HOW THE GOVERNMENT STEAL CHILDREN FROM LOVING FAMILIES

[wouldntyouliketoknow]

Exposing governments around the world ………

S1E1 Interview Calgary Ab. DEC 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4yzJrmSyJA

S1E2 Calgary interview. (a viewers email of exposure regaurding my interview)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrQ4Yjc8j8Y

[wouldntyouliketoknow]

STOLEN FROM LOVING FAMILY BY GESTAPO SOCIAL SERVICES

Unfortunatley I have had to change the contents of this blog after being threatened with imprisonment by a delusional patronising bigot of a judge . He asked me to remove the blog, however, i refused & told him it was my democratic right to have an opinion & publish this oponion for others to read. Apparently, it is legal for local authoraties , Social Services & Cafcass to defame their clients with impunity, in the family proceedings courts. However, if the little man/woman decides to fight back , then their action is declared , illegal . The old adarge , "There is one law for the rich & a different law for the poor" is true. This blog is a running account of events , that happened to an innocent young mother after the birth of her beautiful baby daughter.



http://britishss.blogspot.com/

[wouldntyouliketoknow]

S1E4. Interview with advocate from Calgary, AB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPCxpx2Q ... ure=autofb


this is exactly the kind of exposure that is needed in the UK

[wouldntyouliketoknow]

COMMON PURPOSE - Latest Shenanigans PART 3 Jan 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CvjAVC ... r_embedded

[childrenslegal]

Minutes of CAFCASS Meeting
Thursday 6 January 2011
2 PM

1 APPOLOGIES

1.1 Apologies were accepted from Mr Ian Luke-MacAuley (Line Manager Croydon). A contemporaneous note and recorded telephone call of 5/1 provides that although Mr Luke-MacAuley was able to attend the meeting as it did not infringe on time that was already allocated for the purpose, he felt that he was unable to add anything to the process of the meeting that would vary or persuade a variation of the potential outcomes.

1.2 Apologies were accepted from Mrs June Lewis (Social Worker). Mrs Lewis had a clerk telephone on 5/1 to convey that she was ill.

2 ATTENDANCE

2.1 Ms Alle Segretti

2.2 Ms Zanne Segretti

2.3 Ms Emma Silver (by consultation)

3 AGENDA

3.1 It was agreed that the agenda proposed on 20 December 2010 for a meeting with Mrs Lewis on 22 December 2010 was to be the basis of the meeting.

4 The meeting decided it has discretion to conduct and determine an outcome in the absence of parties who provided apologies and that this discretion must be exercised with utmost care and caution particularly as outcomes will be determined in their absence.

4.1 In deciding whether or not to proceed the Meeting needs to consider the following matters:

4.1.1 Whether or not the absence of the parties is attributable to illness or incapacity. If this is the case the Committee should be very slow to proceed in the party’s absence.

4.1.2 Whether the parties have waived, separately or altogether, wholly or in part, their right to be present at this meeting. This right may be wholly waived if, knowing, or having the means of knowledge as to when and where this meeting is to take place they deliberately and voluntarily absented themselves from the meeting.

4.1.3 Fairness to all parties concerned.

4.1.4 Whether an adjournment might result in the absent parties attending and, if so, the likely length of such an adjournment.

4.1.5 Whether an adjournment would cause unnecessary delay, or prejudice to any of the parties that would not otherwise occur as a result of the meeting

4.1.6 Whether the parties, although absent, is, or wishes to be, represented by another party.

4.1.7 The extent of the disadvantage to the parties in not being able to give their account of events in view of the nature of the concerns against them.

4.1.8 The risk of the Committee reaching a wrong conclusion on the merits of the concerns in the absence of any of the parties.

4.1.9 The general public interest and, in particular, the interest of witnesses that the meeting should take place within a reasonable time of the events to which it relates.

4.1.10 The effect of delay on the memory and wellbeing of the parties in attendance.

4.1.11 The seriousness of the potential outcome of the hearing.

4.2 The Meetings attention was drawn to the parties rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

4.3 Meeting Notice and proceeding in the absence of parties.

4.3.1 In the interests of justice, fairness and the public interest the Meeting decided to proceed today in the absence of the parties.

4.4 Reasons:

4.4.1 The Meeting is satisfied that all parties were aware that the meeting was to be held in accordance with the arrangements of Mr Luke-MacAuley with Ms A Segretti on 22 December 2010.

4.4.2 The Meeting is satisfied that the extension of invitation by Mr Luke-MacAuley to Mrs June Lewis to attend the meeting is not a requirement for the meeting to be convened.

4.4.3 That the CAFCASS Complaints Procedure does not require the attendance of an employee subject of a complaint and a complainant together at a meeting in order to proceed with the meeting and determine outcomes.

4.4.4 The Meeting is also satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the parties are aware of today’s meeting.

4.4.5 The Meeting noted Mrs Lewis conveyed a telephone message on 5 January 2010 in which she indicated her awareness of the Meeting and of the concerns to be considered and that she is content for the Meeting to proceed in her absence.

4.4.6 The Meeting noted that Mr Luke-MacAuley had not provided an agenda setting out the purpose of the meeting.

4.4.7 The Meeting notes that Ms A Segretti had spoken at length with Mr Luke-MacAuley on 22 December giving her requirements for the purpose and process of the meeting.

4.4.8 The Meeting notes that Mr Luke-MacAuley said that he is aware that he could have and was able to attend the meeting as it did not infringe on time that was already allocated for the purpose, however he felt that he was unable to add anything to the process of the meeting that would vary or persuade any variation of the potential outcomes.

4.4.9 The Meeting notes that it is a consistent pattern of behaviour demonstrated over several months for Mrs Lewis to oversee, not convene, or cancel, her attendance at meetings at the last minute.

4.4.10 The Meeting will draw no adverse inference from the absence of Mrs Lewis.

4.4.11 The meeting was in the public interest.

5 BACKGROUND

5.1 The Background to the matters subject to the Meeting are recorded in great detail in a range of documents and contemporaneous notes. These are listed in the following table:

Date Method Description / Filename Ack/Rpl
06/12/2010 Telephone Called from JL to AS, discussion about meeting first time in 8 months. TBA
14/12/2010 Letter Out 20101214 LBM Merton CAFCASS JL Professional Engagement Txt 16h20 today.pdf Ack: Nil
Outstand 16d
14/12/2010 Letter Out 20101214 LBM Merton CAFCASS JL Professional Engagement v1.0.pdf R 19/12
14/12/2010 Letter Out 20101214 LBM Merton CAFCASS JL Professional Steps Taken v1.0.pdf Ack: Nil
Outstand 16d
15/12/2010 Letter Out 20101215 LBM Merton CAFCASS JL Your View as to our Childrens Interest v1.0.pdf Ack: Nil
Outstand 15d

Date Method Description / Filename Ack/Rpl
19/12/2010 Letter In 20101220 CAFCASSS JL - Professional LetterSEGRETTI.doc 20/12/2010
13:32
21/12/2010 (18:58) Letter Out 20101222 Meeting 22 December 2010 Agenda JL AS ZS v1.0.pdf Ack: Nil
Outstand 11d
22/12/2010 Phone Call (Series) ILM, JL, AKG. ILM offered meeting on 6 Jan 2010 to discuss concerns
05/01/2011 Phone Call (Series) JK, ILM, PC. ILM & PC refute need for meeting. (Contrary to CAFCASS CP)
05/01/2011 Letter Out 20110105 CAFCASS ILM+JL AS ZS 20101206-20110105 Complaint v1.2.pdf Ack: 06/01/11
Due: 20/01/11

5.2 All parties are familiar with the material and it is not required or of benefit that further elaboration is contained in the Minutes.

5.3 CAFACASS Section 15 provides:

However the manager receives the expression of concern, they must no more than ten working days after CAFCASS first heard about the concerns write (by letter of email) to the service user:

 To confirm cafcass’ understanding of the service users concerns
 To identify cafcass’ understanding of the response sought by the service user
 To set out cafcass’ response to those concerns.

5.4 On 6 December 2010, Ms Segretti made a complaint by telephone to Mrs Lewis about:

5.4.1 her practice, which

5.4.1.1 is not clear,

5.4.1.2 has not been explained, and

5.4.1.3 when requested to be outlined in writing, was refused

5.4.2 her failure to engage in a professional capacity with Ms Segretti or her wife

5.4.3 her failure to meet with Ms Segretti and her wife at any time in the preceding 8 months despite requests made by

5.4.3.1 Ms A Segretti

5.4.3.2 Ms Z Segretti

5.4.3.3 The Court

5.4.3.4 The Barrister who made representations to the Court in July that a Meeting would be arranged as soon as possible within the next week.

5.4.4 her agreement that she should have had a meeting a considerable time prior to 6 December 2010

5.5 In Mrs Lewis’ professional practice, she is required to follow and comply with a range of Codes and Frameworks. The main instruments are listed in the table below. Further explanation in relation to the governance of each is explained. They will be referred to as ‘The Codes’.

CAFCASS CAFCASS Safeguarding Framework
(Issued Aug 2010)
CAFCASS CAFCASS Concerns and Complaints Procedure (Issued May 2010)
GSCC GSCC Code of Practice for Social Workers
Statutory Children Act 1989

6 PURPOSE, PROCESS

6.1 The Purpose of the meeting is to:

6.1.1 Decide if the concerns and complaints fall within the CAFCASS Concerns and Complaints Procedure criteria; and if so,

6.1.2 assess the concerns and complaints made in relation to the conduct and practices of Mrs Lewis with her professional engagement with the Segretti Family.

6.1.3 decide if the matters arising were:

6.1.3.1 a concern,

6.1.3.2 a complaint, or

6.1.3.3 more serious falling into Criminal Negligence.

6.2 The Process required a review and knowledge of The Codes wherein they come to touch on the execution of her duty as a CAFCASS employee and the higher duty as a Social Worker.

6.3 It was decided it was only necessary to demonstrate conflict between the Practices of Mrs Lewis and any one element of any one of The Codes.

7 FINDINGS

7.1 The meeting found that this was a formal complaint made to CAFCASS.

7.2 The concerns in the complaint are not exempt by Section 16 of the Complaints Procedure because they do not fall into one of the following categories

7.2.1 dispute the facts of CAFCASS’s professional judgement

7.2.2 a disagreement about professional judgment

7.2.3 a matter of the court proceedings

7.2.4 a concern that falls outside of the statutory and procedural functions of CAFCASS

7.3 The concerns are about the conduct and practices of CAFCASS Employee, Mrs June Lewis between 8 July 2010 and 22 December 2010

7.4 Mrs Lewis is an employee of CAFCASS.

7.5 Mrs Lewis is a person who uses and represents the protected title of Social Worker. She is registered on the Social Care Register from 6 March 2009 and bears the registration number E/1081883.

7.6 Registering with the General Social Care Council enables a person to practice in the profession of a Social Worker.

7.7 Mrs Lewis is required to meet the minimum standards set down within The Codes.

7.7.1 The GSCC Code sets out the minimum expectations of conduct required and expected of a Social Worker.

7.7.2 Mrs Lewis is also required, as an employee of CAFCASS, to meet the minimum standards of the CAFCASS Safeguarding Framework

7.7.3 She is also required to comply with the CAFCASS Code of Conduct expected of Employees.

7.7.4 Part of that code requires her to advise people she engages (or should engage) with professionally, about CAFCASS and in particular the CAFCASS Concerns and Complaints Procedure.

7.7.5 The Meeting found that although The Codes are highly detailed, they are not inconsistent, not incompatible, and in fact are complimentary. There are no immediate conflicts that would give rise as to whether one document had more weight or priority over another.

7.8 The Meeting found that within the Time Frames specified within the CAFCASS Complaints Procedure, that a Step 1 process had been followed and a report was given by the Line Manager, Mr Luke-MacAuley to Ms Segretti on 5 January 2010.

7.9 The Meeting found that the report was not satisfactory in that Mr Luke-MacAuley had failed to engage with Ms Z Segretti to validate the complaint and the information he concluded as from Mrs Lewis.

7.10 It is not merely sufficient to make a decision as a result of:

7.10.1 hearsay of one party,

7.10.2 the reply of an immediate party,

without engaging properly with the affected party, or parties if there are more than one.

7.11 In this instance, Mr Luke-MacAuley had failed during the course of his investigation between 22 December 2010 and 5 January 2011 to make contact with Ms Z Segretti to discuss her concerns and clarify the information he was provided with by Mrs Lewis.

7.12 Mr Luke-MacAuley also failed to seek or review evidence that was either known to be available or was offered.

7.13 Given that one of the allegations raised about Mrs Lewis conduct is that she does not communicate with parties and that she does not report accurately, it seems strange that Mr Luke-MacAuley would not communicate directly himself with the affected party to verify all versions of the concerns.

7.14 The Meeting found there was no reason as to explain why Mr Luke-MacAuley did not contact Ms Z Segretti during his investigation.

7.15 After considerable discussion and review of The Codes and the conduct of Mrs Lewis over the period of 8 July 2010 to 22 December 2010, the Meeting found that the matters raised as

7.15.1 Concerns - were Proven.

7.15.2 Misconduct – were Proven.

7.15.3 Act in a way that was below the expectations as set out in The Codes – Proven

7.15.4 Act in a way that was below the minimum standards as set out in The Codes - Proven.

7.15.5 Act in a way that was below the expectations of the public –Proven.

7.15.6 In reviewing the Codes verses her Practice it was found that the range of performance contrary to the Codes was so severe and serious.

7.16 The findings proven were determined on the grounds that:

7.16.1 there was no evidence to the contrary to support another finding and that all parties had been contacted or their manager had reported to the Meeting their own findings prior to the meeting,

7.16.2 that the documents produced that shows the chain of telephone calls, transcripts and correspondence, speaks for itself in Mrs Lewis’s own admissions that she had failed to attain the minimum standards expected,

7.16.3 the transcript of the Luke-MacAuley telephone call on 22 December affirms that Mrs Lewis performance and practices fall grossly below the standards he in the role Line Manager would have expected,

7.16.4 that Mr Luke-MacAuley provided no reason as to why he was unable to attend the Meeting, other than the reason that Mrs Lewis was not attending and he felt it was not worth his while.

8 POTENTIAL FOR REMEDY

8.1 There are six Principals for Remedy when dealing with concerns or complaints, these are:

8.1.1 Getting it Right

8.1.2 Being Customer Focused

8.1.3 Being Open and Accountable

8.1.4 Acting fairly and proportionately

8.1.5 Putting things right

8.1.6 Seeking continuous improvement

8.2 It is not possible for Mrs Lewis to correct her conduct from the past. The effects that her conduct has had on the family and specifically the welfare and best interests of the children is undeniable. The emotional and traumatic harm caused to 6 people, 4 being young children not even in their teenage years, by Mrs Lewis will scare the family for the rest of their lives, even after Mrs Lewis is no longer dealing with the case and has moved on. It is unlikely Mrs Lewis will in 10 years time even remember the family or be concerned in the slightest about the children’s welfare and how their lives have transpired.

8.3 Mrs Lewis is not acting openly or with accountability.

8.3.1 This is a practice she has described consistently. It is unlikely that her behaviour can be changed.

8.3.2 Evidence was also read and seen that Mrs Lewis created false and misleading reports to the Court in relation to a number of occasions.

8.3.3 This makes her unfit for the role of a social worker or to work with vulnerable persons.

8.4 Mrs Lewis in her own words stated that the conduct that was the subject of the concerns was her usual practice in a letter dated 19 December 2010. The same conduct that Mr Luke-MacAuley described as falling well below his and the expectations of the public.

8.5 The Meeting found no means by which Mrs Lewis could put the gross misconduct of her past right with those affected.

8.5.1 Mrs Lewis is not in a position that she could provide financial remedy, nor is she in a position where she could provide a legal resolution.
8.5.2 This makes Mrs Lewis unfit for the role of a social worker or to work with vulnerable persons.

8.6 The Meeting found that Mrs Lewis was unable to commit to engaging with clients and service users in an manner other than within the scope of her own practices.

8.6.1 The meeting found that Mrs Lewis was evasive in her practice. Right up to and including the meeting.

8.6.2 There was no attempt by Mrs Lewis to attend the meeting by Telephone.

8.6.3 It was clear in the evidence that Ms A Segretti extended frequent opportunities to Mrs Lewis from the first telephone call on 8 July 2010 to enable her to engage professionally and within the minimum standards required of a Social Worker and a CAFCASS Employee.

8.6.4 Mrs Lewis as not at any time attempted to meet any meeting commitment, correspond, or provide contact details necessary for the proper professional engagement expected and set in The Codes.

9 CONCLUSION

9.1 The meeting has decided the following:

9.1.1 That the concerns and complaints are so serious there is no option other than to refer the matters to other relevant agencies for further investigation and processing.

9.1.2 That a full and formal complaint, including the Findings of this Meeting, Audio Recordings, Transcripts and correspondence be forwarded to the General Social Care Council for assessment and complaint.

9.1.3 That these Findings and materials contained within, be used to initiate a Step 3 complaint within the CAFCASS Concerns and Complaints Procedure. That CAFCASS work with the parties of the complaint to collate and formulate the complaint for further disciplinary purposes.

9.1.4 That a referral to the London Metropolitan Police be made with respect to the documents produced to the High Court purporting to be the statements and reports of Mrs Lewis that have been fund to be untruthful. A Crown Briefing Note will be attached.

These Findings are verified as correct by the parties in attendance and accepted by the parties who submitted their apologies.


Ms Chairman

Ms Segretti

[Hope]

http://uksocialservices.com/name-and-shame/#comment-524



[ Responsible along with Kent county council with the theft of Elle-May, Ruby, Lacey & Poppy Williams-Piper for forced adoption (Lacey & Poppy forced adoption due for completion at the end of the month) ; granddaughters of Sheena Williams (former Conservative Maidstone borough councillor) who dared to raise concerns about forced adoption/lack of support by SS and the bio-metric fingerprinting of children in school without parental consent ]


1st September 2008 designated Family Law Judge for Kent His Honour Judge Polden (second from the right) used to be a practising partner in a local Kent firm of solicitors...anyone spot a conflict of interest ?
scroll down to the bottom
http://www.resolution.org.uk/kent/news/

Sheena speaks at the UK Rally Against Child Abuse 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApaElxYGFyo

[wouldntyouliketoknow]

http://uksocialservices.com/name-and-shame/#comment-524



[ Responsible along with Kent county council with the theft of Elle-May, Ruby, Lacey & Poppy Williams-Piper for forced adoption (Lacey & Poppy forced adoption due for completion at the end of the month) ; granddaughters of Sheena Williams (former Conservative Maidstone borough councillor) who dared to raise concerns about forced adoption/lack of support by SS and the bio-metric fingerprinting of children in school without parental consent ]


1st September 2008 designated Family Law Judge for Kent His Honour Judge Polden (second from the right) used to be a practising partner in a local Kent firm of solicitors...anyone spot a conflict of interest ?
scroll down to the bottom
http://www.resolution.org.uk/kent/news/

Sheena speaks at the UK Rally Against Child Abuse 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApaElxYGFyo

Paul Carter – (Conservative ) Leader of Kent County Council

Langley Park House
Langley
Maidstone
Kent
ME17 3NQ

01622-861131

[wouldntyouliketoknow]

Honours List: Order of the British Empire,
Friday, 31 December 2010


Leyland Bradshaw Ridings. Lead Council Member for Children's Services, Kent County Council. For services to Local Government. (Sandwich, Kent)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 72579.html

[gingernutie]

The UK may well be pretty similar



WHAT’S THE BET YOU DON’T KNOW WHO YOU ARE?






♀♂

QUESTIONAIRE


Before reading any further please write an answer to these questions as you believe the answers to be?

1 What is a child? ________________________________________________________

2 What is a Still-born? ________________________________________________________

3 What is a birth? ________________________________________________________

4 What is a body? _________________________________________________________

5 What is a Person? _________________________________________________________

6 What is a foetus? _________________________________________________________

7 What is dead foetus? _______________________________________________________

8 What is death? _________________________________________________________

9 What is a birth certificate? ____________________________________________________

10 What is a live birth? ________________________________________________________

11 What is a miscarriage? _______________________________________________________

12 What is a vessel? ___________________________________________________________

13 What is New Zealand? _______________________________________________________
NOW PLEASE READ ON AND DISCOVER WHAT THE NZ STATUTE LAW, AS SET OUT IN THE
Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995,

TELLS YOU WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN AND SEE IF YOUR BELIEF MEANS THAT YOU ARE WELL INFORMED.


Extracts only - refer to the whole Act for full text

Reprint as at 29 November 2010
Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995
Public Act 1995 No 16
Date of assent 31 March 1995
Commencement see section 1(2)
• Act name: substituted, on 24 January 2009, by section 5(1)(a) of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Act 2008 (2008 No 48).
________________________________________
Note
Changes authorised by section 17C of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 have been made in this reprint.
A general outline of these changes is set out in the notes at the end of this reprint, together with other explanatory material about this reprint.
This Act is administered by the Department of Internal Affairs.
________________________________________
Contents
Title
[Repealed]
1 Short Title and commencement
Part 1
Preliminary
1A Purpose
2 Interpretation
3 Act binds the Crown
4 No information to be recorded or altered except in accordance with Act
Part 2
Births
5 Births in New Zealand to be notified and registered
5A Preliminary notice of birth
6 Births outside New Zealand
7 Foundlings
8 Births on New Zealand aircraft or ships
9 Parents primarily responsible for notifying birth
10 Guardian or authorised person may notify birth
11 Manner of notification of birth
12 Registration of births
12A Record of citizenship
13 Registration of certain still-births
14 Maori custom marriages
15 Registration of parents' details
15A Appeals relating to registration of parents' details
16 Registration of births notified late
17 Parents who marry or enter into civil union after birth of child may have particulars of marriage or civil union
A Part EXTRACT only of contents list


[Section 2 – this part of the Act tells you the meaning of the words used within this Act]

2 Interpretation
• In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
adopted person means a person information (not being information derived from an adoption order that has been discharged) relating to whom has been recorded under section 24 or section 25, or under a corresponding provision of a former Act or a former Adoption Act
Adoption information means information relating to an adoption; and, in relation to any adoption, means information relating to that adoption

birth includes a still-birth; but does not include a miscarriage

[Authors Comment – the word “includes” means everything else is excluded, yes EVERYTHING, even a living baby. One could reasonably safely use the word means in place of includes. This comment is not a part of the Act, please pay attention to the Maxims listed below.]

birth certificate means a document—
o (a) issued by, and signed or sealed by or stamped with the seal of, a Registrar; and
o (b) containing registered birth information;—
and, in relation to any person, means a birth certificate containing registered birth information relating to the person's birth
birth information means information relating to a birth; and, in relation to any birth, means information relating to that birth

body means a dead person; but does not include a dead foetus

celebrant means, as the case requires,—
o (a) in relation to a marriage, a person who is a marriage celebrant under the Marriage Act 1955; and, in relation to a marriage solemnised by a celebrant, means the celebrant who solemnised it; and
o (b) in relation to a civil union, a person who is a civil union celebrant under the Civil Union Act 2004; and, in relation to a civil union solemnised by a celebrant, means the celebrant who solemnised it
Chief Archivist means the person holding that office under the Public Records Act 2005

child includes a still-born child

civil union certificate means—
o (a) a document that is issued by, and signed or sealed by or stamped with the seal of, a Registrar, and that contains registered civil union information; and
o (b) in relation to any civil union, means a civil union certificate containing registered civil union information relating to that civil union
civil union information means information relating to a civil union; and, in relation to any civil union, means information relating to that civil union
computer system means any system of computers, or computers and terminals,—
o (a) used for storing information recorded under this Act or a former Act; and
o (b) accessible by the Registrar-General or a Registrar; and
o (c) under the control of—
 (i) the Registrar-General or a Registrar; or
 (ii) a person (other than the Registrar-General or a Registrar) who has the function of managing, on behalf of the Registrar-General, information recorded under this Act or a former Act
coroner's authorisation, in relation to a body, means an authorisation by a coroner under section 42 of the Coroners Act 2006 for the release of the body

dead foetus means a foetus that, whether or not the umbilical cord had been severed or the placenta had detached, at no time after issuing completely from its mother breathed or showed any other sign of life (such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of the voluntary muscles)

death does not include a miscarriage or a still-birth

death certificate means a document—
o (a) issued by, and signed or sealed by or stamped with the seal of, a Registrar; and
o (b) containing registered death information;—
and, in relation to any person, means a death certificate containing registered death information relating to the person's death
death information means information relating to a death; and, in relation to any death, means information relating to that death
Deputy Registrar-General means a Deputy Registrar-General appointed under section 80(1)
Director of Security means the Director of Security holding office under the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969

disposal, includes burial and cremation; and to dispose of has a corresponding meaning

doctor means a health practitioner who is, or is deemed to be, registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand continued by section 114(1)(a) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 as a practitioner of the profession of medicine
doctor's certificate, in relation to a death or a body, means a doctor's certificate referred to in sections 46B and 46C of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 relating to the cause of death or, as the case may be, the cause of death of the person whose body it is
document means a document in any form; and includes any photograph, film, negative, tape, or other device in which 1 or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced; and documentary has a corresponding meaning
Family Court means the division of a District Court known, in accordance with section 4 of the Family Courts Act 1980, as a Family Court
foreign registration authority means an authority constituted in a State outside New Zealand that has the function of recording information relating to name changes or deaths within that State
former Act means the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1951 or the Marriage Act 1955 or any Act relating to the registration of births and deaths or marriages that was repealed before 1 September 1995
former Adoption Act means the Infants Act 1908 or the Maori Land Act 1931 or the Maori Affairs Act 1953 or any Act relating to the adoption of children that was repealed before 1 September 1995
hospital means a hospital care institution within the meaning of section 58(4) of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001
index includes part of an index
marriage means a marriage solemnised under the Marriage Act 1955 or a former Act; and includes a service marriage
marriage certificate means a document—
o (a) issued by, and signed or sealed by or stamped with the seal of, a Registrar; and
o (b) containing registered marriage information;—
and, in relation to any marriage, means a marriage certificate containing registered marriage information relating to that marriage
marriage information means information relating to a marriage; and, in relation to any marriage, means information relating to that marriage
medical includes psychological and surgical
midwife means a health practitioner who is, or is deemed to be, registered with the Midwifery Council established by section 114(3) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 as a practitioner of the profession of midwifery
Minister means the Minister of the Crown who, under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is for the time being responsible for the administration of this Act

miscarriage means the issue from its mother, before the 21st week of pregnancy, of a dead foetus weighing less than 400 g

name change certificate means—
o (a) a document—
 (i) issued by, and signed or sealed by, or stamped with the seal of, a Registrar; and
 (ii) containing registered name change information; and
o (b) in relation to a person, a document within the meaning of paragraph (a) that contains registered name change information relating to each of the person's name changes
name change information means information relating to a name change; and, in relation to any name change, means information relating to that name change

New Zealand includes the Ross Dependency

occupier, in relation to any premises, means the person for the time being in charge of them
prescribed fee includes a fee calculated or ascertained in accordance with regulations made under this Act
Privacy Commissioner means the Privacy Commissioner holding that office under section 12 of the Privacy Act 1993
record includes to cause to be recorded
register means that a Registrar records (in a manner authorised by the Registrar-General) information under this Act, a former Act, or a former Adoption Act
Registrar means a person for the time being holding office under section 81(1); and includes the Registrar-General and every Deputy Registrar-General
Registrar-General means the Registrar-General appointed under section 79(1) and includes every Deputy Registrar-General
service marriage has the meaning given to it by section 2 of the Marriage Act 1955

source document means a document (other than a register) that—
o (a) contains information recorded under this Act or a former Act; and
o (b) is accessible by the Registrar-General or a Registrar; and
o (c) is under the control of—
 (i) the Registrar-General or a Registrar; or
 (ii) a person (other than the Registrar-General or a Registrar) who has the function of managing, on behalf of the Registrar-General, information recorded under this Act or a former Act; or
 (iii) the Chief Archivist

standard form means the relevant form issued by the Registrar-General under section 87B

still-birth means the issue from its mother of a still-born child

still-born child means a dead foetus that—
o (a) weighed 400 g or more when it issued from its mother; or
o (b) issued from its mother after the 20th week of pregnancy

unavailable means dead, unknown, missing, of unsound mind, or unable to act by virtue of a medical condition

working day, in relation to the office of the Registrar-General or a Registrar, means any day of the week on which the office is open for business; but does not include a Saturday.



OTHER ACTS IMPORTANT TO YOUR COMPREHENSION OF THE STAUTE LEGISLATION
Interpretation Act 1999
Part 5
Meaning of terms and expressions in legislation

• person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body



Maxims

In particular theses maxims limit the word includes to exactly what it application is!!!

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. 11 Co. 58




Income Tax Act 2007 No 97

Part A
Purpose and interpretation
Definitions
• Role of Part Y
(1) Definitions of terms that apply generally for the purposes of this Act, and general provisions on the interpretation and construction of this Act, appear in Part Y (Definitions and related matters).
Role of Interpretation Act
(2) The Interpretation Act 1999 also contains definitions of terms, including in particular the term person, and other provisions that apply to the interpretation and construction of this Act.
Compare: 2004 No 35 s AA 3(2)




Maxims


Accusare nemo debet se, nisi coram Deo. No one ought to accuse himself, unless before God. Hard. 139.

Actus non reum facit, nisi mens sit rea. An act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty. This maxim applies only to criminal cases; in civil matters it is otherwise. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2211.

Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

Contractus legem ex conventione accipiunt. The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract. Dig. 16, 3, 1, 6.

Conventio vincit legem. The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law. Story, Ag. Sec. See Dig. 16, 3, 1, 6.

Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum. The appointment or designation of one is the exclusion of another; and that expressed makes that which is implied cease. Co. Litt. 210. [Regarding: Person “includes” etc]

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. 11 Co. 58


So let’s put some of this together


Unravelling the Code
I. Birth Certificates
Maxim : The origin of a thing ought to be inquired into.
Maxim : To refer errors to their origin is to refute them.

The origin of the New Zealand Company's control over us comes from the Birth Certificate issued under the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act 1995.
Section 2, Interpretation, we find the following definitions:
Birth includes a still-birth, but does not include a miscarriage
Birth certificate means a document—
(a) Issued by, and signed or sealed by or stamped with the seal of, a Registrar; and
(b) Containing registered birth information;—
and, in relation to any person, means a birth certificate containing registered birth information relating to the person's birth:

Child includes a still-born child
[RULE: If something “includes” then all else is excluded]

Under section 71 we learn that:
A birth, death, marriage certificate, civil union, or name change certificate shall in any proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the truth of the information it contains.
So a birth certificate, which lists you as a child, does two important things:
It “berths” you as a “person”
It provides prima facie evidence that you were born dead

Section 12, Registration of Births, we learn who keeps track of this important information:
Unless authorised by the Registrar-General to register births, a Registrar who is notified of a birth in New Zealand shall, to the extent that the information given is information required by the standard form (and subject to section 12A), send it to the Registrar-General or to a Registrar specified by the Registrar-General (as the Registrar-General for the time being directs).
So the Registrar-General, who appears to be the king of all Registrars, is the one who really cares about the information put on the Birth Certificate by your parents. Now Registrars are the people who run courts, so we should not be surprised to see him take some court proceedings on the basis of the notification he has just received of your still-birth.

II. Your PERSON

Maxim: Neither charity nor dishonesty are to be presumed
When the New Zealand statutes themselves do not provide sufficient clarity on the meaning of a word, we turn to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition, which may be found on the Internet using any search engine. Here is what we find a person is:

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.
[So if one needs to distance/extract ones self from that society that presumes ownership/jurisdiction over the person then what???]
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth. [Slave or free, a person is owned = slave, a subject or even resident/citizen. Roman law – where English/Western democratic law came from],
This last definition will become important soon. But first lets look at what paragraphs 1 to 4 tell us. 3 says that natural persons are intended unless a statute says otherwise. 1 says that natural persons are men, women and children, considered according to their rank in society, “with all the rights ...” But 4 shows a huge disparity between the rights of men and those of women. Clearly a society with “equal rights” for women cannot be dealing with natural persons.

So the belief long held that “Persons” intended in modern legislation refers only to artificial persons, such as corporations does not stand up after a perusal of the definition of “Corporation” in Bouvier's which reveals too many inconsistencies for this presumption to be maintained. (Refer Bouvier’s)
There is a third possibility which bears consideration. Given that the “persons” we are discussing were dead at birth, does it not hold that we are dealing with natural persons who are dead? All become equal again once they die, and this answer proves far more consistent and satisfying than the notion that we are being dealt with as if we were a corporation.

Another false belief that only gets in the way is the notion of the “Strawman”. This presumes that the law has spun a legal construct out of thin air for the sole purpose of deception, which violates our fourth Maxim. Instead we shall see that the person is not created for either charitable or dishonest purposes. It has a proper basis in law, and that basis does not wrong us in any way so long as we understand it and know how to deal with it.

Your “person” is identified in most cases by your name written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Take a visit to your local graveyard and notice the names on the tombstones. They will all be written in capital letters. An ALL CAPS name designates a dead body. As we will see, whenever your person is named, the law is in fact identifying the estate of the still-born child.

III. Grant of Administration
So how does a document evidencing a still-birth get turned into an ESTATE?
Here in New Zealand, it is done via the Status of Children Act 1969.

That Act defines a grand total of one (1) word in section 2, its Interpretation section:
marriage includes a void marriage; and married has a corresponding meaning. [Here is that magic word includes again. A legal marriage not a God given right marriage (recorded in the family bible) which we engage in by acquiring a marriage license]
So not only is your person dead, it is a dead bastard.

Bouvier's tells us, under Bastard:
4. Considered as nullius filius, a bastard has no inheritable blood in him, and therefore no ESTATE can descend to him; but he may take by testament, if properly described, after he has obtained a name by reputation. But this hard rule has been somewhat mitigated in some of the states, where, by statute, various inheritable qualities have been conferred upon bastards.
So this Act at once removes any right of inheritance, then turns around and grants them by a testament substituted by the state, after your person “has obtained a name ...” Thus the importance of the name on the Birth Certificate, and in all your future dealings with the New Zealand Company - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND
(see U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission www.sec.gov/ click on Company or fund name, ticker symbol, CIK (Central Index Key), file number, state, country, or SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Enter in CIK# 0000216105 and bingo there it is – the private commercial corporate entity party that flies this flag )

BASTARDY, crim. law. The offence of begetting a bastard child.
BASTARDY, persons. The state or condition of a bastard. The law presumes every child legitimate, when born of a woman in a state of wedlock, and casts the onus probandi (q. v.) on the party who affirms the bastardy. Stark. Ev. h. t.
Bouvier’s tells us that a testament appoints an executor:
TESTAMENT, civil law. The appointment of an executor or testamentary heir, according to the formalities prescribed by law.

The Wills Act 1837, which is British Imperial legislation still in force in New Zealand, provides all the rules as to testaments, including them in the broad definition of a will:

The word will shall extend to a testament, and to a codicil, and to an appointment by will or by writing in the nature of a will in exercise of a power, and also to a disposition by will and testament or devise of the custody and tuition of any child, by virtue of [the Tenures Abolition Act 1660], or by virtue of an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the 14th and 15th years of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled “An Act for taking away the Court of Wards and Liveries, and tenures in capite and by knight's service”, and to any other testamentary disposition;

The last phrase sums it all up. The Act covers every type of “testamentary disposition”.

Section 2, Interpretation, of the Insolvency Act 1967, defines “disposition” as:
disposition means—
(a) Any conveyance, transfer, assignment, settlement, delivery, payment, or other alienation of property, whether at law or in equity:
(b) The creation of a trust:
We will see shortly how all property you could potentially acquire is instead alienated and placed into trust. As to what property was alienated, the Wills Act 1837 once again tells us:

The words real estate shall extend to manors, advowsons, messuages, lands, tithes, rents, and hereditaments, whether freehold, customary freehold, tenant right, customary or copyhold, or of any other tenure, and whether corporeal, incorporeal, or personal, and to any undivided share thereof, and to any estate, right, or interest (other than a chattel interest) therein; and

The words personal estate shall extend to leasehold estates and other chattels real, and also to money, shares of government and other funds, securities for money (not being real estates), debts, choses in action, rights, credits, goods, and all other property whatsoever which by law devolves upon the executor or administrator, and to any share or interest therein;
Section 6, Interpretation, of the Wills Act 2007, defines “disposition” as:
disposition includes—
(a) the creation by will of a power of appointment; and
(b) the exercise by will of a power of appointment

Perpetuities Act 1964,
Section 2, Interpretation, defines “power of appointment” as:
Power of appointment includes any discretionary power to transfer or grant or create a beneficial interest in property without valuable consideration:

Later we will learn what power of appointment has been disposed of by testament of the estate of the dead bastard who appeared on paper around the same time you were born. But first back to section 5A (2) of the Status of Children Act 1969:

5A Grant of letters of administration
1) Letters of administration with or without the will annexed in respect of the estate of any deceased person or any part thereof shall not be granted to any applicant thereof unless the applicant shows—
(b) That no useful purpose would be served in the particular case by making the inquiries specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

So by looking through his own records, the Registrar-General has made all the inquiries he needs to in order to grant letters of administration for the estate of the dead bastard on the Birth Certificate. Thus he holds court, looks at a single piece of paper, and grants letters creating an estate in your ALL CAPS name which will be the only legal entity the New Zealand Company will recognise from that day forward.

When you front up to a government office, they will see the living you as merely the executor of the ALL CAPS estate. Should you buy property that gets registered, it will be registered as owned by the ALL CAPS estate. When you open a bank account, it is only able to be done in the ALL CAPS name using documents which link back to the Birth Certificate. All property is alienated from you from the day you are born in this manner. The estate holds all property, real and personal. You own nothing.

IV. Rights and Responsibilities under the Estate

Being made an executor of an estate from the day you are born is not entirely a bad thing. But there are some problems. First, you need to know who the heirs are. Second, you are too young look after them at first. Third, you need to know how to take control of the estate once you are old enough to.

Section 77 of the Administration Act 1969 covers who are the heirs of an intestate estate. An intestate is one who dies without a will, which is the situation of a still-born child, unless the New Zealand Company changes it in their testamentary disposition.

77. Succession to real and personal estate on intestacy
If a person (the intestate) dies intestate as to any real or personal estate and leaves the other person or people referred to in column 1 of the following table, that estate must be distributed in the manner or held on the trusts set out in column 2 of that table opposite the reference to the other person or people:

S. 77 How Estate is Divided
(5) No husband, [wife, civil union partner,] or surviving – All of the Estate is held in Trust in equal de facto partner, and no issue, but 1 or both parents. Shares for the parents, but if the intestate leaves only one parent , for that parent.


Section 9 Administration during minority of executor

(1) Where a person who is sole executor of a will is at the date of the testator's death a minor who is not entitled to a grant of probate under subsection (3) of this section, administration with the will annexed may be granted to such person as the Court thinks fit, until the minor becomes entitled to and obtains a grant of probate to him; and on his attaining full age or sooner becoming entitled to a grant of probate under that subsection and not before, probate of the will may be granted to him.

(2) Where a testator by his will appoints a person who at his death is a minor who is not entitled to a grant or probate under subsection (3) of this section to be an executor, the appointment shall not operate to transfer any interest in the estate of the deceased to the minor or to constitute him an administrator for any purpose, unless and until probate is granted to him under this section.

(3) Where a testator by his will appoints a person who is a minor to be an executor, probate of the will may be granted to the person if, at the date of the grant,—

(a) The person has attained full age; or
(b) The person has attained the age of 18 years and is or has been married [or in a civil union].
Keep in mind that the still-born child died intestate, so any will, testament or Power of Attorney was created by the New Zealand Company, making them the testator referred to in the above provisions. “Administration” of this will is granted to “such person as the Court thinks fit”, and you receive no interest in the estate until probate is granted to you under these same provisions.

Once you reach full age, all you need to do is apply for probate in order to assume your rightful role as fully competent executor of the ALL CAPS estate. But HOW???????

Property Law Act 2007 (Yes because you are property)
S. 22 Person between 18 and 20 years may do certain things
(1) A person who is 18 years old or older but under 20 years old may do 1 or more of the following:
o (a) execute a deed:
o (b) appoint an attorney to do any act or thing that the person himself or herself can do:
o (c) accept appointment, or act, as an attorney.
(2) Anything done by a person under subsection (1) has the same effect as if the person were 20 years old.
Compare: 1952 No 51 s 134A

However the Government offers us an even juicer contract which we are all only too eager to sign?
When you register as an elector, you do so under section 85 of the Electoral Act 1993 - Application for registration. The heading of the very next section says it all:

86 Registration of mentally incapable persons

When you ask for someone else to do your job of representing the ALL CAPS estate, you are effectively declaring yourself to be incapable. From the provisions of this section it appears that you are giving the New Zealand Company an “enduring power of attorney” when you first register to vote. Sections 94 to 108 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 provide the rules surrounding the enduring power of attorney.

Not surprisingly, all registration information, including any power of attorney, is held by another “Registrar”, in this case the Chief Registrar of Electors found in section 21 of the Electoral Act 1993.

(1) There shall be a Chief Registrar of Electors who shall be the person exercising the powers, duties, and functions for the time being of the Chief Executive of New Zealand Post Limited.
So what you have now done is chosen to be represented.
From Bouvier’s:
REPRESENTATIVE. One who represents [comment; re-presents] or is in the place of another.
2. In legislation, it signifies one who has been elected a member of that branch of the legislature called the house of representatives.
3. A representative of a deceased person, sometimes called a "personal representative," or legal personal representative," is one who is executor or administrator of the person described.

REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS; A fiction of the law, the effect of which is to put the representative in the place, degree, or right of the person represented.
3. The heir represents his ancestor. Bac. Abr. Heir and Ancestor, A. The devisee, his testator; the executor, his testator; the administrator, his intestate; the successor in corporations, his predecessor. And generally speaking they are entitled to the rights of the persons whom they represent, and bound to fulfill the duties and obligations, which were binding upon them in those characters.
That is why Parliament is called THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Property Law Act 2007 No 91 (as at 25 September 2008), Public Act

S. 9 Deed must be in writing, executed, and delivered
(1) A deed must be—
(a) in writing; and
(b) executed in accordance with this section; and
(c) delivered in accordance with this section.
(2) An individual executes a deed if—
(a) he or she signs the deed; and
(b) his or her signature is witnessed in accordance with subsection (7).
(3) A body corporate executes a deed if—
(a) the deed is signed in the name of the body corporate by—
(i) the director of the body corporate if it has only 1 director; or
(ii) not fewer than 2 directors of the body corporate if it has 2 or more directors; or
(iii) 1 director or other person or member of a specified class of person if the body corporate’s constitution authorises a deed to be signed in that way; and
(b) in the case of a deed signed under paragraph (a)(i) or (iii), the signature

VI. Trust Money

Once you have been granted probate and established that you are the sole representative of the ALL CAPS estate, it is finally time to start taking control of the estate’s property. To do this, you need to know where to look. Cars and houses should be easy enough, as you know who they are registered with. The tricky part is the money. What money, you ask? Or did you ask, “What is money?” Both are good questions.

Looking past the multitude of circular definitions, we find that “money” is defined but once in all New Zealand statute. Section 2 of the Wages Protection Act 1983 tells us:

money, in relation to any wages, means any New Zealand coin or New Zealand banknotes, or combination of both, the tender of which in respect of the payment of those wages is legal tender:

A search of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 reveals that it says precious little about “money” and never once discusses either “New Zealand coin” or “New Zealand banknotes”. Rather, it authorises a creature called a “Reserve Bank note”, and never claims it to be “money”. Further, when speaking of coins, section 27, Legal Tender does contain this remarkable provision:
(1) Every bank note issued, or deemed to be issued, under this Act shall be a legal tender for the amount expressed in the note.

(2) A tender of payment of money, to the extent that it is made in coins issued, or deemed to be issued, under this Act, shall be a legal tender,—

(a) In the case of coins of a denomination of $10 or more, for the payment of any amount:
(b) In the case of coins of a denomination of $1 or more but less than $10, for the payment of any amount not exceeding $100:
(c) In the case of coins of the denomination of 5 cents or more, but less than $1, for the payment of an amount not exceeding $5:
So a (Reserve) bank note is not usable for making “A tender of payment of money”, but coins are. And those One and Two Dollar coins rattling around in your pocket are only good for an amount up to $100. But the real surprise is the “coins of a denomination of $10 or more”, with which you may tender payment of money in any amount. Have you ever seen these? They do exist, and can be found at the same place that holds your power of attorney, the New Zealand Post. You will find that they are composed of pure gold. With them are other coins composed of fine silver. These are actually the lesser denomination coins that are truly money, rather than the near valueless things in your pocket.

Real money does not circulate any more. Gold has been out of circulation since 1933 across the globe. But real law, and especially contract law requires real money, and display cases across the land proclaim to us that real money is still made in this country. Where is it and why are we not allowed it? Simple, we have proven our incompetence, and therefore we are not given access to it. It is held in trust and managed on our behalf by administrators. Most government departments deal with us on the basis of administering some of the trust money of our ALL CAPS estate. Section 66 of the Public Finance Act 1989 gives us the rules for the management of this money:

66 Trust money
(1) The following money shall be deemed to be trust money:

(c) All money that is paid to the Crown in trust for any purpose:
(d) Money that belongs to or is due to any person and is collected by the Crown pursuant to any agreement between the Crown and that person:
(e) Unclaimed money that is due to or belongs to any person and is deposited with the Crown.

(2) All trust money held by the Crown shall be accounted for separately from public money.

(3) All trust money shall be the responsibility of the Treasury on behalf of the Crown.
(4) The Treasury may appoint a department or any agent to manage some or all trust money on such terms and conditions as the Treasury from time to time determines.

The Treasury has appointed the various departments to manage the trust money, such as Public Trust but private corporations may also do this via;
Trustee Companies Act 1967
S. 7 Company may be appointed trustee and hold other fiduciary positions
(1) In all cases in which any Court or any person, company, or corporation appoints any trustee company to any of the offices or positions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, it shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, be lawful for but not obligatory on the company to accept appointment to and act in the office or position, and to perform and discharge all acts and duties pertaining to the office or position, either in its corporate capacity or (where the circumstances so require) by any director or officer of the company.

You can also appoint yourself as the agent instead, once you have established sole right as executor of the ALL CAPS ESTATE. Then you get to manage the bank account holding Real Money; or
Do it by fiduciary contract
2. A fiduciary contract is defined to be, an agreement by which a person delivers a thing to another, on the condition that he will restore it to him. The following formula was employed:' Ut inter bonos agere opportet, ne propter te fidemque tuam frauder. Cicer. de Offc. lib. 3, cap. 13; Lec. du Dr. Civ. Rom. §237, 238. See 2 How. S. C. Rep. 202, 208; 6 Watts & Serg. 18; 7 Watts, 415.

67 Establishment of bank accounts for trust money
(1) There shall be established at any bank or banks approved by the Minister a bank account or accounts to be known as Trust Bank Accounts, to be operated and maintained by the Treasury or by a department or any agent appointed by the Treasury.
(2) All trust money shall be lodged in a Trust Bank Account.
(3) The Minister or the Treasury may give directions as to any terms and conditions under which a Trust Bank Account may be operated.

Subsection 2 is what keeps the real money out of circulation. You can have control of it as agent for the Treasury, but it must only be moved between accounts, not put into circulation as gold or silver coins.
Further details on how trust money is to be managed can be found in the Treasury Instructions which are available from the Treasury web site: www.treasury.govt.nz

Most importantly, anyone presently managing your trust money has been given a “Notice of Appointment to Manage and Invest Trust Money” by the Treasury. This is the “power of appointment” previously seen. You can receive the exact same appointment and have all the others removed.

The Treasury should be able to provide you with a list of all departments and agents who have been given such a Notice with respect to your particular ALL CAPS trust account. Armed with that list, you can then write to every department asking them for the records they are required to keep with respect to their management of your trust account pursuant to Treasury Instruction 6.6.6:
(2) 6.6.6 Records of trust money
The department is responsible for maintaining records of the deposit. The records must include the current (and any preceding) Notices of Appointment to Manage and Invest Trust Money and show the following in respect of each category of trust money specified in the Schedule to the Notice of Appointment:
 documentation supporting existence of trust relationship (i.e. contracts, letters of agreement/appointment, legislation, trust deed, etc);
 name of depositor(s);
 name of beneficiary(ies);
 date of deposit;
 bank where deposit is held;
 amount of the deposit;
 interest terms;
 treatment of interest payments;
 maturity date;
 date deposit is to be refunded;
 date and amount of interest refund(s); and
 date and authority releasing the deposit from the trust account.


VII. Commissioner of Inland Revenue

The tax department bears special note for two reasons. First, most people believe that they owe money, or at least “funds” to the tax man. Second, the fact is that your single greatest source of money that needs depositing into your new trust account will most likely come from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

17 Meaning of “security interest”
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term security interest—
•(a)
Means an interest in personal property created or provided for by a transaction that in substance secures payment or performance of an obligation, without regard to—
o (i)
The form of the transaction; and
o (ii)
The identity of the person who has title to the collateral; and
•(b)
Includes an interest created or provided for by a transfer of an account receivable or chattel paper, a lease for a term of more than 1 year, and a commercial consignment (whether or not the transfer, lease, or consignment secures payment or performance of an obligation).
(2) A person who is obligated under an account receivable may take a security interest in the account receivable under which that person is obligated.
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), and to avoid doubt, this Act applies to a fixed charge, floating charge, chattel mortgage, conditional sale agreement (including an agreement to sell subject to retention of title), hire purchase agreement, pledge, security trust deed, trust receipt, consignment, lease, an assignment, or a flawed asset arrangement, that secures payment or performance of an obligation


Now here is another twist for you to ponder:
Capitis Diminutio Maxima

Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …
Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.
Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.
Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.
Capite. - Lat. By the head.
As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.
So when we are registered at birth, the government produces a corporation, a straw-man (and yes this Straw-man is also defined in Black’s), by placing our name in all capitals. But why I hear you ask? Well as we are a bankrupt country (just waiting to go into an economic fold – exactly what is about to happen in the NZ) the government needs collateral to invest and to receive loans on, so we, the people, become slaves in bondage to be used as collateral with lenders and all with your permission even though you didn’t know you had consented.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that still doesn’t apply! Do not make the mistake of taking advice from anyone who studies, or has studied orthodox law, as they especially will not know this…they were kept well away from this deliberately. Police do NOT know that us and them are slaves in bondage, solicitors & lawyers do NOT know that them and us are slaves in bondage, and most government agents do NOT know either.
But the great thing is we don’t have to be. It is as easy as being knowledgeable, aware and then just politely declining their offered contract!

Cheers and thanks for reading
God Bless

[sadmum]

i realy dont agree in that one as in scotland if u dont register ur child within 21 days of birth u get fined for it what realy needs to happen is the government needs to look into what gets said and done as police and social workers work together and if they dont like one memble of a family then they wreck the whole family