Assumption, Presumption & Trust


The most difficult obstacle to overcome is not the inherent evil and corruption within the system that has enslaved mankind; neither is it the standard, cognitively dissonant refusal of the courts and legal professions to acknowledge the validity of our claims against the corporatist state. In my own experience, by far the greatest obstacle to overcome is discerning the difference between information which the external objects of our senses falsely lead us to believe and that which resonates internally as unfettered truth in the heart.

In November 2008 CE, I was one of three free men who organised and presented a conference in the city of Derby, with the openly stated aim of sharing the information we had gleaned for the benefit of the greatest number. I have never talked to anybody who was present on that wonderful day in the freezing midlands of Britain who did not gain something from participating in the event, which, to the very best of my knowledge, was the first of its kind on these shores.

We were very careful to make those present [and those watching the unauthorised Google video] aware that our research was ongoing, and for all intents and purposes, much of what we were presenting relied heavily upon the validity of the theories of other researchers, many of whom were North American based. Much of the content of FreeThePlanet was the result of diligent endeavours to find evidence in support of those theories we presented, some of which I have been unable to corroborate, which compelled me to make public my subsequent rejections of them, as I have sought to do from the moment I reached my own conclusions.

In no particular order, I have found no compelling evidence to suggest that:

a. The Birth Certificate represents any form of negotiable instrument.
b. There is a pre-paid treasury account in every registered citizen’s name.
c. Registration, application and submission are always a subjugation of rights.
d. Placing a commercial lien on one’s legal person establishes Secured Party Creditor status for the real flesh and blood representing the capitalised name.
e. UCC-1 filings have any legal effect without the explicit consent of the parties to a commercial transaction.
f. The Queen/Crown/Vatican is the actual owner of every citizen’s property, including the name on the Birth Certificate.

Many researchers of these subjects spend most of their time wading through the metaphorical treacle more commonly known as mis-and-dis-information. The barely researched opinions of those who stake a claim for the attention of strangers, as well as their peers, are too often accepted by the research community and their audience as self-evident truths, simply because the hypotheses presented are constructed in such a way that appeals to the longing inside us all for the seemingly unattainable; to reach a stage in our research when we can confidently proclaim to anybody who is interested that we finally understand how the mechanics of the system operate.

With all due respect to all concerned, interested and affected parties, whilst I am certainly no legal expert, let alone a member of the Law Society or the BAR, several prominent legal researchers have recently claimed that when we attend a legal proceeding the courts cannot claim jurisdiction over flesh and blood, so they have to trick or coerce us into admitting that we are a legal fiction; subject to an undisclosed Cestui Que Trust; assumed to be a naturally dead human being, who is nevertheless legally responsible for the liabilities of the capitalised name in the Birth Certificate in the real world.

Where is the actual material and/or statutory evidence supporting the claim that we are deemed legally dead by admitting to being responsible for ‘the name’ when we appear in court?

I have been delving deeply into the abyss of information available online for fifteen years now and I have never been able to find any credible evidence to validate this theory, whilst the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 seems to have been fatally misinterpreted in reaching this ultimately unsustainable conclusion.

From the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666:

“Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead. If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead….”

From Bouviers Law Dictionary:

“CESTUI QUE TRUST, A barbarous phrase, to signify the beneficiary of an estate held in trust. He for whose benefit another person is enfeoffed or seised of land or tenements, or is possessed of personal property. The cestui que trust is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land; he may direct such conveyances, consistent with the trust, deed or will, as he shall choose, and the trustee (q. v.) is bound to execute them: he may defend his title in the name of the trustee. 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4; vide Vin. Ab. Trust, U, W, X, and Y 1 Vern. 14; Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t.: 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 321, note 1; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

CESTUI QUE VIE. He for whose life land is holden by another person; the latter is called tenant per auter vie, or tenant for another’s life. Vide Dane’s Ab. Index, h.t.”

The above passage from the 1666 Act and Bouvier’s definitions clearly establish that if a person [meaning the flesh and blood in this case, since a fiction has no life to lose] who has beneficial interest in property held on these shores abandons that property for a period of at least seven years, as happened frequently in times of war during past centuries. when men were sent to foreign shores to fight unjust wars for despotic monarchs and their private vested interests, the Cestui Que Vie [the owner of the abandoned property concerned] will be considered legally dead for the purposes of legal proceedings for the recovery of such property, for and on behalf of the beneficiaries their estate, which, more often than not, were the wives and children of men who were slaughtered, enslaved or imprisoned overseas. The act also served the same purposes in relation to the Fire of London of the same year, 1666.

Moreover, whilst the act does pertain to the legal presumption that a real man or woman is dead, it can ONLY be presumed in the event that there has been no evidence of their life on these shores for a period of at least seven years. The mere fact that when a man appears in court representing his legal name it is sufficient proof that he is living flesh and blood, renders the entire theory void. Indeed, this ill-conceived, yet much heralded idea, is illuminated as utter nonsense by a simple, irrefutable observation: that which never had life has no life to lose [the name] cannot ever be rightly considered legally dead.

In my own experience, it is certainly true that the courts can and will only deal with persons, but the type of persons they normally deal with, while not exactly synonymous with the flesh and blood, are always attached, for better or worse, to a man, woman or child under their present system. In other words, the courts do not refuse to acknowledge us as living flesh and blood; they merely refuse to accept that the living flesh and blood and its legal person are not one and the same thing, which is generally in order to establish liabilities of some description, whether criminal or civil, that have been attached to the capitalised name, by and through the force and effect given to government legislation, under the threat of violence, incarceration and coercion.

From the Act of Settlement 1700:

“And whereas the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the Throne of this Realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said Laws and all their Officers and Ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same”

By this Act [and other constitutional statutes], the English body of law established in Britain by the genocide, piracy and usurpation of foreign invaders, was granted into trust by the reigning monarch for the benefit of every man and woman born on these shores. The judiciary share trusteeship of the Laws of England [now the Laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland]and are responsible for making sure that the beneficiaries [the people] receive adequate disbursements of the remedies and protections prescribed by those laws, whether provided by statute or the common law. In the absence of the adequate disbursement of equity in her majesty’s courts, the constitutional monarchy fatally breaches the trust of its subjects. Furthermore, fictitious legal entities cannot benefit from this public trust without the consent, authorisation or acquiescence of real flesh and blood, which is all too often obtained through coercive and/or deceptive methods, resulting in a so-called justice system, which protects the interests of the moneyed aristocracy, rather than the people.

How many of us have ever asked ourselves why these allegedly impartial tribunals are not called the People’s Courts?

It is therefore self-evident that a judge acts as trustee in every matter brought within their court’s jurisdiction; the Claimant and the Defendant are the beneficiaries of that perpetually resulting trust. For and on behalf of the monarch (the Grantor of the protections and remedies to the people), the court/judge acts as the trustee of the law for the benefit of the parties before him. However, that does not mean that every court is secretly operating under trust law, as some researchers continue to claim. Far from it in fact; since the Judicature Acts of the 1870’s, the courts of common law and equity have been combined, so that the jurisdictions run concurrently in the courts.

The purpose of this essay is not to persuade you to agree with me or to disregard the work of any other researcher. I merely ask that you stop to consider how much of your own understanding is based upon assumption, presumption and trust that other people have correctly interpreted all of the available information.

It might help to remember that we all learn far more from our mistakes than we ever do from our successes, so living in denial of them is a self-defeating act of futility. But whatever you choose to do with your unlimited potential, please don’t take my word for it, because the journey of self-realisation is yours and yours alone and there are no short-cuts to knowing the truth in your heart.

Share: Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Share on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
Posted in Equitability and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .