THE CENSUS, ARE YOU IN THEIR WAREHOUSE? BC, SECURITISATION

It wouldn't be wise to rule out your still birth theory, why can't we see the original PUBLIC record?

The point i can make is I have two birth records issued on the day of birth that state........ birth out come - live birth......... Im almost certain these are the records that trace back to the office of national statistics, they contain other details weight etc, the office of national stats have to retain these for 30 years.

How can the placenta be part of mother when it is discharged attached to the baby. The baby is in a sea and birthed with mother???? That would also make sense as to why the "parents" are informants, you can be called mother and father and parent and be deemed this legally without having any biological relationship with a child.

Its like the hospital retain guardianship of the orphan after birth then appoint the "mother" as what, as next of kin??

I think youlll like this analogy Iamani......

In KJV god creates a woman for adam as companion, god uses a fleshy rib, in strongs concordance a rib is a curve, thus making eve a fleshy curve. Go look at a picture of a placenta, its not too different from a kidney, a fleshy curve!

Personally I think a surname is completely different, I believe its title to the estate, but is still the trust corpus of the family. So if SURNAME is a title to an estate and has nothing to do with your name whatsoever, it would be first and second name on name of the estate where your only parent, the state, under loci parentis draw all the bloody credit from to provide for you.

SURNAME = Title of the Trust Corpus for all ancestors and descendants but they can direct it from that account specifically because of your name (first second) and DOB

Waffle on WAFFLE, Waffle 25/12/17 is entitled to the credit in the WAFFLE estate....... For education, health care........

Or we draw down from the WAFFLE estate £1,000,000,000 (after Waffle has been securitised or after WAFFLE has been securitised again now new stock has been delivered) for the life of Waffle and assign it to NINO...

What if by registering the birth to a county council you are registering the ESTATE to that county for them to administrate for your benefit, what isn't used goes for the use of that county. By registering the birth in the county you are assigning them guardians of the ESTATE for local education, health care, dental treatment, it says on the BC "registration district" then in a different section "administrative area, county of.....", what exactly are they administrating in that area?

how much administrating does a tiny record in an old book need, and wouldn't this be the same area one was registered, that would be a no brainer, you were registered in the county of/sub district that would be the administrative area, why is there a different section for administration?

If you have a register of live births (berths) then logically you have to have a register of dead births (berths) in existence.

If you have a live berth and kill it off through the BC then a dead berth moves many obstacles and cuts a lot of administration out.

Hi guys

Waffle - well spotted! They're 'administrating' (aka 'exploiting') not your 'estate' but your CQV access rights to the estate. Will put more up later.

assassin - can't really have a 'register of live births' as it's an oxymoron, you can only register that which is legally considered to be dead. It's the 'record of live birth' that validates the man.

Cheers!

Historically woman have had no voice, for centuries they've liturally been dead to the system. Today although a 'mother'has inherent rights to parental responsability for the child she is still not deemed a natural guardian (legal guardian) even though she's spent 9 months growing the offspring and she is the one the baby comes from.

Taking into account the historic and current status or lack of the mother, the fact that the placenta is treated as part of the mother, is this theory that the placenta is the mother, in their eyes there is no father, ergo the child and it's estate devolve to the crown.

This would make it much more clear cut as to the probate and orphan, ward presumptions.

They have abolished all laws that even a ligitimate father can be a natural father, the legal guardian, but it's not been abolished that a father can be a legal guardian. It appears what they are treating the father as even if the parents are married is a putative father. Because of the advancement in DNA testing and technology they can say there is another way to prove the ward is a biological descendant of the father, we don't believe the ward is unless you prove that it is. The child in their eyes is an orphan because the father is yet to prove otherwise with DNA testing

Hi Waffle


........debt/death.

i'm drafting a post for later, but here's a little teaser (great find on the change in legislation re: rights of 'natural' father's btw - it inspired some interesting thoughts) to ponder:

We all have an 'ancestral seat'.

Your 'House' is built on 'your' Estate.

Your 'Estate' is located within your 'House'.

Have a think about that. If you work it out then have a think on what a 'hereditament' really is - clue: it's all Latin.....

Cheers!

Hi Waffle

Oh, and...



".......assign it to NINO."

10/10 my friend - pat yourself on the back!

Cheers!

Hi guys

Let's have another 'Leap of Faith' into a 'Flight of Fancy' production.

There is a lot more to a pack of playing cards than you know.....

'A House of Cards' (apols for historic inaccuracy)

The 'surname' as we know it goes back, i believe,;to Henry VIII. He started with the Houses of Nobility, as they were the 'landed gentry' whose land and assets he coveted.

When he instigated the reformation he had a problem - how to legitimise his ownership of the Catholic Church land, gold and assets he had taken. He couldn't just say it was his, he had to first somehow justify his actions.

So he gave it all to the people,;after all that's where the wealth had come from originally.

How and why did he do this? He en-titled the populace and granted each first-born freeman five acres of land or the financial equivalent in gold, to be held in trust by the Crown. He created new 'Houses of Ancestry' to store the wealth, but accessible only to the Crown. He took the Census and named the Houses after the occupations listed in it, eg House of Smith, House of Baker etc.

"My Father's house has many rooms...."

Each man and his wife and offspring were assigned to the House bearing the name of his profession. To each man a 'room' in the House. Every man who was a smith by trade was assigned to the House of Smith, every baker was assigned to House of Baker etc. and all of their granted lands or gold was assigned to be held in trust by the Crown on behalf of the Houses. i suspect he didn't disclose ANY of this to the various Smiths and Bakers, so when they died their inheritance went unclaimed.....

So how does he launder the assets from the Houses to his treasury? Simple - he 'borrows' it and leaves an I. O. U. in the form of a Govt. Treasury Bond - all legit dontcha know? With guarantees of interest and everything!

So your House is built on your Estate - yet your Estate is to be found within your House!

How cool is that?

So if we take 'sur' to mean 'over' we have the 'over-name'. This stands 'over' the Christian (man) name. What usually stands over a man? A House. That gives us the 'over-house'.

Your 'surname' is your 'over-house', the House you are under.....

So when a copper asks your 'name' he's asking: "who is your Overseer?" Which is another indication of our slavery.

Anyway, back to the House trusts - from the tiny acorn grows the mighty oak.....

i'm just getting started here guys.....

T.B.C.

Cheers!

Hi guys

'A House of Cards' cont'd

Over time the populace got used to the 'family' name - possibly because they didn't know 'family 'meant 'House of Slaves'.

In 1601 the first legislated social security was introduced, for the 'orphans'. CQV business must have been good. It was also around this time that the 'author-ised' (aka 'edited') King James Version was 'created'.

Come 1666 we had a bonfire to clear the land that the Crown Corp fancied making their own (about a square mile if memory serves) and a harvesting of the 'ig-Noble Houses' to pay for it, courtesy of a parliamentary session of just a handful of members who produced overnight the infamous CQV Act 1666.

Christopher Wren later we have some pretty impressive architecture and a base for the Templars.
And a pretty impressive piece of Act too, to be honest.

Phrases that stand out.... er, ok, phrases i remember include (but not exclusively) 'lost at sea', 'gone beyond the seas' , 'cannot find them', 'won't somebody PLEASE think of the children' (ok, that last one might have been South Park or Simpsons but you get my drift). The idea being that lots of people suddenly just up and disappeared, and the dependents left behind left destitute for lack of access to 'family' (ha!) funds. (Only the dependants don't appear to be visible either.) In the Act the Crown promises to take good care of the assets of the Houses until such time as jesus 2.0 provides 5 forms of ID on a day with a 'b' in it.

Still awake....?

T.B.C.

Cheers!

Hi guys

Waffle - on pg1 of this thread you put up part of an act: "In this Act 'Crown servant' means...."

i don't suppose you know whether it goes on to define 'Crown'.....?

Cheers!

Their is no definition of the "Crown" in that act, further I could not find one in the interpretation act of 1978, one can only guess that it is the Corporation sole to which ministers are sworn to serve, but that is just a guess and a guess is not anything definite, mind you the interpretation act gives indefinite meaning to words too, have a look at person - it is what it is not..

As I said before whenever a definition is subject to the word "means" it is a restrictive definition, and is restricted to the act or the context of the act in question usually.

Acting on the behalf of the crown implies either an agency relationship or a trustee position, in the context of the Registrar General who is also a corporation sole; words like direction and upon the approval of imply employer/employee but within a trust structure.

I believe waffle is rather busy at the moment, as am I, he did have an interesting FOI on what-do-they-know, that's entirely his prerogative if he wished to share it on here, this study project is a momentous and serious task to complete, its rather a shame that the response from others on this has been so poor to be honest, which is one of the reasons we are not posting as much now.

If only a handful of members were investigating this subject with statutory research and FOI requests it would move the our knowledge levels up a level or two, what is absolutely clear is that we are not getting clear answers from these people employed in a so called public capacity and the internet is rife with speculation and white noise.

IF some one disclosed to you that the Registrar General is subject to the approval of the Lord High Treasurer of HM commissioners in causing registers to be made, you would think that would be enough to pique anyone's interest who has a Birth Certificate, wouldn't you.

You can show people evidence all day long and it can change nothing within people.... That's free will for you.

Hi Candor

Thanks for the update.

Yes, popular ignorance is our biggest hurdle and biggest frustration.

The reason i asked about the Crown is i was hoping we could catch them out.

As regards the Registrar General, Waffle might be interested to know (given the context of the thread) that 'gener' can mean 'son-in-law'. Hopefully that is helpful.

Oh and btw i came across an 'eternally aware' YT vid that suggested 'which includes' is exclusive BUT 'including' is non-exclusive - that might explain the discrepancy we came across earlier.....

Cheers!

Hey Iamani

As Candor pointed out there is no definition for "crown" but as far as I understand there is "the Crown/Crown" and "The Crown", for this we are looking at the crown also crown.

In England "Crown" is the Monarch Queen Lizzy II in her office capacity and not in her private capacity, which is why we may sometimes see the term Queen Lizzy II in right of her Crown, this is the Queen as sovereign in right of the state. The state, its government al the public land and property is the Crown, its all the public domain and the queen is the corporation sole holding that office. Its perpetual and passes, on the demise of the Monarch, to the successor. She is supposed to be the trustee of the Crown for the nation!

Corporation sole originated from the Pope, as far as I can see the Pope was the first corporation sole, this office was successful and additional corporation soles were created for other high ranking ecclesiastical officials. Today tho there are many corporation soles holding offices, however, they are still mostly ecclesiastical, an Anglican vicar is out likely a corporation sole, in an office for that parish, the parish will be there for such longer than the vicar, the successor becomes the new soul holding that office in perpetuity.

Where I am at now is that Queen Lizzy is possible a prince elector of some sort, who has been granted the state, "through" succession from the bloodline of whatever dynasty they are intermingled with today, Roman Cesar or Rothschilds, however, she probably is the Arch treasure of the Holy Roman Empire as King George III was in the late 17th, ergo she is in right of her Crown, as the Duke is in right of his Duchy, basically she is a prince responsible for a state in right of Cesar, Arch Treasuer of that state......

If we go back to the definition of Crown, its not there, but in the Official Secrets Act, Minister of the Crown is used, then if we go to the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, they are defined as:

“Minister of the Crown” means the holder of an office in Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, and includes the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Defence Council.




However as Candor rightly pointed out unless we see it defined somewhere in the legislation its open to speculation, the closest I can see so far is this:

Any reference in this Act to His Majesty in His private capacity shall be construed as including a reference to His Majesty in right of His Duchy of Lancaster and to the Duke of Cornwall.

Not sure why it doesn't say her majesty, it is from 1947...... But that is the reference to his private property, The Crown Estate, which by the way now belongs to the Crown, its not so private any more....





This is worth reading:

5. Types of corporation
Corporations are of two main kinds, both of which are likely to be encountered by caseworkers. The most common corporations are those where collections of persons are incorporated - corporations aggregate. However, a corporation can be constituted in a single person - a corporation sole.

Companies incorporated under the Companies Acts are usually corporations aggregate, but may now also be corporations sole.

Corporations aggregate, consist of several members at the same time. Examples include municipal corporations (such as local authorities where, under the Local Government Act 1972, a council is created and then incorporated).

Corporations sole, consist of only one member at a time, with the corporate character being kept up by a succession of solitary members over time. Corporations sole are always holders of a particular office; one example is the Official Custodian for Charities. The holders of certain offices in the Church of England (eg vicars) are also corporations sole (though their equivalents in the Church in Wales and the Roman Catholic and non-conformist churches are not). The Public Trustee is another example of a corporation sole. Further information on the role of the Public Trustee may be found at OG-38-C3. Property (which includes not only land and buildings, but also cash and investments) which the member holds by virtue of his or her office passes on retirement, resignation or death to his or her successor.

When dealing with the latter it is important to be clear if we are dealing with the individual as a person or the office that they hold.






This link here is very interesting

http://www.duchyofcornwall.eu/latest/?page_id=130

Sounds interesting Iamani and I kind of get the metaphor too but I am an evidence type of guy, you got any established sources for your citations ?

I cant use a YT video as evidence in court or in a discovery process, I can use a recognised publication or authority that judges recognise though.

There is a simple logic to all of this, for a corporation sole to have joinder and thus jurisdiction over us it would have to be presumed we are of the same genus - legally speaking another corps, now look at the apparently circular and contradictory interpretation of person in the 1978 interpretation act and we find the same clue we found in our rates and CT foray.

Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate. [1889]

You may think that through, because the body of persons still constitutes the trust corpus or the res, so to say it is unincorporated is mere trickery, a Body has its organisation and Organisations have members.

What did those shysters say about the SURNAME its an organisational symbol wasn't it ?

I will leave that with the forum.

Any particular parts Candor? some is background reading ( i don't think they'll accept wiki in court), some is memory and some is citable.....

Succession to the crown act

ministers of the crown act

crown proceedings act

This was quite interesting, a may be usable in court, its parliamentary, I don't know if that constitutes as evidentiary......

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-crown/

Ha, didn't read your comment properly Candor, ignore whatever the hell I'm doing

Hi guys

Would have been nice to join in, my notification emails seem to be sporadic lately. i was actually reading the hansard Candor put up, found an interesting paragraph (at last!).

Waffle - yes there are two Crowns (or three if you count chuck's 'training' Crown in Cornwall - yes, that was an interesting link....).

There is 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II' the monarch and then there is 'Her Majesty the Queen In Right of England' (if i remember rightly - i'm sure it was mentioned as such on a Troy vid) which is the Crown Corporation.

i'm of the opinion that the Crown Corp. is owned by banksters, that the Crown Corp. owns the Crown Estates, the Monarchy and the govt.

i suspect that 'Crown' remains undefined in legislation so it can be used interchangeably, to hide the fact that the Crown Corp. dictates legislation to parliament.

So when we say 'Her Majesty's Government' - which 'Her Majesty' is it? If we can work that out from context in the legislation we could REALLY catch them out......

Regarding the 'corporation sole', what i saw when i looked at it was similar in effect to a trust. Do you know the U.S. doesn't allow them? At least in the ecclesiastical sense.....

'Public Trustee' looks interesting (i'm still stuck on the 'Mr' mystery).

Re: Lizzy - gotta be honest,, i'm no longer sure of ANYTHING about her status.......

Candor - sorry buddy, my input will rarely ever be evidence based - i'm more of an intuition/imagination/contextual anagogy kind of guy. Oh, and phonetics appears to be key to the whole mess, so i'm big on that too. We all have to work to our strengths, don't we? Hopefully i can still contribute something useful from time to time.

The 'persons' thing - sure looks like trickery to me. When you take into account the double-negative that is 'un-in...' they're actually saying 'person includes a body of persons corporate or corporate' (notice no 'd' on the end of unincorporate). Also i feel one would need to define 'body'.

Did i miss something, or am i just being dense in not getting who it is you refer to as 'shysters'?

i've been trying to re-read this thread for weeks. There are so many nuggets in there i rarely even get to the second page. All good stuff......

Cheers!

They can never identify the crown for the simple reason of it laying liability at someone's door and neither the monarch or the corporations want liability laying at their door.

Regarding the 'corporation sole', what i saw when i looked at it was similar in effect to a trust. Do you know the U.S. doesn't allow them? At least in the ecclesiastical sense.....

Seperation of church and State ?

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion,

I wonder if that was one of it's intentions.

iamani wrote:
The 'persons' thing  -  sure looks like trickery to me. When you take into account the double-negative that is 'un-in...' they're actually saying 'person includes a body of persons corporate or corporate' (notice no 'd' on the end of unincorporate). Also i feel one would need to define 'body'.

YES it is with out doubt trickery. In 2008 went to court over speeding ticket (I know I have touched on this before but feel I need to emphasize...). Did not know then what I do now & fell for the "what's your name, address, & phone number?" etc.  After coming out of court realised or more over knew I was NOT allowed to win, got done over, trousers down & stuffed - simply railroaded. At the time could see what had been done but the big question HOW?

After reading what is on this site + old goodf + watching several yt vids now I can fill in the blanks & finish off this jigsaw. It is & always was the trickery of the "PERSON".

As you said iamani in another of your posts about "includes" is exclusive & "including" non exclusive, here the PERSON is exclusively a legally created entity & totally FAKE!

Hi guys

assassin - that has to be a large element of it, i agree.

Society of the Spectacle - i think you must be right, the pilgrims left to escape the church after all....

LionsShare - aren't epiphanies great? That feeling of validation when you make a discovery that really chimes, and connections appear that you didn't see before, it's almost addictive!

We've all been had-off by the 'authorities', but it's as you say LionsShare - sites like this and people like these help us gain the knowledge to lose the fear AND FIND OUT WHAT THE FECK IS GOING ON!
.....and a chance to change our very destiny.

Welcome aboard the 'crazy train' fella - glad to have ya!

Cheers!

Im pretty sure the queen is merely ceremonial today. Since the slaughter of King Charles and the Glorious revolution a Monarch can only be appointed by the government, similarly a prime minister and governmental corporation soles are appointed by the Monarch. When for example the blood line of the Monarchy runs dry, the government are to choose a new prince from other territories as the successor to the Crown, this has been going on for a good few hundred years now, the last time it happened I believe was after the reign of Victoria.....

As the parliamentary link showed over time the Queen has lost a lot of power and is merely ceremonial!!!

I'm pretty sure this goes for the Church too, as a recent discovery shows the Monarch, who is supreme govoner of the CoE, can only be protestant, yet the CoE are now claiming to be Anglican Catholic, this brings in one of the Popes letters where he instated the Archbishop of Westminster and ordered for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York to be subordinate to the Archbishop of Westminster. Under the 39 articles of Religion the Pope still has no jurisdiction. The Diocese of Westminster covers Greater London, ergo Greater London is in a Catholic Diocese with a Protestant Monarch living within it. NONSENSICAL.......

So formally the Queen is Head of the State and Supreme Govoner of the Church of England however she is very clearly described as a ceremonial figure head, weird huh! Her Majesty can be in both or either a private or public capacity, but I think its all just a facade, to be quite frank.



In terms of corp sole in the states, the states now has I believe 0 anglican officials within its heirachy, the whole place is top bottom catholic, thats within the realms of people with a say. No corp soles + they are running on an entirely different system as the UK and probably the rest of the common wealth.

The UK has a secret civil system that they are hiding from us, to add to that there are two testaments from God, a revealed Testament and a secret testament. The secret testament is too obscure for the citizens and they are using a secret government hidden over the world to administrate it, that is after the reformation and is not my opinion.

In terms of "body" its pretty much synonymous with person, the two are pretty much the same, it might as well say person corporate or unincorporate which unincorporate can be a trustee......

Anyone in an office is a trustee, so a corporation sole is the sole trustee of that office......

Yes the trickery is in the "person", thats all they can deal with, you, the real you's not alive in the eyes of God, you were conceived therefore are dead, it really is that simple. So they use the legal entity to process you whilst you are in the office of "whatever your name is", it should be a corporation sole, but is incorporated on the public record and becomes a corporation aggregate, you are a trustee/agent for a crown corporation, everything you think belongs to you belongs to the crown, you are a holder merely with interests all the while that unclaimed estate is in probate. The audacity to just claim it all from us then grant it back as an apparent right of possession + the rent (taxes) for borrowing it from the crown through our lives, its despicable.

We have to understand what we are in their eyes, we do not want to be a person, agent, trustee that is for sure, so how do we flip this back round on them???

They have stolen it all from us, it all should irrevocably belong to us, but these b*stards are the ones receiving the benefit from our energy and all our production!