Author Topic: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'  (Read 29538 times)

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2011, 07:05:47 AM »
I posted that form up on the now defunct British  section of Thinkfreeforums.org last time you were saying Winston Shrout was wrong and that it is a life Annuity the reason I didnt lodge it was it was declaring me a PERSON.  I suppose a I could change the word PERSON to WOMAN but since the term WOMAN more than likely has legal implications, I left the remedy behind. It has been almost 3 years since I have needed to call this remedy back into question now and I have been challenging their Authority on that basis in the courts. There is definitely a bond in the room and as far as I am concerned the judge is unlawfully administering it.

My recent invite to Crown Court contains a Security number pertaining to my challenge to my right to travel unencumbered.  It states the other side do not have to present any evidence or turn up on the day as per their Criminal Rules.  So therefore again the Judge has decided that there is no contest to answer to from the other side and is preventing crucial discovery evidence onto the files, discovery evidence that would wipe out their claim  and something must be making him think he has lawful Authority to do that besides the rules. The rules of evidence clearly state that disclosure and evidence must be provided when asked. Maxims of law exist for him and not for me.

What he has done is pretend not to see the private document and assumed the role of executor for the áppellant.

I think Frank O's stuff on this seems on the mark.

I will report back on this given i have had a mere 5 days to respond to this offer before I hit the Crown Court of Appeal  and they are assuming I am not going to be appearing in court.  I think there are other documents which pertain to identity and given the executor is sitting in front of me there is no harm presenting the facts in the room is there?

I stand to be corrected of course? I know of many men who have gone to Crown and been rail roaded but who has gone to Crown and been railroaded about their driving license?
 Who has used this remedy and failed?
If anyone knows of such man can they forward me his details please.  I understand that the Driving scam is a mega lucrative deal for them but rules are rules and the law of Equity applies before all rules.

Also when I informed you of my discovery of the form you've supplied above that they had at the same time changed or amended the CQV and this I believed was a direct result of me stupidly playing my hand out of naivity of the law and desparation to get them to leave off me and give me my property back at that time. 

I think you will find the original talks of being 'dead beyond the seas by age 7'. It's meaning has now changed and that was probably because I was claiming my share to equal benefits. No matter.

Ok the CQV, it's written at a time when all the Tudor population were sailors right? Don't think so....

Here is an interesting quote from someone remarkably similar named to the man presumably you are questioning:

'Many administrations of intestate estates had to be rejected, though probably belonging to the county, because the only information afforded is that the intestate died either in the State's service, on board ship, or in parts beyond the seas. With regard to the spelling of the names of persons, places, and occupations, this of course was a difficulty, but as far as possible,'
F Collins, 1883 About British Record Society, Charterhouse]

Like I said, IF THERE IS ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO HAS USED THIS REMEDY AND FAILED IN HIGH COURT PLEASE GET IN CONTACT.

 

Thanks.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 02:21:51 PM by GiGie »

M O'B

  • Sovereign
  • Full Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 104
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Free The Planet
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2011, 04:37:41 PM »
I posted that form up on the now defunct British  section of Thinkfreeforums.org last time you were saying Winston Shrout was wrong and that it is a life Annuity the reason I didnt lodge it was it was declaring me a PERSON.  I suppose a I could change the word PERSON to WOMAN but since the term WOMAN more than likely has legal implications. I left the remedy behind. It has been almost 3 years since I have needed to call this remedy back into question now and I have been challenging their Authority on that basis in the courts. There is definitely a bond in the room and as far as I am concerned the judge is unlawfully administering it.

[...] I think Frank O's stuff on this seems on the mark.

[...] I understand that the Driving scam is a mega lucrative deal for them but rules are rules and the law of Equity applies before all rules.

The form does not declare that you are a legal person Mary, it declares that you, whatever you call yourself, are alive and claiming the beneficial interest of a trust in your STRAWMAN's name, following the assumption that you, the sole beneficiary of the trust, were dead, when said interest was not claimed within seven years of the annuity's creation.

With respect, there is no evidence that the judge is administering a bond in our name when we appear in court; it is, as Winston himself said when he presented it in his seminars, just a theory. However, after hundreds of hours spent buring the midnight oil searching for it, I have seen no evidence that there is a birth bond in existence.

As you already know, I have studied Winston, Creditors in Commerce, Tony King, Tim Turner, Jack Smith et al and was on the brink of attempting to take control of any bond in my name, which I intended to do by serving a package of extremely powerful documents and instruments on the US Treasury, as has been done by several researchers I am in contact with. Not one of them received any form of response, but we know of others who have been prosecuted by the IRS for attempting to de-fraud the US Treasury. This is certainly not an area in which we can afford to learn from our mistakes, so I inevitably scrapped my intention on the basis that there was no evidence that anybody had had any success in so doing and because the last thing I wanted to do was do business with the military-industrial complex. It was then that I discovered the paper trail for the annuities, which led me to the realisation that those instruments are far more valuable than bonds, since they generate ever-increasing profits for the owner [grantor].

Having read a great deal of that material posted at oneheaven.org and oneevil.org, I agree that Frank's research "seems on the mark" and much of it is. However, that doesn't mean that all of it is, which has been discussed in detail on this forum at the thread below:

http://thinkfree.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1316.0

In simple terms, Frank's foundational argument, that nobody has ever successfully challenged the authority of the papal bulls, therefore the Pope controls the planet and everything on it, just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, on the basis that the English Constitution, from Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, was and remains a successful legal challenge to the authority of Popery on the shores of what is known as the Commonwealth. Therefore, Frank''s undertsanding of the court system is inevitably misconceived in my humble opinion, which has thus far not been successfully challenged, although it goes without saying that I would never rule out the possibility.

I also agree that the rules of equity should be applied to all equitable matters, but I have experienced for myself in the High Court of Chancery, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, that the courts will not apply those rules against an interest of the Crown and the banksters, who control just about everything within the judicial system and beyond. The Supreme Court, as dictated by the Registrar of the Queen's Privvy Council, will not even consider challenging a verdict in the name of truth and justice, if that might involve even the slightest bit of embarrassment for one of her majesty's favourite law lords or knights of the ill-gotten realm.

If things are that bad in the highest court in the land, it is reasonable to conclude that justice is simply not obtainable in any court room in which all the players of a rigged game are working for the Crown, except you. It is an unconscionable conflict of interests, pure and simple, which is prima facie evidence that could form the basis of a legal argument that would declare the entire system null and void.

Love & Blessings,

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

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2011, 03:10:34 PM »
Quote
The form does not declare that you are a legal person Mary, it declares that you, whatever you call yourself, are alive and claiming the beneficial interest of a trust in your STRAWMAN's name, following the assumption that you, the sole beneficiary of the trust, were dead, when said interest was not claimed within seven years of the annuity's creation.


Hey Micheal
I will go into more detail exactly what that form pertains to another time. I'm exhausted to be frank as you know come the hour for me. As you also know, I have too spoken to many a great fella and intellectual guru who have walked that Admiralty plank before me around the globe. So I left you to your enthusiasm whilst quietly knowing what to expect.  The explanation is too protracted and long to go into and I'm not sure I want to like I said I'm doing quite well with Winston Shrout's teachings and the evidence is in my possession.

Quote
With respect, there is no evidence that the judge is administering a bond in our name when we appear in court; it is, as Winston himself said when he presented it in his seminars, just a theory. However, after hundreds of hours spent buring the midnight oil searching for it, I have seen no evidence that there is a birth bond in existence.


I'm not sure what evidence you are expecting regarding this but you won't be getting it. How can you expect a public servant who is as much a prisoner as you are to be informed prior of the scam? So it is a matter of stipulating the rules before you enter.
Believe me that word craft is protracted and each word means something else.  There is always though an originating signature a witness and the banker. Lets leave it at that.
I'd like to see you prove you annuity trust theory. good luck with that man. Though I have long come to the conclusion that ancient Trust law is Manna for such a scam as, well, you can do it all secretly. Try getting your head round the scam of the Driving Licence and the privatet and public set offs where that's concerned.

Quote
As you already know, I have studied Winston, Creditors in Commerce, Tony King, Tim Turner, Jack Smith et al and was on the brink of attempting to take control of any bond in my name, which I intended to do by serving a package of extremely powerful documents and instruments on the US Treasury, as has been done by several researchers I am in contact with. Not one of them received any form of response, but we know of others who have been prosecuted by the IRS for attempting to de-fraud the US Treasury. This is certainly not an area in which we can afford to learn from our mistakes, so I inevitably scrapped my intention on the basis that there was no evidence that anybody had had any success in so doing and because the last thing I wanted to do was do business with the military-industrial complex. It was then that I discovered the paper trail for the annuities, which led me to the realisation that those instruments are far more valuable than bonds, since they generate ever-increasing profits for the owner [grantor].
'This is not the right forum':  to quote the infamous Canadian Treasurer.  You are welcome down to our gaff we be happy to supply as I've already offered. You han the Having read a great deal of that material posted at oneheaven.org and oneevil.org, I agree that Frank's research "seems on the mark" and much of it is. However, that doesn't mean that all of it is, which has been discussed in detail on this forum at the thread below:.[/quote]

http://thinkfree.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1316.0

Quote
In simple terms, Frank's foundational argument, that nobody has ever successfully challenged the authority of the papal bulls, therefore the Pope controls the planet and everything on it, just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, on the basis that the English Constitution, from Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, was and remains a successful legal challenge to the authority of Popery on the shores of what is known as the Commonwealth. Therefore, Frank''s undertsanding of the court system is inevitably misconceived in my humble opinion, which has thus far not been successfully challenged, although it goes without saying that I would never rule out the possibility.:.


I just find it laughable that everyone is saying the Papal Bull is a pile of crap. I know I took David Merrills head off at the time but anyway like I said above the boon of Trust is the Secrecy. So we may never know.

Quote
I also agree that the rules of Equity should be applied to all equitable matters, but I have experienced for myself in the High Court of Chancery, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, that the courts will not apply those rules against an interest of the Crown and the banksters, who control just about everything within the judicial system and beyond. The Supreme Court, as dictated by the Registrar of the Queen's Privvy Council, will not even consider challenging a verdict in the name of truth and justice, if that might involve even the slightest bit of embarrassment for one of her majesty's favourite law lords or knights of the ill-gotten realm.:.


Oh you are being a tad dejected there. There are many who have walked the plank and never needed to swim again. Lets not forget those rare folk.  All about Jurisdiction dear man. Besides which study enough and go to the man himself enough and they try as best to assist without actually telling you you are right but a little bit out. Impartiality. There are also biased, corrupt goons and like those in the police the likes of valient men like Mark Daly have exposed a mere fraction of them, nevertheless,  the chickens will come home to roost. Hearty thanks to those decent fellows who have contacted me since my call that have been to Crown and failed and spent all night talking to me. Afterall, it is only through our failures and putting our failures together that we will see through the maize. Cliquing and charging at a time like this when you have minor successes is galling to say the least.  Though Micheal you are worth every donation you get because you give it freely and without pressure. You like Frank are not always right however brilliant you are. None of us are. No judge or legislation is either.  (Oh Frank pssst Archbishop of Canterbury ;).

Quote
If things are that bad in the highest court in the land, it is reasonable to conclude that justice is simply not obtainable in any court room in which all the players of a rigged game are working for the Crown, except you. It is an unconscionable conflict of interests, pure and simple, which is prima facie evidence that could form the basis of a legal argument that would declare the entire system null and void.].

Whole heartedly concerned we must get our coat of Arms and restore balance and harmony to these and other shores.  Do you realise some poor bunch of people get the shit bombed out of them every single year so they can justify world income tax and VAT? pffffff. As you know I have been in all arenas except Supreme - to come no doubt but I'm aiming right high this time I won't be accepting no strike outs either. Lets hope they don't push me that far though. I am at the limit.

All about Jurisdiction dear man. All about jurisdiction. No you will not get justice in a high court of the Temple Bar do you seriously expect to? LOL.x

And of course the judge is administering it. IF he can get away with it that is.......using the private and public record to trick you. He must record but he doesn't always does he Micheal not where us lot are concerned.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 03:52:50 PM by GiGie »

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2011, 12:38:48 PM »
Well I can say I've used this remedy before and it worked again today. When asked what I wanted to do I said I wish to add the Affadavits on file 2 of them as they are unrebutted. (Both contain comprehensive fee schedules) on a technical point of law he stated that Affadavits are not permissable in a Criminal Court.

So I guess they changed the Criminal Procedure Rules. I stated that as Executor this Court is Common Law and therefore they stand. He acted from behind the bench and adminstered the estate and there is a hearing scheduled ahead.  I know what I should have done.

I was listed for a Mention hearing which is intrinsically linked with Ecclesiastical Law and in line with the documentation submitted by me. The prosecution denied having the documents and the appeal notice so I objected to the appeal date by asking the judge whether he was asssuming I was not there by setting a date. I asked to see witnesses and screwed up there and did not submit the new evidence of the recent torture that went on.

Anyway I await the doctored court record transcripts.  I do not accept the proposals and show now be raising my objections to the Attorney General.

Jonah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2011, 02:15:28 PM »
Was in court today for fines for driving offences.
No name game involved. Gave them my registered names.
Told the court, "I am here to have settled all debts that I owe".
They said "OK" and told me that I owe £1150.
I said, "before we go any further please confirm to me who is the creditor?"
The players then confined between themselves before saying
"there is no creditors, you are here for fines"
I said: "But you just confirmed to me I am the debtor when I said I am here to settle all debts that I owe. Therefore there must be a creditor.  So is there a debtor and creditor, yes or no?"
The court then called a recess for 15 mins.
On return the magistrates said that the fines has been quashed.


Jonah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2011, 04:51:36 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?

Don't feck about with these people. They want a name, give them a name. "what's you're name?"
Said plod.  Answer "My registered names are Joe Bloggs." For clarification:  the birth certificate names  are a giving name and a surname. Joe and Bloggs

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2011, 11:54:40 AM »
Was in court today for fines for driving offences.
No name game involved. Gave them my registered names.
Told the court, "I am here to have settled all debts that I owe".
They said "OK" and told me that I owe £1150.
I said, "before we go any further please confirm to me who is the creditor?"
The players then confined between themselves before saying
"there is no creditors, you are here for fines"
I said: "But you just confirmed to me I am the debtor when I said I am here to settle all debts that I owe. Therefore there must be a creditor.  So is there a debtor and creditor, yes or no?"
The court then called a recess for 15 mins.
On return the magistrates said that the fines has been quashed.

Mint.

To use a North East phrase.  ;D

Well done. I like that logical and deductive, sharp, thinking outside and the box and most importantly for yourself.

Top marks!

There's lots of suitable ways to get around the name game. No one has the right to make me tell them a private CQV that I was not party to and which put me into a public CQV that shoved me up the arse.
No one.

Not no one.

Jonah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2011, 10:09:02 AM »
GiGie,
The court case was not really victory as such, in that. I fecked up on the creditor thing, Got carried away. It only served as a point to try and get them to agree that I am the debtor.
But I could of made it worse and seen argumentive. Plus the points were already made before the hearing by way of Statement of facts. In that I acknowledged I was the Debtor. Therefore all that was required was for the court to accept this status. They did. The magistrates court act, in relation to fines enforcement in criminal matters does not mention Debtor Only defaulter. But regardless the court said that I owe a Pecuniary punishment - a fine
and the fact I owe something means I am the debtor.

I stated that The evidence of the BC proves I am the debtor to her majesty, in that
she through her agency have provided Benefits, provided invaluable services - to me the man who use the name on the BC therefore I am indebted to her majesty. As I don't own anything, cannot own anthing was not born with money, etc. I pledged to her majesty, as a man, the only thing we can do to satisfy the debt. Pledge my life in service to her majesty as fulfillment of the debt for the invaluable services. I could I been sent to prison or community service and would have have to accepted it. The court probably let this one pass because they couldn't be bothered going into all this stuff.

I know many would think it wrong doing what I did and wanting to be the debtor and making a pledge, but this came from a more spiritual aspect. I will have to allaborate more latter when i get more time.



M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2011, 12:18:56 PM »
This came to my attention today - the matter is a driving issue, in the state of Oregon and you'll notice the process he's followed involves the use of a Notary Public.  Would it work over here?  Why? Is the system over here more deeply embedded than in the 'colonies'? Do the layers of brainwashing, financial corruption and injustice operate on a deeper, some might say 'evil' level that renders our efforts so much harder than in these colonies?

Whatever one's views and experiences of this corrupt judicial system, which operates to the advantage of the Banksters and all associated Crown entities, this could be taken as an example of a successful use of the Executor method. But does this prove anything other than that one man managed to get the case dismissed, not so much because of his administrative process as an officer of the court being so confused and threatened by it that the claim was dismissed? It does, however, illustrate the point that what may work for one is not necessarily the remedy for others. Still, it does provide food for thought . . .

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/2513/verificationaffidavitdi.pdf

I look forward to hearing your insights and considered views

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

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2011, 05:47:48 PM »
yeah cheers for that, that never happened with my case 3 years ago and i should have ensured that it did. 

Funny you  should post it as I was thinking about how to get my affadavits into criminal without going to county and going through yet more rigmarole and I thought about a Criminal Complaint. It occurred to me that the last time I was in Crown 3 years ago about this matter, the judge was quite willing to preside over the Tresspass and Harassment yet this judge wasn´t. I think this time though it? because I´ve added on the Magistrates as respondents. I think that´s what is causing the issue. So I decided today to rebrand the same issues as Criminal Complaints with the same onus to respond on points of law.

Plus the amount of us getting tortured under this PACE there has to be some movement on it. I can´t go on with it. They really enjoy the torture.  It? simply a matter of choice about whether they execute it and I completely salute those Custody Sergeants who? statements I read that decided that they were not going to follow orders or recommendations of bozos on their previous shifts.  There is no law mandating it for minor offences. It? a matter of personal choice and offer. Just depends on who you get there is no hard and fast rules.

People have been jailed using this remedy in this country. I as ever, will stand by what I believe in. It? a case of overstanding what you are doing and so being that no curve balls can spin your way. I got a curve ball and I have sat and thought about it and why I didn´t take the chance to fold and it? simply because of the enjoyment of the brutality that they have conducted in the name of an act of supreme wickedness and torture.  Pleading with those magistrates fell on deaf ears too so I? holding the CPS firmly responsible also. However, they did not conduct the act of torture. The police did, execution stylee. They did not have the Authority and I did not give them the Authority.

Simples.


Jonah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2011, 02:47:31 PM »
"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."

If you have the lawful power to make a will but have not made one, or if you have made a defective will
you are Intestate. Until you make a will you are considered Intestate. Therefore,  my interpretation is that, those without  a will are Intestate. Even if you are still alive.

Further it says: "In that case, he is said to die intestate". So if you are Intestate (die without a will) then you must have been Intestate (if you have not made a will)  prior to your death.

tsunamix1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2012, 04:26:55 PM »
David Clarence Schroll , has recently shut down the google group , that offered lots of material on this subject, though there are plenty of websites that offer some or most of it....there are peripheral concepts , ideas and knowledge , that must be obtained to make this procedure , a part of one's being, which i believe is necessary to the effectiveness of it, as it contains the foundation of "natural law" or private law ,and therefore, must be as natural to a man /woman ,as eating and breathing....in order for it to be "natural" to us.
  David , often in his audio files stated, that the scriptures contained all of the knowledge, necessary to this procedure. So inclusion of  scriptural study should enhance ones understanding , as to who they are and  other perspectives of trust law and estate matters.....case in point...Acts 28:7 (New King James Version) In that region there was an estate of the leading citizen of the island, whose name was Publius, who received us and entertained us courteously for three days.
 The idea that there was an estate of a living man , who entertained ...shows that definition of estate , to be
that, equal to the definition in Ballantyne's Law Dict. i.e." estate. In the pristine technical sense, the degree, quantity , nature and extant of interest which a person has in real property".  note the word "interest" and the obvious  exclusion of the word ownership.
   Most of us , who would consider using the executor letter method, would , enhance their understanding , by remembering the maxims of law , where , equality under the law is paramount , being one of them, shows that , what is good for the goose , is good for the gander,  if they ( those other entities, that are percieved as trespassers) can do what is noted in the corpus juris secundum (another good source) concerning death.."page 554: The presumption of death is effective for practically all legal purposes, including
proceedings involving real property, and is available as a method of proof of death in cases where death is a jurisdictional fact that must be made to appear." Since this executor's letter is a clear and unequivocal , rebuttal , based in trust law, i.e. "SECTION 4, page 882 - The trust arising from an appointment as executor or administrator is highly personal. It is not commercial or contractual. It is not a property right and it involves no pecuniary interest on the part of the fiduciary." and as noted , not commercial or contractual , making it outside of the jurisdiction of all other entities, and beyond their touch or inquiries.
 I'm in the process of using it...if there is way to relate progress , i will........

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2012, 10:15:46 PM »
I see no evidence that the Executor Remedy is a legal Myth. Not whatsoever.  I have no idea what the Ministry of Funny hand shakes was but I experienced first hand what it means to be an Executor at Crown and they weren't pussyfooting around.

I should have dismissed the case given I was given the power to. Never mind. I was a bit taken that it worked. A bit like a child who is screaming to get out and when the door is opened continues tantruming on the floor instead.

However, associating it with CQV Act is a little misguided.

CQV is a Trust, something a little different. There are several types of Trust.

Oh and Frank O booted me out coz my Trust number was wrong and I've now lost the email to rearrange my Property.

So any Frank O's watching I can't even remember how to get back into the site.

Is the Frank O Society akin to the WFS whereupon the membership of which will change the face of the world one day?

I don't see the point when I'm the Executor anyway. I mean of being in yet another complex Trust.

It's bad enough being saddled to the DVLA without my Authority.



« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 10:20:39 PM by GiGie »

M O'D

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • ThinkFree
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2012, 12:33:15 PM »
For your consideration: from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, "BOOK THE FIRST. Of the Rights of Persons.
CHAPTER I."

Quote
"OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS."
 These rights of life and member, can only be determined by the death of the person; which was formerly accounted to be either a civil or natural death. The civil death commenced, if any man was banished or abjured the realm(z) by the process of the common law, or entered into religion; that is, went into a monastery, and became there a monk professed: in which cases he was absolutely dead in law, and his next heir should have his estate. For such banished man was entirely cut off from society; and such a monk, upon his profession, renounced solemnly all secular concerns: and besides, as the popish clergy claimed an exemption from the duties of civil life and the commands of the temporal magistrate, the genius of the English laws would not suffer those persons to enjoy the benefits of society, who secluded themselves from it, and refused to submit to its regulations.(a) A monk was therefore counted civiliter mortuus, and when he entered into religion might, like other dying men, make his testament and executors; or if he made none, the ordinary might grant administration to his next of kin, as if he were actually dead intestate. And such executors and administrators had the same power, and might bring the same actions for debts due to the religious, and were liable to the same actions for those due from him, as if he were naturally deceased.(b) Nay, so far has this principle been carried, that when one was bound in a bond to an abbot and his successors, and afterwards made his executors, and professed himself a monk of the same abbey, and in process of time was himself made abbot thereof; here the law gave him, in the capacity of abbot, an action of debt against his own executors to recover the money due.(c) In short, a monk or religious was so effectually dead in law, that a lease made even to a third person, during the life (generally) of one who afterwards became a monk, determined by such his entry into religion; for which reason leases, and other conveyances for life, were usually made to have and to hold for the term of one’s natural life.(d) But, *[*133even in the times of popery, the law of England took no cognizance of profession in any foreign country, because the fact could not be tried in our courts;(e) and therefore, since the Reformation, this disability is held to be abolished:(f) as is also the disability of banishment, consequent upon abjuration, by statute 21 Jac. I. c. 28.13
This natural life, being, as was before observed, the immediate donation of the great Creator, cannot legally be disposed of or destroyed by any individual, neither by the person himself, nor by any other of his fellow-creatures, merely upon their own authority.


namaste
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 12:40:10 PM by Michael of Elmet »
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

GiGie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Myth of the 'Executor Remedy'
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2012, 12:55:01 PM »
Interesting find. You are dead in law if you become ecclesiastical. Hence a Judge cannot be prosecuted.  The last line I absolutely concur with and it is all about standing.

I somehow read your first post to my first response; Either they are shills lying but I understand that some people have actually taking control of their bond and that in order to take control of it you have to be sponsored in so to speak by other illuminati types.

As I've discussed this privately before who cares. Really I don't. What I care about is the ever increasing load of evil perpetuated daily upon all lives. Even if I was totally minted by such an escapade, how am I ever going to truely enjoy my life?  I've never bothered because like you say they just ignore you and pretend they don't understand what you are saying.

The fact is to my surprise I found the Courts quite honourable on the matter. However, it is a game of standing and changing the rules all the time and given I'm not always sure what the rules are and they are it's trial and error.  Remember the days when bozos argued til the cows came home that this country was never a UK PLC?