Category Archives: Law


How do BANKS really work when “Money” and “DOLLARS” are completely separate “things”. A DOLLAR is a Military or Company Scrip, an internal bank note or promise to pay at some point in the future and only relates to the “internal” private account holders of such a private “corporate” banking entity. A DOLLAR is not money evidenced by the Latin meanings of both words: “Dollar” and “Money” The very word Bank, does not mean “Safe”, a bank is the edge of a river, that controls (Directs) the flow of current, (Currency) energy is current, dollars are the ACCOUNTS of debt currency, so a bank does not have money! it is the director of the flow of debt currency. (Debt titles being DOLLAR’s) The gold is you, being the dominion over the Mineral and Energy wealth that was originally granted to the living man and without you acting as the ACCOUNT holder of their bank, (Under a hidden TRUST-LAW-SPLIT-TITLE arrangement that renders you as the Legal Title holder of their ACCOUNT), they lose equitable rights over your Dominion because Dominion was never granted to a dead entity such as a corporation, “Dominion” was only ever granted to man and the Bank can only act as a commercial “agent” of living man on the condition such a living man has agreed or been deceived into acting as the DEAD ACCOUNT holder of such a BANK in order that the “Equitable Title” falls into the hands of the Bank. The BANK sits between your “Christian” name (CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH) and your “SURNAME” (STATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE) as an Agent-administrator of the Christian name (Christian ACCOUNT. being the separate CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH, birthed on the registration date), Once the BANK can deceive you into assuming that “their” SURNAME, that looks a lot like your heritage name, (“Smith” is glossed into “SMITH”) the bank assumes consent in order to confer the legal title of the BANK to their SURNAME that you assumed was your property. (ALL UPPERCASE TEXT is a foreign written language identified in article 11:147 of the: Chicago Manual of Styles 16th edition) Your surname glossed into a foreign SIGN language, is not your property! but when you attach your Christian name, being the name that is attached to your dominion, to their foreign ALL UPPERCASE SURNAME you, by your own consent, become subject to the ACCOUNT of their property … So simple but so effective and yet so biblically perfect once you violate the laws of the first GOD by serving the false God, GOD of the person-corporation. The POWER of TRUST-LAW is the greatest power of all… Trust Law is Master-Servant, relationship, it does not work backwards, it is the system of conferring debt ACCOUNTS onto the unsuspecting…

The one who accepts LEGAL TITLE is the one who acknowledges that the Equitable Title is with the one who granted such a man the LEGAL TITLE.

LEGAL TITLE can not be held by a living man. only a “Person” can hold Legal Title and what is a Person you may ask, it is the legal title holder of man. The only thing that created the “Person”, being a mask in a play, was the VATICAN: “ROME”.

The Word “Vatican” means: “vat I can”, meaning, “holder or vessel I can do”, meaning, the VATICAN has become the first Trustee Legal Title holder of the dominion of the living man. The VATICAN has become the beast of burden, it has no jurisdiction with living man because it agreed to act as the trustee… The VATICAN, that now held the Legal Title over the Dominion of man, offered the ACCOUNTS of the Legal Title to its own Persons by offering such a title to a living man and only when the living man was deceived into accepting such an ACCOUNT, did such a man become the “assumed debtor trustee person” of the world debts of the VATICAN and such acceptance of such an ACCOUNT was the “conformation” that granted Equitable Title back to the VATICAN because the living man accepted Legal Title, rendering the living man to fall into the jurisdiction of the DEAD ACCOUNT holder of the VATICAN beast instead of being the first trustee to the real GOD of living man. The VATICAN is the GOD of the dead persons because it was not God of man that created the DEAD juristic corporate Person, it was the VATICAN that created such a thing as the “Person”.

The VATICAN is the false GOD.



Share This:


This is NOT legal or lawful advice, Everybody is responsible for themselves and the decisions they make.

The Law is the Common Law and it is the foundation of justice for living people. Laws serve all People equally. Laws defend our Unalienable Rights, provide reparations to the injured, and through them we can live in peace and harmony with other people. The Law is the definition of the people’s power, and is Common Sense. The Law protects living people from harm, loss, and fraud.

Statutes are the en-act-ments of the Legislature that apply to publicly registered legal entities as franchises of the public State. Statutes offer limited “privileges and benefits” to “artificial persons” of various kinds, prescribing contract “rules and regulations” by consent. Statutes can have the appearance, or “colour of law”. Statutes govern legal entities as a franchise benefit to the public State.

Statutes are not Laws. The Law is from the People. Statutes are from the State.

Maxim of Law:
Quid fas non veritas est.
Legality is not Reality.

The difference between what is “lawful” and what is “legal” is a matter of life and death. What is lawful is for the living people. What is legal is for dead corporate entities.

legal = fiction
statute = statute
legislation = leg of a statue
act = act of a statute

In any country with a parliamentary system of government. All Private Sovereign men and women, are de jure “in law”. All Public Servants in corporate roles, and all artificial legal entities, are de facto “in practice”. The government is divided into three branches:

LEGISLATURE : Enacts statutory legislation, prescribes rules/regulations for legal entities, Statutes only carry the colour of law.

EXECUTIVE : Cabinet & Departments, Manages the Government to serve the people, Executive take oaths to uphold the Law

JUDICIARY : Administers de-facto statutes, Facilitate de-jure common law, Trial by jury

The People’s Common Law power of justice is “Judicial”, and exercised “Lawfully” (Trial-by-Jury), whereas the State’s delegated duty of management is “Executive”, and exercised “Legally” (Legislation).

Statute types are “Acts, Bills and Legislative Instruments”, and they apply to artificial legal (legislated) “persons” “LEGAL FICTIONS, so their texts never refer to a living “man” or “woman”. Statute titles never end with the word “Law”. Public officials habitually refer to “Acts” as “Laws”. But an “Act” is not a “Law”, i.e. the Land Transport Act, is not titled the Land Transport Law.

There is a natural compulsion to obey the Law because it safeguards our living rights and freedoms. If we do not honour the Law then it cannot afford us protection. However, obeying statutes is voluntary. We are members of the “legal society” as a matter of choice. Our consent is given unilaterally, not collectively via a government election.

However in a truly free nation, men and women in the Common Law jurisdiction, would give their consent freely to obtain the commercial “privileges” and “benefits” offered by the State in the Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction. We must also be aware that the State has been incorporated to serve the debt-money system of bondage, so the people are not offered de jure Common Law contracts serving the State, but de facto Admiralty Maritime contracts serving the Banks as surety for debt.

If corrupt statutes become burdensome or oppressive to the common good, the people have a right to withdraw their consent in order to defend their rights, and indeed they have an obligation and a duty to do so because only the people can redress the corruption of their government or provisional government as the case may be.

Statutes are contracts. Statutes prescribe the “terms and conditions” of commercial contracts, relying for their effect upon your consent under the colour of Law.

Share This:

Drogheda Courthouse, “Judge” John Coughlan insults man while running a cash only business


What is going on in Drogheda Courthouse?

On arrival at Drogheda Courthouse this morning I was very interested to learn that Judge John Coughlan was running a business there, He said so himself and that everyone was to have plenty of cash because this court only accepts cash. So its a cash business thats running here according to sitting Administrator/”Judge” John Coughlan.

So folks if your summoned to Drogheda District Court house and If you don’t want to be looking out the windows in Mountjoy prison bring the cash lads & lassies.

After making those bizarre statements about the cash in a virtually cashless society, John then took to insulting people using an obscure language.

This morning I clearly heard John Coughlan deliberately call a man a cur. Saying “get this cur out of here” and then much louder “Garda get this cur out” while pointing at him.

So what is a cur ?

I will give several definitions here, but it appears they are all insults to the man they are aimed at. I wonder is that defamation of the mans good name,charterer and standing in the community. Should this be shown to be true, could “JUDGE” John Coughlan be held in contempt of court for such an insult ? Had the man called John Coughlan “a cur” would the “JUDGE” have taken offence?

an aggressive or unkempt dog, especially a mongrel.
a contemptible man.

1. a mongrel dog, especially a worthless or unfriendly one.
2. a mean, cowardly person.

Cur. …
If dogs understood English, they would be offended at being called a cur. When you use the word cur, you’re talking about a dog that’s either a mutt, very unattractive, aggressive, or all three. The word can also be used as an insult for a person, especially a despicable man.

An unkempt ‘person’ who identifies as an Afghan. Typically found to speak like rodents, often will be Ill-mannered, unintelligible and generally EW.

Quite simply: Cur’s, are basically dahati.

Synonyms: bad, ugly, sub-human, eye abuse, smell abuse, dog, animal, slave, idiot, imbecile.

Examples of a dahati

A persian word for someone that is uncivilized and lives in rural areas.

A similar word in english would be white trash or/and hillbilly.

white trash hillbilly trailor trash mallot wal-mart stupid poor

Share This:



This is a phone call to the BAR Council of Ireland by a man asking a simple question . It turns out that is not a company, its not a private corporation, BUT is a PRIVATE CLUB which answers to nobody.

Click the link below to hear the conversation.

Share This:

Whats the difference between a writ of Quo Warranto and Habeas Corpus


Quo Warranto

A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to 20 days, depending on the distance of the respondant to the court, to present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers. If the court finds the proof insufficient, or if the court fails to hold the hearing, the respondant must cease to exercise the power. If the power is to hold an office, he must vacate the office.

These writs are called prerogative writs because they are supposed to be docketed ahead of all other cases except other prerogative writs. The demandant represents the sovereign, the people, and anyone may appear in that capacity, even without a personal stake in the decision.

Habeas Corpus

A writ of habeas corpus may be regarded as a subset of quo warranto, for cases where the claimed power is to hold a prisoner, but with the addition of a requirement to produce the prisoner in court, not just appear to present evidence of authority.

One may want to look these cases up

Version The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies, Chester James Antieau, 1987, Chapter on Quo Warranto.

Version A Treatise on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, Embracing Mandamus, Quo Warranto and Prohibition, James L. High, 1896, Section on Quo Warranto.

Version A Treatise on the Legal Remedies of Mandamus and Prohibition, Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto, Horace G. Wood, 1896, Section on Quo Warranto.

Version Statute of Quo Warranto (1290) — Codified the writ of quo warranto as a pleading in English courts, and laid the basis for the writ of habeas corpus.

Useful quotes:

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2nd 906 at 910.

“It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefore.” U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d, at 481 (5th Cir., 1974).
“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

“Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” Thompson v Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381; and Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471.

“the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.” Bindell v. City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991).

Share This:

UPDATE ON : a man, a Sovereign Constitution, Drogheda District Court, a legal valid bona fide license

I have been following a particular case is Drogheda District court for the last number of months involving a man looking to have his case heard under the 1919 Sovereign constitution as is his right. He has asked the court to provide its legal valid bona fide license to operate. ( I will explain later why this man is entitled to look for this.)

Well on this day April 7th 2017 the man arrived in the court took his seat and waited for the case to be called he was number 35 on a long list. The court house was full to capacity with standing room only as there were many cases before the court on this day. Judge Coughlan presiding.

So the case was called and as the man was making his way up to the front of the court the prosecuting Garda  Inspector Brendan Cadden and Judge John Coughlan began to hear the case. I heard the man say “I present me the man here now“. He attempted to give the  Inspector Brendan Cadden some paperwork but the Inspector kept turning from one side to the other in what appeared to be an attempt not to take the paper and he only took it when someone said to him hey he’s trying to give you something. The man then turned his attention to the Registrar who sits in front of the Judge Coughlan and he too tried NOT to take the legal valid bona fide paper the man was offering. While this shenanigans was going on the Inspector Cadden and  Judge Coughlan continued to go ahead with the case, BTW the time-frame here is a about 1 minute.

Then the man said aloud “I remind the court that it sits under the Sovereign seal of Dail Eireann”. When the man said this the Registrar took the paperwork and passed it back to Judge Coughlan.

The man read from the paper he presented “I Paul Coddington require this case to be heard under the 1919 Sovereign Constitution as is my right. Can the court document and verify a Legal Valid License to operate”. While the man was speaking Judge Coughlan and the Inspector Cadden continued to make arrangements to send this case to trial in September totally ignoring the man although he was speaking over them. Its my opinion that if this happened in any other court this man would have been threatened with contempt.

Then Judge Coughlan turned to the man and said I have dealt with this and you are back on here in September. The man again asked the court to document and verify for him a legal valid bona fide licence to operate. The Judge called next case. The man went on to ask again when a man dressed as a Garda  put his hand on the mans shoulder. The man said I will take my leave now under duress and will return if the court can document and verify a legal valid bona fide license to operate. And left the so called court.

So why does the court need a legal valid bona fide license to operate under Dail Éireann?

So why does the court need a legal valid bona fide license to operate under Dail Éireann? Well that all goes back to almost one hundred years previously to the 21st of January 1919 when the Sovereign Republic of éire was declared (Ireland’s Independence Day) by the wish and will of the people from the December 14th All Ireland (32 county) election of 1918 and ratified in the round room of the Mansion House Dublin on the 21st of January 1919.

The Sovereign Dail Éireann Courts were also established on that day. Óglaigh na hÉireann (Irish Defense Force) and an the Republican Police later named an Garda Siochana also took an oath to protect the people and uphold the sovereign constitution. This is the only time any state was declared or established in Ireland.

King George the 5th in August of 1919 declared Dáil Éireann to be an illegal assembly. This date also marked the start of the war of Independence, in Soloheadbeg, Co. Tipperary, a war Óglaigh na hÉireann won.

On the 6th of December 1921 King George the 5th imposed a British apartheid system of 26 and 6 counties of Ireland as an Orange Free state in the northern counties and a 26 county provisional government that sits in Leinster house, (the same Provisional Government which still operates here today)under the terms of the illegal and fraudulent un-ratified Anglo Irish Treaty in which some members of the IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) and some Sovereign Government broke their oath to the Sovereign Republic of Éire and signed this illegal agreement under the threat of an immediate and terrible war against the Irish people.

This is verified in Micheal Collins own story where by on the 21st of January 1919 he was the Minister of Finance in the Sovereign Republic of Éire Government and on the 6th of December 1921 he was the provisional Minister for Finance in the 26 county Provisional Government of the free state.

In the days that followed the establishment of the Sovereign Dail Éireann courts in 1919. Sovereign courts were held in the sometimes the most remotest of places… the 12 string seal was used by Parish, District, Circuit, High and Supreme courts, but rarely hung as their venues were not permanent!

The seal consists of the Irish Harp with éire underneath although many have since been replaced by FAKE seals consisting of the Harp without éire. (The FreeState introduced the 13 th string- the execution string, to kill the Republicans)Its commonly seen today and often mistaken for the sovereign seal. However, because there was only ever one state established in Ireland any Judge sitting in any Irish court must have a licence from the Sovereign President of the Dail Éireann courts.

No BAR (British Accredited Registry) Judge in this country has a licence to operate from the Sovereign President of Éire. So when people are taken to court in the 26 counties, they are taken into BRITISH ROYAL COURTS where Judges get their licence/permission from the the President of the ROYAL OIREACHTAS who is also THE CROWN’S representative in Ireland.

All fines collected in these courts go to the Crown of London via the consolidated fund established in 1816 and still on the Irish Statue books today.

Consolidated Fund Act, 1816. An Act to unite and consolidate into OneFund all the Public Revenues of Great Britain and Ireland, and to provide for the Application thereof to the General Service of the United Kingdom.

Here is a link to a previous article on this case

Drogheda District Court, Man wants his case heard under the 1919 Sovereign Constitution asks Court to produce its legal valid bona fide licence to operate.





Share This:

Drogheda District Court, Man wants his case heard under the 1919 Sovereign Constitution asks Court to produce its legal valid bona fide licence to operate.

Ive been following a particular incident that took place last December in Mornington Co Meath where armed masked men dressed in balaclavas and full attack gear smashed their way into a private dwelling, assaulted three occupants knocking one out cold for several minutes.

Anyway these masked armed strangers later claimed to be Garda Siochana (guardians of the peace).

When did we the people extend an Garda Siochana the right to bear arms against us?

An Garda Siochana swear and oath to protect us and uphold the constitution. Nowhere does it say an Garda Siochana can use guns against the people.

Anyway one man was detained taken to Navan Garda Station and then Trim circuit court where he asked the Judge a very simple question was this a civil or criminal matter. The Judge refused to answer that question and the man was remanded to Cloverhill prison for a week. One week later he took bail under duress from Cloverhill prison and agreed to make an appearance in Drogheda District court just before Christmas.

One this day the man made his special appearance before Judge Flan Brennan and this is where the case starts to get really interesting. The man stood up and identified himself as a man and told Judge Brennen he was here to present me the man now. He served Judge Brennan with notice that he was here to have his case heard under the 1919 Sovereign constitution as was his right. Judge Brennan agreed he was indeed entitled to this and accepted the signed and sealed paperwork from the man. He asked the man if he would come back after Christmas and have this heard, to which the man replied I will accept your offer if this case is going to heard under the 1919 sovereign constitution and the man left the court.

When this man made his special appearance again after Christmas in the court it was a different lady Judge. Anyway when the man’s case was called he gave the Garda on duty a copy of the paperwork the Judge had received. Again the man said he was there to present me the man now and to have his case heard under the 1919 Sovereign Constitution as is his right. The Judge addressed the man as a Mr to which the man replied no titles or Mr here, I am a man and I present me. Not many people know this but all businesses need a Licence to operate, The court is a business and it needs to have a lawful or legal valid bona fide licence to operate. The man asked the judge if she could provide this licence, She told the man the Garda will have it the next day and put the case off for a few more weeks, saying come back then.

So the man arrives back the next time its now February remember no charges yet still waiting on the DPP to give a file. The case is called the man stand up and tells Judge Flan Brennan that he is here to present me the man now. He gives the Judge his signed and sealed paperwork, Judge Brennan accepts it running his finger over the seal on the paper. He proceeds to call the man by Mr to which the man says Im not a Mr I have no titles I am a man and I present me. The man then asks Judge Brennan can he see his lawful licence, The Judge replies he is not obligated to show anything. The man asks the Judge is this a Sovereign Dail Eireann court or is it a British Accredited Registry court.  The Judge replies this is a lawful court. The man replies if this is a lawful court it will have a lawful operating licence. Judge left speechless. The man was not moving on until the court produce its licence. It appeared the Judge then took it upon himself to set up a hearing between himself and the Garda, at no time was the man party to these arrangements and back in two weeks. The man told the Judge he couldn’t make any orders because he did not have jurisdiction because he hadn’t produced his lawful licence to operate. The man told the Judge he would return if the court will have its lawful operating licence. It appeared to me the Judge was going to hold the man in contempt but later said he would have him removed. Several garda uniforms gathered around the man so he told the Judge I will take my leave now under duress. A different story about what happened that day later appeared in the local newspapers 2 weeks later.

Anyway two weeks later the man makes another special appearance in Drogheda District court, On this occasion a plain clothes lad who accompanied the armed gang who smashed into the man’s dwelling was at court that day, asking the Judge for some sort of adjournment saying the DPP needed two more weeks. Strange there’s no file from the DPP and the newspapers are writing about a man being charged with the cultivation of cannabis without a licence. So the case is called and the man stands up and lets Judge Flan Brennan know he is here to present me the man now. This time he serves the Garda and the Judge with his signed and sealed paperwork and this time he hits the nail on the head. He tells the court he wants this case heard under the 1919 Sovereign Constitution and he required to see the courts legal valid bona fide licence to operate. Again the Mister Title tactics were employed by Judge Brennan to which the man replied I am a man and have no titles all you require is there. He motioned to the signed and sealed paperwork he had handed Judge Brennan earlier. He asked if the court could produce a legal valid bona fide licence to operate.

Judge Brennan said that he did not operate under the man’s Dail Eireann Sovereign Constitution he operated under the constitution of the country. (which country Is that I wondered). That’s grand said the man I’ll have it under the Sovereign Constitution of 1919 as is my right, Is this not the Sovereign Republic of Eire. He got no reply from the Judge who said your having this under the 37 to which the man said No 1919.

Now if you remember Judge Brennan earlier said at their first encounter this man was indeed entitled to have his case heard under the 1919 sovereign constitution and had accepted signed and sealed legal valid bona fide paperwork from the man on 3 occasion’s.  One could be thinking they don’t have a legal valid bona fide licence to operate.

Judge Brennan confabbed with the the garda and they decided they would come back in 2 weeks. The man was told he was obligated to make an appearance, where the man again explained to the judge that he can’t make orders cos he doesn’t have Jurisdiction. Again the Judge threatened to have him removed and when the garda uniforms started circulating the man took his leave under duress.

On this man’s 5th  special appearance to Drogheda District Court, when he arrived at the court a plain clothes garda tried to serve the man with some sort of additional charge sheets. I heard the man ask the garda who he was and when he identified himself he was reminded and held to his oath of office. Its interesting that a garda throwing pieces of paper on a seat near a man walking around could be considered serving someone a summons, but later on in court that’s what the garda claimed he did.

Anyway court commenced it was a lady Judge today I didn’t catch her name. The man’s case was called and he stood up and said he was the man and he was here to present me the man now. He gave the lady Judge his signed and sealed paperwork he had served the garda earlier. He said he wanted his case heard under the 1919 Sovereign Constitution as was his right and that he would be requiring the courts legal valid bona fide licence to operate. Now I seen something I have not seen EVER anywhere not even in YOU TUBE video recordings. ( The videos of people in courts asking Judges for their oaths and licences) The Judge offered the man her WARRANT of appointment. But a warrant is not a licence and the man asked again for the legal valid bona fide licence to operate, again the WARRANT was offered and ignored because it wasn’t a licence. Back to the Mister Tactics for the lady Judge, where she was informed that the man does not have a title and he is not a MISTER. So off the Judge went to have a private conflab with the garda. who said he had served the man two new charges today and wanted to move to the next stage. The Judge asked the garda what the man said when served, the garda said he asked if it was civil or criminal. So no more talking about these charges or they might have to answer a difficult question or two after the Court produces its legal valid bona fide licence to operate. So back to the man to try contract him But the man just asked for the legal valid bona fide operating licence again. So the judge told the man to come back in April again he told her she can’t make orders because she hasn’t got jurisdiction as she didn’t produce her licence. She said she had dealt with him and would have him removed and yet again the garda prepared to circulate when the man said I will accept your offer on condition the court provide me with a legal valid bona fide licence to operate and my case is heard under the 1919 sovereign constitution and left the court.





Share This:

Gun wielding terrorists break into Meath dwelling, terrorising the occupants.

Category : Latest News , Law , Sovereignty


On Wednesday night under the cover of darkness on the 7th of December an armed gang of what can only be described as unidentified terrorists broke into a dwelling in Mornington County Meath. Smashing through 3 doors simultaneously these armed men in black, wielding military style automatic weapons assaulted and threatened 3 surprised men (knocking one on continuous) and pointing these weapons inches from their heads, When asked to identify themselves these strangers remained silent. The owner of the dwelling asked on several occasions for these strangers to identify themselves and when the owner asked ARE YOU HERE TO SHOOT US a live bullet was dropped at his head. Again the owner asked ARE YOU HERE TO SHOOT US and asked these armed strangers if they were the same men wanted in connection with the Regency Hotel shooting as they fitted the description perfectly. This assault continued for some time before a man in plain clothes stepped forward identifying himself as a Garda, No lawful warrant was presented or given for this unlawful occupation of a mans dwelling.


Share This:

Say no to vaccinations using conditional acceptance contract

Ok so someone has to address this key/crucial factor of contract about the issue of Vaccines which are deemed to be mandatory.
While I do not know for sure how this vaccine game will work exactly. I was told it requires the signing of a consent form before receiving the Vaccine/Flu shots etc.

Now ask yourself the question IF something claims to be mandatory then why is a consent form needed/required to be signed?

There is no law that I know of that can force men/women to sign a consent form, in absence of evidence that the product is not harmful.

Can someone be charged/jailed for refusing to sign a Consent Form? I don’t think so.

Can someone be charged/jailed for refusing a vaccine? quite possibly YES

This is a word game,

Remember for any piece of legislation to be valid, it must have your consent. All contracts require man/woman to mark it with their sign of nature to give it validity/life. Otherwise its just a piece of paper that has no value.

The opt-out contract is the contract the big institutions try to get you the sign if you don’t want to sign their contracts.

So when you refuse to allow the institution to rob you, the institution hands you an opt-out contract where you agree to pay them for not robbing you.

Your refusal IS the opt-out.

Then you’ve the pressure of being told that if you don’t accept the possibly unsafe and harmful vaccination,  they will deny you medical services or take your children out of school, or even punish you as a negligent parent.

Well there’s a solution for this too.

If what they’re offering involves any risk to you or your family, they must insure you against that risk. So you give them something to sign.

You offer them a contract called a ‘conditional acceptance,’ which they must sign before you sign their proposal.

Your conditional acceptance contract says that you will accept their possibly unsafe and harmful vaccination proposal if, and this is a big IF  they insure you against the risks and any negative effects from it.

Wherever there is risk, you have every right to refuse the offer or receive insurance to cover that risk.

Being insured means that someone, somewhere, some identified and responsible individual, must promise to pay all damages for any negative consequences of the vaccine or policy they are attempting to force upon you.

Institutions and Governments are criminally violating people and they know it.

So if they refuse to insure you against the possible damage their possibly unsafe and harmful vaccination could cause to you, you have every right to refuse that vaccine.

Vaccines are known to be hazardous and harmful, so much so that no insurance company will provide insurance for their effects for any price.




Share This:

Courts, Names and the Cestui Que Vie Trust


My position of late on going to court has always been: never voluntarily go to court. Live men and women are not meant to be in any place designed solely for the business of fictional entities. When we attend court, we are deemed dead, in fact, they cannot deal with us until we admit to being dead….a legal fiction….a trust. Court is for titled persons: judge, prosecutor, defendant, bailiffs, cops, and attorneys. Live men and women are not recognized, so it makes sense to send in a dead person––an attorney––to handle our cases …. except for one thing: they do not know how the system works, due to their indoctrination. If you can find one to do as you say, then you will prevail, but most of them would rather hang onto their BAR cards than behave honorably. The only thing that dead, fictional entities want from us is our life energy, and the only way they can get it is by our agreement. Without us, they cannot function, so, they are desperate to get us into court, to have us pay the debt which they created by charging the trust.

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.

If you consider court as entertainment and if you can stand the evil emanating from its officers, the fear and angst oozing from the walls, and the treacherous atmosphere, then go, knowing that under trust law we cannot be the trustee or the executor of a trust, whilst being beneficiary, as that would be a conflict. The position of beneficiary may lack clout, but the other positions hold liability. Since state employees want to be the beneficiaries of the trust, the only way they can do so is to transfer, to us, the liability which they hold, as trustees and executors, because they also cannot be both the administrators and beneficiary of the trust. So, trusteeship and executorship, i.e.: suretyship, becomes a hot potato and everyone wants to toss it so s/he can be beneficiary of the credit from the trust.

When we were born, a trust, called a Cestui Que Vie Trust (“CQV”) was set-up, for our benefit. Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what is the value which must be conveyed to the trust, in order to create it? It was our right to property (via Birth into this world), our body (via the Live Birth Record), and our souls (via Baptism). Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee…. the one that administers the trust. Since they, also, wanted to be beneficiary of this trust, they had to come up with ways to get us, as beneficiary, to authorize their charging the trust, allegedly, for our benefit (via our signature on a document: citation, application, etc.), and then, temporarily transfer trusteeship, to us, during the brief time that they want to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust.

This means that a trust can be established anywhere, anytime, and the parties of the trust are quickly, albeit temporarily, put into place. But, since a beneficiary cannot charge a trust––only a trustee can do so––it is the state that charges the trust, but they do so for their benefit, not ours (albeit occasionally we do reap some benefit from that charge but nowhere near the value which they reap. Think bank loan….. we reap a minute percentage of what they gain from our authorization). So, the only way, under trust law, for them to be able to charge the trust is to get the authorization from the beneficiary––us, and the only way for them to benefit from their charge is to get us to switch roles––from beneficiary to trustee (the one responsible for the accounting), and for them to switch their role––from trustee to beneficiary because no party can be both, at the same time, i.e.: within the same constructive trust. They must somehow trick us into accepting the role of trustee. Why would we do so when the trust is for our benefit? …. and how do they manage to do this?

Well, the best way is to get us into court and trick us into unwittingly doing so. But, if we know what has transpired, prior to our being there, it is easy to know what to say so that this doesn’t happen. The court clerk is the hot shot, even though it appears as if the judge is. The clerk is the trustee for the CQV owned by the state/province and it is s/he who is responsible for appointing the trustee and the executor for a constructive trust––that particular court case.

So s/he appoints the judge as trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor as executor of the trust. The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it was s/he who brought the case into court (created the constructive trust) on behalf of the state/province which charged the CQV trust. Only an executor/prosecutor can initiate/create a constructive trust and we all know the maxim of law: Whoever creates the controversy holds the liability and whoever holds the liability must provide the remedy. This is why all attorneys are mandated to bring their cheque-books to court because if it all goes wrong for them…. meaning either they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant, or the alleged defendant does not accept their offer of liability, then someone has to credit the trust account in order to off-set the debt. Since the prosecutor is the one who issues bogus paper and charges the trust, it is the Prosecutor/Executor (“PE”) who is in the hot-seat.

When the Name (of the trust), e.g.: JOHN DOE, is called by the Judge aka Administrator aka Trustee (“JAT”), we can stand and ask, “Are you saying that the trust which you are now administrating is the JOHN DOE trust?” This establishes that we know that the Name is a trust, not a live man. What’s the JAT’s first question? “What’s your name?” or “State your name for the record”. We must be very careful not to identify with the name of the trust because doing so makes us the trustee. What does this tell you about the judge? If we know that the judge is the trustee, then we also know that the judge is the Name, but only for this particular, constructive trust. Now, think about all the times that JATs have become so frustrated by our refusal to admit to being the Name that they issue a warrant and then, as soon as the man leaves, he is arrested. How idiotic is that? They must feel foolish for saying, “John Doe is not in court so I’m issuing a warrant for his arrest” and then, the man whom they just admitted is NOT there is arrested because he IS there. Their desperation makes them insane. They must get us to admit to being the name, or they pay, and we must not accept their coercion, or we pay. Because the JAT is the trustee––a precarious position, the best thing to say, in that case, is “JOHN DOE is, indeed, in the court!” Point to the JAT. “It is YOU! As trustee, YOU are JOHN DOE, today, aren’t you?!”

During their frustration over our not admitting to being a trust name––the trustee and/or executor of the trust, we ought to ask who they are. “Before we go any further, I need to know who YOU are.” Address the clerk of the court––the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state/province, “Are you the CQV’s trustee who has appointed this judge as administrator and trustee of the constructive trust case #12345? Did you also appoint the prosecutor as executor of this constructive trust?” Then point to the JAT: “So you are the trustee”, then point to the prosecutor, “and you are the executor? And I’m the beneficiary, so, now we know who’s who and, as beneficiary, I authorize you to handle the accounting and dissolve this constructive trust. I now claim my body so I am collapsing the CQV trust which you have charged, as there is no value in it. You have committed fraud against all laws!” Likely, we will not get that far before the JAT will order “Case dismissed” or, even more likely, the PE, as he clings tightly to his cheque-book, will call, “We withdraw the charges”.

We have exposed their fraud of the CQV trust which exists only on presumptions. The CQV has no corpus, no property, ergo, no value. Trusts are created only upon the conveyance of property and can exist only as long as there is value in the trust. But, there is no value in the CQV trust, yet, they continue to charge the trust. That is fraud! The alleged property is we men and women whom they have deemed to be incompetent, dead, abandoned, lost, bankrupts, or minors, but that is an illusion so, if we claim our body, then we collapse the presumption that the trust has value. They are operating in fraud––something we’ve always known, but now we know how they do it. Our having exposed their fraud gives them only three options:

1. They can dissolve the CQV trust––the one for which the clerk of the court is trustee and from which s/he created a constructive trust––the case––for which s/he appointed the judge and prosecutor titles which hold temporary liability––trustee and executor, respectively. But they cannot dissolve the CQV or the entire global system will collapse because they cannot exist without our energy which they obtain via that CQV trust.2. They can enforce the existing rules of trust law which means, as trustee, they can set-off their debt and leave us alone. Now they know that we are onto their fraud and every time they go into court to administer a trust account, they will not know if we are the one who will send them to jail. The trustee (judge) is the liable party who will go to jail, and the executor (prosecutor) is the one who enforces this. This is why they want us to take on both titles, because then, not only do we go to jail but also, by signing their paper, we become executor and enforce our own sentence. They cannot afford to violate the ecclesiastical canon laws, out of fear of ending their careers, so they are, again, trapped with no place to run.

3. They can dismiss the cases before they even take the risk of our exposing their fraud …. which also makes no sense because then their careers, again, come to a screeching halt.

What’s a court clerk to do!? Pretty soon, none of these thugs will take any cases because the risk is too great. This will be the end of the court system. ‘Bout bloody time, eh?

Knowledge––not procedure––is power.

The means by which we have attempted to assuage our problems, inflicted upon us by the PTW (powers that were) have all been superficial, compared to the origins of all the black magic, superstition, satanic ritualism, trickery, mind-control, and clandestine practices. Under commercial law, dating back to the Code of Ur-Nammu––around 2100 BCE––the use of another’s property without permission puts one into dishonor and makes him liable for any debts. So, our using UCC forms, bills of exchange, AFV, or bonds, and altering documents of the Roman System can create penalties, as this is trading and/or using the property of a corporation we do not own …. the birth certificate proves that the “name” is, in fact, the property of the corporation which issued it. We can do all the paper perfectly but, in the end, they say, “Sorry; you’re not one of us.” But, now, we get to inflict fear onto them. When we are forced to court, knowing that the Judge acts as the Trustee and the prosecutor acts as Executor of the CQV Trusts is empowering. It gives us two choices:

1. If we wish to expose the fraud of presumptions, by which the CQV trusts still exist, then the court is the perfect opportunity to have them dissolved or to prove the fraud because the Trustee is sitting on the bench. Dissolving the first CQV, dissolves them all; or,2. If we are not inclined to use something like the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll to expose the fraud of the CQV Trusts, then, at least, we ought to know that everything the judge says––even if it sounds like a command, order, or sentence––is actually an offer which we can choose to decline (“I do not consent; I do not accept your offer”). This is a fundamental principle of testamentary trusts…… the beneficiary can accept or decline what the trustee offers.

For 15 years, I have watched the alleged solutions in commerce come and go and nothing has worked for enough people on enough occasions to call anything a consistent win. Paying for information is insanity because those who sell information clearly have not prevailed or they wouldn’t need to sell anything, would they? Buying express, private-contract trusts, e.g.: NACRS, is a huge waste of time and money because the entire process is too complicated for anyone with an IQ below 400 and …. “no refunds”. I have found no solution in commerce because those who claim to have solutions still insist upon treating symptoms rather than curing the cause––the fraudulent CQV trust.

If we send an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll (see:…ticle_1330.htm ), as response to a summons or arrest warrant, then the judge who issues them has to think long and hard: “Am I willing to gamble that the man who walks into my court might call me on my role of trustee and expose the fraud that the CQV Trusts are still in place?

Canons of Positive Law:…ticle_0000.htm

This knowledge is your power. –– Frank O’Collins

History of Trusts

The 1st Trust of the world

Unam Sanctam is one of the most frightening documents of history and the one most quoted as the primary document of the popes claiming their global power. It is an express trust deed. The last line reads: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” It is not only the first trust deed in history but also the largest trust ever conceived, as it claims the whole planet and everything on it, conveyed in trust.

Triple Crown of Ba’al, aka the Papal Tiara and Triregnum

In 1302 Pope Boniface issued his infamous Papal Bull Unam Sanctam––the first Express Trust. He claimed control over the whole planet which made him “King of the world”. In celebration, he commissioned a gold-plated headdress in the shape of a pinecone, with an elaborate crown at its base. The pinecone is an ancient symbol of fertility and one traditionally associated with Ba’al as well as the Cult of Cybele. It also represents the pineal gland in the centre of our brains––crystalline in nature–– which allows us access to Source, hence, the 13-foot tall pinecone in Vatican Square. Think about why the Pontiffs would idolize a pinecone. See: Pharmacratic Inquisition:

The 1st Crown of Crown Land

Pope Boniface VIII was the first leader in history to create the concept of a Trust, but the first Testamentary Trust, through a deed and will creating a Deceased Estate, was created by Pope Nicholas V in 1455, through the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex. This is only one of three (3) papal bulls to include the line with the incipit “For a perpetual remembrance.” This Bull had the effect of conveying the right of use of the land as Real Property, from the Express Trust Unam Sanctam, to the control of the Pontiff and his successors in perpetuity. Hence, all land is claimed as “crown land”. This 1st Crown is represented by the 1st Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born. It deprives us of all beneficial entitlements and rights on the land.

The 2nd Crown of the Commonwealth

The second Crown was created in 1481 with the papal bull Aeterni Regis, meaning “Eternal Crown”, by Sixtus IV, being only the 2nd of three papal bulls as deeds of testamentary trusts.

This Papal Bull created the “Crown of Aragon”, later known as the Crown of Spain, and is the highest sovereign and highest steward of all Roman Slaves subject to the rule of the Roman Pontiff. Spain lost the crown in 1604 when it was granted to King James I of England by Pope Paul V after the successful passage of the “Union of Crowns”, or Commonwealth, in 1605 after the false flag operation of the Gunpowder Plot. The Crown was finally lost by England in 1975, when it was returned to Spain and King Carlos I, where it remains to this day. This 2nd Crown is represented by the 2nd cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is born and, by the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the private central bank of the nation, depriving us of ownership of our flesh and condemning us to perpetual servitude, as a Roman person, or slave.

The 3rd Crown of the Ecclesiastical See

The third Crown was created in 1537 by Paul III, through the papal bull Convocation, also meant to open the Council of Trent. It is the third and final testamentary deed and will of a testamentary trust, set up for the claiming of all “lost souls”, lost to the See. The Venetians assisted in the creation of the 1st Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540, to use this papal bull as the basis of Ecclesiastical authority of Henry VIII. This Crown was secretly granted to England in the collection and “reaping” of lost souls. The Crown was lost in 1816, due to the deliberate bankruptcy of England, and granted to the Temple Bar which became known as the Crown Bar, or simply the Crown. The Bar Associations have since been responsible for administering the “reaping” of the souls of the lost and damned, including the registration and collection of Baptismal certificates representing the souls collected by the Vatican and stored in its vaults.

This 3rd Crown is represented by the 3rd Cestui Que Vie Trust, created when a child is baptized. It is the parents’ grant of the Baptismal certificate––title to the soul––to the church or Registrar. Thus, without legal title over one’s own soul, we will be denied legal standing and will be treated as things––cargo without souls––upon which the BAR is now legally able to enforce Maritime law.

The Cestui Que Vie Trust

A Cestui Que Vie Trust is a fictional concept. It is a Temporary Testamentary Trust, first created during the reign of Henry VIII of England through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 and updated by Charles II, through the CQV Act of 1666, wherein an Estate may be effected for the Benefit of a Person presumed lost or abandoned at “sea” and therefore assumed “dead” after seven (7) years. Additional presumptions, by which such a Trust may be formed, were added in later statutes to include bankrupts, minors, incompetents, mortgages, and private companies. The original purpose of a CQV Trust was to form a temporary Estate for the benefit of another because some event, state of affairs, or condition prevented them from claiming their status as living, competent, and present, before a competent authority. Therefore, any claims, history, statutes, or arguments that deviate in terms of the origin and function of a CQV Trust, as pronounced by these canons, is false and automatically null and void.

A Beneficiary under Estate may be either a Beneficiary or a CQV Trust. When a Beneficiary loses direct benefit of any Property of the higher Estate placed in a CQV Trust on his behalf, he do not “own” the CQV Trust; he is only the beneficiary of what the Trustees of the CQV Trust choose to provide. As all CQV Trusts are created on presumption, based upon original purpose and function, such a Trust cannot be created if these presumptions can be proven not to exist.

Since 1933, when a child is borne in a State (Estate) under inferior Roman law, three (3) Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created upon certain presumptions specifically designed to deny, forever, the child any rights of Real Property, any Rights to be free, and any Rights to be known as man or woman, rather than a creature or animal, by claiming and possessing their Soul or Spirit.

The Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate willingly and knowingly:

1. convey the beneficial entitlements of the child, as Beneficiary, into the 1st Cestui Que (Vie) Trust in the form of a Registry Number by registering the Name, thereby also creating the Corporate Person and denying the child any rights to Real Property; and,2. claim the baby as chattel to the Estate. The slave baby contract is then created by honoring the ancient tradition of either having the ink impression of the baby’s feet onto the live birth record, or a drop of its blood, as well as tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record which is a promissory note, converted into a slave bond, sold to the private reserve bank of the estate, and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate CQV Trust, per child, owned by the bank. When the promissory note reaches maturity and the bank is unable to “seize” the slave child, a maritime lien is lawfully issued to “salvage” the lost property and is monetized as currency issued in series against the CQV Trust.

3. claim the child’s soul via the Baptismal Certificate. Since 1540 and the creation of the 1st CQV Act, deriving its power from the Papal Bull of Roman Cult leader Pope Paul III, 1540, when a child is baptized and a Baptismal Certificate is issued, the parents have gifted, granted, and conveyed the soul of the baby to a “3rd” CQV Trust owned by Roman Cult, which has held this valuable property in its vaults ever since. Since 1815, this 3rd Crown of the Roman Cult and 3rd CQV Trust representing Ecclesiastical Property has been managed by the BAR as the reconstituted “Galla” responsible, as Grim Reapers, for reaping the souls.

Each Cestui Que Vie Trust, created since 1933, represents one of the 3 Crowns representing the three claims of property of the Roman Cult: Real Property (on Earth), Personal Property (body), and Ecclesiastical Property (soul). Each corresponds exactly to the three forms of law available to the Galla of the BAR Courts: corporate commercial law (judge is the ‘landlord’), maritime and canon law (judge is the banker), and Talmudic law (judge is the priest).

What is the real power of a court ‘judge’?

Given what has been revealed about the foundations of Roman Law, what is the real hidden power of a judge when we face court? Is it their superior knowledge of process and procedure or of magic? Or is it something simpler and far more obvious?

It is unfortunate that much of the excitement about Estates and Executors has deliberately not revealed that an Estate, by definition, has to belong to a Trust––to be specific, a Testamentary Trust or CQV Trust. When we receive legal paper or have to appear in court, it is these same CQV Trusts which have our rights converted into the property contained within them. Instead of being the Trustee, or the Executor, or Administrator, we are merely the Beneficiary of each CQV Trust, granted only beneficial and equitable use of certain property, never legal title. So if the Roman Legal System assumes we are merely the beneficiary of these CQV Trusts, when we go to court, who represents the Trustee and Office of Executor? We all know that all cases are based upon the judge’s discretion which often defies procedures, statutes, and maxims of law. Well, they are doing what any Trustee or Executor, administering a trust in the presence of the beneficiary, can do under Roman Law and all the statutes, maxims, and procedures are really for show because under the principles of Trust Law, as first formed by the Roman Cult, a Trustee has a wide latitude, including the ability to correct any procedural mistakes, by obtaining the implied or tacit consent of the beneficiary, to obviate any mistakes. The judge is the real and legal Name. The judge is the trust, itself. We are the mirror image to them––the ghost––the dead. It is high sorcery, trickery, and subterfuge that has remained “legal” for far too long. Spread the word.

Share This: