Are You dead?

Discuss the difference between Common Law and the Statutory Acts made by the Powers that be, (PTB)

Are You dead?

Postby Free... well almost » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:23 pm

Oh Yes! You are most definitely - Dead!

What, don't believe me? I can prove it... try this on for size....

If you are alive then......... stick your finger in your ear-NOW!

I knew it! Your all dead, the lot of you. I didn't see one person, anywhere in the world, stick their finger in their ear, Is that proof or is that proof!

:sweat:

Sorry, even dead people gotta have some fun once in a while! :grin:

Anyway... in 1666, Government passed an Act called The Cestui que vie Act which declared everyone legally missing or dead. And if after 7 years from their registered birth date they still haven't told the government they are not missing or dead, the government will just consider them dead and no longer missing.

Oh and by the way, although it was written over 343 years ago, the Cestui que vie Act is still in full force today! Don't believe me? Take a look at the OPSI statute database below. If it doesn't say repealed on the Act then it stands with as much legal weight as any recent Act.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1666/caep_16660011_en_1

What's this got to do with me?

OK, did you ever consider walking into a government office and declaring yourself un-dead? ...I didn't think so. What the government did with this Act was very cleaver, They said that if you don't come and tell us your not dead then you must be dead so we're going to have to legally look after all your property until it is either claimed or sold. In other words, it's the legislation that allowed government to create legal title over the publics' property by a swish of their feathered pens. Imagine that! You can give yourself the wealth of a hole nation by writting!!

1666 was the Great Fire Of london wasn't it?

Yeah that's right, literally, as London was burning to the ground, parliament decided it was a good time to pass some legislation that stated everyone in the country was considered either missing or dead. NICE!! Just coincidence? Possibly... however, it's also possible that all those poor suckers who did actually die in the fire would be unable to claim they weren't dead and thus the government gets many, many great pieces of charred land by defaulted legal title.

So they did the following things with this Act.

1. They brought in a very controversial piece of legislation at a time when it would go unnoticed.

2. They gave themselves legal title to everything in the UK, including people. Yeah that's right, they have your birth certificate with your name on it.
That's legal title!

3. They Didn't tell people that they had to reclaim their property.

4. Your proof of birth (birth certificate) became you. Legally speaking


I know I know, this all sounds a bit silly, and you'd be right in most respects. The fact is however, in sentiment at least, the legislation is possibly well intentioned. The government are saying that they will look after your property until a rightful claimant comes forward, weather it is you back from the dead or someone with inheritance rights. It isn't wrong that the government look after your property if you aren't actually breathing any more is it? Not really, someone has to do it.

The trouble is, some government officials aren't well intentioned and its turned out that this legislation has been taken advantage of. The government never told us we had to declare ourselves un-dead in order to reclaim our property/legal title back (typical). So from the moment our births were registered, all of the property we own (Inc. our bodies and anything in your registered birth name) is not legally owned by us but by the government who now has legal title. I'm NOT joking!

I'm pretty sure I know what your all thinking because I went through the same questions you probably are. for instance, How can the government possibly suggest that they own my body? that's LUDICROUS!! Well I agree, IT IS! but that doesn't change the fact that they do! It's in black and white right in front of your eyes. (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1666/caep_16660011_en_1) Think about it, what gives the government the right to tell you by way of legislation what you can and can't put inside your body? Does a badger get told what it can and can't eat? NO, because it's not owned by anyone! Go badger!!

The only thing we have a legal right to is possessory title. Thats to say, the government allows you to use/possess/look after things like your body, as long as you do it the way they say you can. Don't believe me, OK, some homework for you. Try to find out who has legal title to your house. I dare you! I think your deed/title is probably registered at your local Land Registry Office. Catch my drift?
Free... well almost
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

Re: Are You dead?

Postby treeman » Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:46 pm

I have become interested in this subject recently, having become aware of the 7 year old claim, I have looked at the act, not studied it in depth, but find it very sinister. i hope more learned members can deconstruct it accordingly so walking monkeys like myself can understand it. No disrespect but cosmopolitan treeman refuses to comply with death.
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: Are You dead?

Postby Oshun » Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:00 pm

May I respectfully draw your attention to this thread http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=3514 ?

Peace

oshun :sun:
Oshun
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: Are You dead?

Postby Free... well almost » Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Oshun wrote:May I respectfully draw your attention to this thread http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=3514 ?

Peace

oshun :sun:


Sure, seems you know of some people one step ahead! I'm glad to see educated people such as yourself and FMOTL Michael forging a path for us all. :sun:

treeman wrote:I have become interested in this subject recently, having become aware of the 7 year old claim, I have looked at the act, not studied it in depth, but find it very sinister. i hope more learned members can deconstruct it accordingly so walking monkeys like myself can understand it. No disrespect but cosmopolitan treeman refuses to comply with death.


So do I :grin: It seems oshun is on the case.

Good to see your sticking your finger in your ear treeman! :8-):
Free... well almost
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

Re: Are You dead?

Postby ellie12022 » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:01 am

the registration of births began in 1837, well after the cestui qui vive act.
ellie12022
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:52 am

Re: Are You dead?

Postby Free... well almost » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:30 pm

Hi ellie,

It was common for lords and the like to be their own government like body on their own property before and after the cestui que vie Act. They would have people (peasants) working the land which would be registered tenants. Lords would try to get as many peasants under their tenancy as they could for the obvious benefits of creating lots of wealth from their land whilst paying for nothing but a minimal amount of food.

With the CQV Act government did as the lords did and made everyone a tenant of england. However they did it in a more reserved manor.

ellie12022 wrote:the registration of births began in 1837, well after the cestui qui vive act.


This is true however, my numerous references to people being dead is as a result of birth registrations starting and not the reason the CQV Act was drafted. As I suggested, the legislation was inferred property rights, defaulted legal title. Only if no one made claim to it within the alloted time of 7years would the government have complete ownership. However, at that time (1666) this legislation probably only applied to estates and not persons. After birth registrations started, the CQV Act could also be applied to your fiction/person/strawman. Registering your birth means they own your strawman. This makes them the lessors/landlord/owner of your person/property and we, the lessee/tenant/user. We are allowed to use our person to do business but only in the way the government says.

It was likely that the CQV Act was not used as a tool to strip everyone of their rights but was taken advantage of much later on, even after births were starting to be registered. Perhaps when it was clear to those in power that no one had any clue about this stuff anymore. I think the majority of depict started in 1914 when the gold standard was removed.

It's clear to see that today, almost everything is considered government property or private government property and that big businesses are the new Lords.

Peace :sun:
Free... well almost
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am


Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron