Why do people consistently assume the birth registration is about them? Maybe the self-centeredness of the ego shows its true colors when faced with this simple fact:
The registration of birth is NOT about the “baby”, it is about the “INFANT”.
The “INFANT” is not the “living man” ….the mom took the “baby” home from the “hospital” but “abandoned” the “INFANT” … look at the hospital birth record … the record does not read “baby’s footprints” it reads “INFANT FOOTPRINTS” … the registration of birth never registers a “baby” it registers a “vessel” (INFANT) to receive the “spirit of life” much like a Man or Woman is nothing without “the spirit of life” or “God” … the living man “animates” the “vessel” or “infant” while in that world without becoming part of that world. Read JOB 32:21-22.
When someone comes to one with a “claim”, they are actually looking for the INFANT in the last known location which is One because One is using the “property” of the “INFANT” so One must know where the INFANT is which is just a “footprint symbol” denoting its existence, which is found in the hospital records or provided as infant is now age of majority.
But if One “withholds” that information, under International Maritime Law, that “INFANT” will be “presumed dead” (inactive) and One now becomes “executor de son tort” over the “decedent infant estate” for the concealment which is a “fraud” and since one cannot profit from one’s own fraud, One no longer has access to the “infant decedent’s estate” and One is liable for the tax on the valuation of the transfer for “decedent infant” is going to be considered “owner” of the trust where the “contractual considerations are exchanged” in the form of interests and the tax is on the “valuation of the exchange” or “transfer of taxable estate” from one “decedent” to another.
And as “owner” of the trust, the trust becomes “property” of the “decedent’s estate” and the “executor” (One) is going to be held liable under 26 USC 2002 for the tax imposed under 26 USC 2001(a).
Now, if One provided the location of the INFANT, then the “decedent without the SSN” or “corporation” would then be “owner” of the trust and CEO would then be liable under 26 USC 2002 for the tax which is “paid” out of the “decedent’s estate” or “corporate treasury” in service of the usufruct under Law of Nations, International Law, and Treaty.
And this presumption of death of the infant can be easily rebutted by pointing the one bringing the claim to the State File Number containing the original certificate of live birth, or to the Hospital Record, or provide a “footprint” which is “symbolic” of the infant’s “existence” as “the spirit” must enter the “infant” to “animate” it in the “paper world” or “give it life” and the footprint is the evidence of the “infant’s existence” but no one can ever see the “infant” for it is only a “spirit”; the footprint is a “symbol” the “infant” exists.
And once “INFANT” presence is known, INFANT automatically becomes “securities entitlement holder” as “appropriate person” and can now issue orders and commands to the “securities intermediary” for service of the “securities account” or SSN.
The “INFANT” or NAME exists to allow Man to exercise his dominion while all fruits flow to the society he helps build, only up until now, this was “reserved” for “those in the know” … now this information and knowledge belongs to all who wish to accept the simple truth:
Man is “naked owner” of his “image” and “usufruct” with respect to the fruits of that image for man will always reap what he sows. Collectively as well as individually. A world unto them-self and a light within the “holographic image” projected of the whole. So, if man projects the “aura” or “light” of a “warlike sentient race”, what do you think will be attracted to Man?
but if people wish to reject this part of the Creator’s creation, then so be it.
That is their choice; free will and all."
|Click here to go back|
All works herein are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.