It is critical to understand the concept of Volition, otherwise known as “Free Will” and its fundamental relation to every aspect of valid Trusts and the fundamentals of Law.

This is important in terms of how we do business with banks etc., especially when dealing with foreclosures and mortgages. For example, most banks and financial institutions speak about home loans instead of mortgages. The concept of a loan in law is completely different to a mortgage, as a loan is technically a bailment of a sum of money as property and can never be viewed as a debt or negotiable instrument. However, when speaking about certain financial agreements, they could resemble bargains and indeed inchoate bargains, a type of agreement completely different to a loan and a mortgage. So, what is going on here?

We are discussing shifting sands, that change at whim to suit the counter arguments to competence, fairness and reason. In order to have a rational discussion about mortgages or foreclosures, it is important to know about what are the different and intrinsic characteristics of different contracts, property and registers.

However, upon further investigation, it became even more obvious that we cannot even have a sensible discussion about registers, property and contracts, until we have a discussion of how the notion of volition, or “free will”, works in association with agreements; and how under certain circumstances we have every right to step back from such agreements, especially when faced with fraud, intimidation and outright corruption.

Volition, Free Will, is such a fundamental component of law and the claimed operation of the present legal system from mens rea, to motions, to hearings, pleadings, testimony and even the word “understand” offered up by police officers and court officials.

Simply, if we have not got a perfect picture in our minds of what Volition is and is not; and how it works; and how it is applied within contracts and structures such as trusts, then it is impossible to reasonably describe the very nature of different contracts and how they may or may not be dissolved, altered or revoked.

Review of Key Concepts

Review of Key Points

1. An accused has the right to issue a Notice of Appearance prior to Court Date, clarifying character and nature of appearance, surety, affidavit and interrogatories
2. The court and legal system cannot avoid the fact that law is based on certain fundamental components such as persons, estates, argument, logic and reason, form, cause and action, rights, trusts and property.
3. Goods are a Gift; or a Promise (Bona) associated with a Beneficial Right of Use for Sale or Bargain.
4. Chattels are Animals and Slaves as Goods; as well as the Goods of Slaves for Sale and Bargain
5. As to the transfer of title by Purchase (as one of only two ways, the other being inheritance), there is the conveyance by sale or bargain.
6. Sale is when the title to a thing is given in Trust to another in exchange for a price of money given in Trust. A Sale may be conditional/absolute; or public/private; or voluntary/judicial.
7. A Bargain is a Contract of Mutual Bindings (Promises) as Security whereby one party promises to assign a right as property for some consideration; and the other party promises to receive the property and take good care of it and pay the consideration.
8. Fraud is any financial advantage gained by unfair means, the three main categories being 1) Personal, 2) Constructive and 3) Statutory.
9. Personal Fraud is when one person intentionally causes pecuniary injury to another.
10. Constructive Fraud is where no wrongful intention is proved, but that fraud presumed from circumstances and the court seizes the right/rights in question to determine the outcome.
11. Statutory Fraud is where certain acts are made fraud by statute and prohibited.
12. Debt is (1) a Binding Promise; and (2) A Right of Action (in Court) upon delinquency.

What are Goods?

The notion of Goods has two essential meanings: the first is a gift; and the second is a promise associated with a beneficial Right of Use for Sale or Bargain. Thus, an exchange of Goods can mean:

1. An Exchange of gifts between a buyer and a seller.
2. An Exchange of a gift of a seller with a promise of a buyer.
3. An Exchange of promises between a buyer and a seller.

The original Latin word for Promise was bona meaning “promise”. Hence, Bona Fide in respect of trusts also translates literally as a “promise in trust” or an enforceable promise. By the 17th Century, the word “bona” was replaced by the word “goods”, meaning a “promise or gift to or from God”. This is somewhat of a different concept to what we are used to thinking. As consumers, we are trained to think of goods in terms of the actual house, or car, or groceries, not the rights in trust that are attached behind them. Yet that is what precisely it is.

What are Chattels?

The meaning of Chattels is frequently formed as a circular reference with Goods, so when you try to find the meaning of Goods, you get “chattels” and when you look at the definition of Chattels you get “goods”. The meaning of Chattel being literally “Animals and Slaves as Goods as well as the Goods of Slaves for Sale and Bargain”. The true original Latin word for Chattel is Catal/Catalla (the same origin for Cattle) meaning “beasts of burden”. So, there is no hiding what it means, despite artful attempts by some dictionaries.

Chattels are then defined into two broad categories, Real Chattels and Personal Chattels:

1. Real Chattels are the Interests of Animals, Insolvent Debtors, Criminals and Slaves leased for years as property to corporations for profit. Typically, the criminal banking landlord retains “Chattel Interest”, in other words no effectual title passes from the creditor to the debtor, but the creditor retains the right to the slaves that the debtor never had.
2. Personal Chattels are the personal property of Insolvent Debtors, Criminals and Slaves that may be seized as bounty, prize or profit.

The concept of Real Chattel and Personal Chattel and how such concepts are hidden as Real Property and Personal Property, is vital.

 What is a Sale?

There are two methods for transferring Goods by Purchase, being either by Sale or Bargain. Both of these methods constitute the primary methods of Purchase, with Purchase then being only one of two ways that valid title may be transferred in the present system (inheritance or purchase).

A Sale is essentially when the title to a thing is given in Trust to another in exchange for a price of lawful money, also given in trust. A Sale always involves two distinct trusts having two distinct trust corpuses, one where the buyer is trustee and one where the seller is trustee. It is only when the sale is completed that the two separate trusts dissolve, providing that the conditions of sale make that possible. In other words, there are ALWAYS at least two trusts associated with a sale.

The terms and nature of a sale, therefore, can be defined by three primary variables, namely:

1. Whether the sale is conditional or absolute.
2. Public or private.
3. Voluntary or judicial.

The concept of an involuntary sale is an absurdity that should not be permitted to even be entertained in law; and has only arisen out of the sheer incompetence of certain jurists to even the most basic notions of law.

What is a Bargain?

A Bargain is a Contract of Mutual Bindings (Promises) as Security, whereby one party promises to assign a right as property for some consideration; and the other party promises to receive the property and take good care of it and pay the consideration.

Similar to a Sale, with a Bargain there MUST be two Trusts for a Bargain to exist, the one for the Buyer and one for the Seller. However, a Bargain is NOT a transfer of title, but a Bailment of Goods for some financial consideration. The Seller never gifts the property like a Sale; and the terms of Consideration may also involve some return of a Bailment of Money. Hence, the key operating element of a Bargain are the Mutual Binding Promises that are also called Debts. There are two debts associated with any valid Bargain, the debt of the buyer and the debt of the seller. Just as there are two valid trusts and two valid trustees (Buyer and Seller) and two debtor-creditor relations with the two trusts.

Under a Bargain, strictly speaking there are two Debts. The one owed by the Buyer and the one owed by the Seller. The absence of two sets of paperwork of binding promises either implies an INCHOATE agreement or some kind of fraud

  Origin in Statute of Bargain and Sale

The statutes in Westminster law that are claimed as the foundation for the notions of Purchase and Bargain and Sale begin with Henry VIII in 1535 and 27 H.8 c.16 (1535) and the Inrollment of Bargains and Sales. In other words, a Bargain or Sale of a significant right was not valid unless it was inrolled.

It is also claimed that the act introduced the rules that any conveyance of property by bargain or sale must be by deed, must be under seal, and must be enrolled in court or with the local town or county.

In other words, the register of Bargains and Sales, created Estates and Persons with rights in the process; and unless a Bargain and Sale deed was enrolled, then there was no legitimate Estate, nor Persons, nor Rights.

In 1707, we see specific words being defined as to what must be expressed clearly on the instrument of deed, via 6 Ann.c.35 §30 (1707), (Registration of Deeds, Wills and Conveyances) with the words “grant, bargain and sell”.

Then in 1808, following the takeover of the British Empire by the Bank of England, we see a tax being applied to transactions of Bargain and Sales, via 48 G.3. c.149

§27 (1808), under the broader notion of “Stamp Duties”; and that such deeds must be stamped for any stamp duty or ad valorum duty owed.

Then by the middle of the 19th Century, we see a raft of new forms in law being introduced to “streamline” transactions such as the concept of a Bill of Sale from a Register, being a simplified version of a Bargain and Sale Deed, via 17&18Vict.c.36 (1854), requiring that such instruments be known and registered to be validated.

However, unlike Deeds of Bargain and Sale, Bills of Sale were then given a defined shelf life of claim of ownership in 1878, via 41&42Vict.c.31, whereby such instruments only had a shelf life of five years before lapsing, unless they were renewed.

The concept of Bills of Sale was further refined in 1882, via 45&46Vict.c.43. In 1890, the concept was introduced that securities, or situations during the completion of a foreign contract involving promises as security, would be considered “exempt” from the rules of Bills of Sale and Property, via 53&54Vict.c.53. As a result, the concept of suspended transactions or inchoate instruments became advantageous under certain circumstances in the formation of hybrid securities that had not previously been seen.

Finally, the regulations concerning the sale of goods were consolidated in 1893, via 56&57Vict.c.71, and then modified again in 1979(c.54).

Concept of Rolls, Estates and Persons

Given that Statutes of Bargains and Sales deal with the registration by enrollment of deeds of major transactions, and then later on smaller transactions via Bills of Sales, we are speaking about the concepts of Rolls, Estates, Persons and Rights or “Property” yet again.

So, in practice, when speaking of sales registers, we are speaking about the proper transfer of title; and so, it is actually the transfer of ownership as in freehold title that is formed on such a sales roll. But when we are speaking about bargain registers, we are not speaking about transfer of title, but beneficial use or leasehold title, the same as Real Chattel or Real Property.

When such records are created on a Sales Register as Roll, we expect to see the name of the Buyer, or the one holding the right, being the estate formed; and depending if there are any encumbrances such as liens, or mortgages or other charges, there will be several person records such as landlord, tenant, lessee and leaser as other examples.

Inchoate Instruments Explained

Many, if not most major financial contracts such as home loans, credit cards and car loans are in fact Inchoate, with the word Inchoate meaning an instrument that was begun, but left unfinished, or not completed, such as a contract that has not been executed with all necessary provisions by all parties.

A Bill of Exchange can be defined simply as a negotiable instrument, guaranteeing the payment of specific amounts of money, with the payor named on the document, whereas a completed Bill of Sale, is when a seller promises title and possession of a thing in exchange for a purchaser or “payer” guaranteeing specific amounts of money or “price”. A completed Bill of Sale is strictly NOT a Bill of Exchange. But what happens when a Bill of Sale is NOT completed and is inchoate? Suddenly, you effectively possess a Bill of Exchange; and if worded artfully, you can effectively trade such an inchoate instrument as you would any other security, without liability.

However, if the other original party is not negligent and seeks then to complete the Bargain and Sale by making an offer to settle, and thereby, to effectively complete the instrument with the unspecified obligations of the other party, then the rules of Inchoate Bill of Exchange must apply, as this is effectively the law that is being used to trade such promises, contracts and agreements. In other words, by a financial institution using the color of law to effectively convert a Bargain and Sale into a Bill of Exchange, by deliberately not completing the terms of what a Bargain and Sale are, they turn the instrument into a Bill of Exchange. However, the institution still faces the prospect that the other named party(s) may utilize the law, concerning Inchoate Bills of Exchange AND Bills of Sale AND Deeds of Bargain and Sale, to enforce the lawful settlement and closure of the agreement.

That is precisely the opportunity that the Bill of Exchange Act of 1882 of Westminster created; and it was adopted across the Western World as the basis of law for Bills of Exchange, specifically when it comes to Inchoate instruments. Section 20 states that:

1. When a bill is “wanting in any material particular, the person in possession of it has a prima facie authority to fill up the omission in any way he thinks fit”.
2. Specifies such completion is for enforceability and “strictly in accordance with the authority given” within reasonable time as a question of fact.

What does this mean in practice? It still means that any completion of an Inchoate Instrument must still pass the test of reasonableness and fairness as well as authority to do so. But it also means that the party holding a valid copy of what is effectively a Bill of Exchange is able to respond to the other party; and make a reasonable and fair offer to settle and close the contract at any time.

For example, let us say that in a Bargain and Sale, a corporation uses its credit as the basis of a loan and that this credit is accepted as a valid exchange for lawful money, then such an agreement sets a precedent within the private contract that can be argued quid pro quo, meaning “something for something”; and meaning in one sense that one exchange sets the precedent for another.

What is Debt?

As explained, Debt has two meanings being (1) A Binding Promise; and (2) A Right of Action (in Court) upon delinquency

1.      Binding Promise

From Latin Debeo = “to owe; to be bound”. A solemn obligation under contract. A binding promise under Bargain.

2.     Right of Action

From Latin Debito = “a writ (right of action) upon default”, payment of sum of money due for Goods sold (under Bargain) or Payment of penalty/compensation on failure to perform

Set-Off Explained

The action and exception of Set-Off has existed in statute since 1729 (2 Geo.2 c.22 §13)    before being made perpetual in 1735 (8 Geo.2 c.24 §4). In fact, since this time “Set-Off” is considered a high and just right that cannot be ignored by the courts.

In fact, the concept of Set-Off of mutual debts is considered so important, it was embedded throughout the Rules of Courts as first introduced in 1875

under 38&39Vict.c.77 in the following sections:

Order III (Indorsement of Claim) §6

Order XIX (Pleading Generally) §2,§3,§9,§10

Order XX (Pleading Matters arising Pending the Action) §2 Order XXII (Defence) §10

Order XXVII (Amendment of Pleadings) §3 Order XXVIII (Demurrer) §1

The right of Set-Off is generally applied to mutual debts as in the completion of a Bargain and Sales contracts, or claim for liquidated amount such as a penalty or fine. In other words, there is evidence of exchange and consent by approval, or silence supported by evidence in the form of affidavits and reasonable notice. If those essential elements are missing, then you are not talking about a Set-Off but a cross claim in respect of damages and these are considered “unliquidated” and not yet proven until tested in court.

Simply, demanding that someone owes you money is not in itself proof, unless such action is based on an existing contract and there are reasonable grounds (proof) and the amount is sensible.

Take the argument of writing to a financial institution to settle and close an inchoate contract with an offer in lawful money to settle. In such a case, it is vital that such an offer is treated as formal notice, with a properly formed and accompanying affidavit, as well as some schedule of fees and accounting, showing that if the offer is rejected, then the accepted penalty will cancel the debt; or if accepted the debt is cancelled.

To ignore the scenario that a financial institution is most likely to behave in a dishonorable manner and resort to some kind of threat or intimidation would be the height of naivety. You must anticipate the possibility of delinquency and dishonor continuing; and this is why the second definition of debt that can be raised in any court action, is the claim of a delinquency and dishonor. Either way, if you follow the very clear and concise explanations within the Law Explained series, then you will be able to firmly prove the existence of a valid debt owed by the financial institution as Set-Off against any claims by the financial institution.

Please do not be stupid with this information or be tricked by people encouraging you to be stupid with this information. If you are unreasonable, or flippant, or completely idiotic and start listing ridiculous amounts above and beyond the debt claimed against you, then not only will it be thrown out by any competent forum of law, but you will have manufactured your own doom, by your own greed and stupidity.

A Set- Off equal to the debt owed is fair and reasonable, particularly if you have tried to properly settled and close. Anything greater is dubious and questionable.

Sadly, for many years, this knowledge has been hidden from view and most people, thanks to the deliberate acts of confusion of the promoters of Acceptance for Value or A4V, promoting completely false and fictitious nonsense, while other paid false information agents have promoted the writing of ridiculous and unreasonable amounts in any counter claim, such as penalties for billions of dollars on a claimed injury of demand for a speeding ticket.

More about the concept of Fraud

What is Fraud?

Fraud broadly is “Financial advantage gained by unfair means”. tThere are three broad categories: Personal, Constructive and Statutory.

Statutory Fraud

Statutory Fraud is where certain acts are made fraud by statute and prohibited. In most court cases, Statutory Fraud as “a means to prevent an action or highlight an action” is fraudulent requires knowledge of the statute and its proper inclusion in evidence.

Constructive Fraud

Constructive Fraud, also known as Legal Fraud, is where no wrongful intention is proved but that fraud is presumed from circumstances; and the court seizes the right/rights in question, to determine the outcome. This is arguably the least well- defined major category, simply because virtually all court cases are based on constructive fraud as the essential trust.

The key words in comprehending Constructive Fraud Trusts are the phrases “no wrongful intention is proved” but “presumed from circumstances”, as these phrases give the courts an “each way bet” in argument.

Fraud is frequently very difficult to prove in the normal course of events. Unless the one being accused has signed some form of confession, it is difficult to prove intentional deceit, a fundamental element in proving fraud. The courts then step in and seek to prove this during the course of the proceedings and the reason why courts now have pre-hearings, conferences, hearings and all kinds of non-trial like meetings, that have less to do with testing existing evidence, but the manufacturing of new evidence.

Personal Fraud

Personal Fraud, also known as Actual and Moral Fraud is the third major category.

Elements of Personal (Actual) Fraud

A more detailed definition of Personal Fraud is defined as “Intentional Perversion of Truth or Facts for the Purpose of Deception, to Profit from such Deception, causing Material (Financial) Loss or Injury.”

It is a deliberately technical definition, to be able to see the operative parts of what proves Personal Fraud in law. Let us view the concept of Personal Fraud from the perspective of legal argument and Matter, Issue and Facts:

Matter

The core matter of a Personal Fraud is either a Material (Financial) Loss or alleged Injury against an accused that occurred at a certain time and place.

Issue

The Issue of Fact of Personal Fraud is sufficient evidence to allege three parts being: the

intentional perversion of truth or facts, for the purpose of deception, to profit from such deception.

Facts

The key facts of the case then include, but are not limited to such examples as:

Intentional Perversion(s) of Truth:

1. Deliberately False or Misleading Allegation(s).
   1. Deliberate Concealment(s) of Facts necessary to be disclosed.

Unlike Negligence, Actual (or Personal) Fraud must be proven to be the Intentional Perversion of Truth or Facts. Not only, must such action be intentional, but it must also be proven that such intention was for the purpose of Deception, in other words a deliberate and willful act of deception.

Fraud must prove an unfair advantage or profit or gain was obtained by the

alleged fraud. Usually, this is expressed in the material financial loss or legal injury (of some compensatory value) being the logical conclusion upon proving the fraud.

Because of these conditions, proving personal fraud in criminal actions are both complex and often difficult and that is why courts claim to be the ultimate arbiters of such allegations, with one final twist. Pure fraud cases are considered matters for courts of equity, not courts of procedural law. Thus, when a person has sufficient evidence of fraud, they may be mentally hampered into thinking that unless they have access to a court of equity, there is no form of relief or remedy. To make matters worse, equity courts are the most challenging, as it is upon one’s competence and knowledge in law and auricular skills that cases are heard, beyond merely piles of paper evidence. For example, Affidavits are only good for procedural courts and are not usually accepted in true courts of equity.

Yet what is another way of viewing physical evidence of fraud that provides justification to action or exception or defense within procedural courts? Is not evidence of fraud a justifiable point to negate contracts? Or render the claimed evidence of another party void?

Let us look at four maxims of law that are supposed to be pillars of both courts of equity and courts of procedural law:

Core Maxims of Fraud in Operation of Law

1. Nullus commondum capere protest de injuria sua propria = “no one (in law) is able to profit by his own wrong”

This is arguably one of the oldest and most important pillars of a valid and legitimate legal system (both in equity and law) that forbids the law from being manipulated as a criminal enterprise. It is the maxim that justifies the “clean hands” doctrine. Evidence of the seriousness of this maxim is to be found in the many examples where in major and high profile criminal cases, that evidence found to be “improperly obtained” by police and authorities is frequently ruled inadmissible, despite some statutory laws claiming it is permissible.

In fact, there continues to be a battle going on between the executive of many countries, demanding courts enforce statutory law endorsing the opposite to this maxim, while courts struggle to find a path against such pressure.

• Fraus est celare fraudem namely “it is a fraud to conceal a fraud”. This maxim is self-evidentiary.

• Ex dolo malo non oritur actio means “an action (in law) does not arise from fraud”.

This is also one of the oldest maxims of law, dating back thousands of years and forbids any valid and legitimate legal system (both in equity and law) from permitting actions to proceed that have their origin in fraud or deceit.

In fact, the whole edifice of law hangs in large part upon the upholding of this maxim. For example, when the government, acting with apparent impunity, seeks to impose tyranny upon the people, then in practice this is seen through the demand that the courts take actions arising from such frauds. You can see this pattern time and time again. It is a tell-tale sign, usually of the end of a regime.

Often a regime, gone completely rogue against its people will seek to promote “show trials” to maximize their propaganda campaigns against the people. Such events are also designed to put maximum pressure on the judiciary. Yet, in recent years we see push back by the judiciary in the face of such overwhelming pressure in recognition that if actions in law are permitted to proceed having arisen from fraud, then there can be no law.

• Fraus omnia vitiat meaning “fraud vitiates (invalidates) everything”

This is the maxim that fraud voids a contract, ab initio (from the beginning) and any other forms of claimed evidence.

In just these four simple maxims that have existed for thousands of years, the law is protected against corruption and manipulation and makes clear what is and what is not justice and fair process.

The Concept of Volition

What is Volition? (free will)

Volition (or free will) is “a conscious choice or decision underwriting an intention that leads to motive in the connection between mind and physical actions”.

The word Volition comes from Latin volitio meaning “wish and free will”. The word Volition, remains both philosophically and empirically an essential tenet of mind, whereas the term “free will” is sometimes misleading; and in a sense can be misused to trivialize an essential component of existing and function of higher order life forms.

Volition simply means, that a higher order life form, capable of self-awareness, will make conscious choices from the available facts and inputs at the time, leading to certain actions, whether or not such actions were optimum or not.

You would think that such an essential element of cognitive function would be accepted and integrated into scientific law, when in fact the concept of Volition remains even more under attack today than it was upon the advent of purely mechanical models of the universe, claiming existence without the need for any supernatural deity. The various arguments against Volition or “free will” are collectively called “Determinism”.

Determinism describes a variety of theories argued to some degree that there is no such thing as Volition (free will) based on an assortment of logical contortions, fanatical bias, religious lunacy, misrepresentations and faulty observations. There are a number of issues with this flawed argument.

The issue and use of logic by determinists to try and argue “all or nothing” scenarios or to use bivalent logic to try and “scientifically prove” their theories is flawed. Bivalent linear logic is but one form of logic and not even close to resembling the real world of multivalence. We do not live in a world of black versus white, but infinite shades of grey and color. Bivalent linear logic on the other hand is a purely artificial and fictional model designed for use in limited argument. The application of bivalent linear logic by determinists is completely fallacious and incompetent.

Another is the issue of extremes such as nature versus nurture or the claims that human beings are the products of complex but pre-determined genetics, hormones and memories to reflexively react to decision making, thus negating the idea of free will. Having debunked the fact that bivalent linear logic is a false presumption, the fact is that much of the human body operates without the conscious mind knowing the details, precisely to allow the conscious mind the ability to do its job that is essentially to make choices, or “best guesses” on the information at hand. Limiting choices has nothing to do with limiting “free will” but maximizing best choice. Contrary to philosophers and academics that have completely “lost the plot”, the conscious mind is not fixated on some “all or nothing” argument on volition, but in optimizing choices. Choice is an essential hallmark of higher order life and vertebrate life and all human life.

Western-Roman Accounting depends on Volition

That is precisely why the concept of Volition as “free will” is so embedded throughout the foundations and fabric of our society. Without “free will”, there can be no sin; and without sin, there is no “monetization of sin”; and no debt-based financial system and no banking system whatsoever.

No Trust can exist without Volition

Without “free will” there are no promises, oaths or vows and no Trusts; and no Trustees, or Beneficiaries, or Principals or Agents or Beneficial Holders.

Trust is literally the embodiment of good Volition. Without “free will” there can be no trust.

No Property can exist without Trust

If no Trusts exist (because of claim of No Volition) then no Estates or Property or Companies could exist.

No Volition means no law or crime or punishment

If there was no free will, then there could be no culpability for crimes.

 To deny Volition is to deny there is any law

For any court, or official, or judge, or body of the present system to deny the Right of “free will” to withdraw consent and change our mind is to proclaim There is no law, there is no legitimacy, there is no authority.

Western-Roman Accounting depends on Volition

• No Trust can exist without Volition
• No Property can exist without Volition
• No Volition means no law or crime or punishment

What does this mean? We must have the right of remedy to withdraw our consent for good reason and solid evidence. To deny such a fundamental principle of volition is to proclaim there is no law, there is no legitimacy or authority, whatsoever.

Yet this is what has been happening across society as courts, and court officials and companies on the one hand, that demand we consent and then once they claim they have obtained it, then deny we have the power to withdraw such consent.

It has devolved to the point of an absurd “game” in many jurisdictions where people have gone to court and demanded “they do not consent” and the courts ignore them. One must conduct themselves calmly and respectfully in court, and not be so belligerent or angry as to allow courts and court officials to argue you are a menace or a threat. However, it is time to make clear now what powers we do have to withdraw our consent, depending upon the nature of the relation and to use evidence gathered on the fraud of the other parties as prima facie evidence in support of our proper actions.

Abjuration (by Grantor)

Abjuration is a solemn renunciation under oath by a Grantor of the authority of any Trustee to have Jurisdiction over certain property previously granted (in trust). Abjuration COLLAPSES a trust and returns the property to a new Trust under the oath of the abjuration itself.

Abjuration is the most serious act one can ever do and must be based on some justifiable evidence of one or more fundamental breaches of trust by the trustee(s) of the Trust.

Abjuration literally means in Latin “with oath”.

The operative instrument for effective Abjuration is a DEED POLL with separate AFFIDAVIT, ensuring once the Deed is properly filed with the correct authorities, a copy of the Certificate of Recording with formal Notice is given to the other parties.

 Revocation (by Grantor).

Revocation is a solemn recall and withdrawal by a Grantor of the authority of a Trustee and the nomination and installation of their replacement. Revocation does NOT collapse a trust but replaces the Trustee.

Revocation of the powers of a trustee (as in the “revocation of the powers of attorney”) is a right of all Grantors and is usually enacted upon some breach of duties or default. A revocation does not collapse a trust as it requires the nomination and proof of acceptance of a replacement trustee. The absence of a replacement, can lead a Revocation to be void.

To deny the rights of Grantors, some agreements claim Irrevocable Powers that prevent replacement of a trustee. Such clauses in themselves are a fraud of law. In reality the term “Irrevocable Powers” is merely a “BEWARE OF THE DOG” scam.

The operative instrument for effective Revocation may be by LETTER or DEED POLL with separate AFFIDAVIT, ensuring once the Deed is properly filed with the correct authorities, a copy of the Certificate of Recording with formal Notice is given to the other parties.

Abdication (by Trustee)

Abdication is the renunciation, quitting and relinquishing of Office by a Trustee (or a

Principal) and all associated Rights, so as to have nothing to do with a thing (in trust). Abdication (where there is only one trustee) causes the Trust to collapse.

Abdication is a very serious act and usually must be based on some justifiable evidence (such as fraud) by other parties.

The operative instrument for effective Abdication is a DEED POLL with separate AFFIDAVIT, ensuring once the Deed is properly filed with the correct authorities, a copy of the Certificate of Recording with formal Notice is given to the other parties.

However, if such action is taken unilaterally, without evidence in writing, then an opposing party with interest might succeed in challenging such action.

Resignation (by Trustee)

Resignation is the surrendering of Office by a Trustee and all associated Rights, to a surrogate or replacement, so as to have nothing to do with a thing (in trust).

Resignation does NOT collapse a trust but replaces the Trustee.

Resignation is a right of any Trustee to surrender such Office to the Grantor or a replacement (trustee) who is willing to fulfil the office.

The operative instrument for effective Resignation is a LETTER or DEED POLL with separate AFFIDAVIT, ensuring once the Deed is properly filed with the correct authorities, a copy of the Certificate of Recording with formal Notice is given to the other parties.

If a replacement agrees to continue, the Resignation is good. However, if no replacement is proposed, it is up to the Grantor to agree to such a surrender and may in fact reject the proposed Resignation.

Disclaim (by Beneficial Holder)

Disclaim is the renunciation, quitting and relinquishing of a Beneficial Interest, or Claim (of Right) by a Beneficial Holder so as to have nothing to do with a thing (in trust).

Disclaim (where Beneficial Holder is the RES of the trust) causes the Trust to collapse.

Disclaim is a serious act and usually must be based on some justifiable evidence (such as fraud) by other parties.

The operative instrument for effective Disclaim is a DEED POLL with separate AFFIDAVIT, ensuring once the Deed is properly filed with the correct authorities, a copy of the Certificate of Recording with formal Notice is given to the other parties.

However, if such action is taken unilaterally, without evidence in writing, then an opposing party with interest might succeed in challenging such action.

Surrender (by Beneficial Holder)

Surrender is the relinquishing of any Claim of Right or Beneficial Use of a thing (in trust) by a Beneficial Holder back to the Trustee.

Surrender does NOT collapse a trust but removes the obligations and rights of the Beneficial Holder.

Surrender is the relinquishing of any Claim of Right or Beneficial Use of a thing back to the Trustee, whilst keeping the Trust Res in place. Merely the obligations and rights of the Beneficial Holder are removed. However, as the trust is not collapsed, it is possible to re-contract a beneficial holder if they continue to use the Res in contradiction to an actual surrender.

The operative instrument for effective Surrender is a LETTER or DEED POLL with separate AFFIDAVIT, ensuring once the Deed is properly filed with the correct authorities, a copy of the Certificate of Recording with formal Notice is given to the other parties.

A point to make about Surrender is the fact that because surrender does not collapse the trust, but merely relinquishes any rights of use and obligations, it is relatively easy to re-contract from a surrender, precisely what happens in many courts and paper based procedures.

Rescission (by Agent)

Rescission is the ending (withdrawal) of a contract by the Agent by agreement or by default or by fraud against the Principal (or Principal as Debtor).

Rescission does NOT end a trust but ends any contract and its obligations.

Rescission usually rests either on the terms of a Contract or on some justifiable evidence (such as fraud) by other parties.

The operative instrument for effective Rescission is a DEED POLL with separate AFFIDAVIT, ensuring once the Deed is properly filed with the correct authorities a copy of the Certificate of Recording with formal Notice is given to the other parties.

However, if such action is taken unilaterally, without evidence in writing, then an opposing party with interest might succeed in challenging such action.

 Disavowal (by Principal)

Disavowal is the denial of a contract by the Principal by agreement or by default or by fraud of the other party, usually against the Agent (or Agent as Creditor).

Disavowal does NOT end a trust but ends any contract and its obligations.

Disavowal usually rests either on the terms of a Contract or on some justifiable evidence (such as fraud) by other parties.

The operative instrument for effective Disavowal is a DEED POLL with separate AFFIDAVIT, ensuring once the Deed is properly filed with the correct authorities a copy of the Certificate of Recording with formal Notice is given to the other parties.

However, if such action is taken unilaterally, without evidence in writing, then an opposing party with interest might succeed in challenging such action.

Seven Pillars of Law

The Seven Immutable Pillars of Law

The seven pillars are Logic, Honesty, Benevolence, Equality, Knowledge, Comprehension, Reasonableness. Expressed into statements enables you to compare the seven immutable pillars to any existing system where you live.

1. If it is Illogical, it cannot be Law

• If it is Dishonest (Fraudulent) it cannot be Law
• If it is Repugnant, it cannot be Law

• If it is Unequal, it cannot be Law

• If it is Unknowable, it cannot be Law

• If it is Incomprehensible, it cannot be Law
• If it is Unreasonable, it cannot be Law

If just one of these pillars are missing, then there is no proper operating system of law where you live. Did you test these seven immutable pillars against the knowledge of the present system where you live? Did the system where you live fail on one or more of these pillars?