Cestui Que Vie Act Of 1666 Pdf

[Yaima President]

Duringthe black plague and great fires of London, Parliament enacted Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. I want the Government to acknowledge that the people born in the UK are living natural entities (until their real death) under God and do this by revoking the outdated act.

During black plague great fires of London, Parliament enacted the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.

This subrogated the rights of men and women, meaning all were declared dead, lost at sea.

The Gov took custody of everybody and their property into a trust. The state became the trustee holding all titles to the people and property, until a living man comes back to reclaim those titles. The government have many systems that reveal a specific humans condition and so the time for assuming death is over.

The presumption of death in the UK is governed by the Presumption of Death Act 2013. We could accept a petition calling for changes to how this legislation works, but it would need to be clear what changes you want.

The data shows the number of people who have signed the petition by country as well as in the constituency of each Member of Parliament. This data is available for all petitions on the site. It is not a list of people who have signed the petition. The only name that is shared on the site is that of the petition creator.

The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 section IV requires proof or evidence that a person is still alive. However the act is vague in the details and does not specify what this proof is or how this evidence is presented for acceptance of fact.

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the

addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not

permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all

copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a

secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by

someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send

material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you

are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained

by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be used,

and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to

ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their

contents.

Just curious. My understanding of the legal-speak supports your view point. However, I would think the proof would be in the pudding. Was there a honest disclosure of this law or was it passed quietly with little attention? Was court affordable as a recourse in 1666 to properly correct the living status? Was this a no hassle process or was there a bias to make the process difficult? In court, what were the results for most people, and did they have the same status as an estate holder or were they given a lesser degree of ownership. For example, a land patent granted by a king to be replaced by a common deed conveying rights to enjoy the land? Also, while I understand the basic reasons of the law from a practical perspective, did the presumtion of death set a precedent in law that significantly impacted the practice of common law by establishing this principle?

The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 allowed people to recover their lands/tenements after a presumption of death by launching an action for recovery of the same. This would probably have been in the Court of Chancery, where proceedings were often cheaper and faster than in the common law courts. The level of hassle involved would likely have varied from case to case. For example, trying to prove that someone was still alive from letters alone would have probably been tricky, but if the person could be produced in court, that would likely have simplified things quite a bit.

There is no mention of anyone being lost at sea (only going beyond the sea i.e. to a foreign country). There is no mention of anyone being aged 7 or over (just of someone having vanished for seven years).

Now it may be that the government has at some later date done something using this Act to pull the wool over our collective eyes but the key is that this Act itself does not do what the Common Law Crazies claim it does.

I have bookmarked your page so that the next time I am in a heated debate with someone whose idea of producing evidence is pointing me to a video of some bloke on YouTube regurgitating the misinterpretation, I can counter with your article!

Please also tell me the aim of the act in PLAIN english - ie: what was the intention of it? (I believe I've asked the questions in an extremely simple fashion and therefore will not expect anything other than a simple answer - I have noticed that others have asked the same questions previously and it would appear that everything except a truthful answer has been given.

Please also supply me (and the public) with any information regarding this act that the public may not be aware of , yet could affect our lives, even in a small way.

Please also tell me how you, as a civil servant reading this, can remain happy in the knowledge that at some point, our govt declared all uk citizens dead and does not appear to have reversed it's LUNATIC acts? (which, incidentally are not laws and not the same and have no lawful status in this country.)

If I have made this freedom of information request to the wrong

corporation, please advise which corporation the information can be

gleaned from. Please remember this act also affects your children and classes them as dead as far as anyone nowadays can work out. Please let me know if the thousands of people reading and decyphering this 'act' are wrong in their analysis of it and why.

8. Please also tell me how you, as a civil servant reading this, can

remain happy in the knowledge that at some point, our Government declared

all UK citizens dead and does not appear to have reversed its LUNATIC

acts?

This information is not held by the House of Commons. While we endeavour

to be as helpful as possible, the Freedom of Information Act provides the

requester with an access right to recorded information held by the House

of Commons. It does not extend, for example, to requests for views,

explanations or comments about a particular matter. Your request can be

in the form of a question, but the House of Commons does not have to

answer your question if this would mean creating new information,

providing analysis or giving an opinion or judgment that is not already

recorded.

Questions on the law may be best directed to a solicitor, barrister or

other suitably qualified legal professional. Alternatively you may wish to

consider contacting Citizens Advice. Contact details can be found at:

[3]

Documentation regarding the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 is already publically

available from the Parliamentary Archives, where you can view the Act and

any associated details held, including the signature of the reigning

monarch. Contact details for viewing or further enquiries are available

here:

[4]

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to

the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the

outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an

internal review of any decision regarding your request. Complaints or

requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights

and Information Security Service, Department of HR and Change, House of

Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [5][House of Commons request email] . Please ensure

that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review

along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

Thank you for your request for clarification as copied below. Further to

your request regarding the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, you asked us to

repeat which authority you believe holds the information you requested.

As we previously stated, the Freedom of Information Act provides the

requester with an access right to recorded information held by the House

of Commons. If we do not hold a record of, for example, an explanation

about the agenda of the Act we are under no obligation to create that

explanation.

However, some of your questions were requests for legal interpretations

which will be best answered by a legal professional. Other general

information may be found by researching the Act online or through your

local library. The Parliamentary Archives can provide general advice and

searches on the records of topics you are interested in, but do not have

the staff resources to do detailed or lengthy research for you. Their

contact details were provided in our original response.

You may still, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain

to the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the

outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an

internal review of any decision regarding your request. Complaints or

requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights

and Information Security Service, Department of HR and Change, House of

Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [1][House of Commons request email]. Please ensure

that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review

along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

3a8082e126