Quote from the Turnabout: “The use of the ALL CAP NAME or even the name on the Certificate of Live Birth, to identify one means one has just been identified as a DEAD-MAN [owner of an abandoned estate]. Under the 1666 Cestui Que Vie Act, when the DEAD-MAN shows up Living, the estate of the DEAD-MAN automatically revests in the one so identified and ALL letters of administration are null and void and one is entitled to receive the estate as beneficiary of the Cestui Que Vie Trust [ALL CAP NAME] being administrated by way of operation of law.
OK, I do not want to be labor this but I am asking for clarification. I fully understand if I show up as the living man, the government/court KNOWS I am alive. The question is about making claim.
1. Are you suggesting to claim the name and estate [BOTH] as mine, as beneficiary under the CQV Trust? OR are you suggesting do NOT claim the name but the estate itself ONLY, due to the fact the government/court is making the claim that I am that individual estate?
I realize this is a fine point but I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.
2. When you say “estate revests in the one so identified,” I know what revests means to return, give back. Are you suggesting the government/court return the original title of the birth document to you, where you are in possession of your property [postliminy] as the owner of the instrument/title so that you may put the original title/property into the irrevocable living trust? Or is this even necessary? You can do affidavit stating claim?
3. What is the difference between usufruct and CQV? I see this as 6 of one/half dozen of the other, as per Lieber Code #38/Hague/LON versus “If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest”?
4. The purpose of the irrevocable living trust versus having the AUTHORIZED government trustee [5 CFR 2635.101] acquit and discharge all claims against the name – as State property under the rule of usufruct is due to the fact that the government trustees ain’t going to get off its ass to settle claims and charges whereas the irrevocable trust is something we can easily administrate? Is this the gist of it?
5. Another point of interest to bring out. At the top of the second page of the Scott v McNeil case, Boris added a comment: “When you enter a plea or accept an attorney, you waive this defect in process by your own consent.” My question is – Is not a licensed bar attorney REQUIRED to accept the usufruct compliant certificate and settle the claim, as if he does not, is this not a felony under various federal laws, ie 18 USC 64, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 514, 18 USC 654, 18 USC 1584, etc? In other words it is an attempt to raid the public trust for personal profit with the knowledge of this fact that the man is being set up for plucking.
6. When Boris said on page 34 that “basically all US Citizens are Crown subjects with regard to the Paris Treaty”, do you mean by virtue that the Crown never really let go of “its citizens” and as such, a tribute must be paid back? I seem to recall “something” in the IRS code where Britain is paid a kick back from the US as ??? I do not recall.
This video is consistent with what Boris is talking about. I did not know Christian Walters has passed.
For a simple explanation of the operation of trust, from the creditors in commerce group. Take note, I did not agree 100% with everything, but most will agree with the info, plus it is simple to understand.
My final comment is if anyone has some sort of protocol/steps in the set up the private/public trusts and would care to share with the group, it would be appreciated. As always, it is NOT legal advice nor should anyone take it as such. It is information that is being shared as a potential path. I admit, I am lost in this step. No, it is not about a crutch for paperwork, as Boris is correct it is about Faith WITH Works combined that will bring the right path. But it helps to FULLY understand the mechanics. Thanks