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

Hi all

Waffle - i think the Estate is our inheritance. Going back to at least the time when 'family' names were forced upon us. And they've been accruing all this time....

The CQV is a means to milk those accounts, the BC system a means to keep the pretence going.

Are we entitled to it? Only if we can prove it, apparently.

Cheers!

I have some good documents from the 18th century from the Lords basically saying the estate of wards are in escrow because we don't know how to order them. The inheritance marries up with what the city of london did to the orphans, but there is also a very strong possibility that there is the securitisation of the futures of our output, perhaps there is more than one part to this......

TBC

Hi Waffle

There's no perhaps about it, there are several layers (imo), each more incredible than the last.

i shall look forward to your continuance.

Cheers!

Hey Iamani

are you able to reference any info on the enforcement of the surname?

Might help push this on

Cheers

Hi Waffle

i wish i could, but it's just another piece of info i picked up somewhere and it stuck - as i think i've mentioned elsewhere, what i call research you (and ALAB and assassin et al) would probably call 'taking a break'.

It is a fact though, of that i'm sure. Perhaps it goes back as far as the first trust? Or just the first CQV Act? Sorry......

Cheers!

or maybe the feudal era ), it keeps popping up....

its not the first time I've herd of it btw, just hasn't stuck very well yet

Hi Waffle

i would be surprised if you hadn't. When you say 'feudal times', what time frame do you give that?

Cheers!

i think its from the 8th century up until the renaissance era, around the 17th century. But some feudal laws existed up until 2010 like socage.

there was another or a derivative aswell that had relevance but i can't remember now may have been something to do with a conversion of socage.

A slightly more common freedom of the city is connected to the medieval concept of "free status", when city and town charters drew a distinction between freemen and vassals of a feudal lord.

All our tenures derive from feudalism vessels and fiefs were granted tenures from lords and the fief which today is fee as in fee simple (freehold) is just a tenure like a lease of land from a lord or monarch. Anyways feudalism does deserve a new thread

Hi Waffle

Agreed.

i think the modern 'sur-name '/family name started towards the end of your time frame - maybe Francis Bacon/William Shakespeare ERA?

i suspect ALL of it stems from what the Templars found and brought back - secret information, in many areas, that had previously been lost to time.

Cheers!

Look at the French meaning of "sur" and see how it works, particularly in the connection of other words.

Hi assassin

On, over, by, sure or certain. i believe it is certainty that is relevant to our cause.

Norman implemented the system here with the domesday book, to keep track of inheritances as they did in Normandy.

Henry VIII ordered marital births be recorded under the surname of the father, i would assume round about the time of his CQV Act (1540-41?).

i think if we can find when they started using 'informant' on the BC source document we'll be cookin' on gas....

Cheers!

Residentity
Post by iamani Yesterday at 9:09 pm

Hi all

Welcome to: 'The Residentity' (yes i made up a word!)

Mr. Ignorant-Person is looked after by a slave human male res-identified as john -james, while Mrs. Ignorant-Person is attended by a female human slave res-identified as mary-jane. The 'persons' are a joint enterprise, the humans a mated pair. The humans are controlled by the Ignorant-Persons who are in turn owned by the Crown and governed by code 'law'.

The merger of the individual estates represented by the 'persons' of Mr. and Mrs. Ignorant-Person soon generates enough interest to merit a new bond in the expression of trust. Naturally, at the same time the physical joining of their human slaves produces the prospect of a new 'res' to back it.

Mr Doctor-Person and Mr and Mrs Ignorant-Person are all party to documentation purporting to legitimise the new venture. Humanely, at the same time Mr Doctor-Person's drug-dealing human slave aids the Ignorant-Persons' humans in delivering (remember - execution lies in delivery) the new addition to the 'familae' (that's Latin for 'house of slaves' btw).

Mr and Mrs Ignorant-Person hang around the hospital until their humans are fit to leave. They have no desire to tend the 'child' (if it weren't for the pesky Human-animal Rights Act they would probably not be averse to selling it for a profit....) but a (vadium?) bailment is agreed to a term of 16 years and all return to the Ignorant-Person 'res'-idence.

For Mr and Mrs Ignorant-Person things return to pretty much normal. The humans - not so much. They now have a huge new workload in addition to their 'person'-al obligations as slaves to the Ignorants.

As Mr and Mrs Ignorant-Person are rather important to the world of commerce their human slaves are kept busy, and it is because of Ignorant-Person requirements that the child is reared mostly by strangers employed as educators (Latin for foster-father btw). The human parents acquiesce to this separation surprisingly meekly. In fact their willingness to sign over their biological property without question could be said by some to prove them unfit parents.....

After 16 years the bailment agreement is over and the 'child' becomes a 'res'-ident(ity) complete with unwitting access to its own estate, and with it's very first public signature as a Residentity enchains itself to a 'person'-ality forever. He meets a pretty girl-slave and..... so on.

Hopefully next up will be the 'Maritime Fantasy Residentity', followed by 'Residentity Evil' ecclesiastical game.....

Cheers!

Thought this might be fitting.

DOES SLAVERY STILL HAPPEN?
Many people think that slavery is a thing of the past, but it still occurs in 21st century Australia.

Slavery is prohibited under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as by international treaties that Australia has ratified, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Slavery Convention 1926. It is a crime against humanity and Australia owes obligations to people who are held in conditions of slavery and servitude. Australia has domestic laws in place that also prohibit slavery.

2. WHAT DOES “SLAVERY” MEAN?
Slavery is defined in s 270.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) as:

‘the condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, including where such a condition results from a debt or contract made by the person.’

One of more of the following factors may indicate that slavery is taking place:
- control of movement;
- control of physical environment;
- psychological control;
- measures taken (such as threats, force or coercion) to prevent or deter escape;
- subjection to cruel treatment and abuse; - control of sexuality; and
- forced labour.1

These factors were set out in The Queen v Tang [2008] HCA 39, Australia’s first slavery case.

Justice Gleeson in Tang referred to the indicators that can make a situation amount to slavery:

“How is a jury to distinguish between slavery, on the one hand, and harsh and exploitative conditions of labour, on the other? The answer to that, in a given case, may be found in the nature and extent of the powers exercised over a complainant. In particular, a capacity to deal with a complainant as a commodity, an object of sale and purchase, may be a powerful indication that a case falls on one side of the line.”

Section 270.3(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) makes it an offence to intentionally possess a slave or reduce a person to slavery. The Criminal Code also contains slavery-like offences. To find out more about these, see Anti-Slavery Australia’s factsheets on forced labour, forced marriage, servitude and debt bondage.

For further information and for confidential legal advice contact Anti-Slavery Australia on (02) 9514 9660, email us at antislavery@uts.edu.au, or visit our website at http://www.antislavery.org.au/

Hi all

Ausk - yes, it is fitting. Interesting too - a 'person' not being alive, how can it be subjected to slavery?

"....may be a powerful indication that a case falls one side of the line." Wow... the judge just couldn't bring himself to commit, could he? Slippery fecker....

Cheers!

If we look historically a slave was afforded a legal person, from what I can make out that was the basis of person. Now if lawful or unlawful slavery was abolished in the 18th that leaves legal slavery which falls right back onto the person. Just a thought.

Hi guys

As promised, i now present a 'leap of faith' into 'a flight of fancy' production:

The Maritime Residentity

A vessel of heritage, on her maiden voyage and heavily laden is guided into her virgin berth by a dock-tow.

The berth canal successfully navigated, and berth made, the crew of the vessel deliver cargo into the custody of the Port Authority.

Your mother, a passenger of the vessel, disembarks.

Just before/as she makes landfall, between land and sea, she dies in birth - yet ('twixt shit and piss) you are still born.

The crew of the vessel sign testimony as to the name of your mother, that she was unmarried and that though she died off-vessel she was carried to term and technically aboard property of the vessel so they lay claim to her property as you were still born.

The Captain of the dock-tow signs testimony that your mother died after disembarking the vessel and you were still born, and states a claim to the property for the Port Authority.

(Note: stillbirths have been recorded in this country since 1927. The records are not available to the general public in the form of indexes , and application to the Registrar General is needed for a certificate to be issued. 1927 also saw the first legal system of adoption. Is the stillbirth register where they hide the perpetual estates.....?)

So your unmarried mother's 'effects' (you!) are placed in probate - you are now 'res' delivered of 'mater'.

The crew of the vessel are granted possession of the res under terms and conditions of bailment, to look after the res under the name of the vessel until superior claim is realised or 16 years, whichever soonest. They are given certification to that effect.

The crew of the vessel now assume roles of 'educator' and 'educatrix' (foster father and nurse). The terms of the bailment dictate how the property is to be curated, with infractions subject to fine and even seizure of the vessel and her a-tender (every crew member has a right to a-tender....).

In signing agreement to the bailment the crew take (temporary) possession of the 'res' but at the same time legitimise the Port Authority's claim of interest in the property, which imposes it's own conditions.

The crew now bear the responsibility and liability for the 'res' and are obliged to increase its value up to the maturity of the bailment (16 years) at which point, with a single consented contract from 'you', the 'res' reverts to the auspices of the Port Authority who, if there is no evidence of superior claim or objection, assigns it to a 'new' vessel as a Mr. Crew-mate, a newly matured 'res'identity who 'res'ides 'res'ident in a 'res'idence.

'Res' delivered of 'mater'. Now we know why they're called 'foundling' hospitals!

......meanwhile, across the pond, when the Dr signs on the 'credit' side of the stillbirth record he signs not as Dr. - he signs as 'Special Agent, Department of the Census'.

Apparently in the USA you can't tax ANYONE - except by en-numeration of the Census.......

Go figure!

Cheers!

Hi guys

What..... no questions? You're just being shy, i know.....

OK i'll give a few pointers. In this scenario the woman you know as 'mummy' is here represented, heavily pregnant, as the heritage vessel heavily laden (and also as a crew member of said vessel). The vessel is your mother using the legal name (Mrs Doe).

Baby 'you' is the metaphorical cargo of the vessel. The 'passenger/mother' is the placenta or afterbirth, which dies soon after exiting the womb.

The placenta is your mother (or half-sister depending on which way you look at it) while in the womb, and there is none of the fathers dna in the placenta (which makes it a 'virgin' birth) just yours and mummy's.

TBC

Cheers!

Hi guys

Waffle - it's just occurred to me the the BC register is ONLY recording still-births aka placentae!!!! That must be why T.H.E.Y. say there is no publicly accessible indexes of stillbirths - to hide the fact that it's hidden in plain sight!

So T.H.E.Y. are not turning us into dead things/fictions - WE ARE!

Our parents DIDN'T sign us over to the state or crown (they signed the placenta over) - WE DID!

Think about it - the 'informant' IS your mother under her maiden name. A placenta is a not-fully-formed foetus ('in-formant'). Your father's dna is absent, so it's not his, it was part of your mother before she married and remains solely hers after marriage so it (the placenta) is rightly identified under her maiden name.

Phillpots mentioned how, under 'first name', the term 'if any' was mentioned. What a clue! That term can only possibly apply to a still-birth. Also i believe it says - in the same column - 'including still-births'. We know the term 'includes' is exclusive of anything not included, so that column is definitely not for live births!


The father thinks he is signing the register to confirm his claim of 'sirage' of his offspring when what he is really doing is legitimising the placenta as part of the ESTATE that his surname represents but which he doesn't own and is ignorant of.

The still-born 'child' is then deemed to also be your mother - and you are her ORPHAN/'property'. Which makes you a 'WARD!' of the probate and/or family court.

That's why your father's name appears in all caps on the BC. It both signifies the death of a 'child' and identifies the ESTATE its effects (as 'mother') should be held under.

That's why the BC states ' not to be used for identification' - T.H.E.Y.'re telling you it's not you and not yours!


Am i wrong? All input welcome guys.

Cheers!

You kept us hanging for the sequel, I can't remember where you put that piece of legislation to do with the stills could you copy it in here....

Sounds like the carriage-miss ed it's delivery.

I'll go through this properly later. With the placenta the mother signs it over to the hospital for disposal, it's sent off to burn in hell in the in sin erater, it's all treated as very sensitive and the parent has the choice of its disposal and can have it buried but they have to request for the pregnancy remains to be returned. After it's in sin erated you can request for a disposal certificate, whatever the hell that is......

Hi Waffle

i've never owned a computer so don't know how to do links. But it's the 'Society of Genealogy' website, under 'Guide Two: Births, Deaths and Marriages'.


Cheers!

Trying to catch up on all this, on leap of faith

Income tax CENSUS

Council Tax CENSUS

(Note: stillbirths have been recorded in this country since 1927. The records are not available to the general public in the form of indexes , and application to the Registrar General is needed for a certificate to be issued. 1927 also saw the first legal system of adoption. Is the stillbirth register where they hide the perpetual estates.....?)

very interesting, something thats crossed my mind, it could be both still birth and adopted, parents only acquire parental responsibility of children, they abolished natural fatherhood in 1989 and the mother has only parental responsibility, just like caring for our own child is caring for an orphan.

It would be good to read into this further, for adoptions, on the record they place a dot in an annex of some sort and this is not shown on the BC's, the stills is a very interesting discovery, why is NO ONE allowed to view the PUBLIC records.

So your unmarried mother's 'effects' (you!) are placed in probate, (they abolished the law for legitimate fathers to be natural fathers (legal guardians) in 1989, Ive just found out)......

Onto your next bit now, its full of eureka moments.

What if they deem the placenta as the mother....... There is nothing in the human tissue act that distinguishes it from anything they just treat it as part of the mother.

If the placenta is mother, and mother dies who is there then to care for the orphan, no father can be a natural father legitimate or not. All we acquire is parental responsibility, how are they doing that? That would then put all our estate into probate as there is no guardian.......

If I remember correctly there is a document signed that hands over guardianship if the mother dies, they would have to have a document of that type, probably for every "procedure" they "practice"

I'll post more in a bit, I think were working through it