it.
So Morgan, if you ever stumble across this, give it some thought!
ADDENDUM 8th Nov 2011:
While I understand fully, people suggesting such as “bringing the system down” etc in their heartfelt anger about this massive con on the human race – and it is – I do not believe in bringing the system down because it would simply result in an unholy war and millions of deaths. For what?
The “system” has been built by us. The system is actually, basically fine. What is wrong is the corruption of that system by nothing more or less than the manipulation of law by those who hold the wealth which they have accumulated across centuries by ensuring the corruption of the system. It is necessary to expose and destroy (peacefully) these people’s grip on humanity by their having bought politicians and governments to install the legislation they have wanted for the purposes of societal control.
Specifically with regard to the birth registration issue. It is easily dealt with. The solution is:
“In signing this birth certificate as a RECORD of birth ONLY, I, as sole beneficiary of this trust, do not subrogate any and all god given rights of the child”
And for my atheist friends, of which I could be considered one, do not get caught up and pedantic by the use of the term “god given”. Whether you see them as god given or not, you surely understand you have, and should have, unlimited rights fom the moment you are born. Please read the supporting comments to this which were written over two centuries ago by Thomas Paine within his book “Rights of man”. You can find the link to the post on the right hand side column.
Colonel Edward Mandell-House:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.
They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the
bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly.
The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our
dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
– Letter from Rothschild Agent Colonel Edward Mandell House to Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] found in Wilson’s personal diary/logs
I take no quote as being a fact unless it can be supported by source documents (as is the UN statement herein). So I cannot claim to know the certainty of the above quote which has been published widely across the internet. If anyone can confirm by way of providing a copy of the original source (Woodrow Wilson’s diaries) then such would be quite an incredible find which goes even further (if further were needed) to confirm the content of this post. However, I must add that, while I recognise the extreme arrogance of these people in what others have said, which have been solidly confirmed, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be QUITE so arrogant and, frankly, stupid, to write such as this in a letter to the President of the United States. If this were to be proven as factual, then these people are even more stupid than I give them credit for!
I cannot access this to check. Perhaps someone else can or find the source document elsewhere: papers
ADDENDUM 30th November 2011:
Once this entire issue is grasped by the reader then, like me, you will probably find that you stumble across so many things which just verify it over and over (if such were needed). For instance, the Thomas Paine book I stumbled over just a few days after writing this initial blogpost. Now, today, this interesting (largely forgotten and much unused word) element came to my attention. Again I am not stating that this particular explanation is factual and entirely relevant. I am only adding it from the perspective that I find it very interesting. It does not subtract from the facts presented above re the entire birth certificate issue. –
Origin of terms ‘Negro’ and Afrika
By Dr. Kwame Nantambu January 09, 2007
According to Anthony T. Browder in From ‘The Browder File: 22 Essays on the African-American Experience’ (2000), “…the Portuguese were the first to enslave Afrikans and they were the first to call them Negroes. When the Spanish became involved in the slave trade, they also used the word Negro to describe Afrikans. Negro is an adjective which means Black in Portuguese and Spanish. But since 1444 and the beginning of the slave trade, the adjective Negro became a noun and the legitimate name of a newly enslaved people.” (p.1).
The fact of the matter is that under Euro-centrism, “…the word for Black was typically associated with aspects of death. The word death is derived from the Greek word Necro which means dead and is similar in sound and meaning to the word Negro.”
As part of “the manifestation of the evil genius of Europe,” Euro-centric thought process deceitfully juxtaposed the words “Necro” and “Negro”. “…to reference the physical, spiritual or mental death of a person, place or thing.” (Ibid).
I trust you recognise how this fits in precisely with the above discussion re the benefits and emancipation of blacks once they were legally recognised by the state. They then LEGALLY existed whereas, beforehand, they were “negro”, DEAD. They were effectively dead due to their non legal existence! It then became unacceptable AND illegal to use the term “nigger” and/or “negro” because, effectively, they were no longer such! A good thing you would say (and anyone would agree) BUT, as you already have read, it was anything but emancipation. If anything, they were promoted to “debt slave” like the rest of us rather than “dead slave”.
Here is another aspect of the control the birth certificate creating the “legal person” has over you. It’s called creating a taxpayer:
Additionally, here is my confrontation with a British MP whom I “educated” (not that he needed it) on the entire legal person issue. Of course, you will see he freaked out at being on camera. It’s not a controlled environment like the BBC you see. The BBC will never ask such questions and put such points to these people (for obvious reasons i hope you are aware).
Damian was very camera shy. Can you tell? Good name for an MP by the way!