An affidavit is an affirmation (sworn statement) of facts that the affiant (the one making the affidavit) has first hand knowledge of.
In the template, it states that after 30 day an unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment... no one should be able to make a rebuttal of the facts. Just proceed because the judgment is already made. There is no dispute to the fact that the Mother is the Mother of the child.
David pointed out:
Quote:
ASSEVERATION. The proof which a man gives of the truth of what be says, by appealing to his conscience as a witness. It differs from an oath in this, that by the latter he appeals to God as a witness of the truth of what he says, and invokes him as the avenger of falsehood and perfidy, to punish him if he speak not the truth. Vide Affirmation; Oath; and Merl. Quest. de Droit, mot Serment. -- Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
... and you mentioned PMing him, so I presume he explained. I like the subtle difference of the term 'asseveration'.
Consider this,
1) Do an asseveration (this is all that is really needed - the rest is simply further support)
2) Make one set of affidavits (one affidavit by each affiant/witness) focused on establishing the facts of the embodiment. Date, time, place, name of mother and father, child's name, etc...
One should be made by every one who was present when the baby was born. Mother, Father, Family, Friends, people who knew she had been pregnant can attest to that fact and that she is no longer, but unless there were present when the baby was born, they can't affirm this. All statements must be of first hand knowledge. NO HEARSAY!!!
Consider avoiding ever using the term "birth" in the affidavits, and rather use "born" or "embodied".
3) Do a separate set focused regarding the kidnapping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by akira
Put all events, in an affidavit, naming names, events, [dates and times], ect. (short simple sentences... facts.. not opinion)
include the kidnapping and all other injuries
default all parties...
The unrebutted affidavit stands as truth.
_____________________________________
I also included 2 affidavits that I had my parents make for me.
Regarding my attached affidavits, Consider when writing/typing the child's name, doing it this way:
First Middle of the family of Family
Note: Some people have had problems with the ";" or a ":" in the name.
Word them how you see to, don't just copy the verbiage in the ones I used if you would do it different.
_________________________
File the originals of your documents in your private records, and file duplicate originals or certified copies at the county recorder.
Note, a duplicate original is created very simply. Make 2 copies of any particular document before signing them, and then sign them both - the 2nd one signed would be the duplicate origianl. If you make a copy of a document that has already been signed, you can have a Notary certify that it is a true and correct copy, this is a certified copy. (see the next post by mrg as well)
Sincerely,
Christopher Theodore: Rhodes
__________________
Note: It is a custom observed and recognized by many People, to replace "of the family of" with a ":" colon, i.e. "Christopher Theodore: Rhodes". It was started and is used to make a clearer distinction between the artificial/legal US person CHRISTOPHER THEODORE RHODES [sic], and the natural sovereign ingenuus man: Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes.
INGENUI, Those freemen who were born free... An unjust or illegal servitude did not prevent a man from being ingenuus.
Thank-you revokethetrust your words are very much appreciated, bless you in your life ventures.
David Merrill..I have sent you a private message.
Take back your freedom, it was given to you at birth!!!!!
free*to*be*me
Simply to say, I suspected the mess was more detailed than a simple kidnap of a baby. I was going to comment but got to typing about other things.
We have one woman speaking about another woman's problems. Within the scope of the details we have gotten, we have discussed this well. But we were only discussing things from one onlooker's perspective and the purpose of the PM was to share details she is not comfortable posting generally.
Those other details are important to getting Baby back with Mom. More specifically, agreements and obligations already signed to. That is about all I can say.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
Simply to say, I suspected the mess was more detailed than a simple kidnap of a baby. I was going to comment but got to typing about other things.
We have one woman speaking about another woman's problems. Within the scope of the details we have gotten, we have discussed this well. But we were only discussing things from one onlooker's perspective and the purpose of the PM was to share details she is not comfortable posting generally.
Those other details are important to getting Baby back with Mom. More specifically, agreements and obligations already signed to. That is about all I can say.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Thank-you david merrill, for your reply, we have come to the conclusion that mom has contracted with the state and has made obligations to which she may not be able to back out of, BUT we may have found a way, the state wants her to go to inhouse treatment, but there is the little matter of WHO is going to pay for it, but dad has not contracted, so the the birth record and/or affidavit might still work for him to release the baby to dad. All hope is not lost, From releasing the child from their clutches.
Thank-you everyone for this wonderful wealth of information this should serve to help anyone out there that are or will have problems with this corrupt system.
Aksis, When doing the affidavit, are the names written in the all caps or their true (flesh & Blood) name?
Thank-you everyone for this wonderful wealth of information this should serve to help anyone out there that are or will have problems with this corrupt system.
Aksis, When doing the affidavit, are the names written in the all caps or their true (flesh & Blood) name?
Free*to*be*me
Live free its your given right..
How would I write names in an Affidavit?
It depends on which entity I am naming in the Affidavit.
The Affiant will always be the name of the human being making the Affidavit... as an artificial person doesn't have the ability to make an Affidavit.
In the body of the Affidavit, depending upon what fact is being affirmed, the kind of entity may vary.
I like to keep in mind that an artificial person can not commit a crime. It will always be the name of a human being. The mask did not harm me, the man wearing it did. The shadow of a dog never bit anyone.
An "Office" is an artificial person. For example, if a 'cop' beats me up, I would not assert that "OFFICER WILLIAM BADASS HURTS" did the beating in the affidavit, as this would be the name of an artificial person, the mask.
It was the man, William Badass of the Hurts family that did the beating. So I would make that point clear by naming the man.
There are times when it is the artificial person that will be the subject matter of a suit. And so I would name the "mask". For example, in a suit against a corporation for breach of contract.
I would do the name of a human beings in upper and lower case because that is proper English, i.e.:
First Middle of the family of Family
or
First Middle of the Family family
While it appears to be a custom in commerce to put the names of artificial persons in all caps, there is no statutory law regarding this that I am aware of. I do make a point to do the names of artificial persons in all caps, i.e. LAW RESEARCH GROUP, LLC.
Ultimatly, in any interaction, be it legal or simply a discussion over the phone with a friend, the key is to make it clear 'who' or 'what' I am talking about when talking about someone or something.
Because of this need to be clear, I also make a point to clarify if I am writing or talking about about a man or woman, or an artificial person, or both. Here are 2 more examples:
1) "The artificial person, MIRCOSOFT(tm), employs many men and women that develop computer software."
2) "The man named, Christopher Theodore of the Rhodes family is not the artificial person CHRISTOPER THEODORE RHODES, this person was created for Christopher's use when he was born."
Sincerely,
Christopher Theodore: Rhodes
P.S.
David, do you have an example of an asseveration? Are they done like an affidavit without a jurat?
__________________
Note: It is a custom observed and recognized by many People, to replace "of the family of" with a ":" colon, i.e. "Christopher Theodore: Rhodes". It was started and is used to make a clearer distinction between the artificial/legal US person CHRISTOPHER THEODORE RHODES [sic], and the natural sovereign ingenuus man: Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes.
INGENUI, Those freemen who were born free... An unjust or illegal servitude did not prevent a man from being ingenuus.
In context I believe the "jurat" is a statement subjecting the "affiant" to penalties of perjury?
Is that a jurat?
Quote:
David, do you have an example of an asseveration? Are they done like an affidavit without a jurat?
Insead a positive assertion that My signature attests to these stated facts as being true...
...which when you think about it, it superfluous.
So many times a suitor will give me an affidavit or whatever signed by the defendant. It may be full of very true facts about the IRC etc... The trouble is that the one talking is the one signing. One cannot speak for somebody else - hearsay.
What I was getting after with the asseveration here is that testimony get on the record from Child Services, the hospital, the delivering Dr. and nurses on shift etc. That is the record. Mom cannot say what they say and expect it to find exceptions to the hearsay rule.
She was to tender the asseveration with all information she believes to be on a Birth Certificate, to the people holding the child. In turn, they would have to release the child or explain why the asseveration would not function in lieu of the formal Birth Certificate. - They would have to point out the functional differences between the facts asseverated and published at the county clerk and recorder, and what the Birth Certificate does.
What is the difference? Is there an admission that the child is or will be hypothecated upon between now and contracting age - his or her first job?
Get that admission on the record. It does no good to say it for "them" regardless of how much evidence you can provide - which is shaky at best anyway.
The objective would be something along the lines of convincing a grand jury or a jury in a civil matter that Mom was injured and the baby kidnapped, even after all the information about the Birth Certificate was volunteered already published.
In other words the asseveration is not important. The testimony it brings forth is important.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Now we have the appearance of Dad. So maybe Mom's signature is not so important now. As I understood things, Mom agreed to one of two things they wanted and they used that for admission she was guilty about the second. That is such a misconstruction of consent but sadly so typical, that attorneys would have you accept it as normal.
The world is far from perfect but Mom should have simply stood her ground that she need not do or consent to any kind of gauntlet or testing whatsoever to be the rightful Mom of the baby. By consenting to one thing, she consented to everything that Child Services can think of...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
Thank-you all, this is a wonderful post and I appreciate all the time that was spent with your replys, Its time to go to work, I will keep you all posted.
In context I believe the "jurat" is a statement subjecting the "affiant" to penalties of perjury?
Is that a jurat?
The affiant makes the affidavit.
The Jurat, an addition to the affidavit, is the Oath/Certification of a Notary, that the one who made the affidavit is the one who made the affidavit, and when/where it was made.
From what I have gathered, 2-3 witness are recognized as serving the same purpose.
A signature and seal (fingerprint) would also serve this purpose (though it doesn't establish the "when and where" if that is relevent), and should the seal be called into question, it can be a little bit of a pain to prove it is valid.
Sincerely,
Christopher Theodore: Rhodes
P.S.
Isn't the testifying in court what would subject one to the penalties of perjury, be it via an affidavit, or verbally?
__________________
Note: It is a custom observed and recognized by many People, to replace "of the family of" with a ":" colon, i.e. "Christopher Theodore: Rhodes". It was started and is used to make a clearer distinction between the artificial/legal US person CHRISTOPHER THEODORE RHODES [sic], and the natural sovereign ingenuus man: Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes.
INGENUI, Those freemen who were born free... An unjust or illegal servitude did not prevent a man from being ingenuus.
The Jurat, an addition to the affidavit, is the Oath/Certification of a Notary, that the one who made the affidavit is the one who made the affidavit, and when/where it was made.
From what I have gathered, 2-3 witness are recognized as serving the same purpose.
Sincerely,
Christopher Theodore: Rhodes
P.S.
Isn't the testifying in court what would subject one to the penalties of perjury, be it via an affidavit, or verbally?
Okay; I get it. The jurat I suggested is the county clerk and recorder, agent of the Secretary of State.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
Linear Mode
