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 disonant refusal of the Courts and legal professions to acknowledge the validity of our interpretations of equity and the law. In my own experience, by far the greatest obstacle to overcome is discerning the difference between that which the mind wants to believe and that which resonates in the heart.
A little over two years ago, I was one of three Freemen-on-the-Land who organised and presented a conference in 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 who did not gain something positive from the event, without which several true friendships might not have had the opportunity to blossom.
We were all very careful to make those present [and those watching the 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 Free The Planet is the result of diligent endeavours to find evidence in support of those theories we presented, some of which I am now unable to corroborate.
In no particular order, I have found no evidence to suggest that:
a. the U.K. Birth Certificate represents a government bond
b. there is a pre-paid treasury account in every U.K. citizen’s name
c. registration, application and submission are always a subjugation of rights
d. liening the legal person establishes Secured Party Creditor status
e. UCC-1 filings have any legal effect in the U.K.
f. the Queen/Crown/Vatican is the actual owner of every citizen’s property, including the name
Many researchers of these subjects spend most of their time wading through the arse-batter more commonly known as mis and dis information. The barely researched opinions of those who stake a claim for the attention of their peers are too often accepted by the research community 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, several prominent legal researchers have recently claimed that when we attend court, we are deemed dead because the Courts cannot deal with flesh and blood, so they have to trick or coerce us into admitting that we are a legal fiction; a trust; a naturally dead human being.
Where is the actual material and/or statutory evidence supporting the claim that we are deemed 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 for several 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 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, that Cestui Que Vie [beneficiary] will be considered legally dead for the purpose of legal proceedings for the recovery of the property by other interested parties, which stands on its own as a compelling evidence that the claims being made are entirely misconceived.
I don’t believe it is necessary to labour this point, except to say that, in my humble reckoning, every researcher has a good faith obligation to refrain from presenting unsubstantiated theory as established fact. Everybody makes mistakes, but the obligation of those publishing non-fiction in the public domain is to make sure that any errors or omissions are corrected and potentially misleading statements are withdrawn at the earliest opportunity, especially when not doing so may result in people making potentially damaging decisions based upon badly researched findings.
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. 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 liability for charges of some description, whether criminal or civil, that have been attached to the capitalised name.
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 body of law of this land was granted into trust by the monarch for the benefit of every man and woman born on these shores. The Courts and the judiciary share trusteeship of the Laws of England and are responsible for making sure that the beneficiaries receive adequate disbursments of the remedies and protections prescribed by those laws, whether provided by statute or the common law, but only with the consent of the people.
Coprorate entities, however, cannot benefit from this public trust without the consent, authorisation or acquiescence of flesh and blood, which is all too often obtained by governments and corporations through coercive and/or deceptive methods, resulting in a legal system which protects the interests of banksters, rather than the people – the constitutional beneficiaries of the Laws of England – simply because the legal professions cannot conceive that they have been hoodwinked into servicing personal loans, credit cards and mortgages that are legally unenforceable when the right questions are asked of the alleged lender.
It is therefore self-evident that a Court acts as trustee in every matter brought within its jurisdiction and the Claimant and Defendant are the beneficiaries of that trust. For and on behalf of the monarch (the Grantor of the law 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; equity does take jurisdiction to save a multiplicity of suits, but it must always follow the law. The remedy for the type of injustice that is so often handed down by the lower courts, the officers of which often have woefully insufficient knowledge of the law and the due process, may well be to sue the judge for negligence of his duty and professional incompetance, as well as a breach of constitutional law in failing to make adequate disbursments to a beneficiary of the public trust commonly known as the Laws of England.
The puspose 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 do from our successes, so living in denial of them is a self-defeating act of futility. But whatever you do, please don’t take my word for it, because the journey of self-realisation is your and yours alone and there are no short-cuts to the truth.
