CESTUI QUE TRUST.
What is CESTUI QUE TRUST?
He who has a right to a beneficial interest in and out of an estate the legal title to which is vested in another.
2 Waslib. Real Prop. 163.
The person who possesses the equitable
right to property and receives the rents, issues, and profits thereof,
the legal estate of which is vested in a trustee.
It has been proposed to substitute for this uncouth term the English word “beneficiary,” and the latter, though still far from universally adopted, has come to be quite frequently used.
It is equal in precision to the antiquated and unwieldy Norman phrase, and far better adapted to the genius of our language.
The cestui que trust is the person entitled to an equitable, as opposed to a legal, estate in the trust assets.
Thus, if land is granted to A, for the use of B while in trust, with remainder to C when the trust terminates, A is the trustee, B is cestui que use, and C the cestui que trust.
Beneficiary (trust)
Trusts are created only upon the conveyance of property and can exist only as long as there is value in the trust.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
History in German and Roman law.
It is the opinion of William
Holdsworth quoting such scholars as Gilbert, Sanders, Blackstone, Spence
and Digby, that cestui que in English law had a Roman origin.
An analogy exists between cestui que uses and a usufructus (usufruct) or the bequest of a fideicommissum.
These all tended to create a feoffement to one person for the use of another.
Gilbert writes, (also seen in Blackstone): “that they answer more to the fideicommissum than the usufructus of the civil law.”
These were transplanted into England from Roman civil law about the close of the reign of Edward III of England by means of foreign ecclesiastics who introduced them to evade the Statute of Mortmain.
Others argue that the comparison between cestui que and Roman law is merely superficial.
The transfer of land for the use of one person for certain purposes to be carried out either in the lifetime or after the death of the person conveying it has its basis in Germanic law.
It was popularly held that land could be transferred for the use from one person to another in local custom.
The formal English or Saxon law didn’t always recognize this custom.
The practice was called Salman or Treuhand. Sala is German for “transfer”.
It is related to the Old English sellen, “to sell”.
The earliest appearance of cestui que in the medieval period was the feoffee to uses, which like the Salman, held on account of another.
This was called the cestui que use.
It was because the feoffor could impose on him many various duties that landowners acquired through his instrumentality the power to do many things with their land.
This was a to avoid the rigidity of medieval common law of land and its uses.
Germanic law was familiar with the idea that a man who holds property on account of, or to the use of another is bound to fulfill his trust.
Frankish formulas from the Merovingian period describe property given to a church ad opus sancti illius.
Mercian books in the ninth century convey land ad opus monachorum.
The Domesday Book refers to geld or money, sac and soc held in ad opus regus, or in reginae or vicecomitis.
The laws of William I of England speak of the sheriff holding money al os le rei (“for the use of the king”).
Canon law 2057
Any Administrator or Executor that refuses to
immediately dissolve a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, upon a Person
establishing their status and competency, is guilty of fraud and
fundamental breach of their fiduciary duties requiring their immediate
removal and punishment.
https://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/cestui-que-vie-trusts
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-mUz8ic9fCyqEyeyL/the_history_of_todays_slavery_djvu.txt
Comments
Post a Comment