The CrowHouse Forums

Hi

b4 listening to Dean Clifford and Max Igan i was of the opinion that the birth certificate was something to be feared. Because my research had led me to believe that registering the birth of babies, increased the governments/social services ability to remove children from parents - as you'd signed them over to the state through registration. Or at least thats how the state sees it - they now have a claim of ownership with the BC.

Now im not sure what to think.

What do you guys know about the BC and the power it gives social services to take children? does it make a difference or not?

Cheers.

_________________
www.getoutofdebtfree.org
www.lawfulbank.com

Well, maybe look @ the alleged laws that govern the registration process; are they registering the baby or are they registering the event?

As for "how the state sees it"; what's the alleged difference between "the state" and santa clause or the tooth-fairy?

Have you attempted to come to meeting of the minds with the people likely believing they work for "the state" regarding what constitutes consenting to being governed externally? Could it be "the state" only has authority to govern those providing evidence that they're involved in controversy (by making claims of identity and/or ownership)? Can anyone ever "prove" that they're identical to anything in this world, such as a name or word, or that they "own" anything in this world? Without a meeting of the minds, what good is a piece of paper for "proving" anything?

_________________
Would "you" please consider?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChbnUDpqMow

i think its this vid, that dean says the UN declaration on the rights of the child state categorically that government has no claim over ones children.

it is an assumed contract when social services take peoples kids.

He states a process to get kids back of basically asking SS - Do you recognise this document (UN declaration on the rights of the child). If so, return the children, if not - this is how much it is going to cost you. and sue them in civil court/place commercial liens on them.


Its rob menard et al who say that the BC transfers a claim of ownership over the child. Thus a BC enables SS's to take children LEGALLY, albeit unlawfully. Whereas if there no BC, they cannot take kids legally, but may still do unlawfully.

Also in the linked vid above, a caller says they had a baby but were unsure if to register it, so they registered it their own way - along the lines of a sworn affidavit, signed or witnessed by the family doctor.
This makes most sense, because if we do not know if the BC allows SS to take kids legally, and we still want to lawfully record the birth of a child, doing it OUR way and not the governments way of the BC - makes sense to me. You still might want to record the event of the birth.


Also, John Harris of http://www.tpuc.org said they were contacted by a mother who had 4 kids taken away, and a few days later SS's returned one child and said the reason why theyd returned that child is that "we dont own him, you never registered the birth."

So im not sure what the BC enables the government to do LEGALLY.
But with dean cliffords method above, its good to know there is a way to get BC registered kids back.


Bouviers law dictionary

doesnt mention transferring ownership.

_________________
www.getoutofdebtfree.org
www.lawfulbank.com

http://www.thecompletepatient.com/stora ... on9-11.pdf

According to that judgment, plaintiffs don't even have a "right" to consume the foods of their choice...

_________________
Would "you" please consider?

I have heard of a theory from Alex Jones that the government uses your birth certificate as collateral to the central banks and it's worth billions to them, I have no evidence of this though.

what we are missing is knowledge of whether the BC definately does play a role in enabling SS to take kids.

Anyone related to any social workers who they could trust to ask?

_________________
www.getoutofdebtfree.org
www.lawfulbank.com

Thanks jimmy.

when unfortunate parents have their kids taken, it seems the social worker and likely accompanying police, think that the child is the name on the piece of paper.

The infant is powerless to say or do anything. How could a parent handle this situation to stop the child being taken in the 1st place.

Also, SS take babies in the maternity wing soon after delivery, long before a BC is produced and signed. So the BC cant be the be all and end all, but seems to strengthen SS's claim over a child.

_________________
www.getoutofdebtfree.org
www.lawfulbank.com

i agree.

_________________
www.getoutofdebtfree.org
www.lawfulbank.com

Thanks jimmy

what do you think is the best way to handle a birth/baby.

1) not register it at all.
2) register it your own private way, along the lines of sworn affidavit.
3) get a govt issued BC for the baby.

_________________
www.getoutofdebtfree.org
www.lawfulbank.com

thanks jimmy.

im not presuming you have all the answers. We are brainstorming here!

but when social workers and the police turn up in the middle of the night to take someones child, who/what do they believe they are coming to collect?

in this circumstance, how might one convince the SW and police that their child is not the BC? or would they need to do it administratively, and let them take the child for now? & then deal with it administratively like dean cliffords way?

due to all the confusion about what THE GOVT believes the BC repsresents, and they are theo nes with all the force behind them, I prefer the idea of recording the birth privately, and not the govt way, and letting the kid decide at age 16+ if they want to get a NI number. Kind of a comprimise solution.

_________________
www.getoutofdebtfree.org
www.lawfulbank.com