Comment: Sorry, got sidetracked with my gov't job and forgot to reply :)

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I think we'll have to agree (see in situ)

Sorry, got sidetracked with my gov't job and forgot to reply :)

A claim against the parents for fraud? Didn't the corp.US provide birth certificates to the hospitals/doctors to have the mother sign as the "informant" with her "maiden" name which ultimately claims the child has no father/executor to oversee the estate? When the state receives the Record of Live Birth, they "split the title" and send the mother/child back a Certificate of Live Birth with a Registrars Seal/signature on it which means only one thing: The Registrar is the court of probate, and probate only deals with estates of the dead. Why didn't they send back a true copy of the "Record of Live Birth", instead of their "dead-legal person entity" certificate that would by trickery and deceit fool you into believing that was anything other than "your" personal (the living man) copy of the Record of Live Birth?

I don't think the parents performed the fraud; the law marches forward on intent; what was their "intent"? We know the answer to that, don't we? ... Slavery!

I've got to ask before we continue: Have you taken the time to watch Dean Clifford's seminars? Have you watched this one too, called "Both Sides of the Story"?

Part 1 ...
Part 2 ...
Part 3 ...

And if so, can you explain what's wrong with his teachings?