RE: Cestui Qui Vie Trust Act 1666


I read about this 1666 Act stuff before and will say it is in interesting viewpoint but my take is it is hogwash.

It is not until you id yourself by a registered name (no life entity) that you are treated as a child of the state or dead. Dead to the soul of life. Hence the permit to use the car. Do parents not grant permission? Do children not ask?

If you id yourself by a registered name you are dead because the name is dead.

I remind folks of the pig farmer in BC who was charged for murdering 27 woman or so. A lawyer for the defense raised the fact that one woman they could not identify by name. No name, no jurisdiction and the charge of murdering that woman was dropped. She was dead, was on his property, but he was not charged or convicted of murdering that one woman and the only difference was, they could not id the body by a name.

I remind also of the two landlord tenant cases. The guy in the second case has not paid rent for 3 years. I drafted the affidavit so I know the content and it came down to, man is not the tenant, the name is. Man is not liable obviously.

Man does not own the earth the earth owns man.....Sitting Bull.

Time wounds all heels..(hahahaha/call it karma).....John Lennon

All are One so whatever you think 'they' are doing to you, it is you doing it to you.


With lottsa love

Original Message:
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:21:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Cestui Qui Vie Trust Act 1666

Cestui Qui VieĀ Trust Act 1666

All comments from: seventiki

What is a "Ces tui Qui Trust" (pronounce set-a-kay) and why should you care?

In 1666, in London, during the black plague, and great fires of LondonĀ  Parliament enacted an act, behind closed doors, called Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.

The act being debated the Cestui Qui act was to subrogate the rights of men and women, meaning all men and women were declared Read the rest of this entry

Court appearance


My 19 year old boy got his feet wet today.

He made his second appearance in court and made it clear he is not so and so the name is so and so. He even went as far as to correct the judge when he referred to the boy as "you". He was going to do this on the first appearance but allowed himself to get wrapped up in their mumbo jumbo.

I spoke with him by phone last night and he was quite concerned about using the I am not so and so thing. I gave him a couple other options and told him to do what feels right for him.

I told him to expect the judge to raise his voice but to stand firm if you do the I am not so and so thing. The judge did raise the level of audio from his voice and the boy saw what the judge was doing was testing him. Many people fear the judge and I am not saying the boy was not in fear but he stood his ground and as a result he feels much empowered. In fact he said, it was like a big blockage of energy was released from his chest area. He feels far freer for it. Ya, he did not willingly sell his soul has got to feel good.

The moment he said I am not so and so the court was Read the rest of this entry


Happy New Life

Here is some food for thought.

This is based on Unity in that all are one. Read The Law of One.

There is no us and them there is only the family, of which each of us is like a child, or member. Hidden hand said; our duty is to the family.

A BC as we know is not intended to be personal id and is also deemed proof of Citizenship. Again here, we are thinking in terms of oneness or unity and so do not see the word citizen as a bad thing.

A citizen owes allegiance to a state/government in which sovereign power is retained by the people. This is remarkably similar to Galatians 4:1 where it is said that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he BE lord of all.

The citizens are as the children yet the children lord of all = sovereign power is retained by the people.

When we elect a government consider that we are electing those who will administrate for the business/enterprise, Canada, but although we are as servants/employees, we be lord of all, or, the sovereign power is retained by the people.

As a citizen then we are as the employees of Read the rest of this entry

Free will, Freedom of choice

I hear much about the words free will. I am not going to get into a debate over this but, I shared a short while back what the courts have determined the word 'anything' to mean with respect to section 346 of the Criminal Code; EXTORTION.

The use of the word 'anything' is meant to protect against INTERFERENCE with ones freedom of choice. Therefore, the law acknowledges one has the right to choose.

In other words, free will, and freedom of choice, are basically the same thing, but the point here is that the law, courts, acknowledge that preventing choice = free will, constitutes Extortion.

I love you

No name


While we are on it. It was brought to my attention by one of us that there is no law that says men and women must have a name. So you can ask if you choose not to give a name and are hassled, for the law that obligates me to have a name, or, that obligates me to tell you, the agent, what it is if I have one.

Once again, there are no such laws that obligate you.

I love you

Supreme Court ruling


I received an email from one who received an email from another containing information about one of us being raided by CRA. The raid had nothing to do with paying it forward and I will not say any more than that.

On another note I read in the Ottawa Sun yesterday, the writer works for the Toronto Sun, of a Supreme Court ruling.

Page 27 of the Comment section, author is, Alan Shanoff. Article is titled; "Cops do not need warrant to look at your hydro bills".

The matter was concerning a charge of growing pot. The police suspected a grow op but had not enough grounds to request a warrant so they contacted the hydro company to get the account records. Upon receipt of that the police got a warrant. The question before the Supreme Court was in essence, did the police have the right to Read the rest of this entry

True Story


True story;

A man appears in Court. He does not consent to be the name appearing on the court papers which is derived of a birth registration.

The judge says, one way or another we are going to get jurisdiction.

Obviously when the judge said that he was saying we do not have jurisdiction.

The charges are dropped because they did not get jurisdiction. The reason according to the Crown, 'the man will not consent to be the name'.

Now in that case I am told they got the registration of birth document and birth certificate in evidence along with a copy of section 46 of the Vital Statistics Act (authorizing those documents as proof in Court) and a couple definitions of the word 'person'.

Now, it is my view upon hearing that, it hit me; we need to get the governing legislation in Read the rest of this entry

Not personal identification.


Pursuant to the last email 'Governing legislation/authority' we have arrived at establishing in law that a BC is not 'personal identification'.

Is not evidence of the identify on the one presenting it.

I would guess to say that the success in the 2 landlord tenant cases hinged on the fact that there is no authority in law to say you are so and so, thus, cannot as per those 2 cases be the tenant.

Not that it matters now but information about those cases has been shared and may be found somewhere at the web site.

I love you!

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline