Judge Anna von Reitz
One of the chief obnoxious behaviors of our British Territorial United States “service providers” is to convert our names into their labels. They do this to their own people and they have been sneaking around doing it to us, too.
A friend just sent me a Prize Snippet from Frank O’Collin’s work, his Canon of Positive Law, concerning the history and gross misuse of Birth Certificates.
After you’ve read these few paragraphs exposing how Birth Certificates came into being, stand back and take a deep breath and realize that this is all 100% anti-scriptural Satanic nonsense which the British Monarchs have promoted for their own profit for going on five hundred years and which they have immorally and illegally foisted off on the people of this country and the rest of the world, too.
Then get on your broomsticks and fly in the faces of the members of the Territorial United States Congress and the Territorial State of State Governors and tell them exactly what you think of this system and also what you think of them for promoting it and allowing it to exist on our soil. Give them a copy of this article.
Then go rattle the cages of the local judges and “legislators” and demand to know what this hideous medieval practice is doing on our shores? And who they think they are, to stand here in broad daylight and allow it? And then write a letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and demand action against Britain. And do the same with the United Nations Secretary General.
Thank you forever Frank O’Collins, and I quote:
In terms of the history of Birth Certificates, Settlement Certificates and diminishing, tricking, deceiving, lying, seizing, condemning and cursing free people as slaves, wards, infants, cattle, poor and commodities: (i) In 1535 (27Hen.8 c.28) King Henry VIII of England and his Venetian/Magyar banking advisers seized the property of the poor and common farmers under the pretext they were “small religious estates”.
By 1539 (31Hen.8 c.13) he did the same for large religious estates. By 1540, (32Hen.8 c.1), all property was to be owned through “Estates” effectively being Welfare Funds granted by the Crown to the Benefit of use of Subjects with the most common being Estates for the non-wealthy now considered “Wards of the Estate”.
Then in 1545 (37Hen.8 c.1) King Henry VIII reintroduced a title directly and solely connected to the slave trade of Rome, abolished by emperors and forbidden under Christian law called the “Custos Rotulorum” meaning literally “Keeper of the Slave Rolls” into every county, to maintain records of the Poor now as slaves. The same sacrilegious, immoral, ecclesiastically unlawful positions continued into the 21st Century as connected with Birth Certificates; and (ii) In 1547 (1Ed.6 c.3) ,
Edward VI issued a new statute that did forbid people considered poor from traveling, except for work, or from claiming their own time and activities and whether or not to work. All people (except those members of the ruling elite, particularly those non-Christian sects from Pisa, Venice, and parts of Spain responsible for wholly false religious and legal texts) now declared slaves were either to be gainfully employed in the service of some lord or master, to work to death, or if they were found to be idle or enjoying life then they were to be seized and permanently branded with a “V” and either sold as a slave or exterminated.
The only exception to the rule, were those men who chose to dedicate themselves to support the status quo and become educated and knowledgeable in the false texts and false scriptures of the slave masters. This act was supposed to have been repealed in 1549 (3&4Ed.6 c.16). However, the act was then restored to full effect in 1572 (14El. c.5) and through subsequent repeals of repeals, remains in force; and (iii) Under Queen Elizabeth I of England, a set of measures were introduced which had the effect of accelerating the disenfranchisement of land peasants into landless paupers.
In 1589 (31El c. 7) peasants then required local parish permission to erect dwellings whereas before the erection of a dwelling by a land peasant on their lord’s land was considered a “right”. As a result, the ranks of the landless poor, or “paupers” swelled as available to be press-ganged into work; and (iv) To placate the overwhelming hostility against England as a hellhole of slavery, exploitation and superstition, a new act was introduced in 1601 (43El. c.2 and “secret version” as 43 El. c.3) to begin to industrialize, hide and franchise slavery with the introduction of “overseers” of the poor as the foremen over the slaves, under a “cleric” of the parish and the renaming of children sold as sex slaves and workers to be called “Apprentices”.
Thus the Apprentiship system was invented not to improve conditions, but to “rebrand” slavery under the NonChristian English-Venetian-Pisan model of commerce. The act also introduced a new levy, collected by Parishes was called the “Poor Rates” (now called “council taxes”) against wealthy property owners for their “rent” of use of the poor as slaves. This is the financial origin of Annuities 100 years later; and (v) Under Charles II of England, the concept of “Settlements” as plantations of working poor controlled by the Church of England was further refined in 1662 (14Car.2 c.12) including for the first time the issuance of “Settlement Certificates” equivalent to a “birth certificate, passport and social security” rolled into one document. A child’s birthplace was its place of settlement, unless its mother had a settlement certificate from some other parish stating that the unborn child was included on the certificate.
However from the age of 7 upward the child could have been apprenticed and therefore “sold into servitude” for some rent paid back to the church as “poor taxes”. The act also made it easier for the “clearing of common houses of the poor” and for the first time made the definition of poor the value of tenancy being a taxable value of less than £10 per year. The act also modified the age of “emancipation” from child slavery to adult slavery as the age of 16; and (vi) Under the draconian and morally repugnant dictates of 1662 (14Car.2 c.12), no one was allowed to move from town to town without the appropriate “Settlement Certificate”.
If a person entered a parish in which he or she did not have official settlement, and seemed likely to become chargeable to the new parish, then an examination would be made by the justices (or parish overseers). From this examination on oath, the justices would determine if that person had the means to sustain himself. The results of the examination were documented in an Examination Paper. As a result of the examination the intruder would then either be allowed to stay, or would be removed by means of what was known as a Removal Order, the origin of the modern equivalent of an “Eviction and Removal Notice” when a sheriff removes people from their home; and (vii) In 1667 (19Car.2 c.4) the concept of “workhouses” were formalized and licensed as being effectively the very worst and hellish places where people considered “prisoners” could be “legally” and effectively worked to death for the profit of the elite pirates and thieves, under the full endorsement by the Church of England.
This is the act that invented the concept of “Employment” and an expansion of the highly profitable white slavery business models of English aristocracy. Thus, people who were taken into custody by virtue of being poor, were expected to work as well as live in conditions as traumatic and evil as any in civilized history; and (viii) The abuse of poor prisoners through the “workhouses” employment model was extremely profitable and a new act was required in 1670 (22Car.2 c.18) to regulate the corporations “renting” of prisoners as “employees” for profit, particularly in the paying of their accounts to the Crown; and (ix) Previous acts were continued and some made perpetual such as the controls over paperwork and “Settlement Certificates” as the origin and ancestor of Birth Certificates by James II in 1685 (1J.2. c. 17) as one of the few acts that the ruling elite permitted to remain as an active Statute of Westminster under his reign; and (x) Under William and Mary of Orange in 1691 (3W&M c.11), the acts of workhouses and abuse of the poor were continued and further refined, with greater oversight on paperwork and accounting for poor entering and leaving parishes, to prevent fraud by overseers and corporations; and (xi) In 1697 (3W&M. c.11), one of the more horrific of the wicked and morally repugnant acts of Westminster was the introduction (in §2) of the “badge” of the poor with the letter “P” to be worn at all times on the shoulder of the right sleeve.
Furthermore, all evidence as to “Jewish Badges” being introduced in Europe as early as the 13th Century is wholly and completely false, as the term “jew” was not revived until the 16th Century. Instead, the first examples of badges as a stigma to status is most likely this act and subsequent acts against the poor by banking and ruling elite who chose to identify themselves as members of the same non-Christian religion invented in the 16th Century that claimed to be victims of the same barbarity.
The use of the “P” as a form of curse and stigma is the same model of modern passports for citizens listed as “P” (Paupers, Poor, Peasant, Prisoners, Property, Peon) used today; and (xii) In 1698 (9&10W3 c.11) an act reinforced the measurement of the poor being one who does not have an annual lease taxable at ten pounds or more, making at the time more than 95% of the population of England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland “poor”; and (xiii) In 1713 (12Ann. S.2 c.18), the extension of Settlement Certificates as a form of negotiable Security was introduced for the first time (and continues with Birth Certificates today) whereby (§2) those born in a place but without a Settlement Certificate (including women and children), could be moved to a different location, such as a commercial workhouse when the “cost” of such certificates were purchased by a corporation; and (xiv) Due to the increase in the number of “poor”, in 1722 a new law was passed (9Geo.1 c.7) in which those who had been thrown out of their homes or had their land seized by pirates and thieves operating with endorsement of Westminster and who sought relief from the Church to stay alive now had to “compete” to enter into a workhouse to survive.
Furthermore, the act expanded the ability for a wide variety of business owners to contract with churchwardens for the rent and use of the poor as “indentured servants” and “apprentices”. (xv) In 1733 (6Geo.2 c.32), one of the most inhumane and barbaric edicts in history was issued by Westminster (and remains an underlying pillar of the slave system today), whereby poor people who could not purchase a “license” to be considered married, would have their children deemed “bastards” and such children could then be seized by Churchwardens and “sold”.
Thus the baby slave trade was born and fully endorsed by the Church of England and British Society; and (xvi) In 1761 (2Geo.3 c.22), Westminster declared that all poor as mental “infants” and too stupid to realize the underlying system of slavery and complicity of the Christian Churches, were now to be cursed and doomed as “dead in law” by their registration in the Bills of Mortality and the creation of the “civil birth” rituals being rituals of death that continue today within modern hospitals and registration of new born babies. This was further reinforced with the act in 1767 (7Geo.3 c.39) that poor children were to be registered and considered “dead in law”; and (xvii) Beginning in 1773 with the Inclosure Act 1773 (13Geo.3 c.81), followed by the Inclosure Consolidation Act 1801 (41Geo.3 c.109),
English Parliament effectively “privatized” massive amounts of common land for the benefit of a few, causing huge numbers of land peasants to become “landless paupers” and therefore in need of parish assistance. In America, this caused massive rebellion as well as in Ireland and Scotland and contributed to forming a Patriot militia leading to the “War of Independence”. Almost the entire Patriot militias were deceived, captured and executed in New York (in 1777) under a deal between George Washington of the United Company of Merchants Blue Army and General Cornwalis of the East India Company Red Army.
The Inclosure Acts are the foundation of Land Title as it is known today; and (xviii) Because of the deliberate “legal” theft of land under parliamentary Inclosure laws of the late 18th and early 19th Century, the number of paupers dramatically increased. This led to the most awful and cruel laws being introduced to deliver to an elite few, the slave labor force needed for the industrial revolution through the Poor Law Amendment Act (1834) (5&6Will.4 c.76) which effectively stated that the poor could not receive any benefit unless they were constantly “employed” in a workhouse prison. Most importantly, much of the inhuman, barbaric and wholly immoral and sacrilegious framework of dictates and edicts of Westminster remained in force and were not repealed by this act).
Thus, despite international treaties against slavery, the very worst slavery being “wage slavery” or “lawful slavery” was born whereby men, women and children lived in terrible conditions and were continued to be worked “to death”; and (xix) In 1836, the Births and Deaths Registration Act (1836) (6&7Will.4 c.86) was introduced which for the first time created the General Register Office and the requirement for uniform records of births, deaths, and marriages across the Empire by Municipal Councils and Unions of Parishes.
Thus on 1, July 1837, the Birth Certificate was formed as the successor of the Settlement Certificate for all “paupers” disenfranchised of their land birthright to be considered lawful (“voluntary”) slaves with benefits provided by the local parish / region underwritten by the Society of Lloyds as it is still today; and (xx) Beginning from 1871, further historic changes in the administration of “vital statistics” such as birth certificates and death certificates with the introduction of health districts or “sanitary districts”.
The Local Government Act of 1871 (34&35Vict. c.70), Public Health Act 1872 (35&36Vict. c.79) and in 1874 (37&38Vict. c.89) and the Public Health Act 1875 (38&39Vict. c.55) created a system of “districts” called Sanitary Districts governed by a Sanitary Authority responsible for various public health matters including mental health legally known as “sanity”.
Two types of Sanitary Districts were created being Urban and Rural. While the sanitary districts were “abolished” in 1894 with the Local Government Act of 1894 (57&58Vict. c.73), the administration of the “poor” is still maintained in part under the concept of district health boards of Guardians including magistrates and other “Justices of the Peace”; and (xxi) In 1948, the National Assistance Act (11&12Geo.6 c.29) was introduced and supposed to abolish the Poor Laws. However, many of the most draconian poor law acts were not repealed or abolished as evidenced by the tables of repealed acts that miss key acts, otherwise remaining with full force and effect.
Since 1990 under the United Nations and the World Health Organisation (WHO) by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the system of issuing birth certificates as proof of a man or woman being a permanent member of the underclass has become an international system. Canon 3353 In respect of the adoption of the multiple functions of the use of the information and generic form of a Birth Certificate within present Western Roman Systems: (i) Whilst the same general form and extracted information almost exactly the same as a Birth Certificate may be used (eg a Bond, or other form of Security), unless it is officially “titled” a “Birth Certificate” it is not therefore a “Birth Certificate”; and (ii)
There is no evidence that Bonds using the same information derived from the birth register information uses the title “Birth Certificate” (when it is most likely the term Bond is used). Therefore, any presumptions that precisely the same certificate is used for creating bonds is a gross error, when in fact the real question is the use of the information; and (iii) Ignorance in presuming the precise same form of a Birth Certificate is used in all cases of applying the information is a major contributor to permitting “plausible deniability” as to the use or misuse of such information by governments.
In respect of the adoption of the Admiralty term “Birth” in relation to newborns: (i) The historic record of Statutes of Westminster are a highly unreliable indicator as to the origin of use of the word “Birth” in substitute for historic more ancient and more common terms in the English language such as nascence (from Latin nasci being “born”), or filial, or kin or born.
In fact, the majority of European languages with poignant exception to English continue the tradition of using words descended from nasci to indicate the arrival of a new born; and (ii) Westminster statutes indicate the term Birth being used to describe newborns by the early 1700’s. However, this should be discounted as almost certainly examples of deliberate fraud and corruption. Instead, the most likely introduction of the term Birth, to distinguish from Berth is by early 1800’s such as (6&7Will.4 c.86) following the transfer of controor abolished as evidenced by the tables of repealed acts that miss key acts, otherwise remaining with full force and effect.
Since 1990 under the United Nations and the World Health Organisation (WHO) by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the system of issuing birth certificates as proof of a man or woman being a permanent member of the underclass has become an international system.
In respect of the adoption of the multiple functions of the use of the information and generic form of a Birth Certificate within present Western Roman Systems: (i) Whilst the same general form and extracted information almost exactly the same as a Birth Certificate may be used (eg a Bond, or other form of Security), unless it is officially “titled” a “Birth Certificate” it is not therefore a “Birth Certificate”; and (ii) There is no evidence that Bonds using the same information derived from the birth register information uses the title “Birth Certificate” (when it is most likely the term Bond is used). Therefore, any presumptions that precisely the same certificate is used for creating bonds is a gross error, when in fact the real question is the use of the information; and (iii) Ignorance in presuming the precise same form of a Birth Certificate is used in all cases of applying the information is a major contributor to permitting “plausible deniability” as to the use or misuse of such information by governments.
In respect of the adoption of the Admiralty term “Birth” in relation to newborns: (i) The historic record of Statutes of Westminster are a highly unreliable indicator as to the origin of use of the word “Birth” in substitute for historic more ancient and more common terms in the English language such as nascence (from Latin nasci being “born”), or filial, or kin or born. In fact, the majority of European languages with poignant exception to English continue the tradition of using words descended from nasci to indicate the arrival of a new born; and (ii) Westminster statutes indicate the term Birth being used to describe newborns by the early 1700’s.
However, this should be discounted as almost certainly examples of deliberate fraud and corruption. Instead, the most likely introduction of the term Birth, to distinguish from Berth is by early 1800’s such as (6&7Will.4 c.86) following the transfer of control of the registration of all “vessels” to Admiralty in 1795 (35Geo.3 c.58) and reinforced in 1813 (54Geo.3 c.151) and 1823 with (4Geo.4 c.41).
And now, I think I shall go sew a patch with a “P” on it on all my clothing and if anyone asks, I shall tell them that it stands for “Pissed Off”—and hand them a copy of this article.
If you agree that it is time to put an end any and all institutions that condone these practices, join me in making this information go viral. Discuss it with your Church groups and local assemblies, your Synagogues and schools, your Mosques and your fraternal organizations, your Chambers of Commerce, your hospital administrators, your friends and family in the military, everyone, everywhere.
We now have the true Enemy in plain view and the methodology of the enslavement, too. This comes hard on the heels of our discovery that Prince Philip collected $950 Trillion in “Life Force Value Annuities” out of the Canadian bankruptcy— most of which belongs to Americans.
The “P” might also stand for “Phew!”