Google+

THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE

TRADED SOLD AND TAXED ALL LIFE LONG

Your Birth Certificate

So Far Beyond a Record of Entry into Life

Your birth certificate is not just a record of your entry into life, it is the very bill of lading that becomes the transactional, commercial financial instrument traded as worth. It marks you down as goods and chattels for a servitude way beyond your knowing.
====================
How to create your own child's birth certificate, accepted (with much wincing) by the state
====================

Learn how you have been bondaged into slavery from the moment you took your first breath.
You became what is termed a Strawman
† - A BILL OF LADING
is a document issued by a carrier to acknowledge receipt of cargo for shipment. It is a maritime term. The birth certificate holds value in the goods it describes  that will be transported and traded, excahnged for financial value throughout the journey (of life). Upon death it holds its final value in form of death duties, burial services, inheritance taxes.
† - A MEANS OF TAXATION 
Income Tax, Council Tax Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Fuel Levies, Loan Interest and Bank Chanrges are some of the illusory taxes levied on the Strawman, created by the borth Certificate
† - A MEANS OF CONTROL
As a slave to the system, you are able to be sold, traded and dealt with just as if you are goods  and chattels
† - A SOURCE OF FUNDS
That birth certificate becomes a commercial instrument, a transactional asset whereby its presentation enables the creation of loans, money and trade, all without you being aware of that for life!.

Getting to know your Strawman

dsdds

Share This Page!

The Really Best Way of Making
Your Birth Certificate Your Own

No More Strawman
Nonsense!

There are those in the field of Common Law that endeavour to make a case for getting to 'own' your own birth certificate on the grounds that presently we are goods and chattels of a system of sate control.

Setting aside the fact this system is presently being dismantled by the reintroduction of Common Law through Magna Carta 2020, let us present a simple, straighforward and soon to become common place process of registering the birth of a new entry into the world

This is based on a true life example that worked where others had found it to be problematic. It is only those things that wrok 100% that are worthy of pursuit.

==========================
The case that failed
==========================
 A nationally reported case, regarding a recent high court decision (June 2019) found that a father was not entitled to refuse to register the birth of his child. The following are the main points of contention. They way a similar case was completely successful is here.

This is what the father argued:

1. That registration of the birth would make the child the property of the capricious state.

2. That doing so would be akin to entering the baby’s name on a ship’s manifest, on the high seas of the maritime jurisdiction, where they would become ‘lost at sea’.

3. That the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 prescribes that after people and property are lost at sea for seven years they are considered legally dead, which allows the crown to seize control over them, under maritime salvage laws.

4. That we are all sovereign and bound under the common law to simply do no harm and that registration would be harmful to the child by turning him into a dead legal entity, subject to the control of the corrupt state.

Dismissed On Welfare Ground
The judge dismissed these passionately delivered arguments on the unsafe ground that it would cause harm to the child’s welfare if the birth was not registered, in that he would allegedly not be entitled to the rights and benefits of citizenship.

This, of course, my wife and I [and many others] have already proven to be nothing more than hearsay, given that no unregistered children of British nationals fail to obtain UK citizenship, a passport, free healthcare or an education.

In theory, the only thing lost is their parent’s right to claim state benefits, but I know that in at least one case benefits were still obtainable for an unregistered British child.

However, it must also be stressed that, whilst the father in the above case was undoubtedly right about the capricious state seeking legal jurisdiction to determine the life of his child, as well as the sovereignty of the people and the golden rule of common law, his argument was, nevertheless, fatally flawed.

This sadly resulted in the judge ruling that the state could register the birth as his child’s “institutional parent”, on the basis that the boy’s mother did not object to them doing so, despite also refusing to do it herself.

Critical Elements
When the successful applier were presented with the same argument the judge relied upon by the Registrar of Births and Deaths in 2010, having already created a Private Family Trust, the critical elements of the administrative process we used were:

a. A declaration of their superior guardianship rights, thereby preventing the state’s intervention as an “institutional parent”.

b. The granting into private trust of the information pertaining to their daughter’s birth, which precluded them from disclosing it to the state.

c. Averring that their child was entitled to all the rights and benefits of being born a British national, merely by virtue of being born on these shores to British parents.

Without those three elements in place, the father’s argument was never going to succeed, but it was also significantly hampered by the all too common misinterpretation of the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.

A Cestui Que Vie Is Not A Trust
As a matter of fact, the act was brought into being because of mass lobbying on behalf of the widows of men who died fighting in wars overseas, whose property was being stolen from their wives and children by unscrupulous landlords.

From the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666:

“Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead. If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead….”

Widow’s Remedy
The act provided a remedy which prescribed that the property of a person who was presumed to be dead, after seven years overseas and no evidence of life being forthcoming, could be claimed by their surviving wives and children.

The ‘lost at sea’ were called Cestui Que Vies – beneficiaries of a Cestui Que Trust, which operated in their absence to protect and preserve their estate.

From Bouvier’s Law Dictionary:

CESTUI QUE TRUST, A barbarous phrase, to signify the beneficiary of an estate held in trust. He for whose benefit another person is enfeoffed or seised of land or tenements, or is possessed of personal property. The cestui que trust is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land; he may direct such conveyances, consistent with the trust, deed or will, as he shall choose, and the trustee (q. v.) is bound to execute them: he may defend his title in the name of the trustee. 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4; vide Vin. Ab. Trust, U, W, X, and Y 1 Vern. 14; Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t.: 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 321, note 1; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

CESTUI QUE VIE. He for whose life land is holden by another person; the latter is called tenant per auter vie, or tenant for another’s life. Vide Dane’s Ab. Index, h.t.”

Fatally Flawed
Bouvier’s definitions clearly establish that if a person [meaning the flesh and blood in this case, since a fiction has no life to lose] who has beneficial interest in property held on these shores, abandons that property for a period of at least seven years, they are considered legally dead.

This happened frequently during past centuries, when men were sent to foreign shores to fight unjust wars for despotic monarchs and their private vested interests.

The Cestui Que Vie [the owner of the abandoned property concerned] was considered legally dead for the purposes of proceedings for the recovery of such property, for and on behalf of the other beneficiaries to their estate.

More often than not, the claimants were the wives and children of casualties of war. The act also served much the same purposes in relation to the Fire of London of the same year, 1666.

However, whilst the act does pertain to the legal presumption that a real man or woman is dead, it can ONLY be presumed in the event that there has been no evidence of their life on these shores, for a period of at least seven years.

A Distinguishable Case
Nevertheless, in the event the father in the case above had argued that no unregistered British children of the parents who used the successful process process [or a version of it] have suffered any loss of the rights to citizenship, a passport, free healthcare or education, his argument would have been sustainable, in spite of its flaws, since the judge only had the jurisdiction to rule what he did to protect the child’s welfare.

It must also be wholeheartedly stressed that the decision prohibiting the father from refusing to register the birth of his child is entirely distinguishable from the successful  administrative process below.

The Registrar elected not to challenge the successful paretns in court because he could not prove they had not been endowed with superior guardianship rights by the Creator of the Universe; or that they were not prohibited from registering under private trust; or that not doing so would cause any harm or loss to their daughter.

Moreover, when the council’s welfare officer paid her last of three visits when she was three years old, she described her as “remarkably intelligent, charming and obviously thriving, in every sense”, which prompted the smiling woman to suggest that the couple might well be paving the way for the future of parenting.

Joie De Vivre
Almost ten years later, the couple's home-educated daughter is already a prize-winning still life artist, who loves animals, the great outdoors, the books of Tolkien, playing the piano, swimming, gymnastics, trampolining, dance, drama, crafting, creative writing and chess.

She is also a gold, silver and bronze medalist in regional and national Taekwondo and Kick-boxing competitions, who has  earned her first black belt on her tenth birthday.

Without doubt, she is living proof that the welfare of a British child is immaterial to whether their birth was registered, as everybody who has spent time in her wonderful company would testify.

Original post here

Share This Page!

How to Win Registering a Birth Certificate

The Best Way

This is a sanitised process used by a successful couple to deny their consent to register the birth of their daughter.

The original description can be found here

VIDEO - " Refusing to Register a Birth"

NOTICE OF DECLARATION OF DENIAL OF CONSENT TO REGISTER CHILDREN

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

Dear CAROLINE SHORT-TEMPERED,

Following today’s receipt of your letter dated 07 May 2010, the contents of which are hereby refused for cause without dishonour; please find enclosed a DECLARATION OF DENIAL OF CONSENT TO REGISTER CHILDREN.

We trust this presentment brings this matter to a swift and efficient conclusion. Kindly update your records accordingly.

Without malice, mischief, ill-will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

By: FATHER’S STRAWMAN™
For & on behalf of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Declaration of Denial of Consent to Register Children

Strictly Private & Confidential

We, the authorized representatives for the legal persons, FATHER’S STRAWMAN and MOTHER’S STRAWMAN, do hereby declare that the following is a Verified Plain Statement of the Facts as we perceive them.

Let it be known by all concerned, interested and affected parties that:

1. We have been granted irrevocable superior guardianship rights over our children by the Creator of the Universe.
2. We have accepted irrevocable Power of Attorney over our children’s well-being and property until the eighteenth anniversary of their birth.
3. For and on behalf of our children, we have settled their entire legal estate into a private trust which is administered for their maximum benefit.
4. The property settled into said private trust includes (without limitation) any and all information pertaining to the existence of our children, strictly precluding the disclosure of the details of their birth to any party whatsoever.
5. Any and all disclosures of information pertaining to the existence of our children would represent a breach of the aforementioned private trust and all those parties responsible for said breaches will be liable for charges of THIRTY THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING (or functional currency of the United Kingdom) per occurrence.
6. We do not recognise or consent to any perceived obligation, whether statutory or otherwise, to register the births of our children, under any circumstances whatsoever.
7. As Trustees of the aforementioned private trust, we affirm, jointly and without division that we refuse to grant our consent and/or authorisation to the Registrar or any other individual, organization or legal entity, to register information pertaining to the birth of our children, under any circumstances whatsoever.

DECLARATION
We, the undersigned, hereby affirm that, to the very best of our knowledge, the entirety of the foregoing is true, correct and not misleading, In the geographical area known as ANNUITY-UPON-CRIME, England, this declaration is autographed, sealed and date-stamped by the Post Office, on the tenth day of the month of May, in the year known as two thousand and ten AD (Dwapara 310 – ascending).

By: __________________________________FATHER’S STRAWMAN
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

By: _________________________________MOTHER’S STRAWMAN
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit Errors & Omissions Excepted

================================

Needless to say, the Registrar took exception to their declaration and sent them an aggressive notice threatening prosecution if their persons failed to comply, in response to which they sent the following missive.

================================
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
CAROLINE SHORT-TEMPERED
REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS
CIVIC CENTRE
ANNUITY-UPON-CRIME
N66 6XL

27 MAY 2010
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

Dear CAROLINE SHORT-TEMPERED,

Following receipt of your notice dated 24 May 2010 and pursuant to the enclosed NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT; I hereby serve NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE. Wherefore, MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN agree to register the births of their children in the most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following items:
1. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN have not been granted irrevocable superior guardianship rights over their children by the Creator of the Universe.
2. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN have not accepted irrevocable Power of Attorney over their children’s well-being and property until the eighteenth anniversary of their birth.
3. Material evidence demonstrating that the information requested has not been settled into a private trust, precluding the disclosure of any and all details of their children’s births to any third party whatsoever.
4. Material evidence demonstrating that all disclosures of information pertaining to the existence of their children would not represent a breach of the aforementioned private trust, as well as the Laws of Equity.
5. Material evidence demonstrating that all those parties responsible for said breaches would not be liable for charges of THIRTY THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING (or functional currency of the United Kingdom) per occurrence.
6. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN have consented to the statutory ‘duty’ prescribed by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, without which no sustainable cause of action for prosecution can arise.
7. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN have not unequivocally denied their consent and/or authorisation to the Registrar and/or any other individual, organization or legal entity, to register information pertaining to the birth of their children, under any circumstances whatsoever.
8. Material evidence demonstrating that your statement that a “female child was born to… [MOTHER’S STRAWMAN] …on or about DATE OF BIRTH” does not represent two clear breaches of trust by the Registrar of Births and Deaths.
9. Material evidence demonstrating that any and all attempts to enforce statutes upon persons who have not consented to perform under said instruments would not represent fundamental breaches of international human rights laws, as well as the Laws of Nature.
Please find enclosed a certified copy of the DECLARATION OF DENIAL OF CONSENT TO REGISTER CHILDREN dated 10 May 2010, delivered to your office by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery on 12 May 2010. In good faith, we look forward to receiving the foregoing reasonably requested substance within seven (7) days of your receipt of this notice. Failure to deliver an appropriate response will result in the lawful presumption that the non-negotiable conditions cannot be met and that your request has been duly withdrawn, with no further action required.

Without malice, mischief, ill-will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

By: FATHER’S STRAWMAN™
For & on behalf of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


==========================

A reply [of sorts] was sent by the Registrar, in the form of an almost identical notice, to which we responded in kind.

==========================
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
CAROLINE SHORT-TEMPERED, REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS
CIVIC CENTRE
ANNUITY-UPON-CRIME
N66 6XL

16 June 2010
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE DISHONOUR

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

Dear CAROLINE SHORT-TEMPERED,

Following receipt of your letter dated 11 June 2010, the contents of which are refused for cause on the basis that you have failed to respond appropriately to the NOTICE OF CONDITIIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 27 May 2010; for and on behalf of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN, I hereby serve NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE DISHONOUR.

Wherefore, in good faith, MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN agree to register the births of their children in the most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following items:
1. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN have not been granted irrevocable superior guardianship rights over their children by the Creator of the Universe.
2. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN have not accepted irrevocable Power of Attorney over their children’s well-being and property until the eighteenth anniversary of their birth.
3. Material evidence demonstrating that the information requested has not been settled into a private trust, precluding the disclosure of any and all details of their children’s births to any third party whatsoever, unless that action is of significant benefit to the beneficiaries.
4. Material evidence demonstrating that all disclosures of information pertaining to the existence of their children would not represent a breach of the aforementioned private trust, as well as the Laws of Equity.
5. Material evidence demonstrating that all those parties responsible for said breaches would not be liable for charges of THIRTY THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING (or functional currency of the United Kingdom) per occurrence.
6. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN have consented to the statutory ‘duty’ prescribed by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, without which no sustainable cause of action for prosecution can arise.
7. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN have not unequivocally denied their consent and/or authorisation to the Registrar and/or any other individual, organization or legal entity, to register information pertaining to the birth of their children.
8. Material evidence demonstrating that your statement that a “female child was born to… [MOTHER’S STRAWMAN] …on or about DATE OF BIRTH” does not represent two clear breaches of trust by the Registrar of Births and Deaths.
9. Material evidence demonstrating that MOTHER’S STRAWMAN good faith presentment of a conditional acceptance of the unsubstantiated statutory obligation does not comprise a response delivered in “a positive manner”.
10. Material evidence demonstrating that, in accordance to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and pursuant to the NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT dated 27 May 2010, the Registrar of Births and Deaths has not incurred default charges of FIFTEEN HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING (or functional currency of the United Kingdom).
11. Material evidence demonstrating that the children of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN and FATHER’S STRAWMAN will benefit significantly from the registration of their births.
12. Material evidence demonstrating that, in stating “your daughter will face considerable difficulties in the future if she does not have a birth certificate” in your letter of 11 June 2010, the Registrar of Births and Deaths has not breached the Malicious Communication Act 1988.
13. Material evidence demonstrating that any and all attempts to enforce statutes upon persons who have not consented to perform under said instruments would not represent fundamental breaches of international human rights laws, as well as the Laws of Nature.
In good faith, MOTHER’S STRAWMAN looks forward to receiving the foregoing reasonably requested substance within seven (7) days of your receipt of this notice. Failure to deliver an appropriate response will result in the lawful presumption that the non-negotiable conditions cannot be met and that your request has been duly withdrawn, with no further action required.

Without malice, mischief, ill-will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

By: FATHER’S STRAWMAN™
For & on behalf of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

==============================
Three months after their daughter’s birth, the Home Office sent a letter confirming that no further action would be taken, but not without attempting to convince them that obtaining a passport and a place at a state school would be extremely difficult for her because of the position they had taken.

Thus far, they have had no need to take their daughter to the local NHS surgery, but her name is privately registered with the practice for the purposes of dealing with any situation which necessitates a visit to the doctor. This was offered by their family GP without any fuss, after it was established that their daughter’s birth had not been registered on perfectly valid grounds, following a private meeting at their home with the doctor and a local authority Health Visitor.

During the meeting, which they agreed to in order to ensure that their position was fully understood by the extremely nervous, but ultimately supportive, people who were initially sent by their purported superiors to determine whether the couple posed any risk to their beautiful child, following the senior registrar’s reluctant decision to allow their refusal to register her birth to remain unchallenged, despite the previous threats of legal proceedings.

The main outcome of the meeting was that the couple accepted that their family doctor and the Heath Visitor had a common law obligation to make sure that a child who has not been registered is coming to no harm. Since this could only be established over a certain period of time, the couple agreed to allow the Health Visitor to visit them again when their daughter reached her first and second birthdays.

These visits took place without any problems arising and involved little more that informal chats about her diet, sleeping patterns and susceptibility to illness, as well as growth rates and cognitive development. During these relaxed conversations the couple expressed their reasons for refusing to allow the NHS to vaccinate their daughter and their decision to take responsibility for the education of their children, none of whom will be attending the mind-programming open prison for children, more commonly known as school. Whilst eyebrows were certainly raised, no objections were, as it was abundantly obvious from the first visit to the last that our daughter is thriving.

When the doorbell rang for the final visit, the Health Visitor was welcomed into the home by a smiling two year old, who opened the door and proclaimed “Hello Sarah! Come in an’ have a cup of tea!” About half an hour later, following a conversation about the effect of their refusal to register upon the purported local authority because of certain “financial implications”, which they took as implicit confirmation that certain funds are lost by the council every time a child is not registered, she told them that it was obvious how well their daughter was progressing and that they were “…the future of parenting.” The registrar of births and deaths would no doubt take a different view.

With the common law obligations of the Health Visitor now fulfilled, she confirmed as she was leaving that the information given was to remain private and confidential in a closed file, which would be made available to the couple in the event of their request for such. However, for all intents and purposes, the Crown, its agencies and officers have accepted the fact that their lawfully declared superior guardianship rights cannot be superseded by government legislation.

The Passport Issue

The couple also wasted no time in applying for a passport from the Home Office, in support of which they sent the Certificate of Birth Record that they created themselves, along with the following notice.
==========================
MR CHRISTOPHER DIDDLE
BUSINESS SERVICES MANAGER
IDENTITY & PASSPORT SERVICE
PO BOX 666

28 JULY 2010
NOTICE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

Dear MR DIDDLE,

In my capacity as agent for my partner, MOTHER’S STRAWMAN; following receipt of your letter dated 09 July 2010 requesting a “Full Birth (or Full Adoption) Certificate or equivalent”, please find enclosed a Certificate of Birth Record for our daughter.

We fully understand the unusual nature of this presentment, which nevertheless provides the IDENTITY & PASSPORT SERVICE with all the necessary information to determine the unequivocal eligibility of our daughter for a UNITED KINGDOM PASSPORT: the name of the applicant; details and evidence of the place and date of her birth; evidence of the UK citizenship of her parents.

We acknowledge the fact that we have chosen not to register the birth of our children, since we are of the heartfelt belief that to do so would not be in their best interests, but we are also acutely aware that this enclosure more than adequately demonstrates our daughter’s entitlement to UNITED KINGDOM citizenship, whilst the right of all subjects [citizens] to travel to and from any port or place within those territories considered “Her Majesty’s dominions” is clearly prescribed by statute in the Union with Scotland Act 1706, for the purposes of which the issue of a passport is generally required.

Wherefore, in good faith, we trust this presentment meets with all reasonable requirements and look forward to receiving a UNITED KINGDOM PASSPORT for our daughter in due course. Should you have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Without malice, mischief, ill-will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

By: FATHER’S STRAWMAN™
For & on behalf of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice
Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

===================================

Predictably enough, the I&P Office wrote back claiming that the Certificate of Birth Record was not sufficient evidence of their daughter’s right to a UK Passport, but they did concede that the application would be successful if they complied with the specific requirements stipulated by the Home Office.


==========================
MR CHRISTOPHER DIDDLE
BUSINESS SERVICES MANAGER
IDENTITY & PASSPORT SERVICE
PO BOX 666

17 SEPTEMBER 2010

NOTICE OF FURTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

Dear MR DIDDLE,

Following receipt of your letter dated 25/08/2010, in relation to the issue of a passport for DAUGHTER’S STRAWMAN; for and on behalf of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN, as requested, please find enclosed the following documents:

a. Letter dated 04/06/2010 from the partners of LOCAL SURGERY, with regard to our daughter’s six week development check, which was subsequently done by FAMILY DOCTOR at the address below.
b. Letter from the General Register Office dated 21 July 2010, clearly stating that our daughter’s birth has not been registered.

Since this presentment would seem to meet the requirements outlined in your letter of the 25th of August, we look forward to receiving our daughter’s passport within seven (7) days of your receipt of this notice, as it our intention to travel abroad shortly after that date.

In sincerity and honour,

By: FATHER’S STRAWMAN™
For & on behalf of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

=============================

Shortly afterwards we received another letter, this time stating that the letter from the partners of our local surgery did not comply with the strict requirements for the information for a successful application, to which we replied with the following notice.

==================================
MR CHRISTOPHER DIDDLE
BUSINESS SERVICES MANAGER
IDENTITY & PASSPORT SERVICE
PO BOX 666

21 October 2010

NOTICE OF FURTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

Dear MR DIDDLE,

As requested, please find enclosed a letter from our family doctor, confirming that our daughter was born on DATE OF BIRTH at PLACE OF BIRTH, and that she has lived with us at the address below since her birth, where FAMILY DOCTOR has performed two physical examinations.

Since this presentment would seem to meet the requirements discussed, we look forward to receiving our daughter’s passport in due course. Many thanks.

In sincerity and honour,

By: FATHER’S STRAWMAN™
For & on behalf of MOTHER’S STRAWMAN
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


=================================
Fourteen days later, the documents they submitted with the application were returned, along with a note confirming that the application was being processed. The passport arrived in the post the following morning, thus demonstrating that the Home Office has no legal recourse to deny a passport to an unregistered child, provided that the right to have one issued can be demonstrated with a simple letter from the family doctor or a statutory declaration by an individual who has firsthand knowledge of the time and place of birth.

It is a wonderful feeling to know that their daughter’s future sweat equity has not been pledged to the Crown, in return for a Birth Certificate and the dwindling benefit privileges of the failing Welfare State. It is also reassuring to know that the government does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in a daughter’s/son's life.

Until such time that this couple have an alternative, a security agreement on loan from Elizabeth II will be more than sufficient for their short-term international travel purposes, pursuant to the Law of Necessity. Once a diplomatic family passport has been acquired, Her Majesty’s will be duly disposed of.

References

Legitimacy Act 1926

An Act to amend the law relating to children born out of wedlock.

[…] Act modified by Legitimacy Act 1959 (c. 73), s. 1(2) (s. 1 of which said Act is repealed by Legitimacy Act 1976 (c. 31, SIF 49:7), Sch. 2 (subject to savings in Sch. 1 para. 4(2)(3) in relation to any dignity or title of honour or the devolution of property along therewith and in Sch. 1 para. 5 in relation to Succession to the Throne))

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the registration of births and deaths in England and Wales with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949.

[…] 2. Information concerning birth to be given to registrar within forty–two days.
In the case of every birth it shall be the duty—
(a) of the father and mother of the child; and
(b) in the case of the death or inability of the father and mother, of each other qualified informant, to give to the registrar, before the expiration of a period of forty–two days from the date of the birth, information of the particulars required to be registered concerning the birth, and in the presence of the registrar to sign the register: Provided that—
(i) the giving of information and the signing of the register by any one qualified informant shall act as a discharge of any duty under this section of every other qualified informant;
(ii) this section shall cease to apply if, before the expiration of the said period and before the birth has been registered, an inquest is held at which the child is found to have been still–born

[…] 4. Registrar’s power to require information concerning birth.

Where, after the expiration of forty–two days from the date of the birth of any child or from the date when any [F1 still–born child] is found exposed, the birth of the child has, owing to the default of the persons required to give information concerning it, not been registered, the registrar may by notice in writing require any qualified informant—
a) to attend personally at the registrar’s office, or at some other place appointed by the registrar within his sub–district, before such date (being not less than seven days after the receipt of the notice nor more than three months after the date of the birth or finding) as may be specified in the notice; and
b) to give information to the best of that person’s knowledge and belief of the particulars required to be registered concerning the birth; and
c) to sign the register in the presence of the registrar:
Provided that any such requirement shall cease to have effect if, before the date specified in the notice and before the person to whom the notice is given complies with it, the birth is duly registered.

[…] 36. Penalties for failure to given information, etc.

If any person commits any of the following offences, that is to say—
a) if, being required by or under this Act to give information concerning any birth or death . . . F1 or any dead body, he wilfully refuses to answer any question put to him by the registrar relating to the particulars required to be registered concerning the birth or death, or save as provided in this Act, fails to comply with any requirement of the registrar made thereunder;
b) if he refuses or fails without reasonable excuse to give, deliver or send any certificate which he is required by this Act to give, deliver or send;
c) if, being a parent and save as provided in this Act, he fails to give information concerning the birth of his child as required by this Act; or
d) if, being a parent of a legitimated person . . . F2 , he fails to comply with any requirement of the Registrar General made under or by virtue of section fourteen of this Act; or
e) if, being a person upon whom a duty to give information concerning a death is imposed by paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section sixteen or seventeen of this Act, he fails to give that information and that information is not given,
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [F3 £2] for each offence.

[…] 38. Prosecution of offences and application of fines.

— (1) Subject as may be prescribed, a superintendent registrar may prosecute any person for an offence under this Act committed within his district, and any costs incurred by him in any such prosecution, being costs which are not otherwise provided for, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

From Bouvier’s:

DUTY, natural law. A human action which is, exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them.

2. It differs from a legal obligation, because a duty cannot always be enforced by the law; it is our duty, for example, to be temperate in eating, but we are under no legal obligation to be so; we ought to love our neighbors, but no law obliges us to love them.

3. Duties may be considered in the relation of man towards God, towards himself, and towards mankind. 1. We are bound to obey the will of God as far as we are able to discover it, because he is the sovereign Lord of the universe who made and governs all things by his almighty power, and infinite wisdom. The general name of this duty is piety: which consists in entertaining just opinions concerning him, and partly in such affections towards him, and such, worship of him, as is suitable to these opinions.

4. – 2. A man has a duty to perform towards himself; he is bound by the law of nature to protect his life and his limbs; it is his duty, too, to avoid all intemperance in eating and drinking, and in the unlawful gratification of all his other appetites.

5. – 3. He has duties to perform towards others. He is bound to do to others the same justice which he would have a right to expect them to do to him.

Share This Page!

Share this page, educate others as to the agendas in place and recognise those who are stigmatised as Conspiracy Theorists, Loonies etc are those who are well aware of the truths you are presently discovering and are the good guys making sure we keep all our freedoms, all our liberty and justice and the Common Law back in rightful place as THE LAW OF THE LAND

Share This Page!

Dreams and Realities A book for our time

01

Jonathan Trapman

Jonathan L Trapman is an author, creative writer and photojournalist who has spent the better part of his 45 odd years in public life, learning from his personal experiences, sharing them, listening to others, whose lives have allowed him to open his own mind to a beauty, even within horror, that is transforming and empowering. His written work endeavors to convey, through true tales and fiction, impressions thus garnered. Dreams and Realities can be purchased (signed by the author if wanted) here.

The Freedom Cycle

© 2020 The Freedom Cycle

Contact

Address: Glastonbury, Somerset UK
Phone: (UK)
+44 (0)1225 29 2333
Phone: (US)
+1 864-372-4820
[email protected]

Social