The destruction of Trust by nihilists and bankers: Why the restoration of Oaths and Vows is key to saving the world

_________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (62 min 22 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________

Hello and thanks for listening.  This is Frank O’Collins with the audio blog for Wednesday, November 27, 2013.  The topic tonight is the destruction of Trust by nihilists and bankers and why the restoration of Oaths and Vows is key to saving the world.  If you have been listening to the audios, the blogs and the Talkshoe  Q and A that we do, I will apologize this week for those of you listening to this audio, that I am unable to do a Q and A blog this.  I will return to the Q and A next week.  

If you have been listening for the last few weeks, you know that what we did last week after many months and months of deep research is that we re-launched the Ucadia Will and Testament model , the forms, the background, and the logic as to the absolute importance of reclaiming your Estate.  It is the critical importance of having documentary evidence that you are not an animal, you are not a slave, you have taken a stand against the system and you are able to demonstrate that you are perfectly capable of managing your own affairs.  These are the documents that we have uploaded to the website www.restorelaw.com under Education and Estate Forms.  

With any material in particular that discusses Law there can be quite a deal of confusion.  As I have said many times across this journey, if you are going to do the kind of investigative research and the kind of “deep-diving’ into history that we are doing with the Ucadia model, you are going to have change sometimes and realize that an original position taken in good faith may not in fact be the true essence of a concept of law.  That is not because we are quick to judge, make assumptions or don’t do our due diligence.   It’s the fact that if we take the present system as I have said in the four sessions and the you-tube videos that are now available concerning estates, law has become so complex, so convoluted and so contradictory that you can read every page of every legal dictionary and every statute which certainly has been in one respect part of this research and find wholly different attitudes, wholly different definitions.  In any event it has created some confusion and some uncertainty.  

For example, I’ll address later on, one of the outstanding claims that is out there where people say, ‘Why go to the effort of this Will and Testament?  Why go to the effort of this material?  I don’t need to fill this material in.” Why not simply stand there in a court if you know your identity and you know who you are, that you don’t need these documents? You just simply go and stand and express who you are.  That sounds fine.   It sounds perfectly fine until you get into the history, for example, of the conversion of law being auricular to the necessity of their being written evidence that comes in form of such acts as the Act in 1676 against frauds.  In 1676 under King Charles II, unless something is written it has no existence in law.  

So we need to address some of these misunderstandings, confusions or false presumptions.   In the audios and sessions of the YouTube workshop (see Session 1 and Slides, Session 2 and Slides, Session 3 and Slides and Session 4 and Slides) and over the last year or longer, I have been referring to the power of affidavits.  The power of affidavits is an essential tool in moving forward.  Yet early on at the beginning of some of our audios we did have an uncertainty regarding the strength of affidavits.  One of the reasons for that is this issue of oaths, the issue of vows.  

Given the confusion and given the fact that the evidence is overwhelming that nihilists and bankers have at least for the last 200 or more years systematically, forensically and comprehensively sought to destroy Trust within society.  And, given that oaths and vows are fundamental to the formation of Trust, then there must be something to oaths and there must be something to vows that frightens or concerns such nihilists and bankers. 

Tonight I want to clear the air on these issues.  I want to make as certain as we can the central role that oaths and vows have played in society much like the concept of Rule of Law has played from the beginning of civilized society.   I want to address why these things have been under siege and attack by a segment of society that wants to destroy the concept of Trust.  I want to look at the reasons why they have done this and why we should have no fear regarding these concepts, why we should have no fear in the proper use of affidavits and why we need to absolutely restore these concepts moving forward as we have in the concept of Rights and Justice and in the concept of Rule of Law that all are equal under the law and of course in the concept of Due Process.

A quick reminder of what is a Trust?

Let’s begin and start with the definition of Trust that we can see under the Canons of Positive Law when we go to the website, www.one-heaven.org.  We will look at Article 84 and I’m going to read some of thee tonight as they are already referenced.   I want to cover some of these because they give us the context.   Since we are talking about trusts, what do we mean about the concept of trust?  Here is Canon 1901 under Article 84 on Trusts in Positive Law:

Canon 1901

A Trust is a fictional Form of Relations and Agreement whereby certain Form, Rights and Obligations are lawfully conveyed by a Trustor to the control of one Person created through the Oath of Office of Trustee to manage such property in accord with the will of the Trustor for the benefit of one or more other Persons.

That’s a pretty long-winded definition but the key elements that I want to refer to tonight is the issue that office of Trustee is essential to the existence of the Trust.  And, the office of Trustee is created by the Oath of the candidate that accepts to become the Trustee.  Here we see the oath being an essential part of the Trust.  If one goes to look at definitions such as implied and constructive trusts, then the definition and the formality of what I have just described does not exist.   We will get to that in a moment when we talk about Trustee.  What I want to emphasize here is that a Trust cannot exist by the history of Trusts if we exclude this pseudo-concept of constructive or implied trusts.   A Trust cannot only exist unless there is a Trustee and a Trustee cannot hold an office, who does not hold the office of Trustee unless there is an oath.  That is a symbiotic relationship that we can find under different language right back to the very beginning of civilized society. 

What then is a Trustee?

A Trust depends on the Trustee and the Trustee depends on the Office of Trustee and the Oath.  Let’s look at Article 5 - Trustee under the Canons of Fiduciary Law under www.one-heaven.org and I will some of these out as they are critical for us in seeing the power and importance of Oath and Vow and why they were so essential for the nihilists and bankers to destroy, to abrogate and to minimize.  

Canon 6993

A Trustee is an Office formed by an Oath to the Terms of Trust and done before Witnesses to take possession of certain Rights and Property and perform certain Obligations. The manner and character of a Trustee may be described as a position of Trust which is equivalent to the term Fiduciary.

Canon 6994

The origin of the concept of Trustee and the fact that such an Office cannot exist except under sacred Oath is as old as the origin of civilized society and law itself and has been one of the most constant concepts of law throughout every age and era. It is founded on the most basic principle that a man or woman cannot legitimately possess the rights or property of others, unless they demonstrate the most exemplary and scrupulous character of good faith, good character and good conscience. Therefore, any repudiation of this fundamental concept is the repudiation of the Rule of Law and law itself.

Canon 6995

The valid Oath taken as to the Terms of Trust creates the Office of Trustee. Therefore in the absence of a valid Oath, no Office may exist.

Canon 6996

The Office of Trustee can only exist and be valid if all the following criteria exist:

(i) The Trustor has the proper authority to grant, donate, assign or delegate the property for the proposed Trust; and

(ii) Clear purpose, intent and terms for the proposed Trust exist; and

(iii) Certainty of subject matter (the property) exists for the proposed Trust exists; and

(iv) The candidate for Trustee comes with good faith, good character and good conscience; and

(v) The candidate for Trustee accepts the position with full knowledge of the terms and obligations; and

(vi) The candidate makes a formal sacred oath to a higher Divine power upon a sacred object representing the form of law connected to such higher Divine power, before witnesses; and

(vii) The event of making such a formal sacred oath is memoralized into some document, that itself is signed, sealed and executed.

Canon 6997

When a person who claims to be a Trustee, but evidence exists of one or more of the following elements, then such a person is an imposter with no such Office or Trust existing:

(i) Where a person belongs to a religion, society, entity or order that is recorded as performing any formal or sacred ritual to repudiate Oaths or Vows made in the past or into the future; or

(ii) Where a person belongs to a religion, society, entity or order that requires the making of one or more Oaths or Vows that are contradictory to the Golden Rule and Rule of Law, Justice and Due Process; or

(iii) Where a person belongs to a religion, society, entity or order that requires the making of one or more Oaths or Vows that result in behavior that results in less than exemplary character of honesty and fidelity and the disregard of good faith, good character and good conscience; or

(iv) Where one or more of the criteria for the valid creation of the Office of Trustee does not exist.

Canon 6998

No judge, magistrate or justice of the peace may adjudicate any matter of law within a competent forum of law or oratory unless they are presently a valid Trustee under Oath and secondly prepared to demonstrate under Oath the exemplary character of a valid Trustee or valid Fiduciary:

(i) As a valid Oath is required to create and sustain the Office judge, or magistrate or justice of the peace, the absence of a valid Oath of Office means such a person is the worst kind of imposter an without any legitimacy whatsoever; and

(ii) As any adjudication concerning rights or property requires exemplary character, any judge, magistrate or justice of the peace that is unwilling or refuses to be entrusted under Oath by all parties to perform in good faith, good character and good conscience is not a valid Fiduciary.

The disregard to such a fundamental principle is the admission of the absence of any proper Rule of Law, Justice or Due Process.

The historic origins of the concept of Trustee

Let’s look at the history of the concepts of Trustee and the origins of Trustee.  What we find is that the concept of Trustee and the concepts of elements of Trustee go rights back to the origins of history and the first appearance of the concept of Trustee in statute you see in Canon 7000.  I will get to the meaning of Vows and Oaths in a second, but I want to paint a picture here so that you can see it.  The fundamental roles of Oaths in history of civilization informing sacred and valid Trusts was deliberately diminished by Westminster in 1775 under 7 &8 Will III c34.   The promotion of anti-Oath takes place on absurd corruptions inserted into the sacred Bible to imply that Oaths were contrary to Divine Law.   Such groups as the Quakers and the Brethren were granted exception through the concept of Affirmation. Quakers and Brethren were promoted to the roles of Trustees in banks, merchant industries and civil service.   

Canon 7000

The first appearance of the concept of Trustee in statute under Western-Roman law originates under King Charles II of England through the laws of Westminster in 1676 under (29 Car 2 c.3) in relation to the historic shift from the custom of auricular testimony under oath to written evidence as primacy proof concerning all Trusts and conveyances:

(i) From 1676 (29 Car. 2 c.3), documents and “paper” took precedence in Western-Roman Law concerning the establishment and existence of valid Trusts, Wills and Testaments, Conveyances, Titles and Agreements to the detriment of auricular testimony; and

(ii) The fundamental role of Oaths in the history of civilization in forming sacred and valid Trusts was deliberately diminished by Westminster in 1695 (7 & 8 Will. III c.34) and the promotion of anti-Oath sects based on absurd corruptions inserted into the Holy Bible to imply Oaths were contrary to Divine Law. The Quakers were granted exemption from Oaths through the concept of Affirmation and Quakers then promoted to “Trustee” roles in Banks, Merchant Industries and Civil Service dealing with property”; and

(iii) The “State” and its agents assuming greater powers and control as Trustees under Western-Roman Law was significantly extended under Queen Anne in 1707 (6 Ann. c.18) concerning people presumed “dead” and in 1708 (7 Ann. c.19) concerning the property of “infants”. In both cases, the concept of “secret trusts”, also known as “Cestui que vie trusts” were used and to be administered by the crown as Trustee; and

(iv) In 1731 (4 Geo. II c.10) under King George II of Great Britain, Westminster expanded the power and scope of itself as Trustees and the use of “Cestui que vie trusts” to include the concept of the property of “lunatics” and “idiots” being held in such trusts; and

(v) In 1775, Westminster and the Bank of England were sufficiently confident to enclose the very concept of a valid Oath for the first time in civilized history through (25 Geo.III c.39) by claiming Justices of the Peace then be empowered to administer (valid) Oaths. Thus the evidence in writing of a valid oath and then witnessed in writing by a Justice of the Peace became primary proof, not the auricular event itself and associated witnesses; and

(vi) In 1825 (6 Geo. IV c.74), with the Bank of England assuming effectively the role of the Crown (Corporation), Westminster consolidated and then expanded its powers and authorities as Trustees by combining the concepts of Cestui que vie trusts for “idiots, lunatics, infants or trustees of unsound mind” ensuring that such property was to be administered by the Bank of England; and

(vii) In 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c.60), Westminster revised the laws concerning property held by Trustees and Mortgagees with particular emphasis in watering down the historic nature of Trusts and Trustees to include the concepts of “implied and constructive trusts” being fictions and pseudo-trusts resembling (in name) trusts but having none of the customary characteristics with the operation of such pseudo trusts being determined by the laws of Westminster. Hence, the birth of deliberately false trusts being nothing more than implied contracts; and

(viii) In 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c.79) Westminster extended the concept of secret “implied or constructive” cestui que vie trusts to all persons by assuming all people who do not redeem themselves are by default some form of idiot, lunatic, infant or trustee of unsound mind. Under the guise of “health”, sanitary districts were identified as “wards” for implied lunatics. The effect being that the Bank of England operating as the Crown was now the “trustee” for all persons in England, Great Britain and the Dominions and Colonies of England and Great Britain.

(ix) In 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c.59) and then in 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c.53) the role of the Trustee fundamentally changed from executor and administrator to a role with full investment and personal wealth creation capacity. Now, agencies, corporations, independent contractors and other bodies “acting” in the capacity of a trustee (such as judges, magistrates and others) stood to obtain substantial financial enrichment in complete contradiction to the public expressed history and principles of fiduciary responsibility and trust. Thus, the end of any pretence of Rule of Law for Great Britain and its dominions and previous colonies can be said to be this watershed in defiling all known respect for law.

The concept of Vow

Let me go back to the history and the evolution of Trustees in a moment.  I want to switch for a second and look at the origin of Oaths and the origin of Vow to try to make sense of this enclosure and the significance of this enclosure to history.  If you look at a Vow to begin with under Positive Law, we see the definition of Vow in Article 126 and Canon 2269 gives us the definition: 

Canon 2269

A Vow is a solemn promise or pledge to perform or refrain from some act, or to be faithful and firm in some allegiance or union, or to behave in the manner prescribed by some form of rule or law. By its nature a Vow obliges only the person who makes it.

Canon 2270

The origin of the concept of a Vow as a solemn promise or pledge is as old as the origin of civilized society and law itself and similar to the concept of Oaths is one of the most fundamental and constant concepts of law throughout every age and era:

(i) The earliest forms of Vows in civilized law originates from the Cuilliaéan (Holly) of Ireland and the 3rd/4th Millennium BCE Irish word plead meaning “promise” and the word “guide” meaning “solemn promise, pledge, prayer”; and

(ii) The ancient Greeks continued the distinction between the concept of a general and “secular” vow and a solemn religious vow in the word vow (xóv) meaning “promise” and the word charis (κάρης) meaning “solemn promise, pledge, prayer, religious vows”; and

The point I want to make here is that we are seeing these words are evident in cultures well before the ministry of Jesus Christ and well before the origin of Christianity.  We see these concepts as essential and fundamental to the law.  These concepts were fundamental to society; the existence of society could not exist if the concept of Vow did not exist.  There would have been no Sumerian civilization.  There would have been no spread of religion itself.  There would have been no Cuilliaéan or Holly spread of the concepts of religion and the concepts of law itself.  There would have been no Hittite; there would have been no Canaanite, no Roman, and no Greek societies.  No societies would have been formed if these concepts did not exist as the foundation of Law.  

Then, when we get to the Carolingians in the 8th century, regarding Vow, we see the revival of the ancient Holly language and the Law and the use of the word “promissa”  from which the word “promise’ arrived, meaning promise and the word “pleigo” from which we get the words plea and pledge meaning promise,  pledge prayer and religious vows.  What about Oaths?  As you heard me say, there was a dramatic corruption that took place at the end of the 17th Century.  

The concept of Oaths

I want to get back to the origin of Trustees and why nihilists and bankers had to absolutely destroy the concept of Trust.  Let’s look at Oaths now as we have briefly described and discussed the importance of Vows.   In contrast to a Vow being a promise or a pledge, an Oath, when we look at Article 121 is defined as follows in Canon 2261:

Canon 2261

An Oath is a solemn petition and invocation to a Deity in the presence of at least two witnesses and sworn upon some object representing the laws of the Deity that a testimony is true or a pledge is binding. A valid Oath is essential to forming a true Office of Trustee and therefore a valid Trust.

If you want to look at the difference here a Vow is a promise that only binds the one making the Vow, whereas an Oath involves a transference of some authority or some power and is forming essentially in that process a three-part relation between some deity, between some beneficiaries and between the candidate that makes the Oath and then forms the office of Trustee.  Canon 2262 gives us some rationale, reason, and logic behind why every single civilization including the present, has regarded Oaths as so fundamental to the framework of Law even though presently they hide it.   We see the concept of Divine Source as the primal religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Mesopotamia, Greeks, Romans and right through even Christianity.  The source of knowledge and of our creation comes from a Deity in Heaven.  Under Divine Law we see the connection that is always with an Oath.  An Oath is not merely an indication of a Deity but it is the swearing on Law and on the Truth of Law and that is what makes it so fundamental.   All Law comes from the Divine.   We see a perfect synergy between the concepts of Oaths, Rule of Law, Justice, Due Process and Vow.  Now we have definitions concerning Oaths and we have one concerning Vow.     

Canon 2262

The origin of the concept of Oath as key to forming an Office of Trustee and therefore a valid Trust is as old as the origin of civilized society and law itself and has been one of the most fundamental and constant concepts of law throughout every age and era. It is founded on three most basic ancient beliefs being Divine Source, Divine Law and Divine Authority:

(i) Divine Source is the primal religious belief at the foundation of almost all civilized societies of mankind until the past few hundred years that Heaven and one or more Divine Deities are the source of all knowledge, existence and creation; and

(ii) Divine Law is the ancient civilized belief that as all existence, knowledge and creation is from a Divine Source, the highest law of all possible law is Divine Law, usually expressed through one or more sacred texts transmitted by one or more prophets; and

(iii) Divine Authority is the ancient belief that as all existence, knowledge and creation is from a Divine Source and the highest law is Divine Law, then all authority and power to rule comes not only from the consent of the people but Divine Authority.

If we look briefly through the history of Oath in Canon 2264 it gives us some origin to the history of the words.  We find that the earliest form of Oath and the word “Oath” literally originates from the Cuilliaéan.  The word itself comes from the Cuilliaéan and the Holly and it means “sacred, binding bond or surety, but words, through the ritual of seal, meaning that my words bind me to some law:

Canon 2264

In terms of the history and origins of Oaths as central to the Rule of Law and Justice for most societies for thousands of years:

(i) The earliest form of Oath and the word “oath” itself literally originates from the Cuilliaéan (Holly) of Ireland and the 3rd/4th Millennium BCE Irish word oath meaning “sacred binding/bond/surety by (words)” through the ritual of séal meaning “my words bind (bond) me (to some promise/oath)”; and

(ii) The ancient Greek form of Oath central to the Rule of Law of the Alexandrian Empire was the word omnuó (ομνύω) meaning “to swear, take an oath to Divine (derived) law or nomoi (νόμοι); and

(iii) The Roman form of Oath central to the Rule of Law of the Roman Empire called in Latin iuro meaning “I swear/take an oath upon the law (in the name of the Divine)”; and

(iv) The Carolingian form of Oath revived in the 8th Century CE was called committo from the Latin of the same name meaning "I bind myself according to the law" and was the central element of the ritual of Fealty between Lord and Vassal under Sacre Loi (Sacred Law); and

(v) In the 17th Century, the merchant and banking families of England, Venice and the Netherlands began to deliberate enclose and diminish the essential nature of an Oath, upon the creation of secret financial securities and debts (slave bonds) against their own people. This included the clumsy and deliberate corruption of sacred scripture within the New Testament of the Holy Bible to promote the absurd concept of making oaths (for the first time in the history of mankind) as a transgression.

The Roman form of Oath, called “iuro” in Latin is the word we get juro, jury, justice and all are connected.  “Iuro” means, “I swear, I take an Oath upon the Law.”  The Carolingians modified committo from Latin as the concept of sacred Oath.  We use the word “committo” as committal is still used today as the form of sacred Oath within their commercial courts.  Something happened along the way regarding Oaths and regarding Vows.  Something happened after the concept of the Bank of England, the Bank of Amsterdam and the concept of annuities and other instruments.  Annuity was a slave bond and it is the origin as it was corrupted into a slave bond.  It doesn’t mean Annuity is always a slave bond, but that is how it was conceived by the Bank of England and the Bank of Amsterdam.  

Something happened when these banks realized they had a way to unjustly claim us as slaves and as things and batteries for energy that they could monetize and sell without our knowledge and without our consent.  This compelled the banks to seek to destroy the very essence and knowledge of Trust and to destroy Trust between people.  You have heard me say before that the only true capital is Trust.  If you think about the problem that most people have today, it is the absence of Trust.  No wonder people are desperate for money, loans and finding ways to get money from banks.   Because there is no Trust any more.   

Before we get back to Trustee let me explain what I am saying.  This is all connected.  The existence of Trust means that if you were to open a business, you wanted to open a business and you needed to rent and refurbish a building and fill it with the supplies you need to run your business, if the man or woman that owned the business trusted you, then you could form an agreement with them that you start to pay rent the day that you start the business.  That would be Trust.   You wouldn’t need to borrow a single cent to pay for the lease.   The lease would start, but the rent would not start until the business was opened.  If people trusted you, suppliers trusted you then you could come to an arrangement with suppliers that would provide all the fittings and fixtures of your building if it is, for example, a restaurant.   They would put all the fittings and fixtures in on the Trust that once you open up you will begin to repay the money and the cost of those fittings and fixtures because they Trust you.   

If we had trust, then people that provide the produce that you need in order to cook and supply and they would provide that to you that once the doors open, they trust you to pay that back for the produce the minute people start to pay for meals.  The same would go for your staff.  People would start to work for you and not even ask for a wage until customers started to come.  In days gone by that is how people were able to do things without access to central capital controlled by central banks.  In the modern world the banks that are supported by nihilists and academia in fields of law, psychology, and economics which are the troika of nihilism, they sought to damage and create mistrust and confusion so that we look to banks and the central banks as the sole source of capital and Trust, and government as the sole source of Trust. 

In a moment I’m going to specifically address the question of that reference in the Bible concerning the non-swearing of Oaths.   Before I do that I want to go back to the history of Trusts and Trustees that we were referring to and continue through to the present day.  As we are saying, look at Canon 7000 under Trustees under Fiduciary Law under point 2.  We said that in 1695 we see the beginning of the promotion of anti-Oath groups in the support of Quakers and the Brethren also known as the Mennonites that were given permission not to swear Oaths.  We see now the beginning of the diminishing and enclosure of Oaths.   These canons are crucial references and I will also include direct links to the statutes.    

Canon 7000

The first appearance of the concept of Trustee in statute under Western-Roman law originates under King Charles II of England through the laws of Westminster in 1676 under (29 Car 2 c.3) in relation to the historic shift from the custom of auricular testimony under oath to written evidence as primacy proof concerning all Trusts and conveyances:

(i) From 1676 (29 Car. 2 c.3), documents and “paper” took precedence in Western-Roman Law concerning the establishment and existence of valid Trusts, Wills and Testaments, Conveyances, Titles and Agreements to the detriment of auricular testimony; and

(ii) The fundamental role of Oaths in the history of civilization in forming sacred and valid Trusts was deliberately diminished by Westminster in 1695 (7 & 8 Will. III c.34) and the promotion of anti-Oath sects based on absurd corruptions inserted into the Holy Bible to imply Oaths were contrary to Divine Law. The Quakers were granted exemption from Oaths through the concept of Affirmation and Quakers then promoted to “Trustee” roles in Banks, Merchant Industries and Civil Service dealing with property”; and

(iii) The “State” and its agents assuming greater powers and control as Trustees under Western-Roman Law was significantly extended under Queen Anne in 1707 (6 Ann. c.18) concerning people presumed “dead” and in 1708 (7 Ann. c.19) concerning the property of “infants”. In both cases, the concept of “secret trusts”, also known as “Cestui que vie trusts” were used and to be administered by the crown as Trustee; and

(iv) In 1731 (4 Geo. II c.10) under King George II of Great Britain, Westminster expanded the power and scope of itself as Trustees and the use of “Cestui que vie trusts” to include the concept of the property of “lunatics” and “idiots” being held in such trusts; and

(v) In 1775, Westminster and the Bank of England were sufficiently confident to enclose the very concept of a valid Oath for the first time in civilized history through (25 Geo.III c.39) by claiming Justices of the Peace then be empowered to administer (valid) Oaths. Thus the evidence in writing of a valid oath and then witnessed in writing by a Justice of the Peace became primary proof, not the auricular event itself and associated witnesses; and

1775 was the time that Lloyd’s Bank gets going.  It is the largest insurer in the world and one of the largest banks in the world.  Westminster and the Bank of England were sufficiently confident to enclose the very concept of valid Oath for the first time in civilized history through 25 Geo III c.39.  They claimed Justices of the Peace were then empowered to administer valid Oaths.   Number (vi) above is the first time that all the concepts were brought together and included Cestui que vie trusts for idiots, lunatics, infants, or trustees of unsound mind.  The Bank of England assumed itself to be the Trustee of all property of idiots, lunatics, those assumed dead or abandoned and those considered trustees but of unsound mind.  

We are going to get the heart of the issue of why the nihilists and why bankers saw Oaths as the fundamental enemy to their system of financial control.  Would it surprise you, as a rhetorical question, that the groups that magically appear, and I do mean “magically appeared”  at the end of the 17th Century did so at the same time that Westminster changed the Law and at the same time that dramatic changes were occurring in texts.  These are groups that refused to swear an Oath, disavowed the concept of  Vow, and seek all possible remedy to remove any question of their being bound by an Oath or a Vow.  

In terms of the Quakers who we are told are born out of the period of the 17th century and persecution, we find that the Quakers end up being the dominant group for industrialists during the Industrial Age in charge of heavy industry and using people as slaves.  We find that the Quakers are the dominant group in Rhode Island and deeply involved in the slave trade.  We find the same group as central to the position of banks, bankers and the Bank of England and in forming their own banks including Lloyds’, the larges insurer in the world.  Lloyd’s was founded by Sampson Lloyd.  Iron making was founded by Abraham Darby.  By 1750 more than 75% of the iron industry was in the hands of Quakers.

Let me say this:  if the poor laws of Westminster had not had taken place, and the land of people and villages had not been seized, leaving the villages to starve unless a few of them found places in workhouses.  Workhouses functioned literally as prisons and prison is too nice a word.  Think of hell and then multiply that by 100.  Think of a place where people are imprisoned to work to death.  That is the system that was controlled by Quakers.  These people said that for religious reasons that they couldn’t take Oaths or Vows, but they were “honorable” people.  Barclay’s Bank from Jay’s Barclay and William Penn from Pennsylvania were both Quakers.

They weren’t the only group that took advantage of this magical chain of events that coincided with their appearance as groups that would not “swear an oath.”  History shows that whole civilizations were founded on Vows and Oaths.  Vows and Oaths were the checklist and the safety mechanism for Rule of Law.   If you played with Vows and Oaths, then Rule of Law was at jeopardy.  What kept Rule of Law solid and protected were Vows and Oaths?  They were immutable from the very, very first civilization to the time that these groups magically appear.  Westminster started arrogantly enclosing these concepts of Vows and Oaths.  We will get to the Bible references in a moment.

The other group that appeared at the same time was called the Brethren, also known as the Mennonites and the Anti-Baptists.  The wealthiest of the Brethren were those that came to America and were granted by Congress enormous sections of land.  Go see the Congressional Acts that gave the Brethren huge chunks of the United States.  In fact the Methodist Church under Wesley was largely formed by Brethren.  Arguably the most famous family and group, tribe of Brethren, came out of Switzerland.  The Swiss Brethren were the wealthiest of all Brethren and they were the group called the Roth.  The Roth was the largest and most influential coming out of the Brethren in Switzerland.  You might know them as the Roth’s Shield, or the Rothschilds.  

There is a huge amount of falsity, counter intelligence and just plain and outright stupidity concerning the origin of the Rothschilds.  The Rothschilds did in fact change from being Brethren and effectively, Mennonite, back to professing themselves to be Jewish in the 19th century.  That was only after all the Acts of Parliament in terms of the persecution of Jews and religious tolerance was well and truly settled.   Only after England was capable of demonstrating the ability to elect a Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, did we see a change in the profession of faith of the Rothschilds.   The Rothschilds as bankers originated and gained their power, not by being Jewish, because they were not able to exercise such influence in that position.  They were Brethren and yet another of these key groups with extraordinary influence who refused to swear and refused to give Oaths and Vows.

Let’s continue in this history of Trustees and get to the point of exactly why they did this before we address the issue of the references in the Bible.   The last reference we made in terms of the history of Trustees, we said that in 1825 we see the Bank of England consolidating all these concepts around Cestui que vie trusts where they and they alone become the trustees of anyone who is a lunatic, idiot, infant, a trustee of unsound mind or lost or abandoned.  Look under Canon 7000 and point (vii) regarding 1850 and the first time concepts of “implied and constructive trusts.”  They broke the back of Oaths and Vows and then they broke the back of Trusts by creating pseudo trusts:

(vi) In 1825 (6 Geo. IV c.74), with the Bank of England assuming effectively the role of the Crown (Corporation), Westminster consolidated and then expanded its powers and authorities as Trustees by combining the concepts of Cestui que vie trusts for “idiots, lunatics, infants or trustees of unsound mind” ensuring that such property was to be administered by the Bank of England; and

(vii) In 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c.60), Westminster revised the laws concerning property held by Trustees and Mortgagees with particular emphasis in watering down the historic nature of Trusts and Trustees to include the concepts of “implied and constructive trusts” being fictions and pseudo-trusts resembling (in name) trusts but having none of the customary characteristics with the operation of such pseudo trusts being determined by the laws of Westminster. Hence, the birth of deliberately false trusts being nothing more than implied contracts; and

(viii) In 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c.79) Westminster extended the concept of secret “implied or constructive” cestui que vie trusts to all persons by assuming all people who do not redeem themselves are by default some form of idiot, lunatic, infant or trustee of unsound mind. Under the guise of “health”, sanitary districts were identified as “wards” for implied lunatics. The effect being that the Bank of England operating as the Crown was now the “trustee” for all persons in England, Great Britain and the Dominions and Colonies of England and Great Britain.

(ix) In 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c.59) and then in 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c.53) the role of the Trustee fundamentally changed from executor and administrator to a role with full investment and personal wealth creation capacity. Now, agencies, corporations, independent contractors and other bodies “acting” in the capacity of a trustee (such as judges, magistrates and others) stood to obtain substantial financial enrichment in complete contradiction to the public expressed history and principles of fiduciary responsibility and trust. Thus, the end of any pretence of Rule of Law for Great Britain and its dominions and previous colonies can be said to be this watershed in defiling all known respect for law.

The systems described above are now global.  Everybody who does not redeem themselves is considered a complete lunatic and they criminalized lunacy as well at this time.  In 1888 and 1893 the role of trustee changed to a role with full investment and personal wealth creation capacity.  Agencies, corporations, independent contractors are able to corrupt, steal and unjustly enrich themselves fully with impunity.  This is the beginning of the end and the beginning of the rampant corporations and the problems of the world today where we have false trustees who do not take Oaths or Vows and who manage pseudo trusts that bear no resemblance to Trusts.  They are controlled by laws dictated by Westminster and other Parliaments where these people who claim to us to act in our benefit rape and pillage our energy daily, every single moment.  Those that are too lazy, too stupid, or too distracted to stand up and demonstrate in writing that they are not slaves, not paupers, not idiots, not lunatics, not infants or wards and not dead have allowed them to get away with this for all this time. 

Why did the nihilists and bankers want and need to destroy Oaths, Vows and Trusts?

Why did the nihilists and the bankers destroy Oaths, Vows and Trusts?  It should be obvious.  If Oaths and Vows are upheld as they always were and as they were under Carolingians, under the Christian Carolingians who founded the Universal Church,  the Catholic Church, that honored Oaths and Trusts from the 8th century onwards as fundamental to the Rule of Law and Justice.  Oaths and Vows were honored by the Roman Empire as fundamental to the survival of the Roman Empire and the Rule of Law.  Oaths and Vows were honored by Constantine and the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire up until the 15th century and it’s final ending as fundamental to the Rule of Law.  Oaths and Vows were honored at the time of Alexander and the time of the Egyptians, the Hyksos and the times of every single culture except the last 200 years since we have been living under the control of bankers and nihilists.  Oaths and Vows were fundamental to the very fabric of Law.  

You know why they had to destroy Trust.  By destroying Trust they controlled trusts and by destroying Oaths and Vows they became the sole trustees.  By destroying these concepts they have been able to rape and pillage with immunity, absolute immunity.  Do you know what they want to do now?  You know what the nihilists think now?  Thankfully, they are finally being exposed as more and more people wake up.  Finally they are being exposed because good people have started to realize that we have to restore the Law.  Do you know what the nihilists now think is the answer?  It’s not to change behavior; they don’t want to change behavior.   They want to kill us.  They want to let us starve and they are betting on your neighbors that don’t give a damn and won’t listen to these audios and won’t read, that get distracted, they are making what they think is an informed bet that people are so infected with mind virus and so selfish that they are going to ignore this message and they are going to starve to death. 

They are going to shrivel up and die and that is what they are hoping will happen.  In fact everything is on course for that to come true.   Did you know that in America there are more people in poverty today than at any other time in history, and still we have people who do not give a damn?  They lose everything and they still cannot get rid of mind virus because of the teachings of the nihilists, because of the golden calf and the worship of gold and money of the bankers.   They are doing this in Europe and across the world and there is every chance that they will succeed.  Why?  Because on a daily and weekly basis, I assure you that I see time and time again people are too interested in watching porn, people are too interested in watching a bunch of kittens playing on Youtube.  They are more interested in what the Kardashians are doing.  They are more interested in how to make money.  They have no interest in truth.  Many people have no interest in truth and don’t want to know the truth. 

The ultimate betrayal of the nihilists in corrupting sacred texts

This leads me to this complication that many people have felt in regards to the Bible and the reference in the Bible to the swearing of Oaths.  Let me put this reference in the Bible before I read it, into context.   To the Protestant Church and one might argue to most Christians of the four gospels the one that most people find is the most enriching would be the Gospel of Matthew.  In Matthew we find two of the most significant events and one uniquely in Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7 in the speech of Jesus and the recitation of Law, The Sermon of the Mount.  It is arguably the most important and continuous sermon claimed to be spoken by Jesus Christ out of any of the four Gospels.  So, the Sermon on the Mount and every single word in it one could rightly assume to those founding the Protestant religion were paramount in the 16th Century.  I am referring to people like Calvin and Martin Luther.

If you want to get context on the Sermon on the Mount through Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Matthew, then one begins at line 17, and then 18 of Matthew 5, for the opening of the Sermon, the context of the Sermon and what Jesus is about to say about tonight:  the Rule of Law, the concept of Justice and Due Process, the Concept of Oath and Vow being fundamental to society from the beginning of time.  This is what is allegedly said from Jesus and I pulled this out of the new King James Version to make it easier and this is 17, 18, 19 and 20:   

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

As the opening to the claimed Sermon on the Mount, the most important words attributed to Jesus Christ in the entire Bible, here we are told that Jesus sets the scene by saying that what you are about to hear and what Jesus is about to talk about is not contradicting the Law, but fulfilling and therefore restoring the Law.  That is what he says.  Now let me go to the end of the Sermon which you can call the conclusion where you see the vindication of the Sermon.   This is at Matthew 7 chapter 12:

Matthew 7—12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law of (and) the Prophets.

This should probably say “of the Prophets.”  The word “and” is in there and it has never made sense.  So, under verse 12 chapter 7, we see the conclusion of the Golden Rule and that all are equal under the law.  The Golden Rule, the Rule of Law, is the concluding argument of the key opening and ending of the Sermon on the Mount.  That is a fact.  By referring back to the Law of the Prophets we see the consistency and what I have just said to you should be consistent with the Law and not contradict the Law. 

Now let’s look at the version in Old English of Matthew 5, verses 33 to 37.  Then I will recite it in Matthew 5, 33 to 37 where there is a distinct difference.  So, let me read the Old English verses 33 to 37:

33. Again, you have heard that it has been said by them of old time, You shall not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord your oaths:

34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35. Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36. Neither shall you swear by thy head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.

37. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these came of evil.

Before I get to the new King James Version, I ask you if that phrase is consistent with what we know as an absolute fact of the consistent law from the beginning of time that Oaths and Vows are fundamental to the Rule of Law.  They bind men and women to perform and if they are diminished then groups that refuse to tell the truth, constantly lie, and always corrupt are able to take positions of power and society becomes a prison and slavery can thrive.  If you don’t believe me, why did Calvin and why did Luther emphasize Oaths and Vows in the formation of the Protestant movement.  

Why, in the Church of England, were oaths and vows essential before the bankers took control?  To say that a Protestant movement that placed the Sermon on the Mount more importantly than any other reference to the Bible, any other sections of the Bible, suddenly missed this instruction and turned themselves into heretics is absurd.  To say that it was left up to groups of people called Quakers and Brethren who ultimately become the very worst slave masters under which hundreds of thousands of people died in absolute agony and became the very worst bankers, are you telling me that they got it right and we all got it wrong?  Something doesn’t add up.  

I leave it up to you.  I hope the clarity concerning Oaths and Vows has made this clear to you.  I hope you will embrace then, these concepts when you move forward in the restoration of Law.  I hope you will have greater confidence in what we have said.   I hope you see that the people you are up against don’t care for anything.  They see nothing as sacred; they are nihilists.  They think nothing of corrupting the Bible, nothing of destroying countries, nothing of destroying the world.  You are dealing with severely mentally ill people.  Until good people realize that these people are severely mentally ill and have no right to stay in power, until we restore Law and primacy of Oaths and Vows in telling the truth, then these people will continue to get away with what they are doing. 

I’m sorry I can’t speak this week on Q and A.  I want to thank those of you who find a way despite all the difficulties and restrictions that this world places on energy, for you to find a way to help and support and donate to Ucadia, and I ask for those of you who can please help donate, thank you. 

Thank you for your help in supporting Ucadia.  Until we speak next week, please be safe and be well.