December 18, 2010

Are You Still Dead?

Of all the research I have done in the last few years, I believe this to be the most important.

I think that once you understand that you are dead, and what that means legally, and crucially, what you can do to turn this to your advantage, you are on the road to controlling them, instead of them controlling you.

Unam Sanctam (issued in 1302) was indeed a terrifying papal bull and it started everything. Understand that, and the scales will fall from your eyes. You are a slave. Of that there is no doubt. This papal bull explains why.

Owning us body and soul was not enough for them though. They also needed a way of extracting our money. They are spectacularly good at this. We, on the other hand, are spectacularly bad at saying no in a way that they hear the word, and the reason for us saying it.

I have read the Cestui Que Vie Act (1666) which was given Royal Assent by Charles II, but I was unaware that there was an earlier version enacted in 1540 by Henry VIII. It all makes more sense when I realised that the church was involved and that the Act concerns souls "lost beyond the See", not "souls lost beyond the sea". The misinterpretation is understandable when you know that the CQV Act was written entirely in French despite the fact that we had switched to english 300 years earlier. It was written just after the Great Plague of 1665 and during the Great Fire of London in 1666. Given the prevailing circumstances, this legislation was rammed through the system in record time. Indecently hasty, some would say. We should realise why this was done so rapidly in a foreign language. It was a con. It was a scam that affected us all, for millenia. It is not an archaic piece of parchment locked away in a dusty cellar in Westminster. It lives today. It is used today. Think of the UK as a computer and CQV as its operating system. We were never supposed to understand its importance in our lives. We are supposed to continue in ignorance, forever.

It would be better (for you) if I stepped aside and handed over to Mary Croft. Mary is a leading light in the Freeman/Sovereign movement and helped thousands of us to comprehend the nature and scale of the deception from a commercial viewpoint. Spend some time at her site and you will learn much. Mary has a way of explaining things simply. Do click your way over there and read the whole thing. No doubt it will bring questions but I would urge you to ask Mary, not me. I am a worm in comparison. Her knowledge is prodigious.

Here are a couple of paragraphs but they do not do the article justice. It flows beautifully and deserves to be read whole, with a pot of tea or coffee somewhere nearby.

Look:

"Since common law courts no longer exist, we know that the case never has anything to do with “facts” or live men and women and so, anyone who testifies (talks about the facts of the case) is doomed. ALL courts operate in trust law, based upon ecclesiastical canon law–– ritualism, superstition, satanism, etc.––which manifests as insidious, commercial law and we are in court to take the hit, if they can get us to do so. They use every trick in the book––intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses, in order to change the jurisdiction, when they know they are losing, in order to make us admit that we are the name of the trust. When we do so, we are deemed to be the trustee––the one liable for administering the trust. Ergo, until now, it has been a waste of our time, energy, and emotion to go to a place where it is almost certain that we will be stuck with the liability.

We all know from our indoctrination, programming, and schooling that judges are impartial and have sworn an oath to this effect. This means he must not favour either plaintiff or defendant. But, our experience reveals that he does, indeed, favour the plaintiff, indicating a glaring conflict of interest––that the prosecutor, judge, and clerk all work for the state––the owner of the CQV trust. So, as the case is NOT about “justice”, it must be about the administration of a trust. They all represent the trust owned by the state and, if we are beneficiary, the only two positions left are Trustee and Executor. So, if you detect the judge’s partiality, although I doubt the case will get this far, you might just want to let them know that you know this."

The courts treat us with derision because we simply do not know that we are dead. They cannot deal with us as humans. They even call us "imbeciles" and "monsters" in their law dictionaries. The trick, (and Mary explains it), is to deal with the judge on his/her terms. Otherwise we are speaking Mandarin badly, with a Nigerian accent that sounds like Serbo-Croat, and all they hear, unsurprisingly, is noise. Learn the lingo and you will not be parting with your money, or in some cases, your liberty. Learn about Trusts from Mary, and you will discover how to switch the liability from you, to the judge. Once you have succeeded in placing the onus back on the judge the next two words you are likely to hear are "Case dismissed!".

It sounds complex but Mary lays it out in a way that can be digested easily.

My thanks to Mescalito for reminding me several times to knock up a piece on this fascinating subject.

CR.

15 comments:

mescalito said...

lol, yeah sorry about that ranty, just thought it was a important piece.
do you think this is it, that this is our remedy?
did you check the links she posted?

richard said...

"sir, I am a living man, the blood flows, the flesh lives. I have harmed no-one and seek remedy" lf the judge leaves and comes back he's trying to get juristiction under maritime law, so you make the above statement and ask for "cure and maintenance" instead of remedy. As a sailor in distress instead of being treated as dead ie salvage he is obliged to provide a cure. If he goes out and returns he's an ecclesiastic, so again you state that you're alive, and a sovereign under God, and ask for remedy.
So I've heard. This fits with the notion that, if you are dead, the judge is acting on your behalf. A lot to get your head round. Reminds me of Doc Daneeka's problem in "Catch 22"

mescalito said...

all that's needed is for someone to try it!
ile be receiving a summons soon for non payment of my council tax so i will serve the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll and see what occurs.

Anonymous said...

Dear Captain Ranty

Update on your earlier post:
http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2010/12/another-tax-rebel.html

David:Bark was sentence to 28 days imprisonment on Wed 15 December.

I have no further details.

DP

Anonymous said...

Scales in one hand, sword in the other. Blindfolded.
The blindfold is now removed. No justice, remove the scales.
BTW. There is never any mention of 'man' or 'woman' in any of the so called laws made.
Be well...Morgan.

richard said...

youtube "cqv trust" and watch KingCast65 in court.
Heh!

mescalito said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ0Y_jjlCTQ

that's the link to the video Richard found.

Anonymous said...

Has ANYONE ever succeeded in trying these methods? I am sure that if anyone had it would be all over the Net but I can't find one single case where employing these rather arcane methods i.e. Ecclesiastical Deed Poll has succeeded.
I was issued a liability order for no payment of CT back in July. The bailiffs enforcing the order have been round 4 times but do not get a reply from their door knocking but I have formally made a Form 4 complaint for they lied on their letters and also breached data protection regs. In a few weeks (once 6 months is up) time the bailiff business will hand the matter back to the council and I await the latter's next move. Should be fun and games. Seems that 28 days in jail (of which only 14 is likely to be served) is good value for money IF and I have questions about this IF the debt is written off. 14 days at a cost to the State of about £1000 a week - that's £2000 the State has incurred.

Nomine said...

Thanks for giving him a poke with a sharpened stick Mescalito, I too have been meaning to look at Mary Croft's stuff for a long while but keep getting distracted, I shall make a pot of coffee and rectify that situation right now....cheers Captain!

defender said...

OT
Ranty, is there any way to find out just how many are in actual fact, in lawful rebellion in the UK?
Is there any indecation how many would be prepared to make their actions known to all and sundry?
If not, would a blog dedicated to gathering those be helpful?
Ta

mescalito said...

Anonymous- its a recent discovery as far as i can tell, so give it some time for the results to roll in, im waiting for my summons to come so i can try and then ile report back here.
Nomine- no worries, i hope i don't irritate the ranty man with my constant, oooooooooo, over here ranty man, post this ranty man, 3 bags full ranty man :)
Defender- id like to know the figures too. maybe ranty can do a post asking???

Just Woke Up said...

Thanks for this CR. More pieces of the jigsaw! My approach to this will be to AVOID court, as recommended. No controversy, nothing and no-one to answer to...

Re my earlier post about the birth registration there are two options. React to a situation created by THEM or create my own battle field and have them react to me. I will avoid creating a controversy. I didn't cause the problem with the birth registration procedures after all. I will immediately send out formal letters/notices on behalf of my alleged fiction to all and sundry advising them of a matter (I have no means by which to formally identify myself with my fiction/trust beyond doubt and therefore cannot honourably/honestly use the Name under oath, as to do so would be potentially fraudulent, misleading, misrepresentation, and perjury)and pass their problem to THEM to deal with. I will offer to trade for essential services for life as a sovereign human being on an informal basis. No refusal. No controversy. Fascinating to see what I get back but there is no way they will want it to go to court! I will add some of the points re trusts and the liable parties to my standard letter as this is dynamite. I'll provide updates. This should be fun. :)

Ultimately this means I CANNOT be a citizen of the fiction known as the EU and as a sovereign I cannot be responsible for the £77k+ national debt contribution I am advised I am to pay due to the corruption and ineptitude of Others.

defender said...

Just woke up, I am doing pretty much the same thing.
You cannot lose your rights and priviliges for your actions, they will remain with you no matter what.
No controversary, no dishonour, lawful and sovereign.

mescalito said...

Ranty man and everyone else should have a look at this: http://lawworks1.com/publicfiles/PDF's/You%20Were%20Born%20Free,%20Now%20You%20Can%20Live%20Free.pdf

Smoking Hot said...

Another audio of the UKBA including denial of entry to UK of British citizens!

http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.com/2010/12/another-exclusive-audio-of-ukba-stop.html