Ive written my thoughts on escaping the Birth Certificate Trust on Southern Freeman a couple years ago. And moved on. But recently heard numerous people still hooked on that issue so maybe my posts haven’t done the circuit of the freeman sites on that issue yet.
So here it is. I won’t bother repeating the work of other men re: the insidious Birth Certifcate trusts.
You can find that information easily these days online.
What you cant find is the cure. And this is it.
In essence we should be operating under our lawful name which is created via the baptismal trust.
The same name is used to create a legal name under the Birth certificate trust.
One is under parliament and one under god.
Just as when you get married you sign 2 contracts.
One is the lawful marriage contract, one is the legal contract.
Just on a superficial level, to me, its plain that if you operate in a name under parliament that you are then under their legislation unless otherwise stated.
If you operate under the name created under god then you are under his law.
You use this name simply by giving date of baptism when asked for date of birth.
I did this all through my childhood as I only had a baptism certificate and it was accepted without question by government departments and banks. Even passport.
But the police will not accept it, which may imply something interesting.
Christening your child isn’t some vague ceremony, its a lawful creation of this individual newly arrived in the world.
It seems apparent that the birth certificate is a counterfeit or copy of the baptism name that predates it, and the ruse has been to coerce us to act under the legal name rather than the lawful name and thus under the law of parliament (man) rather than the law of the bible (god).
Interestingly I rang the church of England Frenchs Forest , diocese of Sydney in 2011 for a copy of my baptism trust certificate.
And the entire year of 1969 baptism records has been lost. No explanation as to how or why.
And obfuscation from the church when I tried to delve deeper.
Anyone who has traced geneaology will be aware how sacred these records are historically.
This seeming complete disrespect for record keeping is incongruous historically with church practice.
So I believe these records have been claimed by someone and hence me and the others christened that year are claimed as property.. By the pope probably.
But that’s a mystery that would require some research and I have bigger fish to fry at the moment.
I’d appreciate others ringing their church and asking for their christening certificates to see if this is isolated or it happened to us all.
The freeman/sovereignty ideas of acting as the natural person or flesh and blood man is lawfully saying you are goyim or cattle.
In the KJV the natural man or flesh and blood man has no discernment and its an insult. Its like admitting you have no character in court. So I suspect that idea promoted is by disinfo agents in freeman circles.
There’s no need to say that anyhow because your baptism trust is recognised in law. You need not say I am not this, but simply say I am this. And give your christening/baptism date.
Anyone influenced by freeman disnofrmation should read bible commentaries on what the natural man or flesh and blood man is in the law (KJV). I have copy pasted one below.
And also bear in mind U.N Human Rights are for “natural persons or natural humans” ,before calling upon the pope’s United Nations for succour.
Read these descriptors or definitions of legal persons with discernment for what is not being offered as an option.In jurisprudence, a natural person is a real human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity) or public (i.e., government) organization.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person )
reading these you may notice the option not presented- the lawful person.
The baptism or christened name is absent.
The good option most would choose is this natural person.
If they offer you are a choice between 2 , I do not chose the better of the 2, I look for the 3rd option they’re hiding.
If the choice offered is the corporate person or the natural person I choose the 3rd option not offered- the lawful person.
Just as in court when I am offered a choice between guilty or not guilty I choose the 3rd plea option hidden- I dispute the jurisdiction of the court.
(Bearing in mind , being technically wise to the ruses of this papal overthrow of our law is not in itself a get-out-of-gaol card. The adminstrators of tyranny are generally(not always) corrupt and will often in my experience simply do what they’re going to do anyhow, because who will censure them?)
Anyhow ,the natural person is the carrot when wise to the birth certificate trust, but as per the KJV it is probably not what you want to be , either.
These guys are very clever. They have a trap for the masses and then another one laid for the few who see the ruse and try to escape it.
1 Corinthians 2:14King James Version (KJV)
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
14. natural man—literally, “a man of animal soul.” As contrasted with the spiritual man, he is governed by the animal soul, which overbears his spirit, which latter is without the Spirit of God (Jude 19). So the animal (English Version, “natural”) body, or body led by the lower animal nature (including both the mere human fallen reason and heart), is contrasted with the Spirit-quickened body (1Co 15:44-46). The carnal man (the man led by bodily appetites, and also by a self-exalting spirit, estranged from the divine life) is closely akin; so too the “earthly.” “Devilish,” or “demon-like”; “led by an evil spirit,” is the awful character of such a one, in its worst type (Jas 3:15).
receiveth not—though they are offered to him, and are “worthy of being received by all men” (1Ti 1:15).
they are foolishness unto him—whereas he seeks “wisdom” (1Co 1:22).
neither can he—Not only does he not, but he cannot know them, and therefore has no wish to “receive” them (Ro 8:7).
But the natural man – ψυχικὸς, δὲ ἄνθρωπος psuchikos de anthrōpos. The word “natural” here stands opposed evidently to “spiritual.” It denotes those who are governed and influenced by the natural instincts; the animal passions and desires, in opposition to those who are influenced by the Spirit of God. It refers to unregenerate people; but it has also not merely the idea of their being unregenerate, but that of their being influenced by the animal passions or desires. See the note on 1 Corinthians 15:44. The word “sensual” would correctly express the idea. The word is used by the Greek writers to denote that which man has in common with the brutes – to denote that they are under the influence of the senses, or the mere animal nature, in opposition to reason and conscience – Bretschneider. See 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Here it denotes that they are under the influence of the senses, or the animal nature, in opposition to being influenced by the Spirit of God. Macknight and Doddridge render it: “the animal man.”
Whitby understands by it the man who rejects revelation, the man who is under the influence of carnal wisdom. The word occurs but six times in the New Testament; 1 Corinthians 15:44, 1 Corinthians 15:44, 1 Corinthians 15:46; James 3:15; Jde 1:19. In 1 Corinthians 15:44, 1 Corinthians 15:44, 1 Corinthians 15:46, it is rendered “natural,” and is applied to the body as it exists before death, in contradistinction from what shall exist after the resurrection – called a spiritual body. In James 3:15, it is applied to wisdom: “This wisdom – is earthly, sensual, devilish.” In Jde 1:19, it is applied to sensual persons, or those who are governed by the senses in opposition to those who are influenced by the Spirit: “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.” The word here evidently denotes those who are under the influence of the senses; who are governed by the passions and the animal appetites, and natural desires; and who are uninfluenced by the Spirit of God. And it may be observed that this was the case with the great mass of the pagan world, even including the philosophers.
Receiveth not – οὐ δέχεται ou dechetai, does not “embrace” or “comprehend” them. That is, he rejects them as folly; he does not perceive their beauty, or their wisdom; he despises them. He loves other things better. A man of intemperance does not receive or love the arguments for temperance; a man of licentiousness, the arguments for chastity; a liar, the arguments for truth. So a sensual or worldly man does not receive or love the arguments for religion.
The things of the Spirit of God – The doctrines which are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the things which pertain to his influence on the heart and life. The things of the Spirit of God here denote all the things which the Holy Spirit produces.
Neither can he know them – Neither can he understand or comprehend them. Perhaps, also, the word “know” here implies also the idea of “loving,” or “approving” of them, as it often does in the Scripture. Thus, to know the Lord often means to love him, to have a full, practical acquaintance with him. When the apostle says that the animal or sensual man cannot know those things, he may have reference to one of two things. Either:
(1) That those doctrines were not discoverable by human wisdom, or by any skill which the natural man may have, but were to be learned only by revelation. This is the main drift of his argument, and this sense is given by Locke and Whitby. Or,
(2) He may mean that the sensual the unrenewed man cannot perceive their beauty and their force, even after they are revealed to man, unless the mind is enlightened and inclined by the Spirit of God. This is probably the sense of the passage.
This is the simple affirmation of a fact – that while the man remains sensual and carnal, he cannot perceive the beauty of those doctrines. And this is a simple and well known fact. It is a truth – universal and lamentable – that the sensual man, the worldly man, the proud, haughty, and self-confident man; the man under the influence of his animal appetites – licentious, false, ambitious, and vain – does not perceive any beauty in Christianity. So the intemperate man perceives no beauty in the arguments for temperance; the adulterer, no beauty in the arguments for chastity; the liar, no beauty in the arguments for truth. It is a simple fact, that while he is intemperate, or licentious, or false, he can perceive no beauty in these doctrines.
But this does not prove that he has no natural faculties for perceiving the force and beauty of these arguments; or that he might not apply his mind to their investigation, and be brought to embrace them; or that he might not abandon the love of intoxicating drinks, and sensuality, and falsehood, and be a man of temperance, purity, and truth. He has all the natural faculties which are requisite in the case; and all the inability is his “strong love” of intoxicating drinks, or impurity, or falsehood. So of the sensual sinner. While he thus remains in love with sin, he cannot perceive the beauty of the plan of salvation, or the excellency of the doctrines of religion. He needs just the love of these things, and the hatred of sin. He needs to cherish the influences of the Spirit; to receive what He has taught, and not to reject it through the love of sin; he needs to yield himself to their influences, and then their beauty will be seen.
The passage here proves that while a man is thus sensual, the things of the Spirit will appear to him to be folly; it proves nothing about his ability, or his natural faculty, to see the excellency of these things, and to turn from his sin. It is the affirmation of a simple fact everywhere discernible, that the natural man does not perceive the beauty of these things; that while he remains in that state he cannot; and that if he is ever brought to perceive their beauty, it will be by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such is his love of sin, that he never will be brought to see their beauty except by the agency of the Holy Spirit. “For wickedness perverts the judgment, and makes people err with respect to practical principles; so that no one can be wise and judicious who is not good.” Aristotle, as quoted by Bloomfield.
They are spiritually discerned – That is, they are perceived by the aid of the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind and influencing the heart.
(The expression ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος psuchikos anthrōpos; has given rise to much controversy. Frequent attempts have been made to explain it, merely of the animal or sensual man. If this be the true sense, the doctrine of human depravity, in as far at least as this text may be supposed to bear upon it, is greatly invalidated. The apostle would seem to affirm only, that individuals, addicted to the gross indulgences of sense, are incapable of discerning and appreciating spiritual things. Thus, a large exception would be made in favor of all those who might be styled intellectual and moral persons, living above the inferior appetites, and directing their faculties to the candid investigation of truth. That the phrase, however, is to be explained of the natural or “unregenerate” man, whether distinguished for intellectual refinement, and external regard to morals, or degraded by animal indulgence, will appear evident from an examination of the passage.
The word in dispute comes from ψυχή psuchē, which though it primarily signify the breath or animal life, is by no means confined to that sense, but sometimes embraces the mind or soul “as distinguished both from man’s body and from his πνεῦμα pneuma, or spirit, breathed into him immediately by God” – See Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon. The etymology of the word does not necessarily require us, then, to translate it “sensual.” The context therefore alone must determine the matter. Now the “natural man” is there opposed to the spiritual man, the ψυχικὸς psuchikos to the πνευματικὸς pneumatikos, and if the latter be explained of “him who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit” – who is regenerate – the former must be explained of him who is not enlightened by that Spirit, who is still in a state of nature; and will thus embrace a class far more numerous than the merely sensual part of mankind.
Farther; the general scope of the passage demands this view. The Corinthians entertained an excessive fondness for human learning and wisdom. They loved philosophical disquisition and oratorical display, and may therefore have been impatient of the “enticing words” of Paul. To correct their mistaken taste, the apostle asserts and proves the utter insufficiency of human wisdom, either to discover spiritual things, or to appreciate them when discovered. He exclaims “where is the ‘wise’? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” 1 Corinthians 1:17, 1 Corinthians 1:31. Now it would be strange indeed, if in bringing his argument to a conclusion, he should simply assert, that “sensual” people were incapable of spiritual discernment. So lame and impotent a conclusion is not to be attributed to the apostle. The disputed phrase, therefore, must be understood of all unregenerate persons, however free from gross sin, or eminent in intellectual attainment. Indeed it is the “proud wisdom” of the world, and not its sensuality, that the apostle? throughout has chiefly in view. Add to all this; that the simplicity of the gospel has “in reality” met with more bitter opposition and pointed scorn, from people of worldly wisdom, than from people of the sensual class. Of the former, is it especially true that they have counted the gospel “foolishness” and contemptuously rejected its message.