(old) Is this a sovcit/freeman? Refuse to get birth registered

[jonathan01n]

Is this a freeman/sovcit. The article didn't mention it but it seemed refuse to register birth is an indication of freeman on the land.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rules.html

[SteveUK]

I think less sovcit and more bonkers. But their legal sources defo have a hint of FMOTL:

accepted law through justice as preserved by the Holy Bible, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1988, Bill of Rights, Lex Mercatoria, Treaty of International Law, Apostolic Letters issued by the Pontiff Francis ll.’

[AnOwlCalledSage]

[They] are clear the local authority has taken their child for the purpose of making a profit by way of unlawful adoption.

Maybe not strict FOTLders but definitely in Princess Neelu territory.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Making a ruling that the baby should be placed for adoption, Judge Lynch said: ‘I am satisfied the child would be at risk of sexual harm from the father, in the way that her sister suffered harm, were she to be placed in the care of either of the parents.’

I find this comment by the judge very dubious. As yet the father should be presumed innocent, as he is yet to be tried. Since most of the facts and background are missing the whole thing seems a bit of a muddle.
However, if I were running the father's defence I'd use this highly predudicial article to get the case thrown out. The father's case is sub judice, in the first place and his presumed guilt has been published in a national newspaper.

https://www.out-law.com/page-9742

Both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published about active legal proceedings.

It is possible to register a birth as 'Child' , I believe. I have always thought that children should choose their own names or be allows to evolve one.
Obviously the child would be referred to by a series of pet names, used in the family, that would gradually firm up into something the parents and child are happy with as time goes by and the child develops in character so the name becomes something specific to the child.
Possibly there could be a Naming Day at age 18 where a permanent reference name is chosen.

The readership of the Daily Mail tends to be middle aged and conservative and of no more than middling intelligence so stories are featured for this demographic and this story has everything, social workers, wierdos and a black man, all designed to excite the Daily Mail reader.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Making a ruling that the baby should be placed for adoption, Judge Lynch said: ‘I am satisfied the child would be at risk of sexual harm from the father, in the way that her sister suffered harm, were she to be placed in the care of either of the parents.’

I find this comment by the judge very dubious. As yet the father should be presumed innocent, as he is yet to be tried. Since most of the facts and background are missing the whole thing seems a bit of a muddle.
However, if I were running the father's defence I'd use this highly predudicial article to get the case thrown out. The father's case is sub judice, in the first place and his presumed guilt has been published in a national newspaper.

IANAL but I think family court has a civil level of decision on evidence, i.e. balance of probability as opposed to criminal, beyond reasonable doubt. In this case there is a no-win situation. You can't not do something for the child on the basis that you would have to wait for dad's criminal trial and possible appeal. You also can't give a decision without some explanation for it.
Plus this the Daily Mail the newspaper that told us Rekha Patel sold her house for £2.

[longdog]

I thought the Daily Mail said selling your house for £2 caused cancer... Or was it cures cancer?

[notorial dissent]

We are talking about the Mail, that illustrious fount of veracity and professional journalistic integrity, we must assume that they probably got the names mostly right and the bare basics of the matter in approximation, sort of, the rest, not so much.

It does sound like there is/was something pretty serious going on with that family, particularly if it came to the point of revocation of parental rights. Such actions are civil as opposed to criminal so the requirements for action are considerably different than in criminal matters.

One of the constants with footl/sovcits seems to child welfare/safety/health issues. For some strange reason, people who think of their children as "property" don't generally end up taking very good care of them. Strange how that works.

[Hercule Parrot]

Making a ruling that the baby should be placed for adoption, Judge Lynch said: ‘I am satisfied the child would be at risk of sexual harm from the father, in the way that her sister suffered harm, were she to be placed in the care of either of the parents.’

I find this comment by the judge very dubious. As yet the father should be presumed innocent, as he is yet to be tried. Since most of the facts and background are missing the whole thing seems a bit of a muddle.
However, if I were running the father's defence I'd use this highly prejudicial article to get the case thrown out. The father's case is sub judice, in the first place and his presumed guilt has been published in a national newspaper.

It is a troubling interface of law, Sigi. Presumption of innocence in the criminal context cannot be wholly translated into the Family Court. Also the criminal threshold is 'proven beyond reasonable doubt', while in civil proceedings it's 'balance of probability'. In the criminal court the rights of the accused are foremost, in the family court it's the rights of the children.

So if my children came forward with convincing complaints that I had terribly abused them, and this was supported by medical evidence. The Police searched our home and found the sinister dungeon described by the children, all circumstantial evidence points towards the likelihood that I'm a Fred West type. But I deny, and hire a sharp lawyer. I drag the investigation and trial out for several years, objecting and appealing on every opportunity. I say that you cannot take my children away from me before conviction, which I will of course appeal.

This would of course be unthinkable. The children must be removed to safety immediately, lest I abuse them further and bully or brainwash them to withdraw their allegations. And even if my sharp lawyer finds a means to torpedo the criminal case by some catastrophic flaw in due process, and I am acquitted, those children cannot ever be returned to my care. So the Family Court might make a permanent "finding of fact" that I had molested my children, independently of the criminal process and at a lower threshold, and taking account of all evidence (eg disregarding flaws in due process).

It is therefore commonplace to hear of people who's children were taken from them because of civil-proven abuse which was never criminally convicted. Facebook is full of aggrieved parents declaiming their acquittal and demanding the return of their children. 99.9% of them are lying scoundrels, but we must accept that there will be rare, terrible and tragic injustices.

And so to your point about leakage between the criminal and civil processes. This is generally managed by gatekeeping the criminal hearing, because the family court cannot accept the exclusion of relevant evidence. For example, the fact that this rotter has already molested the older sister will be admissible and important in the Family Court, but strictly withheld from the criminal jury.

When this chap comes for criminal trial, the lawyers will agree with the judge what information should or should not be disclosed to the jury. Defence can and will object to disclosures which cast suspicion upon the accused, or link him to published accounts of family proceedings. The jury will not hear anything about refusal to register or name the child, they will not hear anything about the older sister, they will not hear about any Family proceedings. His defence will not be prejudiced, and the case will not be thrown out. However these safeguards do make a wrongful acquittal more likely.

All that the Daily Mail article discloses is that the child is a girl of unstated age, and that some part of the family proceedings were heard in Leeds at some previous time. This is so vague as to potentially apply to many criminal trials in that region. No juror could reasonably adduce that this was the same case.

[notorial dissent]

The inference of the judge's statement was that something of serious harm happened to the sister such that leaving the baby in the care of EITHER parent was NOT acceptable. That to me says that there is some serious problem(s) within that family.

[fortinbras]

In the US, at least, there are plenty of instances of birth certificates in the name of Baby Boy Harrison or in a name which the parents (or one of them) had thought of rather as a suggestion than as a firm decision and afterward the parents, with the baby at home, settled on a name different from the one given to the doctor who sent in the report for the birth certificate.

In such instances the parents were supposed to file official papers to amend the birth records and get a revised certificate, but most of them didn't bother, so twenty years later Baby Boy Harrison has to go through many hoops to establish that he's the baby named on the certificate so he can get a passport in the name of Steve Harrison.

But, speaking to the main question, there were stories - some of them true - of hippies in the 1960-1990s, and various anarchist-types (including SovTards and Freemen), having their babies without reporting them, and smug that this baby was "unknown to the government" (this might have made some sense before 1980, e.g. when there was a military draft). But now a problem for the kid to (1) get into primary school absent proof of sufficient age, (2) get surgery or necessary childhood vaccinations for lack of evidence of who were his parents who could give permission, (3) get a driver's license, (4) get a passport, and, (5) in his old age, prove that he was old enough to qualify for pension and Soc.Sec benefits. Also, the parents could not claim him as a tax deduction absent his Soc.Sec. Number, which would require his birth certificate.

In the long run, not registering a baby's birth does no favor to the baby.

[Footloose52]

I'd add to the list of problems in the previous post, at least in the UK, 5) getting a job.

One thing a person has to prove is their right to work in the UK. Acceptable documents are a passport, EEC National Identity Card, a Registration Certificate or document certifying Permanent Residence issued by the Home Office, a Permanent Residence Card issued by the Home Office, a current Biometric Immigration Document, a current passport showing exemption from immigration controls, a current Immigration Status Document, a full birth or adoption certificate issued in the UK, a certificate of registration or naturalisation as a British citizen. Most of these need to be accompanied by official proof of the persons National Insurance number as well (that is a similar concept to the US Social Security number I believe).

So, without a birth certificate you cannot get a passport or EU Identity Card so you fall at the first hurdle for getting a job in the UK.

[John Uskglass]

They said they were asserting ‘divine, inalienable and natural rights, and all rights here asserted and reserved are subject to accepted law through justice as preserved by the Holy Bible, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1988, Bill of Rights, Lex Mercatoria, Treaty of International Law, Apostolic Letters issued by the Pontiff Francis ll.’

The reference to Francis II reminds me of the ramblings of the 'Expert in all Legal Matters', who has a (TL:DR) section on Papal Encyclicals on his site. A direct connection seems unlikely. Are both parties drawing from the same source? Or is it just the case that the Catholic church is a conspiracy magnet?

The reference to 'Lex Mercatoria' is also interesting. My limited exploration of FMOTLism hasn't turned that one up before. Is it one of the standard props that I've missed?

[notorial dissent]

They said they were asserting ‘divine, inalienable and natural rights, and all rights here asserted and reserved are subject to accepted law through justice as preserved by the Holy Bible, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1988, Bill of Rights, Lex Mercatoria, Treaty of International Law, Apostolic Letters issued by the Pontiff Francis ll.’

The reference to Francis II reminds me of the ramblings of the 'Expert in all Legal Matters', who has a (TL:DR) section on Papal Encyclicals on his site. A direct connection seems unlikely. Are both parties drawing from the same source? Or is it just the case that the Catholic church is a conspiracy magnet?

The reference to 'Lex Mercatoria' is also interesting. My limited exploration of FMOTLism hasn't turned that one up before. Is it one of the standard props that I've missed?

The US cray crays run to two schools, either the Vatican(and the City and the Queen in concert) is the source of all evil and conspiracy or it the shining beacon of rights and all that's good, or both at the same time, see Judge Anna.

So in essence you can have your conspiracy and eat it too.

[John Uskglass]

So in essence you can have your conspiracy and eat it too.

Transubstantiation has a lot to answer for

[notorial dissent]

So in essence you can have your conspiracy and eat it too.

Transubstantiation has a lot to answer for

[sue858]

But now a problem for the kid to (1) get into primary school absent proof of sufficient age, (2) get surgery or necessary childhood vaccinations for lack of evidence of who were his parents who could give permission, (3) get a driver's license, (4) get a passport, and, (5) in his old age, prove that he was old enough to qualify for pension and Soc.Sec benefits.

You say that like those are drawbacks. But who wants to send their children to mass indoctrination centres (aka 'school')? Vaccines cause autism and allopathy as a whole is a sham; all parents who know The TruthTM will be paying their friendly neighbourhood Naturopath to treat their kids. You don't need no stinking driving licence of passport to exercise your Common Law right to travel. I don't know what Freemen would say about #5, but it would probably be "Fiat currency Fractional Reserve Banking something something money grows on trees!"

[Tevildo]

But now a problem for the kid to (1) get into primary school absent proof of sufficient age, (2) get surgery or necessary childhood vaccinations for lack of evidence of who were his parents who could give permission, (3) get a driver's license, (4) get a passport, and, (5) in his old age, prove that he was old enough to qualify for pension and Soc.Sec benefits.

I don't know what Freemen would say about #5, but it would probably be "Fiat currency Fractional Reserve Banking something something money grows on trees!"

My guess would be along the lines of "Old age? That's caused by the TOXINS that Monsanto, GSK, BAT, TRW and capitalist farmers put into our bodies! Smoke weed, drink urine, never take any legal drugs, eat as little as possible, and you'll never grow old! You might die of polio or simple malnutrition instead, but these are the breaks."

[fortinbras]

Also, in the US, going back to the Nixon era, the kid is not a tax deduction without an SSN, and the parents cannot get a SSN for him/her without a birth certificate. The parents, by not getting a birth certificate for their child, have no legal proof of their relationship to the kid - this becomes a matter of life or death if they need to authorize surgery for the child or some similar emergency.

Parents who think they are somehow doing the kid a favor by keeping him/her off the bureaucratic radar at birth are actually creating serious - dangerous and expensive - problems for their child for the child's entire lifespan.

[notorial dissent]

Also, in the US, going back to the Nixon era, the kid is not a tax deduction without an SSN, and the parents cannot get a SSN for him/her without a birth certificate. The parents, by not getting a birth certificate for their child, have no legal proof of their relationship to the kid - this becomes a matter of life or death if they need to authorize surgery for the child or some similar emergency.

Parents who think they are somehow doing the kid a favor by keeping him/her off the bureaucratic radar at birth are actually creating serious - dangerous and expensive - problems for their child for the child's entire lifespan.

Not to mention possible custody issues down the line, and people like this inevitably have custody and Child Services issues.

[BoomerSooner17]

I'd add to the list of problems in the previous post, at least in the UK, 5) getting a job.

One thing a person has to prove is their right to work in the UK. Acceptable documents are a passport, EEC National Identity Card, a Registration Certificate or document certifying Permanent Residence issued by the Home Office, a Permanent Residence Card issued by the Home Office, a current Biometric Immigration Document, a current passport showing exemption from immigration controls, a current Immigration Status Document, a full birth or adoption certificate issued in the UK, a certificate of registration or naturalisation as a British citizen. Most of these need to be accompanied by official proof of the persons National Insurance number as well (that is a similar concept to the US Social Security number I believe).

So, without a birth certificate you cannot get a passport or EU Identity Card so you fall at the first hurdle for getting a job in the UK.

It's the same in the US. No birth certificate means no Social Security Number and no way to prove American citizenship. Most legitimate employers require both. Oh, and you can't vote, either (at least in Texas).