The Guardian – by Matthew Weaver
A man who refused to register his son’s birth because he says he does not want him to be controlled by the state has lost a high court case.
Tower Hamlets social services, the London council which has responsibility for the baby’s welfare, asked a high court judge to intervene in the case after the man and his partner, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, failed to register the child’s birth earlier this year.
Mr Justice Hayden ruled the council had the right to step in as the child’s “institutional parent” to register the birth.
The judge considered the issue at a private hearing earlier this month in the family division of the high court in London and outlined his decision in a written ruling published online.
The child, referred to in the case only as T, is currently the subject of a care order while his parents are “subject to a residential assessment”.
The judge was told that the couple’s parenting skills were being assessed before decisions about the boy’s long-term future were made. He also noted that the father’s behaviour towards a judge in the family court resulted in a prison sentence for him and his partner.
Hayden said the couple’s deliberate decision not to register the birth stemmed from the boy’s father’s unusual and somewhat eccentric beliefs about the concept of personal sovereignty. He said the boy’s mother was not prepared to register the birth herself, but was not opposed to somebody else registering it.
He said the father had a genuinely held belief in the power and writ of the individual. The father told the judge: “We are each our own sovereign. We are governed by a common law but only to the extent that we depart from three principles. These three imperatives are: to do no harm; to cause no loss; to inflict no injury.”
The judge said the father regarded registering a birth as the equivalent of making an entry on to a ship’s manifest. He argued that registering the birth would make the child “an asset to the country, which has boarded a vessel to sail on the high seas”.
The judge added the essence of the father’s objection was “his belief that registration will cause his son to become controlled by a state which he perceives to be authoritarian and capricious”.
Hayden pointed out that the 1953 Births and Deaths Registration Act required a birth to be registered within 42 days of a child being born.
He ruled: “It is manifestly in T’s best interest for his birth to be registered, in order that he may be recognised as a citizen and entitled to the benefits of such citizenship.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/23/man-refused-to-register-sons-birth-high-court
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL CAN NO LONGER RELY ON THE WEIGHT OF WORDS ANY LONGER.
SORRY, THAT SHOULD HAVE READ,”AN AMERICAN NATIONAL CAN NO LONGER RELY ON THE WEIGHT OF WORDS TO REGAIN OUR FREEDOM, BUT THE WEIGHT OF ARMS……..
‘the London council which has responsibility for the baby’s welfare’…… no… that is the responsibility of parents
‘………….He ruled: “It is manifestly in T’s best interest for his birth to be registered, in order that he may be recognised as a citizen and entitled to the benefits of such citizenship.” BINGO! He must be a registered SLAVE!
Another reason we had our daughter at home after GHW Bush’s forcing SSNs on all births after 1991–and we have a home birth certificate NOT registered with the state.
DL, who issued the birth certificate? Did you do it yourself? Does your child have a social security number? Just curious because I’ve often thought about how wonderful it would be to have a child without anyone knowing, except those you wanted to know.
In my state there are now mandatory doctor visits in order for a child to attend middle-school. You’d think that would be just one more thing a private birth would alleviate. But no, because, I guess all the agencies are intimately connected and it would be easy to get caught/stopped/blocked. Medical, academia, banking, employment. Damn, you always gotta prove who you are.
.
” the London council which has responsibility for the baby’s welfare”
the council had the right to step in as the child’s “institutional parent”
institutional parent = ‘jewspeak’ for legal fiction of no authority
By what authority?
Their authority is an illusion, but their violence is not.
Therein lies the problem.
“It is manifestly in T’s best interest for his birth to be registered, in order that he may be recognised as a citizen and entitled to the benefits of such citizenship.”
The benefits of living in London, the city of the rothschild beast, immigrant hellhole, lol. What benefits?
What a sad reality to be born into.
Yet, his father is correct.
-flek
“The judge said the father regarded registering a birth as the equivalent of making an entry on to a ship’s manifest. He argued that registering the birth would make the child “an asset to the country, which has boarded a vessel to sail on the high seas”.”
Very astute… and correct.
All law is Admiralty/Maritime law these days (I believe that to be the case in most all countries now).
Jordon Maxwell is out there insofar as some of his ‘theories’ go, but he does an excellent breakdown (imo) of the way words are twisted to mean something completely different.