Thanks to G-Force, with a poetic take on the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666
In 1665 Britain was infected with the deadly plague –
In 1666 a great fire then did rage –
But while London was burning down, yes let me repeat that; WHILE LONDON WAS BURNING DOWN –
the parliment of the day decided to hold a special sessions, where they all sat down –
for the right time had come for them to now set in motion –
there would never be a better chance, time, opportunity, amongst all that commotion –
and what they did truly amazed me, you won’t believe what they did you see…
They pasted through the “Cestui Que Vie Act” of 1666 –
which today STILL EXISTS –
so please, have no doubt, for what this Act is all about –
is because of the great plague and fire, now hear me: THET DIDN’T KNOW WHO WAS ALIVE OR DEAD – Truly.
So they passed it through first in Latin –
so the commoners couldn’t read it –
so they knew not what was happening; then they decided to print it in French… as if that’s going to make any sense?!
For the only ones who could read it were the well off you see –
who had the right bloodline or ancestry –
so, believe you me, until you tell them you are actually ALIVE, we are all DEAD!!!
Go let your brain cells now figure that out; inside your unique head.
Oddly enough this law makes some sense to me. If someone disappears then you have to do something about it for the sake of people left behind. Otherwise estates couldn’t be sorted because probate could never be obtained, people with missing spouses coudn’t access family bank accounts or move house or remarry or claim death insurance, joint owned businesses would be in limbo forever.
As it happens I know someone who was left in this position, spouse went out one day and was never seen again or traced, and 7 years is a very long time indeed to be in legal and financial limbo.
This British Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 is a prime example of legal obfuscation that when used in a court of law is always a judge’s interpretation of it. In other words it is difficult to apply this law because of it’s deceptive wording. Therefore a judge can interpret this law and make an unintentional or intentional biased ruling. Result of which one or more of the litigants of the case receives an injustice.
In 1666 England the majority of the masses were illiterate, so it is a moot point that the original Cestui Que Vie Act was written in Latin and French.
“cestui que” is french meaning “he or she who” in the context of “the person for whom a benefit exists”.
A “cestui que vie” is the person whose life is used to measure various things, such as the duration of a trust, a gift, or an insurance contract. The duration of rights to land or property. It can also be used to mean the person upon whose life a policy of life insurance is drawn.
I’m not sure but I think this archaic 1666 Act had a final amendment in 2010 in an effort to make it better understood for modern times; and it still remains on the statute books.
This article appears incomplete.
‘Cestui Que Vie’
How does it affect us? Why should we care? What can we do about it?
More information including references might prove helpful.
Thank you
Honest Abe
Hey Abe. Appreciate the comment. What I would suggest is starting with the ‘lawful rebellion guide’ (https://lawfulrebellion.org/2009/11/02/the-lawful-rebellion-guide-part-1/) podcasts as they are a good grounding for you as a complete newbie.
An interesting ‘ode indeed, albeit in a land of lands, brimming and confused full of people without much understanding of themselves/itself. It’s like the tower of Babel. A disperate people abounds these shores, but ….. Who am I? What am I? Why am I? On land or sea, in sky in air – what of the very Earth itself?
I am already a ‘Freeman’, in that I know who I am, what I am, why I am. It was not man that made me, nor man that tamed me, for that which created you created me. Out of dust I came and to dust I shall return, (one day perhaps….not in a hurry yet though!) (Try teaching that in school!)
Freedom accepts my choice to rebel, and so we labour on and on, man against man till man is no more? Theses ramblings of one, so violently dispossessed of home and belongings perhaps, but since I know where home really is, I am a ‘Freeman’ everywhere, already. Love God! Love your neighbour.
Crest Nicholson IS WRONG!
Peace and love to all –
I was browsing some statute the other night……zzzzzzz……….what hey who!
I came across a thing called a Certificate of Existence.
Its used, for example, if you are 110yrs old and the pension company doubts that fact is genuine, you arrange a Certificate of Existence. I have mornings when I could do with one just to be sure. 🙂
Well if the Cestui Que Vie says you are dead, the Certificate of Existence says your not!
Peace. Out.
You should not fall for the fiction that parliament has “unlimited powers”,and what ever it says is the word of God. Most of the people who get into parliament are devious fools, they always have been, Cromwell termed it best “truely elected scum”. Fortunately we have something called “common law”, when your born from your mother, you exist, you do not have to go running off to tell some pratt that you have entered the world, let the pratt come looking for you.
The fire of London has long thought to have been sabotage, probably some earlier form of what we now call the “illumninati”, or his heinous in Rome, you know the one Tony Blair went running off to, the last refuge of that scoundrel? Parliament only has power to enact what is right and just for the country, common law judges would dismiss anything in an act of parliament wich was garbage or against the common law. Parliament could be charged with a “public nuisance” offence. If parliament enacted that we all have to stick a broom up our bums to keep the streets clean, the enactment would be nonsense, a public nuisance, just as telling every one they are dead untill they claim other wise, is nonsense, a public nuisance. Thats not to say some bone headed judge might attempt to enforce the enactments of nonsense, so thats why we have trial by jury. To free ourselves from dipsticks in parliament and numbskulls on the bench, “our sovereign the people”, knows best.
As Brian Gerrish would say its all about “common sense”, and thats literally all a parliament can enact “common sense”. If parliament has contempt of common sense, we the people have contempt of parliament, it is our constitutional right and they know it. Does any one want to buy a broom?
Cest Tui Que Vie was begun in the 12th century…by the then Pope…who made the First ever “Claim of Rights”…it still exists in the Vatican today. Anyhow…it was then added too… in 3 separate parts. As a Papal Bull(shits) it now “owned” all goods….all lands…& last but not least your very soul itself.
Cest in Latin means 6….& as there are 3 parts to this it is the original meaning of the number of the Beast…666.
It is where & how we are “owned” thru the use of our Birth Certificates…as they all come under UCC Law…Uniform Commercial Code….& we are traded on the “Stock” Market everyday.
As this has yet to be challenged…as far as the Vatican is concerned it still stands…& seein as all courts are based on Admiralty (stock/collaterall) it is all canonical by it’s very nature….they havin made the 1st ever “Claim of Rights” you see…which has made them Trustees of everything ever since….
This Act is to do with Trusts and land it would only concern people who occupied land under cestui que vie. Also the case would be heard before a jury who would decide upon the facts to who would be entitled to occupy a plot of land after some person had gone over seas and not returned by seven years. No one occupies land under this type of feudal lease any more we have title absolute or term lease. But if someone vanishes and is not heard of for seven years, they are presumed dead. This is what this statute is more or less saying. 1666 is the year it was passed, it has nothing to do with the devil anymore than a bus with oxo on it’s side, actually sells oxo cubes.
Yes.. until you realise that the original registration of birth (giving away the vessel) and subsequent creation of the corporate entity ‘person’ that is already dead (a corpse). It is this person that you choose to represent you – the dead person who has been salvaged by the state and is then presumed to be under their jurisdiction. You still want to walk into court represented as the property of the state?
We have had artificial persons since the 15th century when lawyers came up with the idea of creating immaginary people or corporations. The Queen is both a real person and an immaginary person or corporation which we call the Crown. the point of this was so a real King or Queen could not claim the land and crown jewels were their own to sell off, the land and the Crown jewels belong to the immaginary person called Queen or King, this is why a “King can do no wrong”. The state is the Crown, and it is the nation, the Kingdom which again is envisaged as an undying corporation, “there will always be an England”, which ultimately owns the Crown corporation, the people of England are the national corporation or the Kingdom, and the Kingdom owns the Crown, the Crown does not own the Kingdom, so if anything we, the national community own the State the State does not own us. And again we the national community can not sell or give away the Kingdom, we simply inhabit it and preserve it for future generations.
The question would have risen at some point as to how an immaginary person could take to court real people when we have a case in which the “King” v Joe Blogs a human being. This is the probable reason as to why lawyers thought up a system by which Joe Blogs would also be an immaginary person represented unknowingly by Joe Blogs the real person, so as the court case is between two immaginary people represented by two real people. Otherwise any court case would be nonsense, something shifty has most likely taken place, but birth certificates are rearly a more recent thing, did they exist in 1666? There will be church records and wills, but perhaps not a statutary requirement to register a birth, if so name the statute.
C’estui que vie is Norman French for “that those who live”, I mixed it up with “C’estui que trust”, that those who trust. But the term C’estui que would have been familiar to most of the people, our ancestors were not all dumb idiots like some people are today. You would need to know if the Act of 1666 was a public Act or a private Act, was it for all England or just the London corporation. Interpreting your link to the statute it would read ” that those who live remaining beyond sea for seven years together and no proof of their lives, Judge in Action to direct a verdict as though that those who live were dead”. It simply means if no one has seen or heard of a person for seven years a Judge in any court action regarding the missing person is advised to direct a jury to regard the missing person as dead.
Are things realy as sinister as you are making out with this Act? If you want sinister try researching the secret Treaty of Dover made by Charles .II soon after 1666. Where he is alleged to have for himself and his heirs upon being given loans by the King of France made a compact to again make England a Catholic country under control of the Pope. After plague and fire Charles.II was financially hard up with parliament not giving him supply of money. The same terrorist group which tried to blow up James .I and parliament on 5th November 1605, the “Society of Jesus” or “Jesuits” were also suspected to have started the fire of London. Look up and display the oath of this terrorist group who work for the Pope, if you want to see a real nasty bunch.
Whoah, don’t talk about il papa that way!!! Yes of course the Jesuits hold a lofty position of control , and indeed the whole lot of what you have discussed and what this piece infers is sinister. Regarding the notion of ownership, whilst you may correctly argue that the people own the state, the reality is backwards regardless of being technically correct on paper. It is irrelevant, you are as much in control and therefore the owner, collectively or as 1 man, as a stowaway on the Titanic – so lets not kid ourselves on that point. The intention was to show you that in order to transmute the infinite rights and abilities of every man (save those that infringe on the rights of others), they had to legally define you as incapable of being a man – because you are legally dead. That is the point. You are a zombie to them. Thanks for the interesting comment.
The point simply comes down to the argument as to whether parliament is supreme or the common law is supreme. Many argue that parliament is supreme above law, this is a perversion of the truth, hence “lawful rebellion”. Otherwise parliament could pass an Act stating no one can enact a lawful rebellion and the dupes of unlimited parliament would have to pack up and go home. But there is much evidence contrary to other propaganda that Sir Edward Coke is utterly right in that “It appears in our books that in many cases the Common Law will control Acts of parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void, for when an Act of Parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void”. Clearly it is impossible for living people to be dead in the eyes of anyone but the ridiculess, such a statute declaring living people to be dead is against common right, reason and is imposible to be performed in any other way than killing ones self or being killed.
We may have little control over our country as individuals, but together we are a sleeping giant, hence again the concept of lawful rebellion. It is all about a state of mind, if you believe the government is a monster who can control you, then thats what it will be. If you believe parliament has unlimited power, then thats what it will have, but I believe the people, the national community has the highest authority in the land. And so did Gladstone when he appealed above parliament directly to the people. The Common Law and the constitution belongs to the people not to parliament, parliament is merely trusted to act in an appropriate manner for the national communities benefit. When it does not, it acts above the powers granted to it by the electorate, these unconstitutional actions are null and void, and the nullification is ab initio, that is from inception not from the date of the finding. If you think parliament can legally define you as being incapable of being a man, that again is a state of mind, just as a corporation is a state of mind. By Cokes thinking and mine there can be no such thing as a corporation created by parliament, we accept such tacitly because in some cases it is beneficial to the alternative which is an association. An immaginary person or corporation is against reason and it is immpossible for immaginary people to perform. Parliament is a corporation, but it does not make any law, the people who are elected to it make the law under trust of the electorate. “the people are under God, the original of all just power”. There can not be a parliament without the people to elect it and to follow it and to be in it. But there is still a law which transends the authority of parliament, the Common Law, “vigilantibus non dormientibus”, the laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep.
I think to get the proper concept of what you are saying in relation to this 1666 statute and a proper concept of the statute, it is necessary to look at the proper full title of the statute and not just the short title. The “Cestui Que Vie Act 1666” should be properly titled
“An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of proofe of the Decease of persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend”
The Mickey Mouse site run by the government which the above link takes people, is of little value when attempting to determine any truth. So for those who want to know the original wording of the statute, here it is following on from a 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 used to grant Estates by Copy of Court Roll for one two or more life or lives according to the Custome of their severall Mannours and have alsoe 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 Bee it enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majestie by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and the Commons in this present Parlyament assembled and by the Authoritie of the same That if such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of scaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead.
II. Challenge to Jurors for Leases for Lives.
And bee it further enacted That in any such Action wherein the life or death of any such person or persons shall come in question betweene the Lessor or Reversioner and the Tennant in possession it shall and may be lawfull to the Lessor or Reversioner to take exception to any of the Jurors returned for the tryall of that cause that the greatest part of the reall Estate of any such Jurors is held by Lease or Copy for lives who upon proofe thereof shall be sett aside as in case of other legall challenges.
III. Proviso for the Duke of York as to Lands of attainted Persons granted to him.
Provided alwayes and bee it enacted by the Authoritie aforesaid That noe thing in this Act contained shall extend to any Lands held by the life or lives of any person or persons attainted of Treason for the horrid murder of his late Majestie of blessed memory who now conceale or hide themselves which Lands are or have beene vested in His Majestic and are now granted to his Royall Highnesse the Duke of Yorke but that the course of Evidence heretofore used in such cases shall be had and used Any thing to the contrary in this Act notwithstanding.
IV. If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested.
Action for mean Profits with Interest.
Provided alwayes and bee it enacted 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 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 were then liveing.”
Yes but if you exploit this, the person then shows up alive, and you did not mind due diligence, you can then be subject to a collossal lawsuit well beyond what you owe them. It’s the same reasoning as slander and free speech – we don’t prevent the person from slandering you, but you still have the right to redress of the slander in a court of law afterwards. Such after the fact, non-interfering processes are both quite common, and actually quite effective for respecting the rights of all involved, and if anything a lot of the problems we now have governmentally come from insisting on pre-permitting and thus giving people all sorts of ways and reasons to interfere, leading to regulatory tyranny.
So ,the long and short is its open to interpretation ,which leaves the doors open to the elements of nature to expose confuse diffuse or deceive.
Now you know that the Act is in effect here in America, I HAVE no idea of what your talking about here, you have no right here, you are under Meritime law, under military control under, district control as ward of the states, you are dead, LOL and Whoever is reading this to you, well, let’s see, how do people benefit as beneficiary? By not paying down the debt, giving you paper on ink, collecting on you via Title 31, and then taking your cash at the same time, and stealing your soul. Whoever, is on here making these claims about what they think it means, needs to go back and read its up-to-date meaning on oneheaven ORG. The home of the All SEEing Eye, and they have covered the earth, in fictitious, and lies. Lawyers are the alien property custodian and you work all your life for them to come 30/40 years later by their invented stock market crashes to steal all your belongings. Tell me about what you think the ACT means, and I will tell you that we can tell you how some in here are so wrong. Not in our court system, not in our nation,and those laws that we speak of in English are commercial in nature, not of any freedom or liberty. LOL This is a place of high white collar crimes, run by banker, lawyers, and agents, those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, well your independence is on England and the Constitution is their Contract of Business. He who lives fictitiously has a lot to hide, is immune, can dissolve itself, and re-emerge itself all in one nice little package deal and since the ACT, they have been doing this for well over 500 years and are doing it RIGHT NOW, as we speak calling for a one world government, it’s the old world government trying to convince you they are a new world government, this time they will need no cash or will need temporary greenbacks until they get the cashless society into full effect.
How do you claim you are alive
i went on to legislation.gov and found out they have taken away the most vital parts of the act the part that was missing is3.3. rights and suspension and if you de fraud the court and make yourself beneficiary of the c.q.v trust then the administrator (judge) and executor(prosecution) if you establish your status then they are guilty of fraud and fund mental breach
Does anyone know where I can obtain an original copy of the cestui que vie Act 1666?
boes anyone know where i can obtain an origin copy of the cestuil que vie 1666
boes anyone know where i can obtain an original copy of the cestui quenact 1666
I Alfred Ray Sherman am heir to Certificate 547/548/000
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC.(TRUST) , FEDERAL REDERVE BANK belongs to my family bloodline . Also John Doe, Jane Roe FICTITIOUS TRUST, held by foreign Entities(Fidelity Title Insurance)Corp.
Congress/Geneva are Trustees as is Vatican Church.
Longitude 41°54’8.1″ N Marked by Obelisk location.