Steve McRae - Expert in F*** All

[BoomerSooner17]

Good to write all that out, for the casual reader we do have a tendency to dismiss the name game as nonsense without a full explanation every time.

I concur with the learned Shrink. Both of these posts by fortinbras have significantly clarified for me the origins of the name-game mumbo-jumbo that has basically become the sovrun/FMOTL/TP holy gospel. As always, dissecting this stuff is the best way to show how crazy it is.

[BoomerSooner17]

When you take out of that the cost of my health care, education, state benefits and pension I reckon the purchaser of my birth-bond has made a hell of a profit or a hell of a loss... I'm not sure which.

That's where it becomes tricky. While your birth-bond was worth a fortune when I purchased it, the Illuminati rules governing undercover operations prevent me from cashing in on it, at least for now....meanwhile your value continues to fluctuate.

[Burnaby49]

If the theory had any sort of logic to it, which of course it doesn't, there would have to be some way of determining what a person's lifetime value was which would be an interesting calculation. If you took a country's GDP, divided it equally amongst the population and then multiplied it by the average working life what would you get?

My back of an envelope figure gives a UK birth-bond as being worth about £1,500,000 but my total income so far (aged 52) would be less than a half of that. Does that mean I'm making a profit or a loss?

When you take out of that the cost of my health care, education, state benefits and pension I reckon the purchaser of my birth-bond has made a hell of a profit or a hell of a loss... I'm not sure which.

Robert Menard used to promote a 'pro-rata' theory. He assumed that Canada was worth a determinable amount, Not private property I believe, such as my house, but public. Resources, land, whatever, I'm not sure he ever got into details. He assumed that each Canadian alive right now was entitled to a pro-rata share of this wealth, like cashing in stock, and it was the government's responsibility to pay it. Given the government's unwillingness to go along with this nonsense it turned out to be irrelevant what number anyone came up with for Canada's value.

[Gregg]

If the theory had any sort of logic to it, which of course it doesn't, there would have to be some way of determining what a person's lifetime value was which would be an interesting calculation. If you took a country's GDP, divided it equally amongst the population and then multiplied it by the average working life what would you get?

My back of an envelope figure gives a UK birth-bond as being worth about £1,500,000 but my total income so far (aged 52) would be less than a half of that. Does that mean I'm making a profit or a loss? When you take out of that the cost of my health care, education, state benefits and pension I reckon the purchaser of my birth-bond has made a hell of a profit or a hell of a loss... I'm not sure which.

Bu you're figuring the total net cashflow, and $75,000 total over about 35 years, with about 15 more to go with presumed increases for at least 10 of those years to the continuing baseline arblegarble alakazzoo and your birth bond, assuming 3% APR is about $11 Gazongazillion circa 1932 US SIlver backed dollars!

[Gregg]

First of all, I find it hard to fit all this into the "the rich are exploiting us all" theory. If you do all the supposed calculations above to come up with a figure on what a birth bond is worth, its screwing the rich who are worth far more in real life than any logical way of calculating what all the regular schlubs who are getting screwed are worth. Further, while we always have generational wealth and you could reconcile some of it by saying "Well, the Kennedys are born rich, so at birth a Kennedy BC is worth 100 regular ones" or something like. It all falls down though, when you take a look at the Forbes 500 and realize that a whole lot of the very richest people were born not very rich at all, and historically its not at all unusual for the generational very richest of all were born into abject poverty. What was Henry Ford's birth certificate worth? How about Steve Job's (who was in fact an orphan and adopted, as was Dave Thomas who founded Wendy's) or staying in just Fast Food, Harland Sanders and Ray Kroc? Walt Disney, or hopping the pond, some of the wealthiest Britons like Sir Paul McCartney, J.K. Roling, Sir Micheal Jagger and very much not Sir Keef Richards? (actually, of all the Stones, Charlie Watts is far and away the richest and he was hardly born at Blenheim Palace)

And while we're at it, disregarding all that and for the benefit of doubt assuming it all works out by the time we grow up, I think that whoever is enslaving me to steal the fruits of my life of labor has made a clerical error of some type. You see, despite them stealing all my earnings, the motor car company still sends me $10,000 every 15 days and fat bonus checks every year to boot. Yes, they do take quite a bit in something called taxes, in fact they take it several times and even then I have to send them more all the time for stuff like car registration, a percent on pretty much everything I buy, my real estate, the stuff my broker makes for me and what the account he runs makes....but even after all this I do somehow get to keep enough of it to get by.....

I know someone screwed up and eventually I expect they'll be round to take it all back, but until then I'm keeping my mouth shut and hiding what I can in the mattress.

[Burnaby49]

(Charlie Watts is far and away the richest and he was hardly born at Blenheim Palace)

Charlie, one of the founding members of a hard-rocking, hard-partying wild life band secretly harboured the dream of being . . . . . a restaurateur. Even though it's not a pub I made a point of having a pint at Charlie's restaurant;

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/08/garde ... entos.html

[longdog]

I know someone screwed up and eventually I expect they'll be round to take it all back...

That's a good point. If a birth creates a credit £X then a death must logically create a debit of -£X to offset it. Did Poe not state that according to physical laws for every credit there has to be a debit to balance the 'energy' or vice versa?

[Arthur Rubin]

I know someone screwed up and eventually I expect they'll be round to take it all back...

That's a good point. If a birth creates a credit £X then a death must logically create a debit of -£X to offset it. Did Poe not state that according to physical laws for every credit there has to be a debit to balance the 'energy' or vice versa?

Don't you mean POE? After all, capitalization is important.

[longdog]

I know someone screwed up and eventually I expect they'll be round to take it all back...

That's a good point. If a birth creates a credit £X then a death must logically create a debit of -£X to offset it. Did Poe not state that according to physical laws for every credit there has to be a debit to balance the 'energy' or vice versa?

Don't you mean POE? After all, capitalization is important.

Surely POE would be capitarse dimissue according to Roman law and what have Romans ever done for us?

[grixit]

The reason the Name Game doesn't work is because someone managed to lose the recipe for Banana Fanna.

[The Seventh String]

A bit of craziness about birth certificates arising in the US, but hopefully not in the UK or Canada or elsewhere, is the notion that a birth certificate is some sort of financial instrument.

The myth turns up in the UK as well, thought he currently popular version if it seems to be that the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 is what turned everyone who’s ever born or will be born into a legally dead corpse sent somewhere overseas and in some way it’s the “corpse” that secures the currency, funds assorted rich people and some other stuff besides. This is so secret that the Act has been an official secret since 1666, until the FOTLs blew its cover.

The Act says no such thing of course, and is so secret it’s on the goverment’s legislation website.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

It’s the original form of the law that rules when a long-missing person can be considered dead for legal purposes so their estate can be sorted out, any outstanding legal matters resolved etc.

It isn’t current law either, and has long been superceded by other legislation that makes provision for what happens to the property etc. of long-missing persons.

[BoomerSooner17]

If I were a(n) FMOTL, I would be deeply suspicious of the fact that the Cestui Que Vie Act was passed in 1666. Have any of them made that connection yet?

As far as the Act being on the government's website, what better place to hide something than in plain site?

[Siegfried Shrink]

It was encountering mention of this act that led me to all the other nonsense.
I looked it up, read it, saw at once that it simply a bit of legal housekeeping with none of the features that the nonsense I was reading attributed to it, so I started wondering where all the nonsense attributed to it came from.

The bit I found most puzzling was why anyone, who could do the same as I did, would give any credibilty to the crazy claims, and this led to finding evem more crazy claims, and so on. I have noticed that a state of General Ignorance is quite common and obviously usually quite harmless, but what was interesting enough to keep me turning over the manure heap was how some people were happy to swap ignorance for knowing something completely untrue, and then sticking to their 'knowledge' as if it was the word from on high.

I am too old to be surprised that others have discovered this effect and were prepared to exploit it for money or a wierd kind of fame.

[notorial dissent]

If I were a(n) FMOTL, I would be deeply suspicious of the fact that the Cestui Que Vie Act was passed in 1666. Have any of them made that connection yet?

As far as the Act being on the government's website, what better place to hide something than in plain site?

The don't know what the Cestui Que Vie Act was or why it was passed, let alone what any of it means. The date is just numbers to them that they ignore. None of them have ever read the act and on the off chance they might try it would go over their heads since it requires a reading
ability above the sixth grade at best comprehension levels on top of being in 350 year old English which they wouldn't have understood at the time. Their only knowledge of the act is what someone else, who doesn't know either, has told them, or that they have gotten off some guru's website.

[fortinbras]

I would suppose, just from its title, that the Cestui Que Vie Act was something to do with inheritances and life estates or trusts, as it means "during the life [of someone]". This being a British Act before American Independence, I probably would be challenged to find it and then understand it.

[BoomerSooner17]

If I were a(n) FMOTL, I would be deeply suspicious of the fact that the Cestui Que Vie Act was passed in 1666. Have any of them made that connection yet?

As far as the Act being on the government's website, what better place to hide something than in plain site?

The don't know what the Cestui Que Vie Act was or why it was passed, let alone what any of it means. The date is just numbers to them that they ignore. None of them have ever read the act and on the off chance they might try it would go over their heads since it requires a reading
ability above the sixth grade at best comprehension levels on top of being in 350 year old English which they wouldn't have understood at the time. Their only knowledge of the act is what someone else, who doesn't know either, has told them, or that they have gotten off some guru's website.

I was simply wondering if any of the more conspiracy-minded FMOTLs have connected the 666 part of the date with the Satanic conspiracies that they seem so fond of denouncing.

[Siegfried Shrink]

This being a British Act before American Independence, I probably would be challenged to find it and then understand it.

Easy to find, easy to read, easy to understand.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/ ... 60011_en_1

One or two slightly archaic terms but compared with much modern statute law it is short, snappy and simple.

Although the specific act has been repealed, the modern version, copied in many jurisdictions, is much the same in scope and intent.

[Burnaby49]

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.

And crazier,

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.

Thank you!

https://exodus200.wordpress.com/step-1a ... -act-1666/

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/).[1] 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.[14][15]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestui_que

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.

http://hudok.info/files/8514/3526/0589/ ... st_act.pdf

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.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9597

[Siegfried Shrink]

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.

With all due repect, this is a bit of a canard, and part and parcel of the misinterpretation of the act beloved by gurus. Given the speed of parliamentary processes the act could have neen first drafted in 1664 or 1665.

During the plague, quite meticulious 'bills of mortality' were kept by each parish, (and axiously scanned by such as Samuel Pepys) so although there were some mass interments, there would have been very few cases where the dead person was not identified and recorded by family members or neighbours. Life carried on remerkably normally during the plague, see Pepys Diaries and Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year.

The great fire of London was also not a very lethal event, since it burned for several days and people were well aware of the peril and spent a lot of time and money removing their goods and chattels from the path of the fire. The property damage was enormous, and Pepys remarks on seeing smouldering cellars a couple of weeks later, but in general it was more like a Californian bush fire, you just get out and watch.
It is improbable that either event exceeded the capacity of the administrators of the time to record casualties reasonably accurately. Once again. Pepys is a great vernacular source for everyday life during the fire, as he saw it. His house, near the Tower of London, escaped the blaze. He did, however, use his position to commandeer naval seamen and boats to remove his furniture to safety.

[JimUk1]

I thought the act was more to do with sailors not returning for one reason or another?

There was a lot of prirates on the seas and England was constantly clashing with other sea faring nations, so the government of the day introduced a law to allow people to inherit from lost husbands etc?