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.