Under the law, we have been dead since 1666 Watch

fodder
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
In London in 1666, during the Great Fire of London, Parliament enacted the Cestui Que Vie Act (1666) behind closed doors. (See image)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

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 Common Law & Admiralty Law were the concepts of Law in use. Common Law was to determine the behaviour of ordinary persons towards each other through sets of precedents laid down over centuries.
Admiralty Law was to determine the behaviour at sea and the business and contracts that were part of shipping business.

The Act meant all men and women of UK were declared dead and lost beyond the seas. That is the reason you always need representation when you are involved in legal matters: because you are legally dead.

At this point, the State took custody of everybody and their property and declared it put into a trust which the state owned. The State declared itself the trustee holding all the titles to all the people and all the property, “until a living man comes back to reclaim those titles”. One meaning of this Act was to deal with the problem of property owned by people who head recently died, but there was another much more significant meaning.

What followed was that The Law of the Sea and of contracts came into the public space. The real man because a legal fiction owned by the government, the set of records that today are in the governments computer systems like National Insurance number, NHS number, DVLA registered details, HMRC Unique Taxpayer reference. Legally we are considered to be a fiction, words on pieces of paper or data in computer systems.

In Admiralty Law if a ship comes into berth, it is given a certificate, a Legal Fiction informed people that a new vessel was in docked. In the same way people were issued with Birth Certificates. When people are sent a bill or summons from a court, it is always in capital letters, similar to the tomb stones in grave yards because capital letters signify death. People are send summons, but only the dead can be summoned. A person became effectively a Company. (“Does he or she keep good ‘Company’”)

In Admiralty Law if there is a dispute, both parties go to a Court, in whatever land and proceed if they agree to jurisdiction of the Court. Today it is presumed that the Courts have the power to apply Admiralty Law to you, not just the common law and this can be seen today with the State making you pay more taxes for having the wrong type of car (that they spuriously claim changes the climate), the wrong type of lightbulb, or you want to employ your own son, or charge you for the position of your “wheely bin” after charging you twice for collecting your rubbish. State mandarins act with a dictatorial and snide attitude because they are trained to deal with zombies, living dead people. We have let them rob us of our power.

The important part is this: The State is supposed to be exercising rule by consent. But in fact that State has made itself Executor of the Trust and Beneficiary, and you are the Trustee. The Trustee must do as commanded by the Executor.

If the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes you, there are 3 parties in Court. You, the CPS and the Judge. The Judge is the Executor, the CPS is the Beneficiary and you are the Trustee. The same power dynamics work in attitude if you are called into question by any public servant.

Our only way reclaim yourself after your death i.e. the Strawman that the State created, is to declare yourself a natural living being, a natural spirit in your body, a person created by God etc. that is separate from the “Legal Fiction”. You thus declare yourself the Executor that you are by your God given an inalienable rights. At the moment you declare this to yourself, the meaning of you, held by the State for 349 collapses, and you declare to the Judge or public servant that he is not the Executer, he is a public servant paid by you and you are the Executer and the matter shall be dealt with under your jurisdiction not his.

In any engagement where the a public official wishes bring on you a liability or penalty, and where you have not trespassed in Common Law, the Legal Fiction is always guilty in terms of presumption.

We are all operating in Admiralty mode. A submission to authority, an acknowledgement of authority, a question of the matter not eh jurisdiction, or a not guilty plea, or ANY plea admits jurisdiction. To remain in honour you have to accept a claim and settle (discharge) it. “I accept on proof of claim and proof of loss”. This gives the liability back to them. “I am not the legal fiction. I am the person himself, I am here, I am back, and I am claiming back my rights under Common Law.”

Part of the reason why people have developed such a crazy world where we have nearly blown ourselves to bits, is because we started to believe we were dead. We started to do and believe exactly what another Legal Fiction, a political/ media machine told us. Many people believe in the legal fiction over themselves as the real person. Last week the newspapers reported that a woman had killed herself over what the media had said about her. She killed her real-self, over some controversy about her Legal Fiction. People refuse to believe what actually even what they see with their own eyes, and only what the Legal Fiction says. (Here is an example, one of the rare examples of a truth which the Legal Fiction wishes to hide appearing in the Legal Fiction - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/co...y-1580256.html ). Many people are closer to the Legal Fiction than to their own sons, daughters and parents and they trust the Fiction over what is right and what is wrong.

Groups of men are exploiting the fact that most are still dead. All you need to do to become alive again, legally, is to declare to yourself that you are alive and keep this in mind for any official interaction, dialogue or proceedings.
Attached files
2
reply
alapa
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
:clap2:
0
reply
DarkMagic
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Yay for being Irish.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
By simply reading the Act, you can tell that it straightforwardly allows people to terminate leases where a tenant is untraceable and has disappeared for a period of time.
1
reply
Blackacre
Badges: 12
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Several things:

1) You don't need a legal representative when you appear before the court.

2) Your trust analogy doesn't work.

3) Your final paragraph makes you sound like Russell Brand.
1
reply
Profesh
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Firstly: does being brain-dead also qualify; and secondly: if so, can I have your TSR account?
3
reply
Sgt.Incontro
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Not another one of these loony Sovereign threads, LOL.
0
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
looking at the Labour front bench, I would agree
0
reply
fodder
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by L i b)
By simply reading the Act, you can tell that it straightforwardly allows people to terminate leases where a tenant is untraceable and has disappeared for a period of time.
It has continued to remain in place allowing the state to use operational procedures on citizens on the presumption that they are dead.

Why was it not revoked shortly afterwards?

What other powers does it grant over and above what is evident?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
fodder
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Sgt.Incontro)
Not another one of these loony Sovereign threads, LOL.
Does it interfere with your belief system lol


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Sgt.Incontro
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by fodder)
Does it interfere with your belief system lol


Posted from TSR Mobile
It mostly provides comical value.

A nice change from most of the troll threads that have been overused.
0
reply
fodder
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Sgt.Incontro)
It mostly provides comical value.

A nice change from most of the troll threads that have been overused.
Because you lack the fundamental understanding that there are different methods of governance possible within the state and even under its constitution
and lack competence in these matters, yet are convinced by the perception of other people.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by fodder)
It has continued to remain in place allowing the state to use operational procedures on citizens on the presumption that they are dead.

Why was it not revoked shortly afterwards?
It doesn't let the state do anything, unless the state is a leaseholder in some situation. I do not imagine the authority under this Act has been used in anything more than a handful of situations. It is not common for people to be missing and presumed dead.

Why was it not revoked? Because it's a perfectly reasonable legal measure.

What other powers does it grant over and above what is evident?
Er, nothing. The law is what is written and evident.
1
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
As L I B points out, the Act says nothing that fodder claims it does.

Even if we were now under Admiralty law, which we're not, nowhere in the body of Admiralty law is there anything about anybody having to give consent before you're subject to it. If what's in question falls under Admiralty law, then you're on trial under it, no input from you is required.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by gladders)
As L I B points out, the Act says nothing that fodder claims it does.

Even if we were now under Admiralty law, which we're not, nowhere in the body of Admiralty law is there anything about anybody having to give consent before you're subject to it. If what's in question falls under Admiralty law, then you're on trial under it, no input from you is required.
I'd love to see what happens when people try these arguments in court


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
fodder
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by gladders)
As L I B points out, the Act says nothing that fodder claims it does.

Even if we were now under Admiralty law, which we're not, nowhere in the body of Admiralty law is there anything about anybody having to give consent before you're subject to it. If what's in question falls under Admiralty law, then you're on trial under it, no input from you is required.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...urts-guide.pdf

See "Disputing the Court's Jurisdiction"


In going to have to give you an example that you will understand.

(This a hypothetical fiction example

In 2015 eBay used an arbitration service called Square Trade to arbitrate eBay disputes.

Later Square Trade made a deal with "book of the month" clubs "CD of the month clubs" and wine clubs to arbitrate when there was a disputes between a customer and the company which usually meant when customer had no paid a bill or withheld payment and not returned goods.

Later a cheeky company started randomly leaving products on people's doorsteps and then using Square Trade to effectively just collect the money. They argue that the customer checked a box allowing this once when they submitted a web form.

Some customers get dissatisfied with this and one day they say they have had enough. They contact a lawyer and the lawyer says that there no legal contract in place between them and Square Trade because they never contracted with this and there is no presumed contract in law.

It's the same with Admiralty Law, there is no legal presumption that it applies to the general public.

Someone can try a bluff to make you believe that it applies but it does not. If you step up and say that you will enter this court and proceed under Admiralty Law as a shipping business or party to a shipping business then you can be made to proceed under Admiralty Law.






Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by fodder)
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...urts-guide.pdf

See "Disputing the Court's Jurisdiction"
I have done. Did you even read it?

You have to make an application and then that application has to be accepted by the judiciary. You can't simply make a declaration and walk away. The courts have to agree that jurisdiction does not apply.

In going to have to give you an example that you will understand.
Pulled out of your arse again I suspect.

(This a hypothetical fiction example
Ah, nice save.

In 2015 eBay used an arbitration service called Square Trade to arbitrate eBay disputes.

Later Square Trade made a deal with "book of the month" clubs "CD of the month clubs" and wine clubs to arbitrate when there was a disputes between a customer and the company which usually meant when customer had no paid a bill or withheld payment and not returned goods.

Later a cheeky company started randomly leaving products on people's doorsteps and then using Square Trade to effectively just collect the money. They argue that the customer checked a box allowing this once when they submitted a web form.

Some customers get dissatisfied with this and one day they say they have had enough. They contact a lawyer and the lawyer says that there no legal contract in place between them and Square Trade because they never contracted with this and there is no presumed contract in law.

It's the same with Admiralty Law, there is no legal presumption that it applies to the general public.

Someone can try a bluff to make you believe that it applies but it does not. If you step up and say that you will enter this court and proceed under Admiralty Law as a shipping business or party to a shipping business then you can be made to proceed under Admiralty Law.
But what you don't understand is that you simply cannot declare that the contract doesn't apply and expect that to be the end of it. If Square Trade believe there is a contract, and you're in breach of it, off to court you go, and you cannot shrug that off. You may end up winning the case and proving no contract exists, but no contract is necessary for a court to give judgment upon you or Square Trade.
1
reply
fodder
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by gladders)
I have done. Did you even read it?

You have to make an application and then that application has to be accepted by the judiciary. You can't simply make a declaration and walk away. The courts have to agree that jurisdiction does not apply.



Pulled out of your arse again I suspect.



Ah, nice save.



But what you don't understand is that you simply cannot declare that the contract doesn't apply and expect that to be the end of it. If Square Trade believe there is a contract, and you're in breach of it, off to court you go, and you cannot shrug that off. You may end up winning the case and proving no contract exists, but no contract is necessary for a court to give judgment upon you or Square Trade.
You can declare that Square Trade has no right to enforce any contract or alleged contract.

To Squaretrade: A third party? Who are you? You are not executed or trustee to this contract in my eyes just a beneficiary, a commercial beneficiary for your own profit and I am not dealing with you. Who are you? Go away Square Trade.

Unless there was some lawful way to pass ownership in some capacity of the matter to Square Trade by the litigant, they are an irrelevant party.

There are cases where ownership can be passed e.g. Hiring a solicitor or setting up a trust, and there are cases where is it done but it cannot be done legally.

So the question is whether the standing in the matter can lawfully (not legally) be passed to the third party claiming a standing in the matter.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
fodder
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#19
Most people on here so desperately want the fiction to be true because they have been told that's they will be homeless on the street without it and politicians and public relations consultant with it.

So you need to believe in the fictions, irrelevant controversies that are shown for example as debates on here most of which don't even have a single bearing on a natural person or they just transfer money or rights between natural people for the sake of a group of people who enjoy partaking in controversy and profit from it.

You need this state bureaucracy fiction as you don't believe you can do or make anything real.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by fodder)
You can declare that Square Trade has no right to enforce any contract or alleged contract.

To Squaretrade: A third party? Who are you? You are not executed or trustee to this contract in my eyes just a beneficiary, a commercial beneficiary for your own profit and I am not dealing with you. Who are you? Go away Square Trade.

Unless there was some lawful way to pass ownership in some capacity of the matter to Square Trade by the litigant, they are an irrelevant party.

There are cases where ownership can be passed e.g. Hiring a solicitor or setting up a trust, and there are cases where is it done but it cannot be done legally.

So the question is whether the standing in the matter can lawfully (not legally) be passed to the third party claiming a standing in the matter.
I would presume in this case then that the courts would find it no trouble to rule against Square Trading. Nonetheless, it would still go to court, and will still be resolved in court.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

what's your favourite season?

Summer (62)
32.29%
Spring (36)
18.75%
Autumn/Fall (48)
25%
Winter (36)
18.75%
I love them all equally (10)
5.21%

Watched Threads

View All