CASE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST - Thomas v. Progressive - Civil Action No.: 23-00225-TFM-B (S.D.Ala. Dec 29, 2023( Thomas further cites the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT” as a basis for FEDERAL question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 3). However, “[t]he CESTUI QUE VIE ACT, a 1666 ACT of PARLIAMENT, is an ENGLISH LAW that plainly does not provide a BASIS for FEDERAL question jurisdiction.” Mims, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226577, at *2, 2023 WL 8804324, at *1; see White, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184024, at *3-5, 2023 WL 6036842, at *2 (finding that plaintiff's reference to the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT 1666” did not provide him with a colorable federal cause of action); Wood v. United States, 161 Fed.Cl. 30, 34-35 (Fed. Cl. 2022) (“Sovereign citizens also sometimes reference the CESTUI QUE VIE ACT OF 1666, or a ‘CESTUI QUE VIE' TRUST, as support for their arguments in court.... In short, the legal fiction presented by plaintiff in the complaint is not based in law but in the fantasies of the SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT. There is no jurisdiction in this court for fictitious claims.”).

CASE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST - Thomas v. Progressive - Civil Action No.: 23-00225-TFM-B (S.D.Ala. Dec 29, 2023(

Thomas further cites the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT” as a basis for FEDERAL question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1 at 3). However, “[t]he CESTUI QUE VIE ACT, a 1666 ACT of PARLIAMENT, is an ENGLISH LAW that plainly does not provide a BASIS for FEDERAL question jurisdiction.” Mims, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226577, at *2, 2023 WL 8804324, at *1; see White, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184024, at *3-5, 2023 WL 6036842, at *2 (finding that plaintiff's reference to the “CESTUI QUE VIE ACT 1666” did not provide him with a colorable federal cause of action); 

Wood v. United States, 161 Fed.Cl. 30, 34-35 (Fed. Cl. 2022) (“Sovereign citizens also sometimes reference the CESTUI QUE VIE ACT OF 1666, or a ‘CESTUI QUE VIE' TRUST, as support for their arguments in court.... In short, the legal fiction presented by plaintiff in the complaint is not based in law but in the fantasies of the SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT. There is no jurisdiction in this court for fictitious claims.”).