Cestui Qui Vie Trust Administering!

The case is not about “justice” — it’s about administering a trust. They represent a trust owned by the state and, if
we are the beneficiary, the only two positions left are the executor and trustee. So if you detect a judge’s partiality
— although I doubt the case will get this far — you could let them know that you are aware of these roles.

Under trust law you cannot be the executor or trustee of a trust while being the beneficiary, as that would conflict
for the beneficiary cannot act for himself. I recommend having someone go in your place so that you don’t become
confused and consent to being the trust/trustee. What’s the worst that can happen to your representative, when he
can prove he is NOT the trust/trustee. The position of beneficiary may lack clout, but the other positions are liable.
The only way state employees can be the beneficiary of the trust is to transfer the liability they hold to us, because
they cannot be both the administrator and beneficiary of the trust. So trusteeship and executorship are the hot
potatos that everyone wants to toss, so they can be the beneficiary of the credit of the trust.

When we were born, a trust — a cestui que vie trust (CQV) — was set-up for our benefit. Evidence of this is the
birth certificate. But what was the value conveyed to the trust to create it? The value was our right to property via
our birth into this world, our body via the Live Birth Record, and our soul via Baptism Certificate. The state that
registered the trust is the owner and the trustee… the administrator of the trust. Since they want to be the
beneficiary of the trust, they must get us (the actual beneficiary) to permit them to charge the trust, by our
signature on a document (a citation, application, etc.), and transfer trusteeship to us during the time that they want
to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust. A trust can be established anywhere and anytime the
parties of the trust can be put into place. And since the beneficiary cannot charge a trust (only a trustee can do so) it
is the state, as trustee, that charges the trust, but they do so for their benefit, not ours. So, under trust law, the only
way for them to benefit from their charge against the trust is to get us to switch roles –– from beneficiary to trustee
(the one responsible for the accounting), while they switch roles — from trustee to beneficiary (because no party
can play both roles at the same time within the same constructive trust).

So, under trust law, the only way for them to charge the trust is to get our — the beneficiary’s — consent. Why
would we consent to switch roles 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 key party, even
though the key party appears to be the judge. The clerk is the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state. He or
she is responsible for appointing the trustee and the executor for the constructive trust of that particular court
case.

In a “last will and testament” trust, the opposite is the case –– the executor of the estate appoints the trustee. So the
clerk appoints the judge as the trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor as the
executor of the trust (the one to execute the trust). The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it was he
or she who brought the case into court in behalf of the state (created the constructive trust) which charged the CQV
trust. Only an executor/prosecutor can initiate/create a constructive trust, and whoever creates the controversy
holds the liability and must provide the remedy. This is why all prosecutors are mandated to bring their check-
books into court because if they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant (the accused), or the
alleged defendant (the accused) does not accept the state’s offer of the liability of the charge, then someone has to
credit the trust account in order to off-set the debt and discharge the charge, and the prosecutor is that “someone”.
Since the prosecutor is the one who charges the trust, the Prosecutor/Executor (PE) has to satisfy the charge.

When the Judge/Administrator/Trustee (JAT) calls the Name of the trust, JOHN DOE, we can stand and ask, “For,
and on the record, are you saying that the trust, which you are now administrating, is the JOHN DOE trust?” This
establishes the fact that we know that The Name is a trust, not a living man. What is usually the
judge/administrator/trustee’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 switches the roles and makes us the
trustee and the judge the beneficiary. If we know from the start that the judge is the trustee, then we know that the
judge is The Name for this particular constructive trust.

Now, think about all the times that judges become angered by our refusal to admit to being The Name that they
issue a warrant for the “missing defendant” and 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, so they
project that insanity onto us and order us to get psychological evaluations for THEIR insanity!!! This is when we
can ask, “By that order, are you suggesting that you do not know what I’m talking about? Are you admitting to your
incompetence? Shall we get someone in here who DOES know what I’m talking about?” 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 judge is the
trustee –– a precarious position — the best thing to say in that case is . . . “JOHN DOE is indeed in the court!”
pointing to the judge. “With all due respect, it is You! As the trustee, You are JOHN DOE today, are you not?!!”

We must remain respectful and polite, otherwise we end up sinking to their level. During the judge’s frustration
over our not admitting to being The Trust Name –– the trustee/executor of the trust — we should ask who he is.
“Before we go any further, Sir, I need to know who YOU are.” Address and question the clerk of the court –– the
trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state, “Are you the trustee who has appointed this judge to be the
administrator/trustee of the constructive trust No. 12345? Did you appoint the prosecutor to be the executor of
this constructive trust?” Then pointing to the Judge, “So you are the trustee“, and pointing to the prosecutor, “and
you are the executor — and I am the beneficiary — so I authorize you to dissolve and discharge this constructive
trust.” “I now claim my body, so I am collapsing the CQV trust you have charged, as there is no value in there. You
have committed fraud against all laws!” Likely . . . we will not get that far before the judge will order, “Case
dismissed” . . . or even more likely the prosecutor will call out “We withdraw the charge”. We have exposed their
fraud of the CQV trust that exists only on presumptions. The CQV trust 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.
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 deem to be incompetent, dead, abandoned, lost, bankrupts, or minors — but that is an
illusion — so when we claim our body, we collapse the presumption that there is value in the trust. 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 dismiss the case before they risk their fraud being exposed.
2. Or they can set-off the debt and leave us alone. 3. They can dissolve the CQV trust case — but they cannot
dissolve the CQV trust itself — or the entire global system will collapse, for they cannot exist without our energy
which they obtain via that CQV trust, and they do not want to disperse the trust funds to the beneficiary, who is us.
Now that they know that we are onto their fraud, every time they go into court to administer a trust account, they
will not know if we are ones who will send them to jail. The trustee/judge is the liable party who will go to jail, and
the executor/prosecutor must enforce this. This is why they want us to accept both titles, executor/trustee, then
not only do we go to jail, but by signing their paper we become the executor who enforces our own sentence. They
cannot afford to violate the ecclesiastical canon laws out of fear of ending their careers, so they are trapped with no
place to run. So what’s a court clerk to do?!! Soon none of these thugs will take any cases because the risk is too
great. This will be the end of the court system. About time, eh?

Knowledge –– not procedure –– is power. Under commercial law — since the Code of Ur-Nammu (circa 2100 BCE)
–– the use of another man’s property without his permission puts the user into dishonor making him liable for any
accrued debts. So our use of UCC forms, bills of exchange, AFV or bonds, FRN’s and other documents of the Roman
System can create penalties, for this is trading with and using property which we do not own, because the birth-
certificate “name” is the property of the corporation which issued it. We can process our papers perfectly, but in the
end they say “Sorry, you’re not one of us because you’re real, and we’re not — we’re a fiction.” But now we get to
inflict fear onto them instead. When we are forced into court, knowing that the judge is the trustee and the
prosecutor is the executor of the CQV trusts is empowering. It gives us two choices:

1. We can expose the fraud of presumptions by which the CQV trusts exist — and have them dissolved it because
the Trustee is the judge sitting on the bench. Dissolving one CQV trust dissolves them all.
2. We can know that everything the judge says –– even if it sounds like an order, a command, or a sentence –– is an
“offer” that we can refuse to accept by saying, “I do not consent — I do not accept your offer”.

This is the Key principle of testamentary trusts — the beneficiary can accept or decline the offers of the trustee.