There are two ways of interpreting the Cestui Que Vie Act.
1 - The batshit crazy sovereign way;
Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.
Cestui Que Vie
London 1666, 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 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 (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, he can also claim damages.
When CAPITAL letters are 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
1) CEST TUI QUE TRUST: (pronounced setakay) common term in New Zealand and Australia
2) STRAWMAN: common term in United States of America or Canada
These are the legal entity/fiction created and owned by the Government whom created it. It is like owning a share in the Stock Market, you may own a share… but it is still a share of the Stock.
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 an IndependentCityState, just like Vatican is an IndependentCityState, just like WashingtonDC is an Independent City State.
The Crown is an unincorporated association. Why unincorporated? It’s 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.
Our only way out is to reclaim your dead entity (strawman) that the Crown created, become the executor and then collapse the called Cestui Que Vie trust and forgive yourself of your debts and then remove yourself from the admiralty law that holds you in custody.
When London burned, the subrogation of men’s and women’s 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.
Actually that was the logical part of the explanation. It got crazier;
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 to us by the Doc. just as ships are given berth Certificates at the Dock. It’s about commerce. We come from our mothers waters. Your mother has a birth canal just like a ship. The ship moves by the sea current just as we are able to move by the currency.
All this information relates to how the general public are still legally tied through Maritime Admiralty Law. Through this ancient legal construct we can be easily controlled and duped. Learning about your legal fiction helps you to unlock yourself. Otherwise you are just an empty vessel floating on the sea of commerce. Parents are tricked into registering the birth of their babies.
Forgive me for my newness on this mind blowing subject. What about the Stock owners (Vatican) laying claim to our soul? Do they possess title to our soul only by the trust or do they have our placenta/DNA & therefore some other dominion that we are unaware of? Upon the collapse of the trust & claiming beneficiary do they still have any power over our soul? Upon collapse of the trust we are our own executor however is there a place to find out what this all entails ie: Having a bank account & an id….just want to know how to function outside of this system. What is my estate? I can research how to reclaim it…that is info I have seen however the info never details so far that I’ve seen what my estate is. So many questions & so little time. I will utilize as much as I can to learn this stuff though. Thank you for your wonderful website. I haven’t explored it 100% however it has great info.
Not surprisingly this was the interpretation Bernard Yankson proposed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia when he petitioned to court to issue an order forcing the government of Canada to cough up his newborn daughters trust. His problem was this;
Parents are tricked into registering the birth of their babies.
He was trying to collect his daughter's trust but, being a concerned loving father, he wasn't going to let his daughter be born into slavery so he refused to apply for her birth certificate. Which left him in a quandry. Without the birth certificate he couldn't prove she was dead because he couldn't prove she'd been alive in the first place. He wanted the court to cut the Gordian knot by (I think, I was there but never got a clear idea what he was getting at) declaring his daughter alive and dead thereby, under the Act, making her eligible for a trust payout.
2 - The intended interpretation when the Act was written. Prior to the Act being legislated cestui-Que was a common law legal device to allow your property to be held in trust for you at a time when trust laws didn't exist;
Cestui que; also cestuy que, "cestui a que") is a shortened version of cestui a que use le feoffment fuit fait, literally, "The person for whose use the feoffment was made." It is a Law French phrase of medieval English invention, which appears in the legal phrases cestui que trust, cestui que use, or cestui que vie. In contemporary English the phrase is also commonly pronounced "setty-kay" (/ˈsɛtikeɪ/) or "sesty-kay" (/ˈsɛstikeɪ/). According to Roebuck, Cestui que use is pronounced "setticky yuce" (/ˌsɛtɨkiˈjuːs/). Cestui que use and cestui que trust are more or less interchangeable terms. In some medieval materials, the phrase is seen as cestui a que.
The cestui que use is the person for whose benefit the trust is created. The cestui que trust is the person entitled to an equitable, as opposed to a legal, estate. Thus, if land is granted to the use of A in trust for B, A is cestui que trust, and B trustee, or use. The term, principally owing to its cumbersome nature, has been virtually superseded in modern law by that of "beneficiary", and general law of trusts.
Many reasons have been given for the invention of the cestui que use as a legal device. During the Crusades, and other wars on the Continent, landowners might be gone for long periods of time. Others might be absent because of business adventures or religious pilgrimages. There was no assurance they would ever return home. The cestui que use allowed them to leave a trusted friend or relative with the sort of powers, discretions and they hoped, the duties. Today, this power would be called the "power of attorney". Religious orders such as Franciscans, Cistercians, Benedictines and other mendicant orders took vows of poverty, yet retained the use of donated property. Cestui que use allowed them the benefits of land without legal ownership.
Besides the obvious limitations placed on cestui que by the Statute of Mortmain, Statute of Uses and the Statute of Wills, its legality was shaped indirectly by provisions within the Magna Carta and Quia Emptores.
In 1666 the Act was passed for a slightly different purpose. People tended to just disappear in those days and never came back. A ship would sail to America and never arrive, a slaving expedition would head off into Africa and not be heard from again. More particulary a lot of people were lost in the Great Fire of London and their bodies not recovered or died in the plague and their bodies tossed into a mass grave unidentified. The Act allowed for their estates to be processed without actual proof of death. Here's the preamble from the Act itself;
Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
1666 CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2
An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.
X1 Recital that Cestui que vies have gone beyond Sea, and that Reversioners cannot find out whether they are alive or dead.
Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often happened that such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and Reversioners cannot finde out whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many yeares after all the lives upon which such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt upon it to prove the death of their Tennants when it is almost impossible for them to discover the same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners.
This was the part Bernie liked;
IV If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.
X2 Provided alwayes That if any person or persons shall be evicted out of any Lands or Tenements by vertue of this Act, and afterwards if such person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate or Estates depend shall returne againe from beyond the Seas, or shall on proofe in any Action to be brought for recovery of the same [ to] be made appeare to be liveing; or to have beene liveing at the time of the Eviction That then and from thenceforth the Tennant or Lessee who was outed of the same his or their Executors Administrators or Assignes shall or may reenter repossesse have hold and enjoy the said Lands or Tenements in his or their former Estate for and dureing the Life or Lives or soe long terme as the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives the said Estate or Estates depend shall be liveing, and alsoe shall upon Action or Actions to be brought by him or them against the Lessors Reversioners or Tennants in possession or other persons respectively which since the time of the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements recover for damages the full Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawfull Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements, and kepte or held out of the same by the said Lessors Reversioners Tennants or other persons who after the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements or any of them respectively as well in the case when the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives such Estate or Estates did depend are or shall be dead at the time of bringing of the said Action or Actions as if the said person or persons where then liveing.
Bernie was dead, he was right there in court telling us himself (as the executor of his estate) and who'd know better? So Bernie, along with his daughter, was entitled to his estate under the Act. Sadly for Bernie the court interpreted things differently and declared him a vexatious litigant.http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9597