In 1666, in London, during the black plague, and great fires of london Parliament enacted an act, behind closed doors, called Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.
The act being debated the Cestui Qui act was to subrogate the rights of men and women, meaning all men and women were declared dead, lost at sea/beyond the sea. (back then operating in admiralty law, the law of the sea, so lost at sea).
The state (of London) took custody of everybody and their property into a trust, the state became the trustee/husband holding all titles to the people and property, until a living man comes back to reclaim those titles and can also claim damages. (Reclaim using UCC 1 and PPSA)
The rule of the use of CAPITAL LETTERS used in a NAME: when CAPITAL letters re used anywhere in a NAME this always refers to a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION, COMPANY or CORPORATION no exceptions.
e.g. John DOE or Doe: JANE (PASSPORT, DRIVER LICENSE, MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE and BIRTH CERTIFICATE)
CEST TUI QUE TRUST: (pronounced setakay) common term in NEW ZEALAND and AUSTRALIA or STRAWMAN common term in USA or CANADA is a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION created and owned by the GOVERNMENT whom created it. I repeat owned by the GOVERNMENT.
Legally, we are considered to be a FICTION, a concept or idea expressed as a NAME, a symbol. That LEGAL PERSON has no consciousness; it is a juristic PERSON, ENS LEGIS, a NAME/word written on a piece of paper.
This traces back to 1666, London is a state, just like Vatican is a state, just like Washington DC is a state. The Crown is an unincorporated association. Why unincorporated, its private, the temple bar is in London, every lawyer called to the “bar” swears allegiance to the temple bar. You can’t get called, without swearing this allegiance. The Crown already owns North America and everything in it.
Your only way out is to reclaim your dead entity (strawman) that the Crown created, become the trustee of the cest tui qui trust and remove yourself from the admiralty law that holds you in custody.
The subrogation of your rights
When London burned the subrogation of mens and womens rights occurred.
The responsible act passed… CQV act 1666 meant all men and women of UK were declared dead and lost beyond the seas. The state took everybody and everybody’s property into trust. The state takes control until a living man or woman comes back and claims their titles by proving they are alive and claims for damages can be made.
This is why you always need representation when involved in legal matters, because you’re dead. The legal fiction is a construct on paper, an estate in trust. When you get a bill or summons from court it is always in capital letters, similar to tomb stones in grave yards. Capital letters signify death. They are writing to the dead legal fiction. A legal fiction was created when someone informed the government that there was a new vessel in town, based upon your birth. Birth certificates are issued at birth, just as ships are given berth certificates.
Your mother has a birth canal, just like a ship. All this information relates to how the general public are still legally tied. Through admiralty law, through this ancient legal construct we can be easily controlled. Learning about your legal fiction helps you to unlock yourself. Otherwise you are just a vessel floating on the sea of commerce. It is possible to be free from financial stress and debt.
Parents are tricked into registering the birth of their babies. In about 1837 the Births, Deaths and Marriages act was formed in UK and the post of registrar general was established. His job was to collect all the data from the churches which held the records of birth.
Regis – from queen or crown. All people are seen to be in custody of,” The Crown”. This allows people to function in commerce and to accept the benefits provided by state.
So we are in custody. Worldwide – under the IMF the majority of people are fed, sheltered and provided for, however now it is the system that is benefitting while many are suffering, are poorly fed, housed and water is contaminated. Many people are now getting sick and dying as a result – not to mention that as people evolve, they now seek to be independent of any system that seeks to control or oppress and harms the earth that this is all taking place on.
We have legally elected representatives. We have to understand who we are as men and women and how we can relate in the system.
The City of London is a centre for markets, where merchants work. Then there is mercantile law. It comes from Admiralty. Look at the symbols in the City of London that relate to Admiralty.
Our national banks are not our banks. The private shareholders from the private banks own the banks. It is all private, not public as we are led to believe. “OF” also means “without”, eg. The bank without England. Private banks issue private currency.
With WWI a change happened where money was not backed by gold or silver anymore, it is now based on peoples labour. People are now pledged to the IMF as the surety to pay back the creditors in the global bankruptcy. Men and women are not bankrupt, they are the only source of credit. The public is bankrupt.
Regarding the currency that gets issued at the Bank of England, people are the gold or the treasure. The government issues bonds or treasury bills that are bought by investors. The money goes back into the economy in order to pay for the people to build things, e.g. an Olympic Stadium. However, the people are paying taxes for the privilege of using someone else’s currency and paying back the principal and the interest on the original loan that was given against the treasury bonds, bills and notes. It is a private corporation that will own the Olympic stadium, be responsible for running it, be able to sell commercial rights, yet the people are actually the ones who own it and should be profiting from it. However, principal and interest is coming through the people in order to raise the money.
So where you have commerce and money, you also have “justice”. You need to understand the bankruptcy before you can understand the judiciary. You need to accept the bankruptcy. We have accepted the claim to accept the summons. There is an obligation to accept any liability which has been created. All you can do is accept the bankruptcy. We are operating in admiralty. A not guilty plea dishonours the bankruptcy. The strawman, aka legal fiction is always guilty. It needs to be accepted for value. Barristers and solicitors make a living out of creating controversy. By creating a controversy you become liable for the case.
Honour and dishonour. To remain in honour you have to accept a claim and settle it. Then you add conditions. I accept on proof of claim and proof of loss. This gives the liability back to them. The legal fiction is always guilty. Only in the high courts, can the real man or woman appear. Games are played on courts; hence the name court is a game with actors (acting on acts). It has to be treated as a game and just business. Court room dramas are misinformation. In the public, we are operating in bankruptcy and you receive benefits. It takes a lot of time, effort and study to use these tools. You have to be prepared to go fully through the process, get the right tool out of your toolbox at the right time. People need to learn how to act as creditors.
In summary…
- Money is backed by labour.
- We cannot exchange it fairly for gold or silver.
- Capitalisation of “name” means a dead entity, a legal fiction.
- Know who you are, you are not your strawman or dead fictitious entity.
- Learn how to become a creditor in commerce.
Source:
http://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/2014/06/legally-we-are-considered-to-be-fiction.html
Preaching to the converted here.
Is it possible that there are people out there that still believe this old canard? I suppose there are always up and coming generations of the gullible and the internet has proved to be a splendid tool for spreading misinformation and reinforcing ignorance. When people begin to uncritically rely on certain sites as their sole source of information and neglect to weigh the merits of different views, interpretations and hypotheses, it's akin to promoting a modern Dark Ages.
Are you refuting the date put forth? If so can you share more then sardonic commentary and generalizations?
I would love to hear any substantive insights you may have to offer.
Very well. I do know something of English law and jurisprudence, having been a practising barrister for 16 years. What is described above is, for the most part, complete poppycock. Yes, the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (what is left of it – much was repealed) still exists, but its purpose is quite unambiguous – to declare a missing person legally dead after 7 years so that their estate can be finalised. It contains nothing sinister or having universal applicability. This strawman concept, the capitalisation of names, and so on, has been around for years and despite being totally discredited, continues to be resurrected by unscrupulous persons, often for pecuniary or socially mischievous ends.
You may think that it is harmless to promulgate this material to an unsophisticated audience. Not true, because those that have availed themselves of these baseless legal premises and arguments in American courts have found themselves in more diabolical strife than the circumstances from which they were seeking relief. It is quite unconscionable and a moral turpitude to mislead people with such material, the veracity of which you cannot establish, and which may lead them to make poor decisions, to their detriment.
There is such a superfluity of stuff to be perused on the internet these days, much of it quite worthless; it has become a modern necessity to sharpen our critical sensibilities and apply a wise scepticism in order to weed out the chaff.
What drivel/babble would one expect out of the pie hole of a Bar Ass Attorner…the lower of the lowest scum of Mother Earth?!?!
"What is described above is, for the most part, complete poppycock. Yes, the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (what is left of it – much was repealed) still exists, but its purpose is quite unambiguous – to declare a missing person legally dead after 7 years so that their estate can be finalised. It contains nothing sinister or having universal applicability."
– You say it was "repealed" can you support this assertion with data? Where are the acts which repealed it? It is a Papal Bull from what I know, did some other Papal Decree repeal the original? From the research I have done the modern Commonwealth system is based on these Papal decree's.
"This strawman concept, the capitalisation of names, and so on, has been around for years and despite being totally discredited, continues to be resurrected by unscrupulous persons, often for pecuniary or socially mischievous ends."
– You say it has been discredited, can you please site the supportive data for this assertion?
"You may think that it is harmless to promulgate this material to an unsophisticated audience. Not true, because those that have availed themselves of these baseless legal premises and arguments in American courts have found themselves in more diabolical strife than the circumstances from which they were seeking relief. It is quite unconscionable and a moral turpitude to mislead people with such material, the veracity of which you cannot establish, and which may lead them to make poor decisions, to their detriment."
– Improperly navigating the Corporate Courts is not evidence of the lack of validity of the 'Strawman' concept. You can refer to 'corporate person-hood' if the 'strawman' nomenclature is not satisfactory. Matter of fact, there have been many 'freeman' who have successfully dispelled the presumptions of jurisdiction pushed by the corporate system of 'government' acting under the guise of the government of the commonwealth. See Judge Dale's 12 Presumptions Article.
"There is such a superfluity of stuff to be perused on the internet these days, much of it quite worthless; it has become a modern necessity to sharpen our critical sensibilities and apply a wise scepticism in order to weed out the chaff"
– I grant you there is a preponderance of data available on the internet which is less then accurate. The paradigm Report, the preliminary document offered as support for the OPPT filings in late 2012 is a detailed report of what this post generally describes.
“You say it was "repealed" can you support this assertion with data? Where are the acts which repealed it? It is a Papal Bull from what I know, did some other Papal Decree repeal the original? From the research I have done the modern Commonwealth system is based on these Papal decree's. “
Section III was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863 and Part II by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948 plus some other minor amendments. As every schoolchild knows (or used to) England effectively severed relations with the papacy at the beginning of the Reformation during reign of Henry VIII. Not only did papal decrees/bulls have no effect whatsoever on the subsequent development and evolution of English Law, Henry created statutes that specifically dealt with the relationship between king and pope which included the Statute in Restraint of Appeals 1533, which made it an offence (praemunire – dating back to the time of Richard II) punishable by death to assert or maintain papal jurisdiction in England. (As an aside, I note that the Pope and various others in high office routinely appear in conspiracy fictions and it seems quite impossible to appeal to the commonsense of adherents of these fantastic tales because they serve to reinforce the deep distrust of governments and institutions felt by the disempowered. The internet is alive with opportunists who prey on such emotions and sadly, there is nothing to regulate it).
“You say it has been discredited, can you please site the supportive data for this assertion?”
There are various judgments to which one could allude, but this summary in a Canadian Court provides a useful analysis of so-called Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) which includes freeman-on-the land arguments and related variants: http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/qb/Family/2012/2012abqb0571ed1.pdf
“Improperly navigating the Corporate Courts is not evidence of the lack of validity of the 'Strawman' concept. You can refer to 'corporate person-hood' if the 'strawman' nomenclature is not satisfactory. Matter of fact, there have been many 'freeman' who have successfully dispelled the presumptions of jurisdiction pushed by the corporate system of 'government' acting under the guise of the government of the commonwealth. See Judge Dale's 12 Presumptions Article.”
I cannot find a single case where such arguments have prevailed, nor should they, since they have no legal validity. I’m unsure who Judge Dale purports to be, but reading some of his material, he appears to be an impostor who has never actually held officer of the court status but has claimed such so as to lend credibility to his assertions.
“I grant you there is a preponderance of data available on the internet which is less then accurate. The paradigm Report, the preliminary document offered as support for the OPPT filings in late 2012 is a detailed report of what this post generally describes.”
I have read this ‘paradigm report’ out of curiosity. Sixteen pages does not constitute a detailed report, by the by. I daresay most people reading it would characterise it as a rambling and incoherent assemblage of assertions and claims having not a scintilla of evidentiary material to support them. Would you agree?
In my experience, people unschooled in various disciplines will tend to believe that which agrees with their own existing prejudices and apply a very low threshold of proof in doing so. My advice is to eschew the internet if you want to engage in any in-depth study of a subject. There is still much to be said for the surety and pleasures of books.
Do not allow yourselves to be easily duped by what you’ve ever known and nothing else due to a lack of will to understand the truth. While ignorance is forgivable, laziness is not. Once informed, you have to act! The deception creates ignorance, the complexity creates laziness, while the majority stay subject to their deceivers and the minority remain crazy.
C. Lampley