https://www.commonlawcourt.com/forums/reply/19832/
Reply To: ILLEGAL THEFT OF COUNCIL TAXES
21st March 2019 at 11:58 am#19832
Participant
Hi Dudes n’ Dudessess
Great Posts.
Consider also that we all have a Constructive Trust (derived from our Legislative Birth Cert’s and principally the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666; although there are other CQV acts…) imposed upon us, which is the basis of the Creditor/Debtor relationship/account number; and via the crimes of Subrogation, Personage and Barratry, the various Local Authorities at the behest of the Vatican, City of London and Federal Reserve, have invoked these Constructed Trusts as per NAME per Birth Certificate, BUT, have designated themselves as Beneficiaries, and subsequently designated the alleged debtors (THE LEGAL FICTIONS referred to as PERSONS in the PUBLIC realm) aka the people as Trustees with LEGAL Title and Obligation (there’s more to it; however time ect…).
In short however, a Public Servant holding Fiduciary/Servient Capacity within a Company/Corporation; such as the 151 Officer/Lead for Finance/Chief Finance Officer; cannot be a Beneficiary of a Trust and/or Settlor to a Trust (conflicts of interest); hence why all CQV Acts and the ‘Trusts’ derived thereof are fictional Constructs and (mis)construed; nonetheless, they can AND SHOULD ALL hold Trusteeship, because said PUBLIC Servants administrate revenue/expenditure and receive remuneration for doing so (they have trust vested in them to act in the interests of the Beneficiaries and Principles Creditors – the People).
In short the Private flesh and blood living (Wo)Man with Pre-eminent authority vested in Him/Her by their Creator reserves the unalienable right to Revoke and Correct the Construed (Creditor/Debtor relationship) Trust, and being the one true authorised representative for the PERSON and taking the position of Settlor (under Private capacity) the (wo)man (Settlor in the Private) calls the shots by revoking the current set-up (the Settlor makes the rules ‘their LAW’) and the Settlor confers Trusteeship upon the Public Servant – they cannot refuse; and in the case of Council Tax it is the 151 Officer/Chief Finance Officer of your Local Authority; as Trustee to the Privately Expressed Trust the Officer now has a Duty to Perform pursuant to the Laws of Equity and Trust and for the Benefit of the Principle Creditor; and they now hold what is referred to as LEGAL TITLE, Legal Obligation to fulfill and discharge any liabilities in the PUBLIC realm (this is where Section 79 2 of the Local Gov’ Act 1888; and which has never been repealed; comes into play).
The Privately Expressed Trust replaces the Constructed/Construed/CQV Acts and the Trusts derived thereof: this shift to Expression out of Construct requires the customary 3 Main Elements of any Trust, Settlor’s INTENT (for example moral/lawful relief from the unlawful burden of CT), WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES has to be made clear (for example John & Jane Smith who hold third-party interests for the now departed MR & MRS SMITH: departed because the PUBLIC Realm where they once existed, Title/Account Name/Number has been annulled), The RES being the thing (tangible or intangible) to which the Trust revolves. I chose a list of provisions (Terms & Conditions); others have chosen a Trust Account with a Promissory Note deposited therein (not 100pc how this works) and the ‘Officer’ instructions how to access said account.
Your P.E.T. must also include the date and where it was committed to paper. I formatted mine in Times New Roman (NOT BLACK INK – preferably dark blue ink) and printed it upon A4 Duck Egg Blue paper. The RES was separate from the INTENT component with same formatting. Both were enclosed with a Notice highlighting the issue of that word ‘HEREDITAMENT’, look it up in conjunction with the Local Government Finance Act.
I did my P.E.T. nearly a year ago before the Common Law Court Order was available; however, one’s instincts can be spot on; ergo the following paragraph is lifted from my RES: Terms and Conditions “The Beneficiaries and Settlor reserve the inalienable right to decline all tentative offers of contract and invites to undertake private business within the clerical realms of Magistrates’ and/or MAGISTRATES Courts: said Beneficiaries will only conduct business within the jurisdiction of Common Law with a Jury and a Circuit Judge (or equivalent) who will allow the full effect of Equitable principles to further the interest of Justice by virtue of The Judicator Acts 1873 & 1875 ~ We, the herein named, do not stand under your administrative agency with its unlawful PUBLIC and Private Courts and Rules.”
When posting the final product you are required, in the Private, to send it Royal Mail Special Delivery, so it is signed-for, thus acknowledgement of Service is perfected and binding.
Back to the Vatican and all things Ecclesiastical which they claim is the highest of LAWS uhmm! The above mechanism has lawful and valid grounds because the Vatican has offered us a kinda get-out clause (for want of a better term) within the following:- “ROMAN CANON LAW
3.3 Rights Suspension and Corruption Article 100 – Cestui Que Vie Trust Canon 2057 Any Administrator or Executor that refuses to immediately dissolve a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, or if the man/woman wants to take control upon their Private Person establishing their status and competency, The Fiduciary is guilty of fraud and fundamental breach of their fiduciary duties requiring their immediate removal and punishment.”
Q) Has it worked for me?
A) I’m still getting the charging orders, but it appears they cannot act on them: it’s certainly better now that it was pre-P.E.T. and since I notified both Archbishops that Ecclesiastical Law has been abrogated (did not receive any replies from Messrs Nichols & Welby btw)
And hopefully in the not-too-distant future the CLC Court Order will become the icing on the cake.
Bye Ta Ta for now Brothers and Sisters
