Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 15-03-2010, 11:05 AM   #1
barramoley
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
Default Cestui Que Trust

80+ parliamentary discussions re CQT

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/s...t=reverse_date
barramoley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-2010, 02:06 PM   #2
mark1963
Premier Subscribers
 
mark1963's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,594
Default

Thanks.
__________________
ďLet us rise up and be thankful, for if we didnít learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didnít learn a little, at least we didnít get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didnít die; so, let us all be thankful.Ē - Buddha
mark1963 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 12:19 PM   #3
he said it was brasso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 848
Default

So what is a cestui que trust exactly?

A legal definition states the following:

A person for whom another is a trustee: a beneficiary


A person as we know can be either a natural person (living breathing man or woman) or a legal fiction (company, institution, Government, etc).

When do you become a cestui que trust?


A definition for cestui que vie is as follows:

Where a†person is entitled to an estate or interest in property during the life of another, the latter is called the cestui que vie.


Cestui que trust does seem to suggest that a person can be a beneficiary of another during their life.

So the benefactor (assuming they make a claim of right or whatever the term may be) becomes entitled to the estate (or interest in property) during the life of the other person (the cestui que vie).

The definition of estate is:

An interest in land


So what is land? One would assume it includes physical buildings and grounds and the definition I found includes:

Comprehendeth any ground, soile, or earth whatsoever...an easement, right, privilege or benefit in, over, or derived from land

Are you derived from land or to put it another way are you of the land? England, Scotland or the land of the Scots or Eng?

So that brings me onto the cestui que vie act 1666.

The act states:

An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.


I'd love to know exactly what that meant in 1666. Redress of inconveniences? Deceases of Persons (or deceased persons)? Beyond the Seas? Absenting themselves?

I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Discuss...
he said it was brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 12:30 PM   #4
he said it was brasso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 848
Default

interesting little site

http://wn.com/cestui_que_trust
he said it was brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 12:35 PM   #5
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by he said it was brasso View Post
So what is a cestui que trust exactly?

A legal definition states the following:

A person for whom another is a trustee: a beneficiary


A person as we know can be either a natural person (living breathing man or woman) or a legal fiction (company, institution, Government, etc).

When do you become a cestui que trust?


A definition for cestui que vie is as follows:

Where a†person is entitled to an estate or interest in property during the life of another, the latter is called the cestui que vie.


Cestui que trust does seem to suggest that a person can be a beneficiary of another during their life.

So the benefactor (assuming they make a claim of right or whatever the term may be) becomes entitled to the estate (or interest in property) during the life of the other person (the cestui que vie).

The definition of estate is:

An interest in land


So what is land? One would assume it includes physical buildings and grounds and the definition I found includes:

Comprehendeth any ground, soile, or earth whatsoever...an easement, right, privilege or benefit in, over, or derived from land

Are you derived from land or to put it another way are you of the land? England, Scotland or the land of the Scots or Eng?

So that brings me onto the cestui que vie act 1666.

The act states:

An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.


I'd love to know exactly what that meant in 1666. Redress of inconveniences? Deceases of Persons (or deceased persons)? Beyond the Seas? Absenting themselves?

I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Discuss...
It does happen that people just 'vanish'. Here's a modern example:-


Obviously in 1666 things were less organised & people could disappear at sea or in wars etc without a trace.

Clearly it's an unsatisfactory state of affairs that matters surrounding their property would otherwise be left unresolved for many years. the law abhors a vacuum & hence the cestui que trust.

I think you're reading too much into this. It's just a method of tying up loose ends.
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 12:54 PM   #6
he said it was brasso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
It does happen that people just 'vanish'. Here's a modern example:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richey_Edwards

Obviously in 1666 things were less organised & people could disappear at sea or in wars etc without a trace.

Clearly it's an unsatisfactory state of affairs that matters surrounding their property would otherwise be left unresolved for many years. the law abhors a vacuum & hence the cestui que trust.

I think you're reading too much into this. It's just a method of tying up loose ends.
Perhaps you're not reading enough into it.
he said it was brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 01:02 PM   #7
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by he said it was brasso View Post
Perhaps you're not reading enough into it.

What am I missing?
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 02:07 PM   #8
free_thinker
Senior Member
 
free_thinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 724
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
What am I missing?
The ability to take misunderstanding to new, hitherto unheard of heights.
free_thinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 02:07 PM   #9
he said it was brasso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
What am I missing?
I'm not sure. With regards to people going missing, are they not pronounced dead or missing anyway regardless of this act?
he said it was brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 02:13 PM   #10
journohart
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 44
Default

Great link Barromoley!

I have been reading the Hansard writings and it appears these politicians back in the 18th Century are referring to the people or persons whenever they make mention of the cestui qui trust.

Take this one for example from: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...8890403_HOC_16

"I admit it was not a definite promise, but there was a pledge on the part of the Government that some consideration should be given to the case of these persons, and I desire to urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the claims cestui que trusts to have their income maintained at its former level. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the guardian of the public, and he is to some extent opposed to any alteration in the law affecting investments in the interests of the public, because, as I understand him, he says that if we diverted the natural flow of investment into Consols we should thereby, to some extent, run the risk of lessening their value. I hope, on the other hand, to see the National Debt diminished and the value of Consols increased thereby. But while the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks in this sense, he must consider the public from every point of view. I would rather, for my part, see the burden fall on the public as a whole than that it should fall on the persons least able to bear itónamely, the persons of small fixed incomes, who are generally without the power of earning more money for themselves. "

and

"Still, the Trusts and Settlements which have quite lately been made, and been made with a full knowledge of present cir-circumstances ought not to be set aside under the pressure of the cestui qui trust who may naturally be wishful to increase his income part passu probably with an increase of his family."

From: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/s...arthur-oconnor

"The very uncertainty of trusts now leads to heart burnings and to litigation, which always costs a great deal of money. It is perfectly true, also, that a cestui que trust, if he has reason for doubt, can get an injunction."

and

"The fact has been alluded to that there is an enormous increase in the trust funds of the country, and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that if the cestui que trusts were consulted on the point there would be not a few of them in favour of the suggestion that means should be given to them of making investments of a first class kind."

I could go on and on ...

If that act were implied today I get that it means that we are the trusts ... the politicians use the people as the source of the money - like a farmer uses his cows as collateral for the things he needs.

The Cestui Qui Vie Act of 1666 gives a person 7 years to prove they are alive, therefore meaning we must each prove we are not "Cestui Que Trusts"/collateral.

My take on it is that this is how the game is won.

Your thoughts?
journohart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 02:30 PM   #11
he said it was brasso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by journohart View Post
Great link Barromoley!

I have been reading the Hansard writings and it appears these politicians back in the 18th Century are referring to the people or persons whenever they make mention of the cestui qui trust.

Take this one for example from: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...8890403_HOC_16

"I admit it was not a definite promise, but there was a pledge on the part of the Government that some consideration should be given to the case of these persons, and I desire to urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the claims cestui que trusts to have their income maintained at its former level. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the guardian of the public, and he is to some extent opposed to any alteration in the law affecting investments in the interests of the public, because, as I understand him, he says that if we diverted the natural flow of investment into Consols we should thereby, to some extent, run the risk of lessening their value. I hope, on the other hand, to see the National Debt diminished and the value of Consols increased thereby. But while the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks in this sense, he must consider the public from every point of view. I would rather, for my part, see the burden fall on the public as a whole than that it should fall on the persons least able to bear itónamely, the persons of small fixed incomes, who are generally without the power of earning more money for themselves. "

and

"Still, the Trusts and Settlements which have quite lately been made, and been made with a full knowledge of present cir-circumstances ought not to be set aside under the pressure of the cestui qui trust who may naturally be wishful to increase his income part passu probably with an increase of his family."

From: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/s...arthur-oconnor

"The very uncertainty of trusts now leads to heart burnings and to litigation, which always costs a great deal of money. It is perfectly true, also, that a cestui que trust, if he has reason for doubt, can get an injunction."

and

"The fact has been alluded to that there is an enormous increase in the trust funds of the country, and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that if the cestui que trusts were consulted on the point there would be not a few of them in favour of the suggestion that means should be given to them of making investments of a first class kind."

I could go on and on ...

If that act were implied today I get that it means that we are the trusts ... the politicians use the people as the source of the money - like a farmer uses his cows as collateral for the things he needs.

The Cestui Qui Vie Act of 1666 gives a person 7 years to prove they are alive, therefore meaning we must each prove we are not "Cestui Que Trusts"/collateral.

My take on it is that this is how the game is won.

Your thoughts?
I assume you are older than 7 though

What do you propose?
he said it was brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 02:46 PM   #12
bones
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: in my body
Posts: 5,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpole View Post
What am I missing?
i wonder.
bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 02:51 PM   #13
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by journohart View Post
Great link Barromoley!

I have been reading the Hansard writings and it appears these politicians back in the 18th Century are referring to the people or persons whenever they make mention of the cestui qui trust.

Take this one for example from: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...8890403_HOC_16

"I admit it was not a definite promise, but there was a pledge on the part of the Government that some consideration should be given to the case of these persons, and I desire to urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the claims cestui que trusts to have their income maintained at its former level. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the guardian of the public, and he is to some extent opposed to any alteration in the law affecting investments in the interests of the public, because, as I understand him, he says that if we diverted the natural flow of investment into Consols we should thereby, to some extent, run the risk of lessening their value. I hope, on the other hand, to see the National Debt diminished and the value of Consols increased thereby. But while the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks in this sense, he must consider the public from every point of view. I would rather, for my part, see the burden fall on the public as a whole than that it should fall on the persons least able to bear itónamely, the persons of small fixed incomes, who are generally without the power of earning more money for themselves. "

and

"Still, the Trusts and Settlements which have quite lately been made, and been made with a full knowledge of present cir-circumstances ought not to be set aside under the pressure of the cestui qui trust who may naturally be wishful to increase his income part passu probably with an increase of his family."

From: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/s...arthur-oconnor

"The very uncertainty of trusts now leads to heart burnings and to litigation, which always costs a great deal of money. It is perfectly true, also, that a cestui que trust, if he has reason for doubt, can get an injunction."

and

"The fact has been alluded to that there is an enormous increase in the trust funds of the country, and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that if the cestui que trusts were consulted on the point there would be not a few of them in favour of the suggestion that means should be given to them of making investments of a first class kind."

I could go on and on ...

If that act were implied today I get that it means that we are the trusts ... the politicians use the people as the source of the money - like a farmer uses his cows as collateral for the things he needs.

The Cestui Qui Vie Act of 1666 gives a person 7 years to prove they are alive, therefore meaning we must each prove we are not "Cestui Que Trusts"/collateral.

My take on it is that this is how the game is won.

Your thoughts?
My thoughts are that generally Parliament legislate to solve a perceived problem. In this instance the problem was property that belonged to people who had for want of a better phrase 'dropped off the face of the earth' needed to be distributed in a fair & equitable manner. The 17th Century was a very dangerous & unstable century (30 years war, english civil war etc). It's clear there needed to be a mechanism to resolve unclaimed estates.
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 02:54 PM   #14
journohart
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 44
Default

Here's a bit more on that:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...9210623_HOL_31

"If I may quote one passage from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I think it would be the easiest way of illustrating what I mean when I speak of the importance of the Mandate principle. The Mandates are to be applied to countries "inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.' In other words, there is a recognition that in the relationship between more advanced countries and the less advanced countries the less advanced countries should be treated as in the nature of a cestui que trust, and their interests should be regarded as a primary duty by the Mandatory country, whatever it may be."

This one's a beauty - we are the chattle: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...19410617_HOL_5

"Well, my trust chattels in the next parish are almost out of danger; I do not think I should put my cestui que trust and the remainder men to the expense of insuring, and the tenant for life is not anxious that I should insure. He is quite willing I should not insure." One day the house is bombed; the trust chattels are destroyed, and the tenant for life is killed. Then come along some remote beneficiariesóit may be a hospital or they may be remote descendants of the settloróand if the trustee has not insured the chattels, they 410 say: "You were prudent enough to insure your own chattels in the next parish, but not prudent enough to insure our chattels."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...271111_HOC_207

"Do the words include other persons beneficially interested in the rents and profits, a Cestui que trust, for instance, or an equitable mortgagee? And do they ever include a purchaser under a contract of sale, and, if so, in what circumstances do they include him?"

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...9230720_HOC_99

Hon. Members above the Gangway are credited, rightly or wrongly, with wishing to do what they like with other people's money, in fact, to socialise the living; but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill wants to do very much more. He wants to socialise the dead, and, in fact, under a conspiracy between the trustees and the cestuique trust to do precisely what they like with the money of the dead.


http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...9220511_HOL_36

"They are in possession of all the records under which minors, cestui que trusts, and other people entitled to properties administered by the Court, receive their moneys. If all those documents were destroyed it would throw into utter chaos every one of the estates concerned."

This was mentioned back in 2004:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...41207_HOL_1925

Lord Kingsland
"My Lords, I recall that when this matter came to your Lordships' attention earlier this year, the question was posed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the Cestui que Vie Act 1707. Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had the opportunity to delve into the mysteries of this legislation and take the matter up with the noble Lord?"
journohart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 02:59 PM   #15
rumpole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by he said it was brasso View Post
I'm not sure. With regards to people going missing, are they not pronounced dead or missing anyway regardless of this act?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bones View Post
i wonder.
Both of you seem to be implying there are hidden (& perhaps nefarious) reasons behind the 1666 Act but are unwilling (or unable) to articulate what they are?

Bones,as a well regarded fixture of this forum & big time FMOTL 'thinker' surely you have an answer?

Last edited by rumpole; 19-10-2010 at 03:00 PM.
rumpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 03:24 PM   #16
journohart
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
I assume you are older than 7 though

What do you propose?
Yeah, just a little older

I believe this to be THE solution for the world.

The elite if they are indeed the farmers of the people will do their best to keep this type of truth from the masses and thus pass on their power/thiis knowledge to their children. That is why it is not public knoweldge ... if it were people wouldn't be able to be farmed.

People always talk about creating a better world for their children and grand children ... well what if this is it for the truthseekers.

Perhaps every "Divine Immortal Spirit" who takes responsibility for their own life can do nothing for themselves (as they are older than 7), but can for their children.

It seems to me the remedy lies in providing a proof of life form, with each child's (under 7) thumbprint to the relevant person (High Court I think).

Here is an example from a Government website no less. (It is form 206): http://www.courtfunds.gov.uk/forms/forms_cfo.htm
Here is the Cest Que Vie Act 1666: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._16660011_en_1

Quote:
The important part there being: Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead

If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead.
Does anyone know if this has been done before?
journohart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2010, 06:50 PM   #17
he said it was brasso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by journohart View Post
Yeah, just a little older

I believe this to be THE solution for the world.

The elite if they are indeed the farmers of the people will do their best to keep this type of truth from the masses and thus pass on their power/thiis knowledge to their children. That is why it is not public knoweldge ... if it were people wouldn't be able to be farmed.

People always talk about creating a better world for their children and grand children ... well what if this is it for the truthseekers.

Perhaps every "Divine Immortal Spirit" who takes responsibility for their own life can do nothing for themselves (as they are older than 7), but can for their children.

It seems to me the remedy lies in providing a proof of life form, with each child's (under 7) thumbprint to the relevant person (High Court I think).

Here is an example from a Government website no less. (It is form 206): http://www.courtfunds.gov.uk/forms/forms_cfo.htm
Here is the Cest Que Vie Act 1666: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._16660011_en_1



Does anyone know if this has been done before?
If indeede this were possible then perhaps any personae could indeede do soe for themselves as it looks like a cestui que vie can declare themselves alive at any pointe.

Apologies for the 1666 spin on it

Last edited by he said it was brasso; 19-10-2010 at 06:52 PM.
he said it was brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2010, 12:02 AM   #18
journohart
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
... it looks like a cestui que vie can declare themselves alive at any pointe.
Doesn't it give the person 7 years from the time they are pronounced "missing at sea" to show proof of life?

Last edited by journohart; 20-10-2010 at 12:02 AM.
journohart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-10-2010, 02:45 PM   #19
brianthebrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by journohart View Post
Doesn't it give the person 7 years from the time they are pronounced "missing at sea" to show proof of life?

only if they dont want their property given away, they can show themselves, to be alive at any point, why dont you read it yourself

Last edited by brianthebrain; 20-10-2010 at 02:57 PM.
brianthebrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2010, 01:33 AM   #20
journohart
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
only if they dont want their property given away, they can show themselves, to be alive at any point, why dont you read it yourself
Thanks Brian.

Obviously Brian you can take the 1666 Act to mean you are "missing at sea" and reclaim your property at any point within those 7 years. Yes it states that and logically it is reffering to people who had gone missing.

But if the people, after they turn 7, are then reffered to as Cest Que Trusts, check the Hansard links - some references to people being Cestui Que trusts are made this decade - then it would imply there is a deeper mystery.

The Act these days, as opposed to what was going on when the first act was brought in in 1666, means if you can prove you are alive before age 7 then you can claim that trust account as yours.

Its really that simple. The trust account exists but you must show proof of life before you are 7 to claim it - otherwise it is not available to you, hence the A4V is not consistently working for people.
journohart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 AM.