PDA

View Full Version : Presumed Dead



allodial
09-13-11, 04:53 PM
Presumption of Death From Absence....


The law becomes confused when an individual disappears for a long time and no other person knows where the absentee is, dead or alive.

Until death has been confirmed, the law continues to deal with the absentee's property in absentia, governed only by any delegation of powers the absentee may have signed before disappearing, such as a power of attorney.

It is a disagreeable state of affairs that the law cannot tolerate for long as without a directing mind, property, assets and things are rudderless and as such, start bumping into other ships nearby, such as the legal rights of a husband or wife, marital status, or the rights of property held jointly with the absentee, or the absentee's estate or an estate in which he might have an interest were his status ascertained in law

And yet, before a more modern evolution of the common law, especially as with the advent of problem-solving by way of statute as opposed to the reliance on the common sense of judges (also known as common law), the common law entertained a legal presumption of life.

In the 1800s, a line of cases in England suggested that a seven year absence might give rise to a presumption of death. These cases initially appear to have been intended to be specific to the facts at hand but as all sparks of legal precepts in the common law, the suggestion of a presumption of death after 7-year absence, was both attractive and novel.

But whether it ever firmly rooted within the common law has been a controversy ever since.

Halsbury's Laws of England proposes that "where no statute applies, the mere fact of absence for more than seven years does not raise a presumption that death has occurred".

In Sheehy v Winch Estate:

"The authorities touching presumptions referable to the continuance of life and presumption of death, are somewhat difficult to reconcile, but I am of opinion that the following principles of law are well established.
There is no presumption of death before the expiration of seven years from the time the missing person was last heard of or seen.
That subject to certain exceptions as to the likelihood of a missing person keeping his identity unrevealed, there is a presumption of death after a lapse of seven years.
That there is no presumption within such seven year period respecting the time the death took place.
That if any one claims, or bases a right upon death having taken place within a specific time within the seven years, the onus of proof lies on such person.
"In a word, ... the onus is on the party who attempts to change the status quo; the one on whom the onus rests must prove that the previously existing condition has changed, subject always to the presumption that arises after an absence, under certain conditions, for a period of not less than seven years."

But, conversely, Canadian author Richard Young, in Estate Practice refers to the "seven year rule".

Referring to Lal Chand Marwari v. Mahant Ramrup Gir, in Middlemiss v Middlemiss, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that:


"If a person has not been heard of for not less than seven years there is a presumption of law that he is dead."

Or, borrowing from Re Phene's Trust 1871 Chancery 356, the Ontario Court in Darling v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada:


If a person has not been heard of for seven years, there is a presumption of law that he is dead; but at what time within that period he died is not a matter of presumption but of evidence, and the onus of proving that the death took place at any particular time within the seven years lies upon the person who claims a right, to the establishment of which that fact is essential.

Statute law has since intervened.

An early foray into presumption of death statute was the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 which allowed a litigant to invoke a presumption of death in regards to life estates where a beneficiary:


"... shall remaine beyond the seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons ... 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 ... 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."

While legal researchers argue over whether or not such a presumption ever properly grounded itself in the common law, it is mostly a moot point as common law jurisdictions have continued to rely on statutes to either provide a presumption of death after an absence of a set period of time, generally seven years, or earlier where evidence exists to demonstrate that a person is dead, based on a balance of probability.

Death is just another fact that needs to be proven and like any alleged fact, where relevant, persuasive and not contradicted, that evidence will persuade a Court.

For example, for those persons known to have been on the Titanic and who were never heard from or seen again, or their remains found, there would have been no need to wait seven years. The same applies for airline disasters, lost at sea or other similar incidents which because of the circumstances, would lead inextricably to a presumption of death.

In Re Honeyman:


"John Robertson Honeyman, a commercial traveller, had left Vancouver on a regular business trip to Prince Rupert on April 8, 1929. On April 19, 1929, (his wife) received a wire from him from Prince Rupert in which he stated he was returning to Vancouver as he was not feeling in good health; that she had been advised that when her husband boarded the SS. "Princess Royal" at Prince Rupert on April 19, 1929, he was in poor health; that he occupied cabin No. 18, which was an outside cabin, and that during the time he was on the said steamship he refused to eat any but one meal; that about 2 a.m. on April 22, 1929, her husband complained to James Reid, night saloonman on said steamship, that a man and woman were shining a light on him and he was not going to stand for it and that about 5 a.m. on the same date he came to the saloon and appeared to be very sick and stated to said Reid that he was unable to sleep ...; that her husband returned to his stateroom shortly after and was never again seen; that his stateroom was entered at Vancouver and the door was found to be locked with the key in the keyhole on the inside and a note: "Good Bye. God Bless You All For I know not what I do. JOHN"


(More (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/FamilyLaw/LawArticle-276/Presumption-of-Death-From-Absence-or-Missing-Person-Law.aspx))

Freed Gerdes
06-07-12, 03:48 AM
An early foray into presumption of death statute was the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 which allowed a litigant to invoke a presumption of death in regards to life estates where a beneficiary: ...
I have a couple of questions about the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666: that Act (translated - "that killed this life") starts with the presumption that the natural person is dead, and sets up a trust to control all the person's assets (including the future value of the (dead?) person's labor), and makes the state the trustee. It would seem that the Social Security Trust, using the SS#, is such a CQVT. Being a legal fiction, it is subject to (controlled by) the corporate entity that created it, ie, the state. So when you stand up in court and say 'yes, your honor, that's me', you have just become property of your estate, and have just entered into voluntary servitude, giving up all your inalienable rights. So I can see how the CQVT would be popular with the state, as it eliminates all those sticky issues about inalienable rights.
So, first, is the SS trust such a CQVT? Is it based on the 1666 law, or has the US changed/added to that initial bit of shyster lawyering? The 1666 law had a section which allowed the 'presumed dead' person to make an appearance (presumably in the court, since it was agent for the trustee) to prove they weren't dead, at which point all the trust assets would revert to the natural person, even if the trust had been probated. Does such a right attach to the current version of the US trust? Would there be any value in appearing (where?) and claiming the reversion, ie, becoming the trustee of your own trust? Has anyone done this? Just asking, for now.

David Merrill
06-07-12, 03:03 PM
An early foray into presumption of death statute was the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 which allowed a litigant to invoke a presumption of death in regards to life estates where a beneficiary: ...
I have a couple of questions about the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666: that Act (translated - "that killed this life") starts with the presumption that the natural person is dead, and sets up a trust to control all the person's assets (including the future value of the (dead?) person's labor), and makes the state the trustee. It would seem that the Social Security Trust, using the SS#, is such a CQVT. Being a legal fiction, it is subject to (controlled by) the corporate entity that created it, ie, the state. So when you stand up in court and say 'yes, your honor, that's me', you have just become property of your estate, and have just entered into voluntary servitude, giving up all your inalienable rights. So I can see how the CQVT would be popular with the state, as it eliminates all those sticky issues about inalienable rights.
So, first, is the SS trust such a CQVT? Is it based on the 1666 law, or has the US changed/added to that initial bit of shyster lawyering? The 1666 law had a section which allowed the 'presumed dead' person to make an appearance (presumably in the court, since it was agent for the trustee) to prove they weren't dead, at which point all the trust assets would revert to the natural person, even if the trust had been probated. Does such a right attach to the current version of the US trust? Would there be any value in appearing (where?) and claiming the reversion, ie, becoming the trustee of your own trust? Has anyone done this? Just asking, for now.

What a delightful inquiry!

There are suitors posting who would love to do a point-by-point I hope. Since I had formed an interpretation before the brain trust explored cestui que vie laws and traditions, I will address your post from that perception.

I think of the ALL UPPER CASE name as an encryption. To en-crypt is to bury in a crypt, which is in coherence with death or making dead. To engage in false balances (endorsement of elastic currency from the Fed) is an act worthy of biblical death. Even the Talmud interprets the man who insisted on collecting firewood on the sabbath was not literally killed. He was considered dead to the people. He was likely banished from the camp or put on some kind of probation. There is a term called outlawry. When one is in outlawry another term follows - caput lupinum - having the head of a wolf. Following that is a mellowing of the harshness - civil death.

Another expression of civil encryption is found through belligerence - nom de guerre. Supposing that you are not protecting your home in self defense, but you are drafted by a belligerent community? According to the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas you are justified if you create a MATHEMATICAL PERSON to do the fighting, a name of war.


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier qua-mathematica.jpg


http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_soldier-mathematical.jpg

All of this is in coherence with cestui que vie traditions. I learned about it from GRAVESTONES too.


Look at footnote 22 (http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/briefs/20080115.aeb.htm).


[22] Article Eighteen of the agreement states:


The Revocable Inter-Vivos Trust shall be referred to as the PENDER FAMILY LIVING TRUST. Other trusts created herein may be known by other names as provided in the ARTICLES and Sections creating them.
(Appellants' Appendix at 81) (capitalization in the original). Other trusts which are either created or otherwise contemplated by the Trust Document include: the PENDER SPECIAL TRUST (Id. at 42[capitalization in original]); DECEDENT'S TRUST (Id. at 44 [capitalization in original]); SURVIVOR'S TRUST (Id. [capitalization in original]); PENDER VEHICLE TRUST (Id. at 45 [capitalization in original]); and PENDER TRUST (Id. at 81 [capitalization in original]). Each time the above trusts are referenced in the Trust Document, they are printed in all capital letters. At no place in the agreement are the alleged trusts named "Separate Trust Estate of Josie Pender," "Josie's Separate Trust Estate," or "Josie's Trust Estate" identified by name, much less capitalized as all of the expressly created trusts are.

allodial
06-07-12, 05:36 PM
Some languages seem to be tied to a kind of manipulation and some cultures that have histories built upon idol worship seem to be particular prone. Consider the word 'nombre'. More interestingly, is how it relates moreso to the concepts of 'constructive trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_trust)' or 'resulting trust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resulting_trust)'.

Neo1
06-10-12, 04:05 PM
I found this site. Has anyone completed this and sent in the documents?
http://notice-recipient.com/

allodial
06-10-12, 08:04 PM
I found this site. Has anyone completed this and sent in the documents?
http://notice-recipient.com/

I would avoid or tread very carefully and/or prayerfully.

David Merrill
06-11-12, 02:24 AM
I found this site. Has anyone completed this and sent in the documents?
http://notice-recipient.com/


I saw a comment by a Michael-Joseph on a recent thread. Is that Michael Joseph here?

That blog though, it has a lot of promises that something big will happen very soon! That strikes me familiar because of some RAP/RuSA tones. I do not have enough to go on though.

Be Careful.

allodial
06-11-12, 04:42 AM
I was perusing a couple State's statutes on guardianship, probate..etc. and came across the "Uniform Simultaneous Death Act" code.


The Uniform Simultaneous Death Act is a uniform act enacted in some U.S. states to alleviate the problem of simultaneous death in determining inheritance.

The Act specifies that, if two or more people die within 120 hours of one another, and no will or other document provides for this situation explicitly, each is considered to have predeceased the others. However, the Act contains a clause that states if the end result would be an intestate estate escheating to the state, the 120-hour rule is not to be applied.

The Act was promulgated in 1940 {right before the US got involved in the World War II and two years before the Declarations by United Nations}, when it was adopted by all 48 then-existing states. It was last amended in 1993. As of 2010, 19 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia have explicitly adopted the Act in its current version. A number of other states have indirectly adopted the Act as part of the Uniform Probate Code.
The Virgin Islands adopted the Act in 2010.

Mississippi Code has the typical:


This chapter shall not apply in the case of wills, living trusts, deeds, contracts of insurance or other contracts wherein provision has been made for distribution of property different from the provisions of this chapter.

Interesting that such a set of code would be adopted only moments before a very huge war no? What if a society going into debt would be a kind of 'simultaneous death'?

858

David Merrill
06-11-12, 01:24 PM
Thank you for the graph!

Debt = Death. Of course.

If somebody was to offer you debt, for a price what should be the first question on your mind?

How much longer will everybody be thinking of debt as money?


[How much time do I have to sell this debt to another 'sucker'?]

Treefarmer
06-11-12, 06:35 PM
I was perusing a couple State's statutes on guardianship, probate..etc. and came across the "Uniform Simultaneous Death Act" code.

......
The Act was promulgated in 1940 {right before the US got involved in the Civil War and two years before the Declarations by United Nations}, when it was adopted by all 48 then-existing states.
......


Huh?
Was that supposed to say World War 2, not Civil War, or am I missing something here?

allodial
06-11-12, 11:03 PM
A Joint Declaration by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia
....

Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter.

Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world,

DECLARE:

(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact :and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.

Human resources?

Michael Joseph
06-12-12, 03:02 AM
I saw a comment by a Michael-Joseph on a recent thread. Is that Michael Joseph here?

That blog though, it has a lot of promises that something big will happen very soon! That strikes me familiar because of some RAP/RuSA tones. I do not have enough to go on though.

Be Careful.

I do not post on that site. Someone recently sent me an email telling me they saw my writings on this site. but they are not my issue.

Shalom,
MJ

David Merrill
06-12-12, 03:05 AM
I do not post on that site. Someone recently sent me an email telling me they saw my writings on this site. but they are not my issue.

Shalom,
MJ


Thank you MJ;


I guess it's a big world out there - cyberspace!

outlierquest
08-09-12, 11:12 PM
Here's my take on the presumption of death in the relationship to the alleged Cestui Que Vie trust. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Peace, Phillip Michael

Michael Joseph
08-09-12, 11:52 PM
Here's my take on the presumption of death in the relationship to the alleged Cestui Que Vie trust. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Peace, Phillip Michael

Phillip Michael,

I base my whole existence in the Scripture. Therefore I will answer you from Scripture.

Chavvah [Eve] was NOT the first woman. She however was the woman made from The Man [eth-ha-aw-dawm] - the English is LAZY as it recognizes The Man as Adam which is really Aw-Dawm [to show blood in the face]. Now there is ONLY one race that can show blood in the face and that is ruddy complected. If you think me a racist then you have not studied the Word for Elohim [Family] Created and said it is VERY GOOD. Each is called to duty in the Earth but few recognize the calling if they hear it at all.

But I digress. Chavvah is the mother of All Living BECAUSE thru her DNA [she and The Man], their VINEYARD, comes forth Yehoshuah - Yehovah Saves. Did you get that? That DNA was PURE and undefiled from Yehoshuah all the way to The MAN. And The MAN was son of God. Therefore you are either DEAD in the World, surrounded by Thorns, or you are Alive in Yehoshuah.

It is a Choice, that ONLY you can make for you. For man IS NOT immortal, neither is his soul - but the spirit is. therefore man became a living soul - MORTAL TO DIE.

Yehoshuah gave men who are BEGOTTEN in the Spirit but not yet BORN a power of attorney. Now I know that former statement is a bit confusing so I will elaborate.

A mother holds an egg within her and in it holds life. But life cannot be imparted unless The Man issues forth his sperm. When the egg and the sperm unite there is a Begetting of Life, but the Life is not yet BORN. The Child remains within mother for 40 weeks.

When a man or woman receives Salvation in Yehoshuah, they are BEGOTTEN children IN the Spirit, but they are not yet BORN as Yehoshuah has yet to return. Therefore we LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE OUR BEING IN HIM [YEHOSHUAH]. Now it is the woman, thru her waters, that is ONE rerequisite to Salvation - the Nephilim are excluded - they did not come thru waters of a woman - but the OTHER requisite for Salvation, is Repentance, which is a way of saying that you are actively conforming to the Character of the Family of GOD.

Now it is the Holy Spirit that Begets children. For do you not know that Yehoshuah was begotten in the flesh by a Flesh woman [waters of a woman] and in the Spirit by the Holy Spirit of GOD. Therefore in the analogy, we are the woman, and the Holy Spirit is the Man - begetting Life - but we hold Life within us IN CHOICE.

Therefore absent Yehoshuah you are dead - Dry Bones.

Eze 37:1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of Yehovah and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,

Eze 37:2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.

Eze 37:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Yehovah ELOHIM, thou knowest.

Eze 37:4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of Yehovah.

Do you not see that the plan of the family ELOHIM is to produce progeny - begotten of the Holy Spirit. But I look to another time, now in the Earth we are witnesses to the Glory of ELOHIM [family of GOD].


Will you keep your vineyard, clear of throns, or will you allow Jezebel to transfer your vineyard to Satan [Ahab]? That would be Jezebel daughter of eth Baal = emphatically THE BAAL. - The Great Whore - a United Church - as Agent of Satan - come to our Church [state] whatever.


She is Royalty - has it made in the shade... don't you want what she has, I HOPE NOT.

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Shalom,
Michael Joseph

Chex
08-10-12, 06:59 PM
Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

But some seem to want the law changed: The government should change the law to make it easier for families of missing people to deal with their affairs, the Commons Justice Select Committee says.

At present in England and Wales there is no time limit on how long financial affairs remain in a person's name where there is no death certificate. This means life insurance policies that would pay off mortgages cannot be used.

In Scotland it is assumed a court will grant presumption of death after seven years, a system which has "worked cleanly and clearly", committee chairman Sir Alan Beith told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme.

Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17114868

Read more here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/1663/166302.htm

3. When a person dies the executors of the will, anyone named in the will or, in the absence of a will, next of kin are able to obtain a grant of probate (or letters of administration if the deceased died without making a will) on production of the death certificate. Death certificates state that two doctors are satisfied that the deceased died from an identified cause. When a person goes missing, however, even if the circumstances of the disappearance strongly suggest he or she has died, the impossibility of a death certificate being issued leaves their affairs unresolved.

This type of document does not constitute a UK death certificate and does not replace a locally issued death certificate. Consular death registration is not a legal requirement but it means: an entry will be made in the death register by the British Consulate in the country concerned; an applicant will be able to obtain a British style certificate; and a record of the death will be held by the General Register Office in the UK

David Merrill
08-11-12, 09:58 PM
Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

But some seem to want the law changed: The government should change the law to make it easier for families of missing people to deal with their affairs, the Commons Justice Select Committee says.

At present in England and Wales there is no time limit on how long financial affairs remain in a person's name where there is no death certificate. This means life insurance policies that would pay off mortgages cannot be used.

In Scotland it is assumed a court will grant presumption of death after seven years, a system which has "worked cleanly and clearly", committee chairman Sir Alan Beith told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme.

Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17114868

Read more here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/1663/166302.htm

3. When a person dies the executors of the will, anyone named in the will or, in the absence of a will, next of kin are able to obtain a grant of probate (or letters of administration if the deceased died without making a will) on production of the death certificate. Death certificates state that two doctors are satisfied that the deceased died from an identified cause. When a person goes missing, however, even if the circumstances of the disappearance strongly suggest he or she has died, the impossibility of a death certificate being issued leaves their affairs unresolved.

This type of document does not constitute a UK death certificate and does not replace a locally issued death certificate. Consular death registration is not a legal requirement but it means: an entry will be made in the death register by the British Consulate in the country concerned; an applicant will be able to obtain a British style certificate; and a record of the death will be held by the General Register Office in the UK

From a bigger perspective allegedly one can view the entire UPPER CASE NOMENCLATURE as treating somebody dead. I think it is speculated mostly by an Internet guru named Robb Ryder. It would mean that in secret the Bar Associations have treated one not objecting or rescinding the registration of the birth certificate after seven years that the ESTATE then reverts to a usufruct of the state. This is allegedly supported by the old rules for probate court but I doubt that it is valid anywhere today.

I really don't buy into it myself but do not want to discredit somebody just because I am not interested enough to learn about their theories. I have said recently though about Robb that if I get interested I know where the Probate Court is downtown and will start by picking up the published Rules of the Probate Court. Or just find them online (http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/). I respect the brain trust of suitors and some of them are mildly entheusiastic about Robb Ryder videos. But even so, even after trying his theories out all they get are non-responsive blank stares.

I believe it is mostly his software and voice. He has a deep assuring voice and a video program that can produce a video as he surfs. Therefore he can produce a video off what is basically a surfing excursion without any source material. It is just a cyberspace daydream that he records and puts out there on his blog. It is the product of too much information by search engine. He can collect confirmations that are baseless.

Here is another example (http://www.wellaware1.com/artwork/large/tim-wahle.jpg) of the phenomenon I am describing. This fellow has some face recognition software (http://www.wellaware1.com/) that he plays on Google Pictures and has deduced by the hits that there are professional witnesses that are hired to run to the scene of events and are given scripts to recite to the News Crews! In my opinion he is just getting way too many hits. As I brought you his home page link it looks like today's news is that James BROLIN is actually President BUSH, by the identical earprint! Do you see my point?

With Robb though, he really needs to play his theories through source material instead of Wiki and other cyber-searches.




Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
08-12-12, 12:24 AM
P.S.

I have found another example (http://robcourtofrecord.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/wow-reguster-of-deeds-financing-unit/).

Looking through the page of directions/advice this looks real sweet! It smacks of the reality check with "satisfy all the liens" and you clear up your property title. This is the sort of thing that suitors in the brain trust try out for all of us. It is part of the brain trust.

Now that it is out there we may hear back about it. If not, either nobody got interested or it just did not turn out to be as interesting as Robb makes it sound in the initial post. Most of the time as I gather from experience with Robbs (I believe that is actually Robert RYTLEWSKI) blog is that somewhere in the actual application of the instructions you will be stonewalled by a clerk that has absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



I believe that this may be akin to the concept of a cestui que vie blanket trust. My mental model always comes back to the man being in contract with the US central bank (Fed) or not. Extraneous symptoms of being in contract will verify all sorts of profound theories too.

Today in ACIM class (A Course in Miracles) we were going over some of the ego thought system and viewing it through the lens of the Holy Spirit as the only one line of thought.


The only safety lies in extending the Holy Spirit, because as you see His gentleness in others your own mind perceives itself as totally harmless. 2 Once it can accept this fully, it sees no need to protect itself. 3 The protection of God then dawns upon it, assuring it that it is perfectly safe forever. 4 The perfectly safe are wholly benign. 5 They bless because they know that they are blessed. 6 Without anxiety the mind is wholly kind, and because it extends beneficence it is beneficent. 7 Safety is the complete relinquishment of attack. 8 No compromise is possible in this. 9 Teach attack in any form and you have learned it, and it will hurt you. 10 Yet this learning is not immortal, and you can unlearn it by not teaching it.

T-6.III.4. Since you cannot [not] teach, your salvation lies in teaching the exact opposite of everything the ego believes. 2 This is how you will learn the truth that will set you free, and will keep you free as others learn it of you. 3 The only way to have peace is to teach peace. 4 By teaching peace you must learn it yourself, because you cannot teach what you still dissociate. 5 Only thus can you win back the knowledge that you threw away. 6 An idea that you share you must have. 7 It awakens in your mind through the conviction of teaching it. 8 Everything you teach you are learning. 9 Teach only love, and learn that love is yours and you are love.


IV. The Only Answer

T-6.IV.1. Remember that the Holy Spirit is the Answer, not the question. 2 The ego always speaks first. 3 It is capricious and does not mean its maker well. 4 It believes, and correctly, that its maker may withdraw his support from it at any moment.

Now that looks like ego-bashing, I know. But elsewhere in the book we are promised:


Spirit need not be taught, but the ego must be. 2 Learning is ultimately perceived as frightening because it leads to the relinquishment, not the destruction, of the ego to the light of spirit. 3 This is the change the ego must fear, because it does not share my charity. 4 My lesson was like yours, and because I learned it I can teach it. 5 I will never attack your ego, but I am trying to teach you how its thought system arose. 6 When I remind you of your true creation, your ego cannot but respond with fear.

I pondered a parallel with the Federal Reserve System as a thought system. It's ego however is not inherent because it is not alive and capable of a real spirit - except maybe greed of the bankers and their $10M bonuses etc. The utility is to create the illusion through unwitting endorsements of its private credit that government debt is money. To convince the average man to overlook the absurdity that one can buy and sell debt at all! China buys Australian farmland though, with this illusion of American debt (SDR's = Special Drawing Rights) the measure of how conditioned we are to sign that naked contract of endorsement on the backside of our paychecks.



Regards,

David Merrill.

Anthony Joseph
08-12-12, 02:34 AM
Actually it is Robert Allen.

I believe he does realize and recognize that Robert Allen is his true name from what I have read. He uses "Robb Ryder" as a cyberspace handle much like "allodial" and "Treefarmer". His family name is RYTLEWSKI however I have not seen him use the format Robert Allen RYTLEWSKI in order to separate and distinguish the True Name from the Family or Surname. Much like Team Law, the "Robert Allen Rytlewski" is only distinguished from "Robert Allen Rytlewski" by a qualifier after; (a trust), (a sovereign man). That doesn't quite "cut it" in my book.

Robb also is always missing the key element of being "redeemed" by declaration and demand of lawful money of exchange pursuant to, while absent benefit from, Title 12 U.S.C. ?411.

His theories and offerings are always given freely and with the caveat that he is new to it and just providing information for others to ponder and utilize if they find it worthy. He is not a self-proclaimed "guru" for hire and freely admits often that he is on a exploratative journey and welcomes anyone who offers clarity and truth.

I do believe however that he is missing the boat on redeeming lawful money as remedy. He does dig up many law definitions and citations much like a member on the old sui juris forum named after a dog; "law hound", "law puppy" something like that, and he always highlighted in the same way with either bold blue or red type. He was a good resource for digging up info.

David Merrill
08-12-12, 08:06 AM
Actually it is Robert Allen.

I believe he does realize and recognize that Robert Allen is his true name from what I have read. He uses "Robb Ryder" as a cyberspace handle much like "allodial" and "Treefarmer". His family name is RYTLEWSKI however I have not seen him use the format Robert Allen RYTLEWSKI in order to separate and distinguish the True Name from the Family or Surname. Much like Team Law, the "Robert Allen Rytlewski" is only distinguished from "Robert Allen Rytlewski" by a qualifier after; (a trust), (a sovereign man). That doesn't quite "cut it" in my book.

Robb also is always missing the key element of being "redeemed" by declaration and demand of lawful money of exchange pursuant to, while absent benefit from, Title 12 U.S.C. ?411.

His theories and offerings are always given freely and with the caveat that he is new to it and just providing information for others to ponder and utilize if they find it worthy. He is not a self-proclaimed "guru" for hire and freely admits often that he is on a exploratative journey and welcomes anyone who offers clarity and truth.

I do believe however that he is missing the boat on redeeming lawful money as remedy. He does dig up many law definitions and citations much like a member on the old sui juris forum named after a dog; "law hound", "law puppy" something like that, and he always highlighted in the same way with either bold blue or red type. He was a good resource for digging up info.


Thank you. Without the redemptive model as foundation I believe meandering through is hit and miss. I made comment elsewhere:


Delovio v. Boit (STORY 1815) is the difinitive doctrine in case law. All insurance is admiralty (bottomry). What the video lacks, causing skewed doctrine to develop around that misunderstanding is that endorsed Fed notes are insurance policies. When you redeem them you are making your claim. Even if you get the form, residual from a 1971 Treasury policy, not laws from Congress, Federal Reserve notes you did not make your claim and redeem the notes if you signed the naked contract of endorsement. Therefore the notes are still waiting claim and fall into admiralty as insurance policies.

So you are either in contract with the Fed which is not a government agency or you are not. That is the diversity of citizenship in the Libel of Review. Back when I saved Jim's castle for him (his usufruct) we did not know about redeeming lawful money but if you find the links [Link 1 (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_falsified.jpg). Link 2 (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_certificate_corrected.jpg).] to the Certificates of Search you find the clerk of court intentionally changing Jim's name from James Roland to James (nmn) ROLAND. No Middle Name!

If you redeem the note it is no longer like an insurance policy (bottomry) and no longer awaiting claim.

Hopefully we can come across some first hand account of a homeowner cleaning up his title.


Regards,

David Merrill.

shikamaru
08-12-12, 02:51 PM
I do believe however that he is missing the boat on redeeming lawful money as remedy. He does dig up many law definitions and citations much like a member on the old sui juris forum named after a dog; "law hound", "law puppy" something like that, and he always highlighted in the same way with either bold blue or red type. He was a good resource for digging up info.

That's LawDog (Statutepuppy).

I gave him the name Statutepuppy :). He goes all the way back to SJ1.

Anthony Joseph
08-12-12, 03:23 PM
That's LawDog (Statutepuppy).

I gave him the name Statutepuppy :). He goes all the way back to SJ1.

I remember "LawDog" as an antogonist of the Quatloos ilk. The member I was speaking of usually "dug up" many law citations and definitions regarding the conversation going on within the thread. This member was a great resource as he/she wasn't involved in any antogonistic or disruptive tactics at the Sui Juris site.

shikamaru
08-12-12, 03:40 PM
I remember "LawDog" as an antogonist of the Quatloos ilk. The member I was speaking of usually "dug up" many law citations and definitions regarding the conversation going on within the thread. This member was a great resource as he/she wasn't involved in any antogonistic or disruptive tactics at the Sui Juris site.

Must be someone else. Statutepuppy is quite rude and antagonistic.

outlierquest
08-13-12, 12:53 AM
We, the people are the trust. We always have been. Our lifeblood fuels the planet. Need more proof?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopica03.pdf



http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/SCC/3/22


http://books.google.com/books?id=c9oGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA336&lpg=PA336&dq=taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust&source=bl&ots=Yy-c-wJEuJ&sig=4wGssseI1Gcx8Xi6vUKPHJ2qLsY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5lMnUJ7xJYG3igLG5oDACQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=taxpayer%20is%20a%20cestui%20que%20trust&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=dN9EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust&source=bl&ots=Ws3uldY6CK&sig=vywifuMQ9BSGq4M1L6XL7PtZkNA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5lMnUJ7xJYG3igLG5oDACQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OhwMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA542&lpg=PA542&dq=%22every+taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust%22&source=bl&ots=jA5UHvFnxw&sig=oC23js7xM5eeo6Hs-V89tMDsguk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K00nUIXAGqq3iwLH_ID4CA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22every%20taxpayer%20is%20a%20cestui%20que%20tr ust%22&f=false

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/540/case.html

". . . (E)very taxpayer is a cestui que trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction . . . " In Re Bolens (1912), 135 N.W. 164.

http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19731107_0043786.NY.htm/qx

http://www.fredfranke.com/site-map/37#1A3

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/289/289.US.172.601.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=LzYSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust&source=bl&ots=vjPCw0l3cg&sig=ULioDvKku7BduM9MgDjAyp9VTGg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eVsnUIbAFa3qiQKmzIH4CQ&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=taxpayer%20is%20a%20cestui%20que%20trust&f=false

http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/professional-ethics/lawyers/ATTYSanctions/douglas.p1.pdf

http://buttecountyassembly.org/documents/County_Settlement_Butte_Constitution_California_8_ 5x14_edit_001.pdf

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/203/323/case.html

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/198/435/202985/

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/198/198.F2d.435.10683.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=8Rk8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA398&lpg=PA398&dq=taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust&source=bl&ots=fJIMun8S2-&sig=yigsJSgA65zsUovcVs508jqRkDM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i2cnUN_6KK_nigLIrYFQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=taxpayer%20is%20a%20cestui%20que%20trust&f=false

http://www.rothenberglegal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=3

http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/equity2typesoftrust.htm

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/12-01%20Collective%20Bargaining%20PDF.pdf

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=203&invol=323

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/301/301.US.532.202.html "It is said that as the revenue laws treat the trustee and the beneficiary as distinct tax-paying entities, a court of equity must shut its eyes to the fact that in the realm of reality it was the beneficiary's money which paid the tax and it is her money which the petitioners ask the government to return. Formerly, trustee and cestui que trust were likewise distinct in the eyes of the law, as they are today for many purposes. But whenever the trustee brings suit in a court which is free to consider equitable rights and duties, his right to maintain the suit may be enlarged or diminished by reference to the fact that the suit, though maintained in the name of the trustee alone, is for the benefit and in the equitable interest of the cestui."

http://www.fredfranke.com/site-map/37#1A3

http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3456&context=wlulr

http://www.mckeescholars.org/McKeeCase.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=lDI9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA762&lpg=PA762&dq=taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust&source=bl&ots=wLmmOmO5As&sig=RD_rpeLQTlWYTV4Dy5P3eOcr1P8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i2cnUN_6KK_nigLIrYFQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBTge#v=onepage&q=taxpayer%20is%20a%20cestui%20que%20trust&f=false

http://floridacleanwaternetwork.org/petition-for-mandamus-at-florida-supreme-court/ (someone is being proactive)

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA267550

http://books.google.com/books?id=NlPnaMJ8a08C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust&source=bl&ots=jyGk1mmEzf&sig=aLG5Y3acQ4rpF2nIru71609ZM_M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MXonUK_1A6T2iwLKj4D4Cg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAjgo#v=onepage&q=taxpayer%20is%20a%20cestui%20que%20trust&f=false

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/303/376/

http://statutes.laws.com/alabama/Title40/Chapter10/40-10-4

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/301/301.US.540.285.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tm6mAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA429&lpg=PA429&dq=taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust&source=bl&ots=iSYvjn9S_x&sig=aajdta3mBIwTTHl0tRxKQ7vKUrg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MXonUK_1A6T2iwLKj4D4Cg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q=taxpayer%20is%20a%20cestui%20que%20trust&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=YqEW6qE6XY4C&pg=PA868&lpg=PA868&dq=taxpayer+is+a+cestui+que+trust&source=bl&ots=D_vz9h3F44&sig=qopUxADtRJcRxame4wDGw-K1u9k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MXonUK_1A6T2iwLKj4D4Cg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCTgo#v=onepage&q=taxpayer%20is%20a%20cestui%20que%20trust&f=false

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3812&context=ilj

http://www.stcl.edu/faculty_pages/faculty_folders/rosin/Additional.Notes.on.Green.v.H&R-Block.1.PDF

http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Brown_v_Coleman.php

https://www.agentxtra.net/extranet/SingleSource/NavMaster.asp?LinkID=5189306

http://www.chanrobles.com/commonwealthacts/commonwealthactno117.html#.UCd706O1fAk

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2011/806/806.04.html

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/355/355.F2d.233.15118_1.html

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/573/573.F2d.447.77-1383.html

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/245/245.F2d.381.15703_1.html

http://www.vsb.org/docs/sections/trustsandestates/tespring2009.pdf

http://www.coloradobrownfields.org/index.php/resourcecenter/glossary-environmental-economic-development-real-estate-terms/156-real-estate-glossary

For many more references, simply put the following in Google's search box: taxpayer is a cestui que trust

Just a wonderful short read: http://livefreenewzealand.org/trusts.php



Do you believe it exists now? I do. Some may ask, "How do we get this genie out of the bottle?" or "Who do we shoot with our magic bullet?" As for me, I can see land after being lost at sea for these past 44 years. I am currently drafting a most excellent letter. A letter that is sure to strike some nerves.

I have faith that some of you will FEEL what I have to say and will share the information with others. Some of you may even attach a letter with your own, unique and wonderful story. How many of you are willing to walk on dry land with me?

I will post this letter tomorrow. The title will be "Who are YOU?"

With love,

your brother, Micha; reborn name, one of you / Phillip Michael; given name, lost soul / PHILLIP MICHAEL SANDERS; trusted friend, mentor (once you read my letter, this will be made clear)


I am...

David Merrill
08-13-12, 02:42 AM
I was asking the question at the 4:00 Minute Mark (http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Leroy_on_bills.wmv)!


So my comments about Robb's theory are not about cestui que trust and its use in America. I was talking about the application of the cestui que vie Act of 1666. Please understand the distinction.

outlierquest
08-13-12, 11:04 AM
Sorry David. I wasn't directing that at you, just sharing. Some of those old books are amazing. Look what I found this morning- 894895 Anyone see the importance of this?