If Your Doctor Insists That Vaccines Are Safe, Then Have Them Sign This Form

[Callista]

This is my first thread so I hope I have put it in the right place!

The following information was brought to my attention when viewing offerings from the Alternative News Project this morning. (http://alternativenewsproject.org)

It was originally published in 2012 but is very relevant today (http://preventdisease.com/news/12/050212_If-Your-Doctor-Insists-That-Vaccines-Are-Safe-Have-Them-Sign-This-Form.shtml

Here it is:

If Your Doctor Insists That Vaccines Are Safe, Then Have Them Sign This Form

The average person that consents to a vaccine injection, either for themselves or for their children, genuinely believes it is for the betterment of health. What they are not aware of is that even their doctor is likely unfamiliar with the toxic ingredients contained in vaccines which can immediately begin to degrade both short- and long-term health. If your doctor insists that vaccines are safe, then they should have absolutely no problem in signing this form so that you may archive it for your own records on the event of an adverse reaction.

The reality of vaccines is that they are a far greater risk to human health than benefit and always have been. In fact, two centuries of official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically that modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improving life expectancy and survival from diseases in developed nations.

In North America, Europe, and the South Pacific, major declines in life-threatening infectious diseases occurred historically either without, or far in advance vaccination efforts for specific diseases.

Whenever I personally inform medical doctors of these realities, many of them are quite shocked with the data. That's not surprising considering the fact that medical students are still brainwashed that vaccines immunize which is a myth in itself, since natural or "real" immunity can never be artificially induced by a vaccine.

Other misinformed educators also still rely on the myth of herd immunity which is nothing short of medical fraud. It is a shame and embarrassment that brilliant students are deceptively led down the path of ignorance every single year at prestigious medical institutions in the hopes of obtaining an education. These students then become the physicians of a good percentage of the population.

One of the problems we have in a society filled with misinformation about health, is that people sit on the fence. They want to conform to the societal norms ingrained in our minds about conventional medicine, but they also want to stand up for their beliefs and conscience. These fence sitters are made up of those who understand that current vaccination practices are unsafe, yet somehow also believe you can make vaccines safer or more effective. That is where we have to shift the opinions of those who are on the fence and have them fall off on the side of natural health rather than conventional medicine. See my article When It Comes to Vaccines, Don't Sit On The Fence!

I have previously written that if your doctor cannot answer these 4 questions, don't vaccinate. Well, if your doctor does make an attempt to answer these questions and a verbal response and statement is not satisfactory for your own peace of mind, then your doctor should be at least willing to provide you with his or her personal declaration of the safety and efficacy of the vaccines he or she (or attending physician or nurse) is about to inject in your or your child's body. Effectively, this becomes your doctor's warranty that the risk factors he or she has identified justify the recommended vaccinations with the benefits exceeding the risks.

Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety Form
The following form was adapted from Ken Anderson's original. Perhaps you can find a physician that will sign it because I have no record of that ever happening:
Download PDF English
Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety

Download PDF Espanol
Garantia Medica para la Seguridad en las Vacunas

PHYSICIAN'S WARRANTY OF VACCINE SAFETY

I (Physician’s name, degree)_______________, _____ am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State/Province of _________. My State/Provincial license number is ___________ , and my DEA number is ____________. My medical specialty is _______________

I have a thorough understanding of the risks and benefits of all the medications that I prescribe for or administer to my patients. In the case of (Patient’s name) ______________ , age _____ , whom I have examined, I find that certain risk factors exist that justify the recommended vaccinations. The following is a list of said risk factors and the vaccinations that will protect against them:
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________
Risk Factor __________________________
Vaccination __________________________

I am aware that vaccines may contain many of the following chemicals, excipients, preservatives and fillers:

* aluminum hydroxide
* aluminum phosphate
* ammonium sulfate
* amphotericin B
* animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain,
* arginine hydrochloride
* dog kidney, monkey kidney,
* dibasic potassium phosphate
* chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg
* calf (bovine) serum
* betapropiolactone
* fetal bovine serum
* formaldehyde
* formalin
* gelatin
* gentamicin sulfate
* glycerol
* human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
* hydrocortisone
* hydrolized gelatin
* mercury thimerosol (thimerosal, Merthiolate(r))
* monosodium glutamate (MSG)
* monobasic potassium phosphate
* neomycin
* neomycin sulfate
* nonylphenol ethoxylate
* octylphenol ethoxylate
* octoxynol 10
* phenol red indicator
* phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
* potassium chloride
* potassium diphosphate
* potassium monophosphate
* polymyxin B
* polysorbate 20
* polysorbate 80
* porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein
* residual MRC5 proteins
* sodium deoxycholate
* sorbitol
* thimerosal
* tri(n)butylphosphate,
* VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells, and
* washed sheep red blood

and, hereby, warrant that these ingredients are safe for injection into the body of my patient. I have researched reports to the contrary, such as reports that mercury thimerosal causes severe neurological and immunological damage, and find that they are not credible.

I am aware that some vaccines have been found to have been contaminated with Simian Virus 40 (SV 40) and that SV 40 is causally linked by some researchers to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and mesotheliomas in humans as well as in experimental animals. I hereby warrant that the vaccines I employ in my practice do not contain SV 40 or any other live viruses. (Alternately, I hereby warrant that said SV-40 virus or other viruses pose no substantive risk to my patient.)

I hereby warrant that the vaccines I am recommending for the care of (Patient’s name) _______________ do not contain any tissue from aborted human babies (also known as "fetuses").

In order to protect my patient’s well being, I have taken the following steps to guarantee that the vaccines I will use will contain no damaging contaminants.

STEPS TAKEN: _________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________

I have personally investigated the reports made to the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and state that it is my professional opinion that the vaccines I am recommending are safe for administration to a child under the age of 5 years.

The bases for my opinion are itemized on Exhibit A, attached hereto, -- "Physician’s Bases for Professional Opinion of Vaccine Safety." (Please itemize each recommended vaccine separately along with the bases for arriving at the conclusion that the vaccine is safe for administration to a child under the age of 5 years.)

The professional journal articles I have relied upon in the issuance of this Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety are itemized on Exhibit B , attached hereto, -- "Scientific Articles in Support of Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety."

The professional journal articles that I have read which contain opinions adverse to my opinion are itemized on Exhibit C , attached hereto, -- "Scientific Articles Contrary to Physician’s Opinion of Vaccine Safety"

The reasons for my determining that the articles in Exhibit C were invalid are delineated in Attachment D , attached hereto, -- "Physician’s Reasons for Determining the Invalidity of Adverse Scientific Opinions."

Hepatitis B

I understand that 60 percent of patients who are vaccinated for Hepatitis B will lose detectable antibodies to Hepatitis B within 12 years. I understand that in 1996 only 54 cases of Hepatitis B were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 year age group. I understand that in the VAERS, there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from Hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 year age group, with 47 deaths reported.

I understand that 50 percent of patients who contract Hepatitis B develop no symptoms after exposure. I understand that 30 percent will develop only flu-like symptoms and will have lifetime immunity. I understand that 20 percent will develop the symptoms of the disease, but that 95 percent will fully recover and have lifetime immunity.

I understand that 5 percent of the patients who are exposed to Hepatitis B will become chronic carriers of the disease. I understand that 75 percent of the chronic carriers will live with an asymptomatic infection and that only 25 percent of the chronic carriers will develop chronic liver disease or liver cancer, 10-30 years after the acute infection. The following scientific studies have been performed to demonstrate the safety of the Hepatitis B vaccine in children under the age of 5 years.
____________________________________
____________________________________ _____________________________________

In addition to the recommended vaccinations as protections against the above cited risk factors, I have recommended other non-vaccine measures to protect the health of my patient and have enumerated said non-vaccine measures on Exhibit D , attached hereto, "Non-vaccine Measures to Protect Against Risk Factors" I am issuing this Physician’s Warranty of Vaccine Safety in my professional capacity as the attending physician to (Patient’s name) ________________________________. Regardless of the legal entity under which I normally practice medicine, I am issuing this statement in both my business and individual capacities and hereby waive any statutory, Common Law, Constitutional, UCC, international treaty, and any other legal immunities from liability lawsuits in the instant case. I issue this document of my own free will after consultation with competent legal counsel whose name is _____________________________, an attorney admitted to the Bar in the State of __________________ .
_________________________ (Name of Attending Physician)
______________________ L.S. (Signature of Attending Physician)
Signed on this _______ day of ______________ A.D. ________
Witness: _________________ Date: _____________________
Notary Public: _____________Date: ______________________

=================================================

I'm really anxious to hear back from any readers whose doctor decides to sign this document in an effort to satisfy your peace of mind. I also have a lengthy list of legal professionals who are very curious as well.

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

[Matt P]

This is very informative Callista. Personally, if I had a doctor insist vaccines were safe, I wouldn't waste my time with this form. I would walk myself out of that office as quickly as possible. If a doctor is pro vaccine, that tells me they are no real doctor and have not done ANY basic research about vaccines, nutrition or natural remedies and would cause me more harm. If he/she had done research, or had any ability to think independently, he/she would never "insist" anyone inject those poisons into their bodies. Although I will say it would be quite humorous asking a doctor to sign this form and see their reaction. In my many years of vaccine study I've never met one doctor who knew any of this or could debate vaccine history, policy or effectiveness. I suppose handing them this would be like handing them a paper in Chinese and asking them to translate it! ;)

Matt

[sigma6]

Or they are just willing to compromise their moral values in exchange for a dollar...

debt based promissory notes, otherwise known as "MONEY" (to people who don't know want real substance is, compared to accrual accounting for example)

[Red Skywalker]

There should be more of that kind of forms. Actually I think each time some chemical is prescribed, the doctor should sign such a form!

[Callista]

Here is another article which goes a long way to explain what is going in Australia regarding vaccinations. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

much love
Callista

*****quote*****

Australia: refuse vaccination, lose $15,000

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is a moron

by Jon Rappoport

April 14, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Watch what’s happening in Australia. Something like it could be coming to your front door.

If you live in Australia, it’s already at your door.

The Daily Telegraph (4/12) (Anti-vaccination parents face $15,000 welfare hit under ‘No Jab’ reforms) reports:

“Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Social Services Minister Scott Morrison will today announce the historic reforms, which mean parents who fail to immunise their children will no longer be paid the $200-a-week childcare benefit, the $7500-a-year childcare rebate or the $726 Family Tax Benefit A annual supplement.

“The combined childcare and welfare payments at risk could amount to up to $30,000 a year for a family with two young children. The changes will come into effect from January 1, 2016.”

Several years ago, when I wrote about the impending passage of Obamacare, I warned that, up the road, restrictions would tighten. Once under the umbrella of national health insurance, people would find their options squeezed.

View Australia as an object lesson.

What Australia is now facing illustrates the two-step dance: become more reliant on government money; become vulnerable to having that money taken away.

“We, the government, care about you and your health, we love you, we help you, we give you money…but don’t resist us. Obey our rules or suffer the consequences.”

Of course, government money turns out to be a lot like tax money, money you pay the government every year.

“Give us your (tax) money. Then we’ll decide how to give some of it back to you, and under what conditions.”

The Daily Telegraph article included a stunning remark from Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who apparently can’t think beyond the level of a one-year-old:

“Parents who vaccinate their children should have confidence that they can take their children to childcare without the fear that their children will be at risk of contracting a serious or potentially life-threatening illness because of the conscientious objections of others [who don’t vaccinate their children].”

My, my, Tony. Where did you go to school? The Australian Academy of Brainwashing?

See, this is the way it works. Follow carefully, Tony, and try to get this. A vaccinated child is supposed to be immune from the diseases for which he’s vaccinated.

That’s the whole idea.

So if little Jimmy, who’s been vaccinated, comes into contact with little Bobby, who hasn’t been vaccinated, Jimmy will stay healthy.

Why? Because Jimmy was vaccinated.

Now, if that’s not true, and Jimmy can get sick when Bobby breathes on him or touches him, then tell me this, Tony: why did little Jimmy’s parents bother vaccinating him? Why did they allow him to be injected with germs and toxic chemicals?

Answer, Tony. If you can’t answer, you have to go back to school and start over, in the first grade.

Need a quick refresher?

Bobby’s parents don’t vaccinate Bobby.

Jimmy’s parents do vaccinate Jimmy.

Bobby and Jimmy sit on the floor and play with blocks.

What will happen to Jimmy?

Answer: nothing. Why? Because Jimmy is protected. He received his vaccines.

But wait. Many medical experts, just like you, Tony, are crazy or they’re lying or they’re idiots… because they, too, say Jimmy is in danger from little Bobby.

They’re tacitly admitting that even though Jimmy was vaccinated up to his eyeballs, he’s unprotected.

Therefore, getting vaccinated is more like a… religious ritual, some kind of conjuring, a ceremony.

The man in the white coat is the high priest, the parents are the devotees, and their children are the little fetish-objects.

If the parents (devotees) have a few doubts or questions, the doctor (high priest) looks down his arrogant nose at them and mumbles a few words of gibberish to justify his position on vaccination.

It’s all good in the Holy Church of Biological Mysticism.

It occurs to me that, if there were, say, a million parents in Australia who had a grip on basic logic and could think this thing through, they would all stand up on their hind legs and say NO to vaccination.

That would put you in a pickle, wouldn’t it, Tony?

But not to worry. The rough-and-ready spirit of Australia is dead, isn’t it? Individualism, independent decision-making…a thing of the past, right? Now Australians keep their heads down and go about their business and obey the government, yes?

No need for honesty or rebellion. The government is good, the government is kind, the government is Daddy and Mommy, the government has the population cowed and hypnotized.

It’s a new day, a wonderful day, and everybody is happy. Have a beer, mate, and forget how things used to be. That was just a fairy tale.

Australia, America, England? Earth? Keep your eyes straight ahead and walk in lock-step toward Paradise.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
***** end quote *****

[xbusymom]

Although I will say it would be quite humorous asking a doctor to sign this form and see their reaction. ;)

Matt

I took the standard 'vaccine exemption' form found on the internet (for schools) into my sons doctor... he refused to sign it.

[Flash]

there must be some human right, or any kind of rights that one may have against vaccination that could be used in Australia. To tell the truth, I would not know what to do in Canada either, because I do not know if our rights protect us against such governmental decision. I wish the parents will take their government to court through a collective lawsuit.

[gripreaper]

If you are property of the state, then the state can do whatever it wants with its property. If you have a birth certificate, a social security number, a drivers license, a voters registration, agree to submit a signed tax return each year and declare income from commerce, then you are owned by the state and have no say in what the state does with its property.

Sorry to break it to ya.

[Callista]

This is all about mind control and nano-tech.

Australia is the petri-dish. Its a test-case.

But you can bet your last petro-dollar that it will soon be applicable to the other "Colonies".

So beware Canada, US, NZ!

I quote Joseph de Maistre: "Every country has the government it deserves (Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite")

In the meantime we continue to watch with interest ...

[Limor Wolf]

If you are property of the state, then the state can do whatever it wants with its property. If you have a birth certificate, a social security number, a drivers license, a voters registration, agree to submit a signed tax return each year and declare income from commerce, then you are owned by the state and have no say in what the state does with its property.

Sorry to break it to ya.

That is the grand illusion, isn't it? the Interests that manage this state of affairs are doing all they can to order us to behave, think and believe as 'property', they exemplify to us (by force of manipulation, psychology and technology) that we are 'property' and program us to be dependent on this believe structure. They operate outside of the physical electromagnetic field, but directly lay it on us and the physical, taking advantage of the three dimensional fence, and so if our focus stays in this realm of things only (as intended), then we are in the desired limited state, and we may buy this assumption as a fact. Accepting this belief into our system will not be of service not only to our own spirit and life force which has a standing and validity of it's own, but (they do not reckon this as yet) also to the very much wounded (for millennia) 'god' level and their subordinate players who see themselves as the top of some type of hierarchy while in fact are killing themselves all the while with the twists and turns and miserable existence of the grip of the illusion of control that has no meaning. By conquering another, one is becoming conquered to it's very own depth, that's the facet of existence. All tight together. All in reaction to another. So, I believe there's not much use in accepting such limitation in ourselves as being someone else's assets. Ever. despite the over the top attempts to 'prove' us otherwise. Ever.

:focus:

[sigma6]

Although I will say it would be quite humorous asking a doctor to sign this form and see their reaction. ;)

Matt

I took the standard 'vaccine exemption' form found on the internet (for schools) into my sons doctor... he refused to sign it.

duhhhhh!!! it's only us fools that go around signing everything handed to us... that Dr. makes enough money to know better... remember everytime you sign, regardless the context at the time... it will be considered an act of your own free will, by your own consent as part of the interpretation of what it represents... (but that's really another story... ';- o

[sigma6]

there must be some human right, or any kind of rights that one may have against vaccination that could be used in Australia. To tell the truth, I would not know what to do in Canada either, because I do not know if our rights protect us against such governmental decision. I wish the parents will take their government to court through a collective lawsuit.

When you phrase it like that, it doth make me despair... OF COURSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO ACCEPT!... They are using a flimsy guise, a pre-emptive conditional offer, that NO ONE has to ACCEPT! at all! ...That anyone can WAIVE! ...To tie it to other benefits is a nasty piece of work, but it will be without basis if challenged, those winning their cases will be sealed or banned or the media will be instructed not to publicize it and they will catch the majority of hopelessly ignorant... like fish in a net... It serves the purpose of propaganda and media control more than anything.


The very nastiness, though of abusing the government's powers to assist Big Pharma in the pursuit of profit making at the expense of the health and safety of men women and children is pure EVIL. But we sat and let them make falsified report after falsified report, now those documents, unrefuted, and largely unchallenged will be used as evidence...

But anyone has the right to WAIVE (NOT REFUSE) any benefit their trustee government tries to shove down their throat... And that takes us back to TRUST INTERPRETATION.... Sooner or later everyone involved in the truth movement is going to have to learn the fundamentals of trust interpretation... or we all become wards of the State, enemies of the State, warehouse goods of the State, cattle... As Alfred Adask mentioned, especially in regards to FDA legislation. The term "Man and other animals" ... does that not by definition, grammatically and unequivocally imply that MAN is being referred to as an animal? Does anyone get the implications?...

See in "proper" biblical interpretation (or philosophical interpretation) which is the basis of equity, which is the basis of all law MAN stands separate from all the animals... FOR THIS VERY REASON.... And man does have dominion (jurisdiction to a certain degree) over all other animals... but man does not have jurisdiction over another man... this comes all the way up to non-statutory common law. Of course this is "man" as defined in the bible, and not MAN as defined by the Statutory codes of the FDA for example... THIS IS WHAT ALFRED ADASK EXPOSED TO ALL THE WORLD (unfortunately I still think it went over everyone's head...)

In any event, at this point, man is replaced with a Juristic Corporate Entity (the original purpose being so that man could properly stay in the private, and indemnify himself from these very things if he so chose...) Anyhow then the Jesuit's using the Piltdown man (the professor who faked it died just a few years immediately after concocting the forgery, which was taken over by a Jesuit Priest) and pushed hard to institutionalize "evolution" into the "PUBLIC" school system... over a 40 year period... (before it was found out... and even then NO STEPS were taken to correct the mistake, it was barely acknowledged... more evidence of the hidden agenda it always was... )

The combination of people's ignorance, the embracing of evolution, (abandonment of a higher intelligence, a creator) thus leaves us legally from a trust interpretation point of view in the arms of our statutory trustees... with no other alternative jurisdiction to fall under... (Such as our original jurisdiction, or Trust, in our covenant with our Creator... otherwise known as "standing in the Kingdom of God"... yes, deal with it naive "godless" animals) Thus we were, by presumption, presumed to be, standing in the jurisdiction of the statutory corporation, which in turn was standing in as, the de-facto government... (trust is EVERYWHERE once you see it)

So... without standing under the kingdom of God, what other jurisdiction are you going to stand under? And by "Kingdom of God" I am NOT talking about the Vatican, or any organized religion for that matter. That is why the concept of God is not defined in the Constitution... as was clearly best articulated by Robert Arthur Menard (the infamous Freeman of Canada!) The only principle, was that you believe in a higher being, a creator, and lived according to that understanding (Rob might have skipped over that part... since he was looking at it strictly as a legal interpretation...) This is necessary, as the trustees will not accept NO LAW... or anarchy, or most couldn't properly argue that anyway (it would lead you back to trust interpretation in any event... ie.. self governance... O.o!

So here we are living in a Godless society, with a manmade corporate acting as a stand in, a de facto government, operating in the public, with contracts in their registrars, saying we transferred legal title of the Corporation that was issued to us, that we were supposed to use in the public in our stead, but we instead chose to use it for identification instead... (when the government clearly and repeatedly tell us not to... and stop thinking the "statutory" courts and the police are part of the government, they are agents, in the public, formed as for profit sub corporations, acting as tribunal arbitrators in contract (under duty and obligation... theres the trust again... ;-) to serve the larger corporation (City, Province, Canada, US, etc.)

And there we are without a leg to stand on, snotty nosed and ignorant, incompetent, godless, without any other jurisdiction to stand under, completely oblivious to the trap set before us... Helpless slaves set "free" within the confines of the public system... a ruse... this is the Matrix, the prison designed for your mind... when you wake up and start realizing this is more then just a "fictional" metaphor... but then again that is exactly what "fiction" is in law... a useful device to by-pass the sleepy eyed...

Let he who would be deceived be deceived (Roman maxim of public commerce, or WAR?)... thus when you phrase it as you do, I can tell you have already been deceived... (by the "professional" deceivers, otherwise known as pirates, plunders, liars, lawyers, the majority, secret society members)

not a simple thing to live in a civil society with 2000 years of Roman legal interpretation behind it... o.O!
but we have to start somewhere folks.. the "enemy" will never stop encroaching until we learn to understand our own power and communicate it, clearly, plainly, unequivocally, in a language that is universal and common to both us and the "enemy" (who also happen to be our trustees, especially for the more "incompetent" among us...)

This isn't to insult anyone, the words chosen are relevant to the proper interpretation and understanding... Consider I can't write this stuff endlessly (although a little inspiration helps me keep going... so be honoured, for you have inspired me... ':D) without having some fundamental core (and universal) principle this all revolves around ...yeah!?

Isn't that what Catholic means? i.e. universal... it's the underlying principle, not the superficial level, where the game is at... I still haven't plumbed the full depths of this... that's the eery part...

[sigma6]

If you are property of the state, then the state can do whatever it wants with its property. If you have a birth certificate, a social security number, a drivers license, a voters registration, agree to submit a signed tax return each year and declare income from commerce, then you are owned by the state and have no say in what the state does with its property.
Sorry to break it to ya.

you can do all these things if you understand trust properly, apart from the subtle details (civil procedure) of the fine points of dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. In fact, properly understood, it would be fundamentally simpler, for example in trust, when applying a "signature" I would apply the name of the Corporation, "LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME" (or as per Birth Certificate... which the government NEVER refers to as identification... HELLOOOO) and apply the correct conditional, such as "without prejudice, for: LAST NAME, FIRST NAME in trust", file a certified copy of the indemnification with instructions to file AND record for all future correspondences, with Notice of instruction for settlement... and you have given the trustees everything they need to settle any liabilities in the public... IT REALLY COULD BE THAT SIMPLE.... That's the beauty of trust, properly understood, and properly understanding your place in it... but everyone wants to be Perry Mason... which is trying to beat them at their own game... (not my cup of tea)

But still, it has to be done with understanding not just parroting or "simulating" someone elses "paint by number" instructions... which of course is only common sense when you think about it... consider... could anyone play checkers, or chess, or do anything? ...based on arbitrary step by step instructions from anyone? without some form of underlying "understanding"/comprehension? Even if the instructions are accurate? Even if you memorized them and performed them exactly as instructed, maybe once, but as soon as a question arises... you have to think, and respond with intelligence, knowledge, proper understanding...

understanding the fundamental principle of a thing, would be so much easier to operate from, would allow you to understand the rules much more easily (notice the difference? ...principles... rules... two different things) instead of the endless "step by step instructions" (more rules)

Karl Lentz comes to mind... his stuff which is useless, not because it is necessarily inaccurate, but because of what he purposely holds back... (from what I have heard... so he can charge people privately, and even then there are no guarantees, since there won't be time to learn what he is now sharing in the last minute... great scheme Karl... o.O?) (By that time he is on his way with cash in hand...) and no one is the wiser because his mistakes are hidden in the private... real cute Karl... real cute...

[gripreaper]

In shipping language, the chartered vessel (United States) took on cargo (the people), mortgaged that cargo to the hilt to pay for the voyage (used the credit of the people), then dumped that cargo (the people) over the railing and into the seas (commerce) to collect on the insurance (social security). Then, came back to the point of dumping for a salvage operation….(admiralty / maritime lien)

First, one is “welcomed” into a foreign jurisdiction by the "host nation" of whom, though its "occupying army", extended its hospitality to a foreigner upon registration of the birth event and, per the custom of the host nation, provided a vessel (NAME) whose cargo is destined for the Treasury and an indemnity receipt guaranteeing care and maintenance of the vessel by the host nation in order “his burden be light”. (Read Law of Nations Book II Section 99 and on for the ramifications of this action)

Until, that is, the host nation decided to grant an entrance and extend hospitality for the purpose of drawing foreigners into a snare. For once the snare was engaged, one’s duty as a foreigner is now towards defense of the host nation against pirates or robbers, against the ravages of an inundation, or the devastations of fire, for how can one pretend to live under the protection of a state, to participate in a variety of advantages that it affords, and yet make no exertion for its defense, but remain an unconcerned spectator of the dangers to which the citizens are exposed?

Now, the same foreigner is shanghaied at birth into that foreign jurisdiction (origination to image-nation), conscripted into citizenship (United States or whatever “nation”) as one can only become a Citizen “and not otherwise” via 2 Stat 153, given a “christened vessel” (NAME), then sent to battle across the seas (capitalism: war-shipper of a re-legion), and left for dead (collateral damage and casualty of war). (See Law of Nations Book III Section 15 for the ramifications of this action)

Then a “presumption of death” exists because the “infant” (foreigner) is “missing from beyond the seas” under International Maritime Law via Cestui Que Vie Acts 1540, 1666, and 1707. Now comes the “enforcement of a maritime lien” under “Admiralty Law” ... the IRS or any maritime lien is ONLY VALID if one is “dead” (dead have no power over the living)

26 USC 6903

“(a) Rights and obligations of fiduciary

Upon notice to the Secretary that any person is acting for another person in a fiduciary capacity, such fiduciary shall assume the powers, rights, duties, and privileges of such other person in respect of a tax imposed by this title…” (Form 56)

(d) Definition of fiduciary. The term “fiduciary” is defined in section 7701(a)(6) to mean a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator, or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person.

26 USC 1040 – Transfers of “real property” (issuance of securities under UCC 8-308 as the “appropriate person” is the “accommodation party”)

(a) executor of estate (Name) (resident) you are master of “your” dominion, correct?
(b) trustee of a trust (any portion of which is included in the gross estate of the decedent) (NAME) (14th Amendment Citizen) you are here to fulfill divine providence and self-determination (God’s will) for the benefit of all, thus are trustee.

IRS manual 21.7.13.3.2.2 - An infant is the decedent of an estate or grantor, owner or trustor of a trust, guardianship, receivership or custodianship that has yet to receive an SSN.

How can one be an executor of an estate of a decedent when the SSN has been issued?

Exactly what estate of what decedent is one “administrating”?

26 USC 2032A

(a) (1)(A) decedent was a citizen/resident of the United States to time of death

(a)(1)(B) an “election” made on behalf of the executor
(d) election : agreement (remember “accommodation party”….this is where you come in)

(2) The agreement referred to in this paragraph is a written agreement signed by each person in being who has an interest. (could be anything from a court case to a utility bill)

Now check out 26 USC 674 and Treas. Reg. § 1.674(b)... “the back door”

26 USC 2001

(a) imposes tax on the decedents estate for the transfer

26 USC 2002

executor of estate liable for the tax

So there is a claim in a nutshell. If one does not provide “proof of life” (infant still using the estate and trust) then the one before the court/corporation is presumed to be an “executor” of a decedent’s estate and trustee of the “citizen trust”. The “claim” is nothing more than a ruse to get one to be an accommodating party via UCC 3-419 for the agreement under 2032A(d)(2) for one is presumed to be an executor of a decedent’s estate and the 14th amendment citizen. NAME, is just a trust ANYONE can operate under 26 USC 674 and Treas. Reg. § 1.674(b), but you are trustee as the “presumed citizen” and thus liable under 26 USC 1040(b) for the tax imposed under 26 USC 2001(a) via 26 USC 2002 as if one were executor.

Now this is also the basis for the operation of the “exemption”, so do not go out and try to destroy this, you will not succeed, “they” will not allow it …. Once “proof of life” has been established, NAME now is the “security entitlement holder” and NAME now has whatever credit it needs as the IRS and all these other corporations are now bound to service the securities account (SS#) under UCC 8 as “securities intermediary” and usufructuary.

So, in reality "they" are actively engaged in infanticide and genocide in violation of international law and agreements under the Law of Nations and Lieber Code (Presidential Admiralty Law) for the purposes of accessing the estates of presumed decedents and while these apparent acts of genocide and infanticide may only be on paper, the results of these shenanigans crosses and carries over into the real world and real people suffer because of it each and every time one of their agents come to the door and identifies one through both name and number because one is the infant, now age of majority.

...committing all the oldest sins in all the newest ways

Now ask one of these guys something like:

Do I have a name? Do I have a SS number? Are you aware of IRS manual 21.7.13.3.2.2? Then why am I being held liable as the executor of a decedent’s estate and as trustee of the resulting trust when it appears the infant has a SS number? Would you like production of the footprints of the infant to verify and validate this interest?

The insanity has to stop.

Now, before you guys got out and start running these guys down in the streets, one must also remember, this is also the operation of a peace treaty under Article 2 of the Lieber Code thru Article 43 of the Hague (restoration of public order and safety) of which the 1st essential task is to ensure the inhabitants can live their day to day lives, 2nd essential task is to establish an agreement which maximizes the benefits of both inhabitants and occupying army, and, in keeping with the provision of Article 2 of the Lieber Code that the occupying army remain as a condition of the peace, the 3rd essential task is that government administrates the agreement of which is laid out in Article 31 and 38 of the Lieber Code and Article 55 of the Hague, of which the occupying army is administrator and usufructuary of all public buildings, real estate, agricultural estates, etc… and must administrate them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. The “live birth certificate” is an “indemnity receipt” issued to the “spoliated owner”.

So, when these guys approach you and identify you by both name and number, whatever “lien right” they think they have has just been invalidated by the very fact the name and number was used to identify you. The infant now has a SS number and is no longer a decedent, thus no lien, trusteeship, or executorship to enforce and it is actually a breach of the International Peace Agreement between the “living” and the “dead”.

So, there you have it … the presumption of death is the only thing wrong with “the system” but since it all operates on paper and translates into the real world with real ramifications, then that is a big problem. But a problem we can fix literally overnight.

Just have to accept one has a “NAME” and one has a “NUMBER” but owns neither, then since both NAME and NUMBER have vested within the one, the estate also re-vests within the one as the infant is no longer dead or “missing from beyond the seas”, which automatically “invalidates all maritime liens” as those are just “salvage rights”, and is “of age of majority” and now you operate in pure equity and they are now the usufruct and you are the “naked owner” with disposal rights over all of the estate of the Earth, just like the peace treaty demands.

Just be a good steward.

[sigma6]

Admiralty is all statutory and is immediately superceded by true law or trust... or negated by improper contractual criteria (like our proper understanding, meeting of the minds, etc) says so right in the opening of the UCC itself...

Understanding fundamental contract law isn't a bad thing, but it still revolves around liability... insurance, subjugation, trust

it's just one level of the deception that people get too caught up in imo... 60 million statutory codes have been created from it... it's a quagmire...

whereas trust can serve us, is waiting for us, is the only way we can access the credit, our credit... our lifetime of labour transformed into credit for setoff, discharge, against promissory notes, and the key to it all... is knowledge

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-103
(a) The Uniform Commercial Code must be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are: (1) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and (3) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.

(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.

the use of the word "supplement" here is misleading, it's clear that it is has the potential to supplant it completely, then to merely supplement it... hahaaah!

[sigma6]

So there is a claim in a nutshell. If one does not provide “proof of life” (infant still using the estate and trust) then the one before the court/corporation is presumed to be an “executor” of a decedent’s estate and trustee of the “citizen trust”.

I'm going to look at this in bites, due to time constraints... so first off is this little bit, just to show how much hidden interpretation can exist in one sentence even... but I see a perfect example of constructive trust in this one, the "proof of life" thing may in fact be a form of expressed trust, by definition, again it shows how everyone is nibbling around the edges, but missing the fundamental principle imo....

Consider a process whereby "... the court will immediately raise a constructive trust and fastened it upon the conscience of the legal owner..." a form of punishment, loss of control on the part of the "original beneficiary" (acting out of concert perhaps?) consider the wording, "fastened upon the conscience"? ...properly understood, a breach of trust is considered the highest dishonour, a moral compromise... o.O!


Gilbert’s Law Summaries: Trusts - Edward C. Halbach Jr (2008)
c. Constructive trust
A constructive trust is a remedial device imposed by a court of equity to prevent a person who has obtained property by wrongful conduct or unjust enrichment from deriving the benefits thereof.
[consistent with de sont tort trustee]


(Black’s Law 4th ed, Pg 1681)
Constructive trust
A trust raised by construction of law, or arising by operation of law, as distinguished from an express trust. Wherever the circumstances of a transaction are such that the person who takes the legal estate in property cannot also enjoy the beneficial interest without necessarily violating some established principle of equity, the court will immediately raise a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to convert him into a trustee for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment.


http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/de-son-tort-trustee.html
De son tort trustee:
Person who is not a party to a trust agreement (and has no authority as a trustee) but meddles with the trust property or takes upon himself or herself to carry out acts characteristic of the office of trustee. Instead of prosecuting this person, the courts may hold him or her to be a constructive trustee and, thereby, impose the liabilities of an actual trustee in accounting for his or her acts. 'De son tort' is Latin for, by his (her) own wrongdoing.

[Question: If we are having trusteeship imposed on us via a "remedial device" Who do you think the "actual trustee" was originally? or should have been, otherwise?


So this is a good focus... because it does bring up some very good questions... for example the "David Clarence" crowd who want to be the "executors" ... better be careful, because that is right... it IS a trustee position... the most you want to do is settle the matter quickly, if you go after remedy (compensation, you better know what your talking about...it (a few more years of study maybe?...lol) otherwise just go straight to settlement... you're on thin ice... (all the liability, responsibility can land in your lap in an instant, if you screw up)

It defeats the purpose of being the beneficiary in the private...

Which brings up another interesting point... who is the decedent? what is the decedent?... why use the term? in that context? which connotes something dead? Good questions indeed.. now we are getting somewhere!!

Could that have something to with why they say all the courts are actually probate courts? Isn't it ironic, that hidden under all the superficial statutory code... is a probate court? And what is a probate court?... Is it not, by definition, an application of trust interpretation!!!??? Is it possible? ...this is the presumed modus operandi of how the court operates to take control? ...seeing as it appears to be a "child" and a "decedent", and apparently even "abandoned" as well? ...hmm...


will going through your post further later... there is some stuff I want to check in there... (do I sense a presence in the force!..) o.O! US titles is just hard for me (like all statutory (on the surface...) iikkkkk! lol... )




Quick Update: (just in case anyone is reading this... ;)


( the proverbial "kicker", yes! ...here it is!)
Gilbert’s Law Summaries: Trusts - Edward C. Halbach Jr (2008)
Expressed Trusts [As opposed to those created by Operation of Law]:
a. Express trusts

An expressed trust is created as a result of the [I]manifestation of an intention... "...by a person or persons having the power to do so, to create the relationship that the law recognizes as a trust. "Trust" terminology need not be used or even known to the persons involved. The required "manifestation" of intent may be found in the settlor's oral or written words, conduct, or a combination of these, viewed in an overall context. Most matters discussed in this Summary primarily involve express trusts of the active variety, private or charitable, testamentary or inter vivos, revocable, or irrevocable."

[and I would add the admonition; "let thine aim be true"...]


This is why I strictly focus on the Birth Certificate as the be all end all, or at least the best place to start looking at trust... because it gives you a reference point... and a specific application... and imo there is absolutely no moving forward if you do not understand the fundamental nature of what the BC is, and what is your relationship to it, in order to know how to properly operate it... and I don't see ANYONE out there, who both seems to fully understand both AND is able to articulate it or willing to share it... (most people get either too paranoid, too greedy (self serving) or just too fed up at the massive ignorance they know they will have to plow through to even get people to see it... People who are too fearful, stuck on the superficial realm of the material, day by day, hand to mouth mentality (living for the weekend) that seems to be consuming everyone... this mind state is just not conducive to studying or understanding the nature of trust, and trust interpretation, or equity... which is why maybe it is such a "perfect system" ...it really is hiding in plain sight... in some ways... "potentially" if you are willing to commit to studying it, like you might learn a computer operating system for example... you could learn the basic "commands" involved in this...


Trust:
A trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to specific property, to which the trustee holds legal title for the benefit of beneficiaries, who hold equitable title.

- so there's that split title thing again! front row center... at least this happens every time you register anything in the public... so is trust important? sure, it's operating all around you 24/7 all the time! (it's the philosophical/intellectual equivalent of "The Force"... it's everywhere, since before you were born... It literally goes back millennia, it ties ancient laws and covenants, ideas of God, man, origin of civilization, laws, and explains and provides the context for what is operating today.

The logic of which, like mathematics... doesn't change... o.O!


it can be "hard to see" because its subtle, it is principle based, not rule based, something hard to grasp for some... since we live in a rule based environment, i.e. memorizing without questioning, whereas this is almost the opposite, principle based thinking is applying principles to elucidate a situation in ORDER TO DETERMINE what is the most appropriate course of action... and by looking at the the titles (such as Records of Birth) who is holding what, what their actions are will determine the status of the parties...

This may be going over some heads, while on the other side of the coin some people think Trust is "simple" because it's just a Grantor, Trustee and beneficiary... (what could be more simple right?!) But I don't see it as simple at all, I see a dynamic, subtle, powerful system of control system of distribution that determines the power, responsibility, liability of all the parties involved, regarding some property issue. Based on fundamental principles or maxims.


i.e. Man cannot live on bread alone;
- the corollary, that "philosophy" IS the foundation of logic and civilization, the universal gift to all mankind, consciousness, is such a precious gift, that inviolable principles need to be established to protect it from evil, danger, overwhelming natural forces, etc... and what is the most important thing, or quantity, or quality to a thinking, reasoning consciousness?...

Any guesses anyone?... (of course grip will read past this line... lol...)

truth...

how valuable is truth (as logic) to a computer for example?
If you can appreciate this then you understand the fundamental underlying principle and manifesting philosophy, why when you hold truth as an absolute, inviolable principle, you are on the side of right and life and healthy growth... and evil is truly it's absence... (i.e. illogic or incorrect, or false, misleading, rationalizing... it just keeps descending...)

ying and yang, light and dark, life and matter, heat and cold

truth or entropy (disintegration) destruction, chaos, evil, dysfunction, illogical thinking...

There has to be a system or standard of what truth is and how it will treated and applied in the real world, it has to be bullet proof... it has to be based on logic and principles (like math) that will transcend time, culture and language, and even evolving legal interpretations...

Among it's many attributes, truth presumes active participation in its pursuit... if you are not proactively pursuing it, you are already faltering, already on the slippery slope, ultimately, in a "perfect world" you must be without ego, without fear, of sound mind, and clear intention... and so on... interestingly pointing toward eastern mythology (which is really a universal philosophy, scientific, and in turn related to the new quantum physics ideas... ) In a nutshell... consciousness has a critical place in equity, trust and law... more then people could possibly imagine... (especially trust interpretation)


fi·du·ci·ar·y
fəˈdo͞oSHēˌerē,-SHərē/
adjective, LAW
1.
involving trust, especially with regard to the relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary.
"the company has a fiduciary duty to shareholders"
noun
1.
a trustee.



I think this is both a good and bad definition, are you starting to see now what I am seeing... can you see now what is being left out of these definitions? not incorrect, how does one attribute describe a multi faceted concept? where is the real gritty part?... what it MEANS to BE a FIDUCIARY? is that explained in the definition? (nope... oops) It's more than just that flimsy definition right!? you KNOW there is way MORE to that definition... (that is your 'intuition' talking to you!)

one last bit... in the next 'exciting' update! ...I think I will try to go straight to PERSON, and how that 'tangled web' ties into all this... another guaranteed subtle interpretation I can go straight to, knowing it is totally overlooked and totally misunderstood
;D

[Becky]

Thank you Callista for posting this topic. It is something I'm very concerned about as well. As a mum I had my kids vaccinated when they were little as the pressure was so strong and I didn't know otherwise as I guess I hadn't woken up. Now, if I was to have a child I would not get him/her vaccinated. My youngest daughter brought home the form for the Gardasil HPV vaccine and I had long and heated arguments with her and her father. She wanted to have the vaccine because all her friends were having it. I did my research and managed to persuade both her and her father that it was not safe nor would it necessarily protect her from getting cervical cancer. She was the only girl to not have the vaccine in her class.

I also have health condition which means I'm eligible and 'supposed' to have the flu vaccine every winter. Years ago I did have it, two years running and both years I was SO ill after the vaccine AND caught the flu. Since then I have not taken the vaccine and never will, and nor have I had the flu. I firmly believe and feel that the vaccine did much to weaken my immune system and my body as a whole.

This topic is truly a minefield because it really causes a split between the ones who are truth seekers and those who are happy to follow the rules...and as such it is also a barometer as it could be used as a measurement of who is waking up to the matrix around them. It's absolutely astonishing just how many people are still asleep in regards to this matter.

[sigma6]

exciting new update! ':- o

(sometimes I prefer to extend the work in an original post, then just peter into a second post, it's part of my economy thing, and you can consider it a value added thing, a writing technique... to tease out more refined ideas. (takes more refined editing ;- )

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?81609-If-Your-Doctor-Insists-That-Vaccines-Are-Safe-Then-Have-Them-Sign-This-Form&p=954564&viewfull=1#post954564

[Callista]

Here is another article about vaccination policy in Australia:


Australia vaccine war update: the people, slaves to the State

by Jon Rappoport

April 21, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

“Bit by bit and piece by piece, freedom is taken away. Eventually, most people don’t remember what is gone. All they’re left with is the feeling that some thoughts and actions would be dangerous, would leave them vulnerable, on the outside looking in. Of course, ‘on the outside looking in’ is the platform from which any sane person launches his future.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

The other day, I wrote about radical changes in Australian vaccination policy. Principally, the national government has unilaterally decided that parents who receive government money will have that money taken away, if they don’t vaccinate their children. (See: Australia: refuse vaccination, lose $15,000)

Now I have learned that all families in Australia receive some form of government money. So the policy change affects everyone.

Which, of course, is what happens when citizens become beholden to big government. Government taketh, giveth back, taketh again, on their own timetable, according to their own dictates.

But it gets worse. Now, as laid out in a government document titled, “Strengthening Immunisation for Young Children,” we have this:

“Vaccine objection will no longer be an exemption category. Families with children that do not have a medical exemption (medical contraindication or natural immunity certified by an immunisation provider) will not receive [federal funds for] CCB, CCR, and the FTB Part A end of year supplement for that child (except for children under 12 months for the FTB Part A supplement).”

The previous categories of conscientious objection and religious objection to vaccination have been eliminated, in a single stroke. Just like that. These reasons for vaccine-exemption are gone. All across Australia.

This is an object lesson for the rest of the world. Free choice? A family’s own decisions on how to take care of their health? Torpedoed.

In the US press, a combination of information-suppression and unconcern has relegated this Australia story to the status of non-entity. A yawn.

If you’re looking for photos of tens or hundreds of thousands of Australians gathering in the streets to protest the new tyrannical rulings, don’t bother. It’s not happening.

Such a great pacification of the population has already occurred, the vaccination debacle passes through the nation like a mild ripple.

Yes, I have heard from Australians who are awake, who know what this ruling means, who still understand freedom, and I know there are others like them in the country, but on the whole there is silence and surrender.

The surveillance-state apparatus will certainly set up a national registry to track the vaccination-status of every Australian citizen, and dissidents will go on a list. Not only will federal money be taken from them, they will be subject to harassment and intimidation. In some cases, their children will be removed from the home and sent to foster care.

power outside the matrix

As a message to the unwilling.

In 1987, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I warned that covert medical ops were perfect for controlling populations. Such ops don’t appear to be partisan, they wave no political banners, they insist what they’re doing is humanitarian, they invoke “share and care,” and they invent their own brand of science to justify their actions.

Now, we have a whole nation officially functioning as a medical police state. And trust me, this is the Lite version. There is more to come in Australia. Once the authorities see how easy it is to take step a, they move on to b. They blow the dust off some other tyrannical rule they’ve been keeping on the shelf; they trot it out; they deploy it; and they wait to see whether anyone cares.

For example, how about extending the mandatory time period during which a person can be held against his will in a psychiatric facility, where doctors force brain-disabling drugs on him?

That would go a long way toward dealing with people who still know what freedom is.

“He’s obviously a threat to himself and others. He disrupts the orderly processes of society. He disturbs others around him. He’s delusional. He keeps thinking there is a problem. There is no problem…”

As I have written numerous times, the medical cartel, in the long run, is the most important branch of Globalism Inc. It builds a cradle to grave system for every person. Traveling in a half-light of multiple diagnoses and toxic drug treatments, the citizens live in parallel universe of debilitation and confusion, where they become too weak to resist what is happening to them.

In part, freedom means freedom from this.

Jon Rappoport

[Callista]

.
.
Australia: everybody must get vaccinated, except the Prime Minister’s daughters

2006: Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott refused to vaccinate his daughters

see this article

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/australia-everyone-must-get-vaccinated-except-the-prime-ministers-daughters/

[KiwiElf]

Surely some smart lawyer would be able to sort this: it's no different from targeting a specific group, ie aborigines as opposed to any other Australian, which in affect makes it a form of prejudice?.