Cestui que vie

Cestui Que Vie

Cede Maiori

Individual Trust Estate

Watch the video The Creation of the Birth Certificate Trusts

History of the origins of Cestui Que Vie

To say something about the origins of the Cestui Que Vie act (CQV), we have to go back in history. The CQV came about through three trusts (“funds”), each based on a papal decree. These decrees were issued by three Popes and together are also known as the “papal tiara,” or the “Triple Crown of Ba’al.

The First Crown is the ‘Unam Sanctam’ was promulgated by Pope Boniface VIII . This decree states that there is only one holy, apostolic and Catholic Church. Outside of this church, redemption and forgiveness of sins is not possible. The decree can be seen as an important document in the formation of unity of the Catholic Church and the ratification of the papal office.

However, many people view this document as an abomination because the Catholic Church claims dominion over the entire world and also places spiritual power above temporal power.

It literally states that all people must submit to the Roman pope in order to achieve salvation (“Moreover, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human being be subject to the pope of Rome.”)13. Pope Boniface VIII also states that spiritual power is placed above temporal power. For this he refers to Jeremiah 1:12: “Now, on this day, I give you authority over all kingdoms and nations, to tear them out and destroy them, to destroy and tear them down, to build them up and plant them.”

Important for you to know, is that in this First Crown, in fact, everything that was rightfully due to a human being by nature was transferred into the trust. It was the genesis of registration on NAME, the legal fiction or legal entity.

The Second Crown is the ‘Aeterni Regis’, issued by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481. This decree ensured that birth certificates could be traded as promissory notes, as government bonds. If a bank could not redeem this promissory note after 7 years, the child in question was declared ‘lost at sea’ (lost ‘property’). The birth certificate then functioned purely as collateral.

The Third Crown was issued in 1537 by Pope Paul III. With this decree, we lost the control of our souls as the “administrator” of our bodies. Our status was taken away from us. Our soul was lost in the ‘sea of souls’ (see also Maritime Law), while our right to exist was only represented as a bond of the state.

In 1666, the latter crown was ratified by the London Parliament. London had suffered enormously from the plague, and now huge fires had almost completely destroyed the city. Behind closed doors, the London Parliament enacted a law: the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. This law justified taking possession of all property of both men and women. This property was included in a trust, of which the state became the trustee. The state held all property in trust until a “living man” came forward to lay claim to it.

Watch the video LEGALLY-DEAD: Lost At Sea

Watch the documentary END OF THE ROAD: How Money Became Worthless

Watch the video Personal Property Trust for Privacy

CEDE MAIORI: Correction of the 12 Presumptions of the Roman Court

A Roman Court does not operate under a true rule of law, but under the presumptions of the Private Bar Guild. If these presumptions cannot be refuted, then they are taken as fact and therefore said to be true, and count as ‘Truth in commerce’ (“truth in trade”).

There are twelve (12) major presumptions of the private bar association which, if undisputed, are public record, public service, public oath, immunity, subpoena, guardianship, court of guardians, court of trustees, government as executor/beneficiary, executor De Son Tort (unlawful act), incapacity and guilt:

1. The presumption of public record is that any case brought before a lower Roman court is a public record case, when in fact it is assumed by the members of the private bar association that the case is a private bar association case. Unless openly reprimanded and rejected by clearly stating that the case should be taken in public, the case remains a private bar association case fully under the rules of the private bar association;

2. The presumption of public service is that all members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their guild, then act as public agents of the government, or “public officials” by taking additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict their private “superior” oath to their own guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath stands; And…

3. The presumption of public oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of “public officials” who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and are therefore obligated to serve fairly, impartially and honestly as determined by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption that members of the Private Bar Guild have functioned under their public oath is contrary to their guild oath. If challenged, these individuals must recuse themselves as a conflict of interest and cannot possibly be under a public oath.

4. The presumption of immunity is that key mem¬bers of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of “public officials” acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oaths demanded, the presumption is that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal responsibility for their actions.

5. The presumption of subpoena is that a subpoena is by custom an unopposed stand and therefore a person attending the Court is deemed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the Court. Presence in court is usually obtained by invitation through ‘subpoena’.

The summons should be rejected and returned.

Unless the suppoena is dismissed and returned, with a copy of the dismassal filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused state and the existence of ‘guilt’ state.

6. The presumption of custody is that by custom a suppoena or warrant does not stand refuted and therefore when someone goes to Court it is presumed to be a thing and therefore can be held in custody by ‘Custodians’. This includes the dead legal fiction non-human “PERSON” for which rules and regulations of corporate governments are written.

Guardians may only legitimately have guardianship over goods and “things” and not over flesh and blood souls that possess His being.

The summons and custody should be dismissed.

Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of subpoena and/or in court, the presumption stands that you are a thing and property and therefore can be lawfully detained by custodians.

7. The presumption of The Court of Guardians is the presumption that since you can be listed as a “resident” of a ward of a local government area and have on your “passport” the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the “Guardian” powers of the government and its agents as a “Court of Guardians”.

The Sole Heir is general guardian and executor of the trust.

Unless this presumption is openly challenged to show that you are both general guardian and general executor of the case (trust) before the court, the presumption remains and you are by default a pauper, and crazy and therefore must abide by the rules of the Registrar of Guardians (clerk of the magistrate court).

8. The presumption of court of trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild assume that you accept the office of trustee as a “public servant” and “government employee” only by attending a Roman court, because such courts are always for public trustees according to the rules of the guild and the Roman system.

The Sole Heir is only visiting the court at the invitation of the court, to clarify the matter.

Unless this presumption is openly challenged to indicate that you are merely visiting by “invitation” to clarify the matter, and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this case, the presumption remains and is assumed to be one of the main grounds for claiming jurisdiction – simply because you “appeared.”

9. The presumption that the government is acting in two roles as executor and beneficiary is that the Private Bar Guild for the case in question appoints the judge/magistrate in the capacity of executor, while the plaintiff acts in the capacity of beneficiary of the trust fund for the current case.

THE SOLE HEIR IS NOT THE TRUSTEE.

Unless this presumption is openly challenged to show that you are both general guardian and general executor of the case (trust) in court, the presumption remains and you are the trustee by default, so you must abide by the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate).

10. The Presumption of Executor De Son Tort / Unlawful Act is the presumption that if the defendant wishes to assert his right as executor and beneficiary over his body, mind and soul, he is acting as an executor De Son unlawful act or as a “false executor” suing the “lawful” judge as executor. Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of “real” executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation.

The Sole Heir is executor of the trust.

Unless this presumption is openly challenged by not only asserting one’s position as executor, but also questioning whether the judge or magistrate wants to act as executor De Son Tort, the presumption remains and a judge or magistrate of the private bar may seek assistance from bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim.

11. The presumption of incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, thus incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation.

The Sole Heir is live life competent de facto and has accepted the trust beneficially

Unless this presumption is openly challenged against knowing your position as executor and beneficiary and actively reprimanding and objecting to contrary presumptions, then it remains with the time of pleading that you are incompetent, then the judge or magistrate can do whatever they need to do to keep you obedient.

12. The presumption of guilt is the presumption that, since it is supposed to be a private business meeting of the Private Bar Association, you are guilty whether you plead ‘guilty’, do not plead or plead ‘not guilty’.

The Sole Heir has challenged countered and corrected the most extreme “Dead and Lost at Sea” Prejudice.

Thus, unless you have previously prepared a self-serving affidavit of truth and motion (proprio motu) to dismiss the extreme prejudice in the public record or engage a demurrer (criminal lawyer) to do so, the presumption remains that you are “guilty” and the private Bar Guild can then hold you until a bail bondsman is willing to guarantee the amount for which the Guild wants to profit from you.

Individual Testamentary Trust Estate (OPPT)

A person who deals with a deceased person’s property (placenta) without proper authority is known as an executor de son tort. Such a person’s actions may subsequently be ratified by the lawful executors or administrators if the actions do not contradict the substantive provisions of the deceased’s will or the rights of heirs at law.

The allegedly competent authorities have acted without proper authority with the placenta trust because the ‘authorities’ have deprived the Sole Heir of all vital information for generations.

 The Sole Heir is free from warfare, murder, coercion, extortion, oppression and insider trading.

When there is no will, a person is said to have died intestate—”without testimony.” As a result, there is no tangible “testimony” to follow, and hence there can be no executor. If there is no will or the executors named in a will do not wish to act, an administrator of the deceased’s estate may instead be appointed. The generic term for executors or administrators is personal representative. In England and Wales, when a person dies intestate in a nursing home, and has no family members who can be traced, those responsible for their care automatically become their executors.

And so the inhabitants of the territory are kept ignorant and “dead and lost at sea” so that the supposedly competent authorities can dispose of the Trust Estate.

And therefore, the individual birth trust estate is vested in one of the Sole Heir’s bodily organs that has only one function: to facilitate the development of the Sole Heir during pregnancy and through the One’s Persona Placenta Trust (OPPT), throughout the life of the Sole Heir to whom the placenta was connected by the umbilical cord / line of descent.

The Office of the

In Private Notary

The Office of the

In Private Attorney

The Office of

In Private Asset Management

Join our Newsletter