Estates: what are they?, how do they work? and other answers

_________________________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (105 min 22.7 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________________________

The topic for the audio and blog this week is estates: what are they?, how do they work?, and other answers.   Hopefully you have had the chance to first listen and read the article and audio from last week on trusts, namely: what are trusts?; how do trusts work?; how are trusts formed?; where do trusts come from?; when is a trust really a trust?; how do trusts work in practice?; how many trusts do we have?; and how do we deal with them?

Last week, we took a high-level overview and tried to discuss trusts in a way that made sense in day-to-day issues. It’s why for example, when we spoke and wrote of trusts, we spoke of how dozens of trusts can be simply formed even in one day when we use such examples as a son or daughter borrowing a car from the parents and how under the rights conditions, such a trust is formed.  We also spoke about how a trust can be easily established between neighbors for minding a home if one goes away, and many other examples.  

We also spoke about when a trust is not a valid trust and in particular when the claimed grantor (the one who is allegedly conveying some form of property or right into a trust), does not have the authority to do what they say.  And, we spoke about the specific origins of trusts in the 14th Century through the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican.   At the conclusion of that audio and blog, I explained that the purpose of the next few weeks is to fulfill a promise that I made to many of you that we would walk through in a step-by-step manner some of these seemingly complex issues such as trusts and estates and wills and documents, so that we can make sense of what these things mean and the relevance of these things to our own affairs, and how we might take control of our own matters and indeed find some form of relief, remedy or freedom.  

Looking for freedom, looking for relief

I know in fact that a lot of people, when they come to these audios, indeed in recent weeks and months, with the huge interest that has exploded in concepts like trusts or in concepts like estates, the great promise that is being offered out there and hung up for sale to be sold to people at the moment is this idea of freedom and that somehow in some way and in some cases in some overly simplified and as yet unclear manner that a wand is waved and somehow all our problems can disappear.  Where we may feel that we are slaves of wages, we may feel that we are slaves of obligation and we may feel oppressed by militarized police or a sense of harassment, that somehow all these things can be made to go away and we can find some form of freedom.

These audios, in fact this article and audio is part of the promise where we do, in fact, offer the hope for a level of freedom for those that choose to listen and those that choose to read.  The reason I am able to say with a degree of confidence that if you have the time to listen to this audio, read the blog, then I believe there is some hope of freedom for all those that choose (to listen and read).  The ancient and most well-known maxim states that the truth shall set you free.  The truth shall set you free.  The maxim doesn’t say that the fancy promise shall set you free; it doesn’t say that the lies set you free or the confusion sets you free, or the different coded-colored material sets you free.  The phrase from John (8:32) of the Bible says  "know the truth and the truth shall set you free".  Let me qualify that ancient maxim as to what I am saying:  knowledge of the truth shall set you free.  If truth sets you free, then knowledge of the truth clearly is a stepping stone to being free.


This is one of the challenges we find at the moment, where on the one hand there are deliberate dis-information agents, people who are being paid by various interests to spin and propagate material that is clearly false.  It’s not wholly false; if something is wholly false then most people, I would suggest the majority (of people) would be able to discern that it is false.  Instead what they are propagating is the most poisonous, dangerous, malevolent, awful, evil acts that are the half-truths.   They are taking information one site and corrupting it so that it is no longer true; it is only half-true.  Not every one of these people is a paid agent.  Some are dealing with their own issues, their own desire to be famous, their own desire to address their own issues, or self-proclaimed gurus who are people who have done no work but copied like crows and take things and claim them. Whatever their reasons, they are masking for many, many people the ability to discern what is true and what is false.  

Knowledge of the truth is a way of setting your free.  If that is one of the arguments and reasons that you are reading and listening to any kind of information, then surely knowledge of the truth is important.  I would suggest that competency, indeed, shall set you free as well as discernment above all.  It will help you to discern the knowledge of the truth and set you free. That is really up to you.  I can only do so much with these audios and articles in the time available.  I still have the commitment and promise to finish the Ucadia model and so it really is up to you to discern, to read, and to take the time.  I can’t force you, no one can force you and it is your choice. 

On this audio and in this article we will talk about what is an estate? and how and why an estate is formed?; where do estates come from?; when is an estate really an estate?; how does it work in practice and how many estates do we have?  what is the relationship between estates and trusts?  Can we have an estate before we die or is the estate only associated with property of deceased persons?  When we speak of an estate, what is probate?  What is a will and testament and how important are they?  When were wills and testaments first formed? and how do we deal with estates?

Because estates are so important and because a key part of what we have discussed in the last few years is the role of being the general executor of our own estate, we are going to break our discussion concerning estates into two separate audios.  For this week and for the remaining time we will cover the overview of those high-level questions that I just outlined and then next week we will delve into the more specific issues that a number of people may have relating to documents of the estate, the manor rolls of the estate, and documents relating to the coat of arms and great seal of the estate.  And there are more specific particulars of the will and testament and the great charter in the appointment of the general executor.  And, also there are the particulars of the privy seal and the appointment of an agent through full powers.  Those things will be covered at a detailed level next week.

To keep these audios in line as high-level introductions, given that last week we spoke about what trusts are, how they work and when they are formed, so for the next few minutes, the next part of this audio will cover the high-level questions and issues regarding estates.  What are the essential questions of what an estate is?   

What is an estate?

I’d like you to go to the internet browser and type in www.one-heaven.org and when you get to the home page click on the index of the covenant.  Click on the image of the book with a picture of it and then click on Article 19 regarding estates, the origin and definition of estates and the meaning.  This puts a context into when estates are formed.  Then we will talk about more of the history before we get into the nitty-gritty of estates. 

19.4 – Estates--An Estate is a fictional concept first created during the reign of Henry VIII of England in the 16th Century CE through modifications to Statutes of Law in England (27 Hen. 8. c.10 in 1535), (32 Hen. 8. c.1 in 1540) and (34 & 35 Hen. 8. c.5 in 1542) whereby a dispute concerning ultimate ownership of land and property (as in the case of King Henry VIII against the Vatican) (26 Hen. 8. c.1, c.2, c.3 in 1534) was used to argue for all such “real” property or “land” being all the soil, all the people, all the "fruits of the land" and improvements of the land being placed into temporary trusts known as “Cestui Que Vie” Trusts until such time as the dispute or conflict ended, or a new Cestui Que Vie Trust was required to be created initially to a maximum 70 years and later to a limit of 99 years. Once corporations were created in greater frequency, the lengths of such temporary trusts were extended to much greater years.

All property seized was recorded into specific types of “rolls” (37 Hen. 8. c.1 in 1545) with such records extracted and provided as certificates of title to nobles, merchants and people of the kingdom as “title” as a form of “derivative” and proof of existence of an estate in real property.

As the “rules” established from the time of King Henry VIII forbid the touching of the underlying property and trust in dispute, the possessor of title of the estate could hypothecate the implied value of the underlying property and then trade from units of that value created into a further derivative called a “fund” whereby accounts for the balancing in inbound demands or liabilities could be offset by outbound promissory notes or assets against units of the fund.

I am going to stop here because there is a lot of information in the preceding 3 paragraphs.   Let’s go back to what we see with the concept of Estate.  What we are saying is that estate is a concept created in the 16th century and it was created through England as a way of circumventing the existing trust structure that we spoke of last week.  That is an important point to bear in mind.  This wasn’t just some simple extension. It was a modification and a way to achieve an end, given a dispute.  These are all important issues when we consider estates.   

The legal concepts underpinning of estates and trusts older than the Roman Cult

When we are talking about estates and trusts, as in the underlying concept of trusts, estates and the conveyance of property from one party to another, such base legal concepts were simply invented in the 14th century by the Roman Cult (the Vatican).  The concept of trusts and entrusting property or rights for safekeeping and the recognition of the legal right of possession is something that was part of cultures way back to the time, believe it or not, of the Sumerians and indeed the ancient Egyptians.  

Before we continue, so we have a sense of context, when we want to look at examples of names and concepts from which both the concept of trust and the concept of estate come, please keep the browser with the covenant open, but now open up a second browser and type in www.one-heaven.org and at the home page click on Sovereign Law.  When you are there go to Article 12 - Realm, Article 13 - Heredium, Article 14 – Fundus and Article 15 - Session.

Look at Article 14 on Fundus in relation to estates.  This is the context; these things didn’t just ‘appear’ as pure concepts in the 16th century, and ideas around what trusts and estates are.  These ideas come from a much, much older provenance.   Then look at Article 14.

Canon 5471 -- A Fund, from the Latin word “Fundus” is the ancient Roman term used for an estate. 

Canon 5472 --Similar to trusts which form an estate, a Fund could be created by inheritance or living grant. An inherited Fund, or “inheritance” was called a Heredium.

We see that there were used, even by the Romans well before the Roman cult took over, well before Henry VIII disputed with the Vatican where terms were used for the same thing. Now have a look at Article 15 -Session.   

Canon 5476--Session is the ancient Anglo-Saxon term created through Sacré Loi (“Sacred Law”) to define an estate.

The term Session is derived from Latin, sessionus, meaning the seat of authority, residence, or place of activity.   The word Session is continued in western law as a master, the trust of the master estate into which all lesser estates are formed and this is why you had the court of quarter sessions, the court of petty sessions.  

What is an estate in practical terms?

Let’s break it down now and say, “What do we mean by an estate?  What is an estate?”  Go back to the reference we have in the Covenant of One Heaven under 19.4.  What an estate is:  it is effectively a record of a claim to some property in dispute whereby the fact that a record exists when it is extracted as a form of title, a certificate if you like, and granted to someone, then they are given the temporary right to use that property in dispute which is still in trust and that a derivative, copy or mirror of that property is formed and that is what we would call the estate.

This really brings estates to being a derivative, a mirror, or copy of some underlying property and the legal argument and legal mechanism by which King Henry VIII in the first instance was able to seize the religious property of the monasteries and of the Church in England, and later the whole ‘box and dice’ without getting into the theological debate over whether he had any right to claim or not, the underlying ownership as monarch over the land and property.  

If you have had a chance to listen to last week you will remember one of the arguments that we explained for the motive of (having) trusts in the first place was the argument by the Roman cult where it is the Divine Creator who makes everything and therefore it is the Divine Creator who ultimately is the owner of everything and we cannot own anything—we can only use it with the church argument of being the trustee of the Divine Creator. 

What the legal minds did for King Henry VIII was avoid a crisis by arguing this line.  Instead what was said was that "the properties are in dispute, we are not getting anywhere and (we must) resolve the issue of fields with rotting crops and carriages sitting still and the kingdom is grinding to a halt.  Here in the concept of estate is a legal derivative that allows us to insure that property is properly licensed to people for right of use and we will call that derivative 'estates'."  So in a nutshell, despite all the legal confusion and descriptions you find in all the dictionaries this is really the simplest, most honest and truth definition of why and what is an estate. 

Real property and personal property of an estate

Let’s continue in the clause so that we can move forward and I’ll come back to the 3rd paragraph in terms of hypothecating the value of the property and what this is called in a fund.  We will come back to that.  We are going to the 4th paragraph, clause, 19.4 of the Covenant.  

Any subsequent derivative instrument such as an annuity or other derivatives listed as assets not reflecting real estate or “land” were then to be treated as personal property or “asset backed securities” of the fund of the estate.

This is the division you see in the structuring of an estate between what was known as ‘real property’ or ‘real estate’ and ‘personal property’ or ‘personal estate.’  So, anything that was considered real in terms of land, and remember, land is the physical soil, but it also the fixtures and fittings of the soil, the direct fruits of the soil or what they call usufruct, and it is also the people as chattel of the soil.  We are considered part of the land under the Roman system, or chattel, which is a quaint way of defining us differently than cattle. That is ‘real property.’  

‘Personal property’ is things such as chairs, tables and what not, as well as derivative instruments like annuities and other derivatives that are not reflected by real estate or land  but the product of the land, so they are one step removed.  That would be considered personal property, or personal estate.  

The fifth paragraph is: As every Estate requires the existence of a Trust prior to its existence, an Estate can never hold Real Property (Land). Real Estate implies merely first right of use within the constraints of the Estate, whereas Real Property implies the first right of use of a physical object or concept above all other claims.

The key relation between trusts and estates

Remember, what we said before:  the reason the estate is formed and estates were argued was that properties were in dispute.  So there is no argument that there was a structure of trusts in place prior to an estate.  This now explains the relationship between trust and estate.  Estate cannot exist without some underlying trust.   So as every estate requires the existence of a trust, prior to its existence, an estate can never hold ‘real property’ in the form of land.  Why?  That is in trust.  The estate is a derivative which means it is a ‘by-product of.’   

What does this mean?  Let’ say you have a cookie cutter that means that when you use it you can create wonderful flower patterned cookies rather than just round cookies.  The cookie is formed from the dough being cut with this cookie cutter.  But, the cookie cutter comes first and the cut-out of the dough comes second.  That is logic.  So here the logic is that the estate is the second and the trust is the first. 

Let’s have another look at this logic and common sense of trust first, estate second, fund third.  If someone were to claim that the underlying trust could be dissolved by settling and liquidating the fund connected to it then this would of course be an absurdity – either through a complete lack of basic knowledge of law, or possibly as motive of disinformation or deliberate fraud.

Similarly, if one were to claim that they could use tools associated with the funds connected to estates (such as the private law form known as the Uniform Commercial Code or UCC) to somehow collapse an estate or even its underlying trust structure then such an argument would defy all known logic, any form of common sense and rule of law. 

Real estate, when we are speaking of estates, implies merely that there is the first right of use within the constraints of estate whereas real property implies the first right of use of the physical object or concept above all other claims.  

The manufacture of disputes to keep estates going

These next paragraphs of Article 19 of the Covenant really give us an insight in answering a key question of why estates even still exist if matters should have been resolved since the 16th Century:

A range of changes were subsequently applied to English law from the 16th Century CE and further refined over the subsequent centuries to maintain forms of “perpetual disputes” concerning the underlying land and property including the inheritance of property in dispute (an estate), or the gift or grant of disputed property, or commerce and trade and disputes in courts of law.

Think about what has just been said (in the paragraph above).  Henry VIII at the time had a gripe with the enormously wealthy and all-powerful Roman cult in the Vatican and because his kingdom was in the state that it was, he wanted to take control over the land, over the fixtures and property, of the monasteries.  He could not have perceived and at the time I am sure he did not have the idea that once everything settled down, that the lawyers would continue to find ways to argue that we are in perpetual states of war and emergency and that there is always some threat, always some fear, argument to say that things cannot be settled.  But, that is exactly what has happened.  You can see that because estates exist only when property is in dispute, you can see that if property is settled into the underlying trust, then there has to be an argument.  There has to be an argument so they can maintain a level of dispute.   This goes a long, long way into explaining why the world has been the way it has for the last few hundred years since the time of Henry VIII.

Would it surprise you when you hear at different times, it being raised in the past, that from the time of the 16th century, the amount of time that there must be sustained peace, that is ‘no dispute between the intended conveyance of underlying property’, that time frame is 90 days.  So, we see now the connection between trusts and estates and not only some of the legal arguments around estates, but we also see something that may have intrigued many of you as to the significance of 90 days. 90 days of sustained peace without dispute allows the estate to be dissolved, the property to be re-aggregated, and then hostilities to be resumed or something to that effect.

These paragraphs under 19.4 of the Covenant of One Heaven really give us a snapshot of all the key arguments regarding estates, the arguments that we will discuss in much more detail in the second part of this series on estates next week.  It probably wouldn’t surprise you what the next paragraph says: 

One of the most detailed areas of the perpetuation of disputed property was in the area of inherited property. Hence, a Deceased Estate is the collective assets and liabilities of one or more deceased persons known as a Testator(s), endowed to one or more Heir(s), with certain Benefits accorded to one or more Beneficiaries and administered by Executors or court appointed Administrators acting as Executors.

Let me qualify Benefits.  There is an argument as to wills depriving the heirs and we will get to that.  Guess what the resolution of a claim against a deceased estate, or an estate in general, is called?  It is called probate, the proving of a claim against an estate.  For a brief window between the time of the 16th century to the 19th century a portion of society in the creation of what was known as Testamentum, that is the carrying over of an ancient tradition from Roman times of a Testamentum, that if there was a Testamentum, indeed if there was proof of title to an estate in nobility that there was no requirement of probate.  That is, for the claims for contesting or a debate or discussion in a court of the Roman system to take place.

In the 19th century with the Wills Act of Queen Victoria around 1837 (1 Vict. c.26); the whole system was streamlined so that every single estate was subject to probate even if it appeared superficially that there was a perfected Will and Testament.  

Let’s consider for a moment on this topic of Testamentum and in particular about heirs and the estate.  It is the oldest of presumptions in law that a man or woman with wealth and children, upon their death, will afford the majority of their estate to their children and will indeed endow the majority of the estate to the oldest of their children.  As it was in ancient times, a piece of paper was not needed to explain what was the obvious.  What the Testamentum did, however, was to formally contest and change the ‘natural course of inheritance by custom’ and instead introduced some qualifications which may or may not have led to the eldest effectively being disinherited and disenfranchised.  This is where the saying comes from that the writing of a Will and Testament disinherits the heir.  The very fact that a Testamentum exists means that one by custom and history is changing the normally accepted disbursement of the property of a deceased man or woman.

They will still throw that at you today.  I mention that because one of things is that they still throw anachronisms or maxims from all kinds of centuries which are actually completely irrelevant when you consider that since the 19th century, it doesn’t matter whether one does or does not have a will because every estate is subject to probate because the courts now go on the presumption that none of us have what they would recognize as possessing a valid Will or a valid Testament.  Let’s cover that as they are important point when we speak about Estates and Wills and Testaments and just making sense of those points.

Cestui que vie trusts and estates

As mentioned earlier, there is a form of temporary trust associated with estates from the beginning known as Cestui Que Vie (CQV) trusts. You may have heard me speak of CQV before over many years now and there is a section on CQV under the positive law canons of www.One-Heaven.org.  We might go there now before we continue on the paragraphs on estates.  I hope this discussion is making more sense of what an estate is for you.  

Article 100 - Cestui Que Vie Trust— 

Canon 2036--A Cestui Que Vie Trust, also known later as a "Fide Commissary Trust" and later again as a “Foreign Situs trust” and also known as a form of “Secret Trust” is a fictional concept being a Temporary Testamentary Trust, first created during the reign of Henry VIII of England through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 and updated by Charles II through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 wherein an Estate may be effected for the Benefit of one or more Persons presumed lost or abandoned at “sea” and therefore assumed/presumed “dead” after seven (7) years. Additional presumptions by which such a Trust may be formed were added in later statutes to include bankrupts, minors, incompetents, mortgages and private companies.

What does this mean?  After the tremendous success of annexing all the property of the church into CQV trusts, temporary trusts, where there was a dispute between the Catholic and the Church of England, the power of CQV trusts were extended (19 Car.2 c.6 in 1666/1667). The next target for wealth extraction was the group of people considered incompetent, or ‘lost’ or abandoned at sea, or presumed dead.  Of course the first ones that were added to this list were lunatics, people who were deemed to be mentally ill and mentally incompetent.  In fact, the concept of lunacy, being mentally incompetent or incapable, disabled from making rational decisions, as the argument for the creation of estates without permission from the principal has been one of the leading arguments of their system since the time of Henry VIII and is how these estates are largely created today.  In 1707 CQV, (6 Ann. c.18 in 1707) were expanded even further to literally "all people were presumed dead" unless proof of life. We are not just lunatics (34 Vict. c.22 in 1871) or wards (30 & 31 Ann. c.106 in 1867) because we are incompetent and poor but that we are no longer just ‘insane’ but we are considered since the 19th century to be criminally insane (30 & 31 Ann. c.12 in 1867) and criminally incompetent.  

Once this process of not just seizing the property of the Church, but starting to seize the property of individuals accelerated throughout the community, but the time we get to the 19th century the property of virtually everyone is being seized and ‘reissued.’  Certainly that is the case for the vast majority of people in the establishment of permanent councils of the poor and the permanent councils of the criminally insane.  We know these today as counties or burroughs or councils.  When they were formed, it is at that point that we see the system starting to become automated in the creation of an estate using our name on our behalf.  

Can we administer our own estates?

So, this answers another question that we raised at the beginning of the audio which is, “Do we need to be dead before an estate is formed?”  The answer is that no you do not because the very concept of CQV meaning property in dispute and the very meaning of the definitions of what constitutes that creation of a CQV is one only needs to be presumed dead, or a lunatic, or an incompetent, or a ward for a temporary estate, a CQV estate to be a trust to be formed and therefore for an estate to be formed. 

Even though lawyers bless their hearts, will tell you until they are blue in the face that you cannot administer the affairs of your estate because you are not dead, and no one can administer the affairs for your estate until you are dead, the truth is that this is not true.  The truth is that because of what is called ‘the poor laws’, because of these laws of public health, because the system saw there was too much money in allowing us or allowing someone else to administer our property, that these presumptions would be ‘kicked in’ for all of us.  We absolutely have the ability to administer the affairs of our estate right now because when our estate was formed, it was formed and started operating when you and I know that we are well and truly still alive.  

What we are saying in the next paragraph in article 19.4 in estates: 

Unlike Persons formed through Trust, a Person formed through Estate as a Corporation or Body Corporate is by definition a dead person, possessing no life, no right of argument and totally subject to the execution of the will of the deceased Testator.

This is where the Will and Testament becomes vital.  A person in a trust such as a trustee has some degree of flexibility of competence even though the trust deed is the document by which they are compelled to perform.  The trustor certainly has a degree of flexibility, but it is the trust deed that compels them.  In the case of an estate any person formed through an estate is absolutely presumed merely a token and has absolutely no right of argument against the Will of the Testator, the one who formed the Estate.  

With this in mind one can argue that the Will component of a Testament, given that a person is not only a fiction, but a fiction on paper, the Will component of the Will and Testament is the written ‘mind’ of that person.  If there is no written mind of that person then the court in a state of probate has the full flexibility to determine what the mind of the person is and therefore administer the affairs of the estate as they see fit.  This is another reason why estates are so powerful and have been such a powerful component for them.  Of course, when you go to court this is not a state of peace, you are going to court and everyone knows you are in a state of dispute.  Of course the property is under dispute, but under these rules it gives the court an extraordinary amount of power.

Let’s wrap up article 19.4.  There’s a lot of content here. 

While a Public Trustee within the Roman System may be granted from time to time the position of Executor of a Trust belonging to the Estate of a Legal Person, by the very definition of Estate no agent, principal, trustee or entity may presume to claim the role of General Executor of the Estate of the Legal Person except the flesh, mind and spirit of the being for whom the Estate was first created.

Let us dwell upon what the foregoing paragraph means.  We don’t have time at the moment to go through all of the corruptions of law and theology that the Roman cult and its agents brought in, especially in the 16th century.  One of those is, however, the concept of original sin.  That is to say that the errors of our forefathers was so great that we are disinherited from birth the rights that would normally be ascribed to us.  And so, rather than being born with property, we are born, effectively, without property and may technically then be considered paupers.  

The corruptions of the law make us eligible to be ‘press-ganged’ into being slaves. Even with such outrageous presumptions at the heart of estates there is something that not even the most arrogant and drunk with power judges, attorneys can over come and that is this:  when you step up and take control over your own affairs there is no one on the planet that can assume the role of general executor over your estate other than you.  Sure, they can appoint executors; sure they have agents and they claim to themselves that they have durable powers of attorney and irrevocable powers of attorney and agency. 

We will talk about this in weeks to come when we get to the point of power of attorney and agent.  It is this key concept and why we have focused on the role of general executor, on the perfection of our estates, and focused on the knowledge here into getting our affairs in order.  This is at the root, the foundation of the entire western Roman system. I assure you this is at the foundation.   Even though there are probably many lawyers who would almost reflexively tell you that is rubbish and there may be judges that will tell you that you don’t know what you are talking about, or prosecutors who say this is all gibberish, or any number of arm-chair critics that will tell you that this is all far too complex and there are much simpler ways to behave.  

Why spend all this time on estates and laws of the Roman system?

When a system disavows its own foundation it collapses.  When a system disavows the very thing upon which all its laws reside, all its laws dissolve.  All of them dissolve and there is no law, no foundation, no claim, no right and all that is left if bare-faced power, ignorance, threat and fear.  As I have said before, when a tyrant is finally revealed for whom and what they are, their existence in history has always been measured with an egg-timer.  There survival has always been measured with an egg-timer.   But so long as tyrant can hide even with the thinnest veil of claimed law, they can perpetuate such a falsity for years, for decades.  So, the quicker we bring things to a head, either the system is forced to acknowledge its own incompetence at the hand of the nihilists who are still embedded throughout their system and who are fomenting the complete destruction of the system through their greed, their arrogance and their sheer bloody stupidity, all the system tacitly accepts its own end.   And, it will collapse in the ensuing drama in which such an event would take place.   

The last two paragraphs: 

When a man or woman acts as a trustee of one or more Trusts associated with the Estate of their Legal Person, the office of General Executor of the Estate is therefore vacant. However, when a man or woman demonstrating competence, wisdom, humility and duty gives public notice of their occupying the office of general executor of the estate of their Legal Person, no other trustee, public servant, agent or entity may usurp their authority concerning the estate.

Any person who seeks to usurp the position of the general executor of the estate and unlawfully claim the office of Executor without permission is known as an Executor De Son Tort and may be charged with fraud.

There are two types of Estates as found in 19.5: 

As the present Covenant states only property within Superior Trusts and Inferior Trusts are capable of being in dispute and therefore subject to an Estate structure, only two (2) types of Estates exist being Superior Estates and Inferior Estates.

Superior Estates concerns land and property granted in accord with the present Covenant and the absolute rights and uses granted from the Divine Creator through Divine Trusts into True Trusts and into Superior Trusts.

Inferior Estates concern all Roman and Western legal constructs in law that by definition are without legitimate land claims.

In 19.6 we cover the six different ways into which property in dispute is conveyed into a holding pattern and they are: 

There are only six (6) essential methods possible for conveyance of property rights of Inferior Estates in dispute under the collective Western-Roman laws being Salvage, Seizure, Capture, Arrest, Livery and Resignation:

(i) Salvage is the method of conveying allegedly “lost” property, most commonly “lost at sea”; and

(ii) Seizure is the method of conveying allegedly “abandoned” property whereby the first person to seize and defend the claim is granted the lawful right of use; and

(iii) Capture is the method of conveying allegedly “prized” property in conflict whereby the enemy is defeated; and

(iv) Arrest is the method of conveying allegedly “surrendered” property by a prisoner; and

(v) Livery is the method of conveying allegedly “alienated” property by a merchant for limited commercial or personal use; and

(vi) Resignation is the method of conveying allegedly “disenfranchised” property such as in application, contract, bankruptcy or a court order.

We make the point in 19.7--Invalid, null and void claims of Real Property—in regards to real property that we made last week when we said that the Roman system has never held, has never held any property in trust because it did not have the rights and authority to convey the property into such trusts in the first place.  If the Roman cult-the Vatican-never had the authority or the right to convey property into such trusts in the first place, then those trusts never really exists.  So, everything that Henry VIII did itself was based on a lie and a fraud and those estates really never had any legitimacy because the underlying trusts of the Roman system never had any legitimacy.  

So the summary of the overview of what is an estate, why and how are estates formed, where do they come from, when is an estate really an estate, how many estates do we have, what is the relationship between and estate and a trust, how can we have an estate before we die or how can we have an estate now, what is probate, what is the significance of the well have been covered.  Next week we will start to cover the pragmatic and practical elements that we can consider on top of the reading which is fundamental, on top of the reasoning which is essential, on top of the competence and discernment which is of the utmost importance, as we continue to grasp and comprehend how we set ourselves free.  

Lastly, thank all you for listening and continue to help and support Ucadia in what we are doing in your donations.   Without your help we would not be able to continue to do this.  Again, thank all of you and thank you for taking the time to read and listen.  Again I hope that you find this second part of the series, the first part of estates to be useful.