Author Topic: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'  (Read 29540 times)

M O'B

  • Sovereign
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 104
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Free The Planet
The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« on: September 10, 2011, 05:47:18 PM »
Quote
    EXECUTOR, trusts. The word executor, taken in its largest sense, has several acceptations. 1. Executor dativus, who is one called an administrator to an intestate. 2. Executor testamentarius, or one appointed to the office by the last will of a testator, and this is what is usually meant by the term.

    2. In the civil law, the person who is appointed to perform the duties of an executor as to goods, is called haeres testamentarius; the term executor, it is said, is a barbarism unknown to that law. 3 Atk. 304.

    3. An executor, as the term is at present accepted, is the person to whom the execution of a last will and testament of personal estate is , by the testator's appointment, confided, and who has accepted of the same. 2 Bl. Com. 503; 2 P. Wms. 548; Toller, 30; 1 Will. on Ex. 112 Swinh. t. 4, s. 2, pl. 2.

    4. Generally speaking, all persons who are capable of making wills may be executors, and some others beside, as infants and married women. 2 Bl. Corn. 503.

    5. An executor is absolute or qualified; his appointment is absolute when he is constituted certainly, immediately, and without restriction in regard to the testator's effects, or limitation in point of time. It may be qualified by limitation as to the time or place wherein, or the subject matters whereon, the office is to be exercised; or the creation of the office may be conditional. It may be qualified. 1st. By limitations in point of time, for the time may be limited when the person appointed shall begin, or when he shall cease to be executor; as if a man be appointed executor upon the marriage of testator's daughter. Swinb. p. 4, s. 17, pl. 4. 2. The appointment may be limited to a place; as, if one be appointed executor of all the testator's goods in the state of Pennsylvania. 3. The power of the executor may be limited as to the subject matter upon which if is to be exercised; as, when a testator appoints. A the executor of his goods and chattels in possession; B, of his choses in action. One may be appointed executor of one thing, only, as of a particular claim or debt due by bond, and the like. Off. Ex. 29; 3 Phillim. 424. But although a testator may thus appoint separate executors of distinct parts of his property, and may divide their authority, yet quoad the creditors of the testator they are all executors, and act as one executor, and may be sued as one executor. Cro. Car. 293. 4. The appointment may be conditional, and the condition may be either precedent or subsequent. Godolph. Orph. Leg. pt. 2, c. 2, s. 1; Off. Ex. 23. 6. An executor derives his interest in the estate of the deceased entirely from the will, and it vests in him from the moment of the testator's death. 1 Will. Ex. 159; Com. Dig. Administration, B 10; 5 B. & A. 745; 2 W. Bl. Rep. 692. He acquires an absolute legal title to the personalty by appointment, but nothing in the lands of the testator, except by devise. He can touch nothing which was not personal at the testator's decease, except by express direction. 9 Serg. & Rawle, 431; Gord. Law Dec. 93. Still his interest in the goods of the deceased is not that absolute, proper and ordinary interest, which every one has in his own proper goods. He is a mere trustee to apply the goods for such purposes as are sanctioned by law. 4 T. R. 645; 9 Co. 88; 2 Inst. 236; Off. Ex. 192. He represents the testator, and therefore may sue and recover all the claims he had at the time of his death and may be sued for all debts due by him. 1 Will. Ex. 508, et seq. By the common law, however, such debts as were not due by some writing could not be recovered against the executors of a deceased debtor. The remedy was only in conscience or by a quo minus in the exchequer. Afterwards an action on the case in banco regis was given. Crom t. Jurisdic. 66, b; Plowd. Com. 183: 11 H. VII. 26.

    7. The following are the principal duties of an executor: 1. Within a convenient time after the testator's death, to collect the goods of the deceased, provided he can do so peaceably; when he is resisted, he must apply to the law for redress.

    8. - 2. To bury the deceased in a manner suitable to the estate he leaves behind him; and when there is just reason to believe he died insolvent, he is not warranted in expending more in funeral expenses (q. v.) than is absolutely necessary. 2 Will. Ex. 636; 1 Salk. 296; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 204 14 Serg. & Rawle, 64.

    9. - 3. The executor should prove the will in the proper office.

    10. - 4. He should make an inventory (q. v.) of the goods of the intestate, which should be filed in the office.

    11. - 5. He should ascertain the debts and credits of the estate, and endeavor to collect all claims with as little delay as possible, consistently with the interest of the estate.

    12. - 6. He should advertise for debts and credits: see forms of advertisements, 1 Chit. Pr. 521.

    13. - 7. He should reduce the whole of the goods, not specifically bequeathed into money, with all due expedition.

    14.-8. Keep the money of the estate safely, but not mixed with his own, or he may be charged interest on it.

    15.-9. Be at all times ready to account, and actually file an account within a year.

    16. - 10. Pay the debts and legacies in the order required by law.

    17. Co-executors, however numerous, are considered, in law, as an individual person, and; consequently, the acts of any one of them, in respect of the administration of the assets, are deemed, generally, the acts of all. Bac. Ab. Executor, D; Touch. 484; for they have all a joint and entire authority over the whole property Off. Ex. 213; 1 Rolle's Ab. 924; Com. Dig. Administration, B 12. On the death of one or more of several joint executors, their rights and powers survive to the survivors.

    18. When there are several executors and all die, the power is in common transferred to the executor of the last surviving executor, so that he is executor of the first testator; and the law is the same when a sole executor dies leaving an executor, the rights are vested in the latter. This rule has been changed, in Pennsylvania, and, perhaps, some other states, by legislative provision; there, in such case, administration cum testamento annexo must be obtained, the right does not survive to the executor of the executor. Act of Pennsylvania, of March 15 1832. s. 19. In general, executors are not responsible for each other, and they have a right to settle separate accounts. See Joint, Executors.

    19. Executors may be classed into general and special; instituted and substituted; rightful and executor de son tort; and executor to the tenor.

    20. A general executor is one who is appointed to administer the whole estate, without any limit of time or place, or of the subject-matter.

    21. A special executor is one. who is appointed or constituted to administer either a part of the estate, or the whole for a limited time, or only in a particular place.

    22. An instituted executor is one who is appointed by the testator without any condition, and who has the first right of acting when there are substituted executors. An example will show the difference between an instituted and substituted executor: suppose a man makes his son his executor, but if he will not act, he appoints his brother, and if neither will act, his cousin; here the son is the instituted executor, in the first degree, the brother is said to be substituted in the second degree, and the cousin in the third degree, and so on. See Heir, instituted, and Swinb. pt. 4, s. 19, pl. 1.

    23. A substituted executor is a person appointed executor, if another person who has been appointed refuses to act.

    24. A rightful executor is one lawfully appointed by the testator, by his will. Deriving his authority from the will, he may do most acts, before he obtains letters testamentary, but he must be possessed of them before. he can declare in action brought by him, as such. 1 P. Wms. 768; Will. on Ex. 173.

    25. An executor de son tort, or of his own wrong, is one, who, without lawful authority, undertakes to act. as executor of a person deceased. To make fin executor de son tort, the act of the party must be, 1. Unlawful. 2. By assertingownership, as taking goods or cancelling a bond, and not committing a mere, trespass. Dyer, 105, 166; Cro. Eliz. 114. 3. An act done before probate of will, or granting letters of administration. 1 Salk. 313. One may be executor de son tort when acting under a forged will, which has been set aside. 3 T. R. 125 . An executor de son tort. The law on this head seems to have been borrowed from the civil law doctrine of pro hoerede gestio. See Heinnec. Antiq. Syntagma, lib. 2, tit., 17, §16, p. 468. He is, in general, held responsible for all his acts, when he does anything which might prejudice the estate, and receives no, advantage whatever in consequence of his assuming the office. He cannot sue a debtor of the estate, but may be sued generally as executor. See a good reading on the liabilities of executors de son tort, in: Godolph. Orph. Legacy, 91, 93, and 10 Wentw. Pl. 378, for forms of declaring; also, 5 Co. Rep. 50 31 a; Yelv. 137; 1 Brownlow, 103; Salk. 28; Ham. Parties, 273; Imp. Mod. Pl. 94. As to what acts will make a person liable as executor de son tort, see Godolph. O ubi sup.; Gord. Law of Dec. 87, 89; Off. Ex. 181; Bac. Ab. Executor, &c., B 3; 11 Vin. Ab. 215; 1 Dane's Ab. 561; Bull. N. P. 48; Com. Dig. Administration C 3 Ham. on Part. 146 to 156; 8 John. R. 426; 7 John. R. 161; 4 Mass. 654; 3 Penna. R. 129; 15 Serg. & Rawle, 39.

    26. - 2. The ussurpation of an office or character cannot confer the rights and privileges of it, although it may charge the usurper with the duties and obligations annexed to it. On this principle an executor de son tort is an executor only for the purpose of being sued, not for the purpose, of suing. In point of form, he is sued as if he were a rightful executor. He is not denominated in the declaration executor (de son tort) of his own wrong. It would be improper to allege that the deceased person with whose estate he has intermeddled died intestate. Nor can he be made a co-defendant with a rightful executor. Ham. Part. 146, 272, 273; Lawes on Plead. 190, note; Com. Dig. Abatement, F 10. If he take out letters of administration, he is still liable to be sued as executor, and in general, it is better to sue him as executor than as administrator. Godolph. 0. Leg. 93, 94, 95, §§2, 3.

    27. An executor to the tenor. This phrase is ased in the ecclesiastical law, to denote a person who is not directly appointed by the will an executor, but who is charged with the duties which appertain to one; as, "I appoint A B to discharge all lawful demands against my will." 3 Phill. 116; 1 Eccl. Rep. 374; Swinb. 247 Wentw. Ex. part 4, s. 41 p. 230. Vide. generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.; 11 Vin. Ab. h. t.; Bac. Ab. h. t.; Rolle, Ab. h. t.; Nelson's Ab. h. t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.; Com. Dig. Administration; 1 Supp. to Ves. jr. 8, 90, 356, 438; 2 Id. 69; 1 Vern. 302-3; Yelv. 84 a; 1 Salk. 318; 18 Engl. C. L. Rep. 185; 10 East, 295; 2 Phil. Ev. 289; 1 Rop. Leg.' 114; American Digests, h. t.; Swinburne, Williams, Lovelass, and Roberts' several treatises on the law of Executors; Off. Ex. per totum; Chit. Pr. Index; h. t. For the various pleas that may be pleaded by executors, see 7 Wentw. Plead. 596, 602; 10 Id. 378; Cowp. 292. For the origin and progress of the law in relation to executors, the reader is referred to 5 Toull. n. 576, note; Glossaire du Droit Francais, par Delauriere, verbo Executeurs Testamentaires, and the same author on art. 297, of the Custom of Paris; Poth. Des Donations Testamen taires.

   
Quote
INTESTACY. The state or condition of dying without a will.

    INTESTABLE. One who cannot law fully make a testament.

    2. An infant, an insane person, or one civilly dead, cannot make a will, for want of capacity or understanding; a married woman cannot make such a will without some special authority, because she is under the power of her hushand. They are all intestable.

    INTESTATE. One who, having lawful power to make a will, has made none, or one which is defective in form. In that case, he is said to die intestate, and his estate descends to his heir at law. See Testate.

    2. This term comes from the Latin intestatus. Formerly, it was used in France indiscriminately with de-confess; that is, without confession. It was regarded as a crime, on account of the omission of the deceased person to give something to the church, and was punished by privation of burial in consecrated ground. This omission, according to Fournel, Hist. des Avocats, vol. 1, p. 116, could be repaired by making an ampliative testament in the name of the deceased. See Vely, tom. 6, page 145; Henrion De Pansey, Authorite Judiciare, 129 and note. Also, 3 Mod. Rep. 59, 60, for the Law of Intestacy in England.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_e.htm
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_i.htm

Notwithstanding the unsubstantiated claims of those who seek to profit from information that should be freely available to everybody and with all due respect to all concerned and affected parties; in the most simplistic terms possible, it is a legal and equitable impossibility for a living man to be executor of his own property, since there are only two types of excecutor -

    1. Executor dativus, who is one called an administrator to an intestate.

    2. Executor testamentarius, or one appointed to the office by the last will of a testator, and this is what is usually meant by the term.

- and both require the death of a man or woman.

Therefore, it is a self-evident fallacy that a living man or woman can take control of their legal affairs [or a court for that matter] by appointing themselves the executor of the property held in their name. And it is their name, despite the plethora of opinions to the contrary. The reason for this is also simplistic: the name is a gift granted to children by their parents/guardians in perpetuity, free and clear of all emcumbrances, irrespective of any and all trusts and/or contracts that might arise subsequently. Furthermore, it is simply not possible to be grantor and/or sole trustee and sole beneficiary of a trust, the misconceived premise upon which much of the validity of the purported remedy relies.

I humbly invite those with compelling evidence that the foregoing analysis is incorrect to post your proof of claim on this thread. As yet, I have seen none. However, I do have first and second hand knowledge of recent attempts to enforce this unenforcable remedy on these shores, each of which resulted in serious complaints being made about the allegedly learned fellows who accepted large sums of money in return for information that has proved to be factually incorrect and financially encumbering.

Namaste
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Bush

  • Sovereign
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 201
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2011, 11:24:08 AM »
Thankyou Michael, I am however not cognisant of the 'executor remedy'.  Would you care to elaborate on the purported remedy so that I can make sense of your rebuttal.

Booosh
Everyone is king when theres no one left to pawn

gerbil

  • Sovereign
  • Sr. Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 321
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Kevin the gerbil
    • VOIDMORTGAGE
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2011, 04:22:47 PM »
Hi,

Is this in reference to the David Clarence material?

gerbil
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
http://www.voidmortgage.net

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2011, 06:27:39 PM »
Morice v Bishop of Durham(1805)
 
Lord Eldon

Quote
As it is a maxim that the execution of a trust shall be under the control of the court, it must  be of such a nature, that it can be under that control; so that the administration of it can be reviewed by the court; or, if the trustee dies, the court itself can execute the trust: a trust therefore,which,in case of maladministration could be reformed; and due administration direct; and then, unless the subject and the objects can be asertained, uponprinciples, familiar in other cases, it must be decided, that the court can neither reform maladministration, nor direct a due administration.

My understanding of the Cesti qui Vie signed by your parents is that the sprog is dead. Though a chance encounter today under PACE with Officers of the LU whom I instructed said under Annexe 53 I was to be re summonsed because I was mentally insane because I refused on tape to provide a DOB and a Name.


So go figure

mescalito

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2011, 09:13:58 AM »
Hello michael, i hope life finds you well my friend.

i recently attended a seminar on this subject and like you they asked for a small donation, 3 pounds to be precise, and with this supplied us with bottomless tea, coffee and a cooked lunch. so there was not much/if any profit in this for them.

they also showed us evidence of many successes when taking the position of the occupant of the office of executor.

From what i understand is that god granted us dominion over the earth in the bible, his last will and testament.

i would urge you to contact  Norman over at http://normanhinks.com/new/index.php/contact
and have a chat to him about his understanding of this subject and his recent successes.

safety and peace..Seth




M O'B

  • Sovereign
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 104
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Free The Planet
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2011, 10:23:16 AM »
Hello Seth,

Life finds me very well indeed my friend. I trust all is well with you and yours.

However, in response to your post, may I refer you to the OP:

Quote
...in the most simplistic terms possible, it is a legal and equitable impossibility for a living man to be executor of his own property, since there are only two types of excecutor -

    1. Executor dativus, who is one called an administrator to an intestate.

    2. Executor testamentarius, or one appointed to the office by the last will of a testator, and this is what is usually meant by the term.

- and both require the death of a man or woman.

I have the deepest respect for Norman and discussed the purported remedy with him at length following a talk I gave in Stony Stratford last summer. Unless new information has come to light since then, the "evidence" you talk about is actually no more than circumstantial.

However, in any event, it is unequivocally the case that there is only one pre-requisite circumstance in which any individual of legal age can fill the office of executor - in the event of somebody's death. While I am happy to say that Norman is very much a living man, it goes without saying that it is impossible for him or anybody else to lawfully become the executor of his own estate. This is the one issue that has never been properly addressed by those who are advocating the methodology. It is also the reason why I am of the firm belief that the purported remedy is not built on lawfully sound foundations.

If you or anybody else can post compelling evidence that contradicts my synthesis of the rules of the office of executor, I look forward to being enlightened by it. I have no interest in being right, or convincing others to adopt my position; I merely care about everybody having access to all the right information.

Namaste
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'B

  • Sovereign
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 104
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Free The Planet
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2011, 10:25:19 AM »
Hi,

Is this in reference to the David Clarence material?

gerbil

Salutations my friend.

I am not aware of David's work. Feel free to point me in the right direction.

Peace
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

mescalito

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2011, 10:49:48 AM »
hello Michael, life is very well at my end and all projects have had a happy ending over the last 2 years :)

so do you think there is nothing in it at all?

could the dead strawman be perceived as required death of a man or women?

warm regards....Seth

Yasin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2011, 01:14:59 PM »
I am perfectly entitled to manage my estate in my life as well as in my death since my estate pertains to me. Who, what why or how I want it to be spent or ahem executed is entirely up to me. No one else.  Though I can appoint external Executors. I'm not sure that Executors can be sued if they carry out the wishes of the deceased I think Wiki is crong again. Though anyone in a Trust situation who is misappropriating funds can be held up  on charges against themselves.

However I may appoint Trustees ostensibly to look after the interests and hopefully fulfil my wishes in the likely event of my death and especially when the loot is as good as my bond and therefore unlimited. I know, rather unfortunately of many a rather unscrupulous benefactor and in the same league Trustee whom together have decided. 'nah lets just divvy the spoils how we see fit and fuck what the Grantor/Principle/Executor wanted.

Actually looking through my paperwork I can see that I said trustee at the trial and on the paperwork it says Administrator.  I guess as this all pertains to a Trust which upon it is encumbent to be a subject the proof must be shown. Otherwise anyone may claim the right to be profit.

What we decided in the end for those getting bogged down by the jockying of this is to look at how it is in the real world and apply the rules of bonding to where one cannot be in the tripartite position to be sued.

I don't think that is the role of the executor. I have written to Dean Clifford regarding all my research and got no reply. I know he isn't revealing everything any way and with all these remedies it is important to check that you know what you mean as quite often others don't know what they mean or if they do they are not expressing it clearly and that would be to prevent themselves from giving out legal advice and thus being hacked by the hackers.

« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 01:55:20 PM by Yasin »

Yasin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2011, 02:06:02 PM »
Thanks Mescalito. Explains it cogently. I guess not one you will find readily in the law books as an explanation but in the Trusts books I'm looking at and case law cited above there's the clue.
Cheers mate. :-*

Quote
I've been studying this for about 3 days now, listening to the archived shows of him explaining it and how to use it.

This document looks to be VERY powerful.

The gist of it is: We were born into an institution with an E-State (estate) automatically created in our behalf.

The estate is setup for us in the Scriptures and Scripture is Trust Law. Trust law trumps all other laws. When you're operating in Trust law, none of the codes, statutes, regulations pertain to you.

When you get home from the hospital, you get your 1st piece of mail (birth certificate); that's the gov't notifying you that a trust has been created on your behalf. That document is sent to the office of the executor/executrix; the highest official, which is you and I.

The registrars seal/signature on the back of the document is proof the estate has been or is in probate. By transferring that document to us, the live human being, they are acknowledging that we are the executor/executrix of the Estate.

The address of the estate is the file # of the birth certificate.

The US Corporation is indebted to each and every one of our estates. The creditor has immunity from the debtor, and the debtor can't bring claim against the creditor.

All debts have been paid and the bills we get are illusions. The office of the executor is the 'creditor'

The documents the government send us are manipulated by lawyers, and the intentionally leave off the word "Estate" at the end of your name to keep us ignorant to the fact that we are the executor/executrix of the estate.

If the IRS,Gov't, sends you a letter and you respond with the executor letter and add "Estate" to the end of your name like this John T. Doe, Estate you change the relationship of whatever entity you're dealing with. When you add Executor to the end of the name, you're informing them that they are now the debtor and you are the creditor.

Throughout our entire lives the government has been raiding our Estate. Since we don't know what's going on, they treat us as the Trustee that is in violation of their Trustee duties and they penalize us for it.

David says to stop chasing all these patriot/freedom law programs etc. Stop trying to jump through hoops finding a loop hole to separate yourself from the corp. and filing 1,000 page documents at the Sec.of State, County recorders, etc. and simply OCCUPY the Office of the Executor. This denies everyone else of having the presumption of having authority over anything having to do with the estate.

They are (Gov't, IRS, etc.) presuming to have authority to administer the estate because they have no letter from the executors office giving them that authority.

The executor letter is calling them to task by asking "Where's your authority to Administer for the Estate"?

They haven't been appointed the Trustee for the Estate because we haven't appointed them those powers and we're the only ones that can do that because we are the executors/executrix.

David says it doesn't matter what gov't agency, bank, creditor, IRS agent, etc. sends you a document (lien, levy, tax charge, failure to file, etc.), when they do that, they are in violation. They have no authority to administer that estate (your all capital letter name) and that you send back their paperwork along with the executor letter to the highest law office in their organization, as well as a copy to your Office of Governor and Office of Attorney General and automagically you're done with them ... END OF STORY!

I'm still studying this, it's intriguing. I think this may be the real magic bullet to stop the tyranny each of us are suffering at the hands of these quasi government agencies steeling our money and throwing us in jail.

Here's Angela Starks archive page of her past shows. I started on the page 2 and listened to him explaining the letter and the history of the estate on the 9/16/10 show here,

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=3...

Then I listened to the other shows he was on, on page 1.

Here's the site that has the Executor Letter and all the supporting docs to it.

http://www.stopthefraud2010.com/stf2010-docs/

Have any of you guys studied and understand the executor letter, and if so, what do you think about it?

Yasin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2011, 02:17:56 PM »
At Mescalito.
I got mine stamped by a Court after the judges approval. I still have the document. i was reluctant to take it to the then AG because I knew what he was really about.

Much thanks to Pete Cooney at the time for that remedy. I'm not sure I knew what I was doing but hey.....more paperwork for them to ignore eh.

Jonah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2011, 02:32:56 PM »

From what i understand is that god granted us dominion over the earth in the bible, his last will and testament.

Then God has made us the Heirs to his Estate. God can do this, all we have to do is accept the status, and proclaim it to receive the benefits granted to us by God. That can also mean only being subject to Gods Law and not Man's Law in a court setting.

From Bouviers:

HEIR. One born in lawful matrimony, who succeeds by descent, and right of blood, to lands, tenements or hereditaments, being an estate of inheritance. It is an established rule oflaw, that God alone can make an heir. Beame's Glanville, 143; 1 Thomas, Co. Lit. 931; and Butler's note, p.938. Under the word heirs are comprehended the heirs of heirs in infinitum.1 Co. Litt. 7 b, 9 a, 237 b; Wood's Inst. 69. According to many authorities, heir may be nomen collectivuum, as well in a deed as in a will, and operate in both in the same mannar, as heirs in the plural number. 1 Roll. Abr. 253; Ambl. 453; Godb. 155; T. Jones, 111; Cro, Eliz.313; 1 Burr. 38; 10 Vin. Abr. 233, pl. 1; 8 Vin. Abr. 233; sed vide 2 Prest. on, Est. 9, 10. In wills, in order to effectuate the intention of the testator, the word heirs is sometimes construed to mean next of kin; 1 Jac. & Walk. 388; and children, Ambl. 273. See further, as to the force and import of this word, 2 Vent. 311; 1 P. Wms. 229; 3 Bro. P. C. 60, 454; 2 P. Wms. 1, 369; 2 Black. R. 1010; 4 Ves. 26, 766, 794; 2 Atk. 89, 580; 5 East Rep. 533; 5 Burr. 2615; 11 Mod. 189; 8 Vin. Abr. 317; 1 T. R. 630; Bac. Abr. Estates in fee simple, B.

Jonah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2011, 02:51:37 PM »
This is an interesting E-mail I got from from Vic Beck a while back that I copied for reference regarding the Courts and Gods Law:

Now you may not believe in God or the bible but the system and billions do
and is it not good in this case to agree?

And here is a reminder what our friend in B.C. did a year ago:

Thru the whole experience when asked info for name and birth date. I
prefaced it with "Well according to the information as appears on a birth
certificate it says this." They tried to get me to testify but I kept
saying according to the information on the BC and I said I can't give you
hearsay info as it is perjury.

Then the JP said what about the name thing and private man? I said well
actually I'm the Heir.
He said "Heir"? Could you tell me what you mean by heir, can you explain
that?
I said well I'm the heir according to Genesis 1: 26-28 and was given
dominion over all the earth and all men are created equal [which is also a
maxim of law], so I’m the heir and further the Queens coronation oath of
1952 recognizes the Supremacy of God and all things fall under that, so I'm
the heir.
The JP jumped in there right there at that point and told the cop "You have
no jurisdiction, I am faxing the Release form and you let him go
immediately."


Now if God as per the system does not exist how it is he was released for
saying he is an heir and referenced Genesis 1:26-28? Heir of who or what?

In a speech to the House of Commons in 1953, Prime Minister Louis St.
Laurent stated:
"The rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words,
"Defender of the Faith". In England there is an established church. In our
countries there are no established churches, but in our countries there are
people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise
providence, and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities
would proclaim that their organization is such that it is a defense of the
continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men,
and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in
the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority,
described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler."

Now you may not believe in a higher power but the civil authorities that
run this country do and we are working in line with that than to oppose!

With love and all the best to all you from now on forward........Happy New
Life.

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2011, 09:38:55 PM »
thanks for your vic beck contribution Jonah. Do you have any ideas how you would get around the Annex 53 (dont quote me) of PACE which now allows them to detain or reconvene for a mental health assessment when you refuse to joinder to your DOB/Name?

M O'B

  • Sovereign
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 104
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Free The Planet
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2011, 09:46:48 PM »
hello Michael, life is very well at my end and all projects have had a happy ending over the last 2 years :)

so do you think there is nothing in it at all?

could the dead strawman be perceived as required death of a man or women?

warm regards....Seth

I have seen absolutely no evidence demonstrating that the alleged remedy is anything other than a misinterpretation of the rules of equity, as well as the CQV Act 1666.

For somebody or something to be declared legally dead, they/it needs to have been alive in the first place, which the STRAWMAN never was since it exists only as a legal fiction. Therefore, the argument that the STRAWMAN is dead and the flesh and blood it is dependent upon for energy should really be acting as the executor of its estate, is necessarily unsustainable given this basic understanding of the true nature of legal title and the executor's office.

I have heard the argument that pursuant to the CQV Act we are all presumed dead after seven years several times over the past couple of years. This view, however, completely falls apart upon close exammination of the statute in question:

Quote
An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.

X1Recital 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 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.

Annotations:
Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1Short title “The Cestui que Vie Act 1666” given by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 2

C2Preamble omitted in part under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1

C3Certain words of enactment repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1888 (c. 3) and remainder omitted under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3
Editorial Information

X1Abbreviations or contractions in the original form of this Act have been expanded into modern lettering in the text set out above and below.I.

Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead.
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 seaven 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….

IV.If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.

IV. [ X2 Provided alwayes That if any person or [ X3 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 [ X3 to] 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 where then liveing.

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/74/cestui-que-vie-act-1666

I see nothing in any of the above that means, whether expressly or impliedly, that we are all considered legally dead after seven years.
What the Act actually prescribes is that if any legal estate is abandoned for that period, the grantor of the estate can reclaim it when the beneficiary is deemed to be leaglly dead, until proven otherwise. Conversely, if the beneficiary returns to re-claim the estate, the estate must be returned, with interest, for the puroses of which the Crown will issue an 'Evidence of Life' form, which I have attached to this post.

It is my considered opinion, following my own reserach, that this form was also created to be used to claim the beneficial interest of a Life Annuity Trust, which arises following every registered birth. An article I wrote on the subject can be read below and I will soon release a video on the administrative process I have engaged with two Comptroller Generals, one of whom creates the annuities, the other audits them.

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/24/human-sovereignty

Love & Blessings.

Michael
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted