COURT: WHO'S WHO AND WHAT TO SAY

by Mary Elizabeth Croft

As originally posted on: Spiritual Economics Now December 9, 2010

My position 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 favor either plaintiff or defendant.

But, our experience reveals that he does, indeed, favor 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 set­up, 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, positive law/article 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:

http://one­heaven.org/canons positive law/article 0000.htm

This knowledge is your power. - Frank O'Collins