Cestui Que Vie Act of 1866 and How to Reclaim Your Legal Rights in Court


RE-POST, RE-POST, RE-POST

Cestui Que Vie Act of 1866 and How to Reclaim Your Legal Rights in Court

Click, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

NOTICE AND WARNING: The author of this post is not a legal practitioner, nor  a licensed or board-certified attorney.  Please do not confuse any information in this post or on this blog–The Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America– with “legal advice.”  The author has posted information for educational value and general knowledge. 

If one were to find oneself in a position that necessitated going to court, the author hopes that one is able to afford a top-notch, specialized, strategic, well-recommended, ethical, and extremely educated attorney with a proven track record of success in the local legal arena.

Real individuals and parents who live in the real world, however, know that this is the exception, not the norm, regardless of one’s education, so don’t feel badly about yourself or your purpose in this journey if the next lawyer you speak to or elected official or judge yells at you and tells you to sell some jewelry if you can’t afford an attorney, or otherwise they are not able to “help” you…even though it is their chosen duty and well within their judicial discretion and alleged “immunity,” and even though one may face losing everything material.  Even if one can afford a top-notch attorney, or, “collaborative” “advocate” or “mediator,” this author urges everyone to take full advantage of their literacy.  In this life, it  is about the journey, and not just about the destination.

“Readers are leaders.”  List-makers rule the world.  Get thee to a pen, paper, and a book forthwith!

SidebarIt can be dangerous to evaluate anything with only one source of information and from only one perspective.  Most individuals, especially elected officials and hired professionals who take multiple oaths, but certainly not all, have their own agendas with a reckless disregard for the consequences to others.   The same naturally holds true for many authors and researchers.  For these reasons, research multiple sources and draw your own conclusions based on analysis, past experience, and intuition.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

Click on the link above to access the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1866 in England that was passed after the Great Fire of London to learn how the legal, but oftentimes unlawful (as a result of being unconstitutional), system’s “scheme” through which it deprives one of, inter alia, one’s natural law, divine, “unalienable” rights to “life, liberty, happiness,” to be a parent to their children, and the well-established right to be left alone from government interference–privacy.

If you want to learn more about how to legally reclaim your rights in court and make the judge run away from you while someone who is not you (like opposing counsel) is required as a matter of law to pull out his or her checkbook and cover their “debt,” then click on the link below to David Icke’s website. I have provided a preview from this source also below the link.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=228123

Evidence?

Quote:
All law is Ecclesiastical Law. This law allows “Constructive Trusts” to be created.

Nonsense. Constructive trusts are part of Equity. Although equity’s origins are in ecclesiastical, it has been recognized as part of secular law for 500 years.

Quote:
These trusts demand you retire before 75, because that is outside the law of the trust to claim.

Evidence?
[quote]
In a courtroom you have an Administrator, Trustee, Executor and a Beneficiary.
[quote]
No, you don’t. You’ve been watching too much youtube.

Quote:
A person taken in to court is the Beneficiary. Your Birth Certificate is nothing more than the title of the Trust, the Judge in a court, who is basically an Administrator, asks for the person’s name, if you give your name, the one on your birth certificate, then you are allowing the Judge (Administrator), to swap roles with you as the beneficiary.A constructive trust is defined as – “Constructive trusts in English law are a form of trust created by the courts primarily where the defendant has dealt with property in an “unconscionable manner”, but also in other circumstances; the property will be held in “constructive trust” for the harmed party, obliging the defendant to look after it.”

These to paragraphs are contradictory. A defendant who is fixed with a constructive trust is a trustee, not a beneficiary. The most common example of a constructive trust is the case of mistaken payment. Constructive trusts are not particularly common.

Quote:
Once they have the name, you have given the fiction of the Cestui Que Vie Trust, life. It is nothing but modern slavery; it allows the Stock shares, which are generated by your birth certificate, to be taken from you.

This is pure fantasy. Let’s see one of these stock shares you claim exists.

And so on and so forth.

__________________
“Leaders of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement… teach a political theory based on a radical interpretation of social contract… For them, the social contract is not a primordial construct founding the legitimacy of government but an actual contract between an individual and the state…
This teaching is not only wrong in the sense that it is false. It is wrongful. That is, it is full of wrong.
R v. McCormick 2012 NSSC 288 per HHJ Moir at [28-32] Link
aulus agerius is offline Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2012, 06:03 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
The best thing to say in that case is “John Doe, is indeed in the court, your Honour.” Point to the Judge.
“It is you, as trustee, you are John Doe, today, aren’t you?”

Oh man, that’s great. Would this mean that the judge would now be hauled off to prison if “John Doe” was found guilty. This sounds like the ultimate legal tactic.

Quote:
If the Judge goes to leave the court for recess, then you must acknowledge – “The Judge has jumped ship, for the record, he has abandonded ship and I as Sovereignty in this court take control! Case closed! With Prejudice!”

Another great idea. So if the judge leaves then you get to be the judge. Why follow this advice and say “case closed?” Why not order the judge to pay you a million dollars and then close the case. I can imagine in a really important case the judge and the freeman would both be camped out in the courtroom for days, peeing in jars and slowly wasting away, not wanting to be the first one to “abandon ship.”


Last edited by jlord; 20-11-2012 at 06:04 PM.

Evidence?

Quote:
All law is Ecclesiastical Law. This law allows “Constructive Trusts” to be created.

Nonsense. Constructive trusts are part of Equity. Although equity’s origins are in ecclesiastical, it has been recognized as part of secular law for 500 years.

Quote:
These trusts demand you retire before 75, because that is outside the law of the trust to claim.

Evidence?
[quote]
In a courtroom you have an Administrator, Trustee, Executor and a Beneficiary.
[quote]
No, you don’t. You’ve been watching too much youtube.

Quote:
A person taken in to court is the Beneficiary. Your Birth Certificate is nothing more than the title of the Trust, the Judge in a court, who is basically an Administrator, asks for the person’s name, if you give your name, the one on your birth certificate, then you are allowing the Judge (Administrator), to swap roles with you as the beneficiary.A constructive trust is defined as – “Constructive trusts in English law are a form of trust created by the courts primarily where the defendant has dealt with property in an “unconscionable manner”, but also in other circumstances; the property will be held in “constructive trust” for the harmed party, obliging the defendant to look after it.”

These to paragraphs are contradictory. A defendant who is fixed with a constructive trust is a trustee, not a beneficiary. The most common example of a constructive trust is the case of mistaken payment. Constructive trusts are not particularly common.

Quote:
Once they have the name, you have given the fiction of the Cestui Que Vie Trust, life. It is nothing but modern slavery; it allows the Stock shares, which are generated by your birth certificate, to be taken from you.

This is pure fantasy. Let’s see one of these stock shares you claim exists.

And so on and so forth.

__________________
“Leaders of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement… teach a political theory based on a radical interpretation of social contract… For them, the social contract is not a primordial construct founding the legitimacy of government but an actual contract between an individual and the state…
This teaching is not only wrong in the sense that it is false. It is wrongful. That is, it is full of wrong.
R v. McCormick 2012 NSSC 288 per HHJ Moir at [28-32] Link
aulus agerius is offline Reply With Quote
Old 20-11-2012, 06:03 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
The best thing to say in that case is “John Doe, is indeed in the court, your Honour.” Point to the Judge.
“It is you, as trustee, you are John Doe, today, aren’t you?”

Oh man, that’s great. Would this mean that the judge would now be hauled off to prison if “John Doe” was found guilty. This sounds like the ultimate legal tactic.

Quote:
If the Judge goes to leave the court for recess, then you must acknowledge – “The Judge has jumped ship, for the record, he has abandonded ship and I as Sovereignty in this court take control! Case closed! With Prejudice!”

Another great idea. So if the judge leaves then you get to be the judge. Why follow this advice and say “case closed?” Why not order the judge to pay you a million dollars and then close the case. I can imagine in a really important case the judge and the freeman would both be camped out in the courtroom for days, peeing in jars and slowly wasting away, not wanting to be the first one to “abandon ship.”


Last edited by jlord; 20-11

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

(1)  This post is made in good faith and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.

(2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.

(3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.

(4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

-2012 at 06:04 PM.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s