IMHO...It's all BS!

Just more of the same lies and deceptions to keep us distracted from the Truth.

Aug 14, 2025

I needed to get this post squared away…Yes.. I know it’s not directly related to living Off The Grid - it’s related to what I do/did when I’m not “chopping wood and carrying water” and represents how we can so easily be deceived by those who appear truthful and knowledgeable.

Background: I sent out a personal email to a few I know who are interested in the Strawman/Birth Certificate conspiracy theory, referring to an article I read titled “The Kings Two Bodies and the Strawman Duality” and asking for comments. The writer of the article cops a lot of flack from the Sovereign movement, yet no one has ever directly challenged him.

I have reproduced the article which I was sent here, separate to this post - simply because it behind a paywall, yet was sent in full to me via email. Here’s what the article is about…

This article explores the historical concepts of the “King’s Two Bodies” and the Crown as a “Corporation Sole,” examining their influence on pseudolaw’s Strawman Duality, which posits a natural person versus a state-created legal person. It also connects these ideas to the legal personality of individuals, highlighting their shared purpose of creating perpetual legal entities for property, contracts, and authority, and draws parallels with historical legal constructs like Mortmain.

I only received one reply (not surprisingly), and that one response didn’t address the contents of the article. There would have been a time when I would simply ignored it with a dismissive roll of the eyes and a derogatory comment. It’s confronting to have beliefs challenged.

After spending so many years of my life (and I’m talking a solid 10 years when I did very little in my “down time” other than researching the Strawman rabbit hole), I'd like to offer my following comments in response to the one reply I did receive which still espouses the Strawman Conspiracy Theory.

Up front…I came to the conclusion that the whole Strawman thing is simply BS.
Birth Certificate creating a Trust... BS.
Cest Que Vie Trust… BS!
The Government holds an estate with me (you) as Beneficiary (BS)!

Ad nauseum…

And this realisation came after I was 100% convinced the Strawman was 100% FACT!

I totally believed what I was being told.. shown.. read…Not just by one individual.. by scores of them! All repeating the same information. All noted figures in the exploding “citizen law research” arena. I even PAID to go to common law workshops which did mock court role play of the “theories” to gain confidence in the legal arena.

It was only when I stopped and looked for valid evidence did I start to see how I was being blinded by BS!

To be clear… I am NOT saying that everything the government is doing, or has done is in the best interests of "we the people". In everything there is always an element of fact thrown in with the fiction - just enough to make it look credible.

At the same time I write this knowing that there are MANY who are teaching this pseudo law and they have a massive following. Plenty are making a LOT of money spinning the Strawman conspiracy theory. Others have become “celebrities” on the back end of radio programs and setting up learning portals.

I spent many years following the very same people, and yet.. there was never any conclusive proof of their assertions. It was all just “say so”. In law it is called “heresay”, and heresay is not admissible as a form of evidence.

I'm also well aware of those like Aussie Romley Stewart of The Justinian Deception offer what seems to be sound argument for supporting that all is “not "kosher” in government legislation. There is a LOT about the research of Romley that makes sense - particularly relating to modern slavery. Read this

This is also supported by (alleged) Judge Anna Von Reitz (website) whose work I devoured with gusto “back in the day”. To be honest I feel that she at the least addresses the inequity of the legal system and (allegedly) has pulled out all stops to correct it. But I could also say the same for Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf who instigated the One People’s Public Trust which at the time I believed was 100% legitimate and truthful. (see here for more info on OPPT). Turns out it was BS and she was jailed for 4 years.

Using Romley in example, I recall he claims from his research that the word "includes" gives a meaning that only that which follows after "includes" (in a legal document) is included, and in this case he cites the land mass called Australia as only being Norfolk Island (based on definitions in Commonwealth documents) . This information has been used by conspiracy theorists to state the invalidity of “Australian” laws as the only liability to those laws are to those on Norfolk Island.

I've watched a LOT of Romley's videos on YouTube and can see how he could arrive at his viewpoint. Romley also speaks of the Four Corner Rule as anything in a margin is not part of the document…. or anything in a "box" is to be ignored.

As someone who did a lot of administrative work I would often create documents with ALL CAPS HEADINGS (which Romley says is “Dog Latin” and gibberish), simply because it looked better. Same with creating a “box” for a signature - it just looked better. I had no understanding of the “rules” Romley speaks of, so in that respect I consider that the majority of those creating legal documents (and I DID create legal documents) would also have the same view as I did - It just looked better.

DOG-LATIN (Debased Latin) appears to be the official language of the Infants: Military, infantry of Rome. It appears to be the language of the DEAD, (Debtor) and the only way you can hold a military name is in the ALL UPPERCASE APPEARANCE of the dead language: LATIN and or DOG-LATIN, being the designation of things and not proper names, such as your SURNAME. Cite: JUSTINIAN-DECEPTION: (HIDDEN-FOREIGN-TEXT-KNOWN-AS- DOG-LATIN) Mother of all Deceptions: The Concept of Modern Day Slavery: By: Romley Stewart.David

So let’s see what AI says about things…

I asked AI the following … which completely debunks what Romley says.
In legal parlance what does the word "includes" mean when used in legal documents?
Answer:
In legal parlance, the word “includes” is a term of extension, and it usually means that the list following it is not exhaustive. In other words:

“Includes” means the list that follows is an example of what’s covered, but not the full limit of what’s covered.

🔍 Standard Legal Interpretation of "Includes":

Expansive/Illustrative: It suggests that the definition is open-ended — other things not listed may also fall under the term if they are of a similar kind or nature.
It is typically used to expand the ordinary meaning of a word or concept rather than limit it.

📘 Example:

"Vehicle includes a car, truck, and motorcycle."

This does not mean that only cars, trucks, and motorcycles are vehicles. It means those are examples of vehicles — and other types (like vans, buses, or scooters) may also qualify as vehicles.

⚖️ Legal Support and Usage:

Courts generally interpret "includes" as non-restrictive, unless:

The statute or contract explicitly defines it to be exhaustive (e.g. “includes only” or “means and includes”), or
The context clearly shows that a restrictive meaning was intended.

In U.S. federal law, for example:

1 U.S.C. § 1 — “‘Includes’ and ‘including’ shall not be deemed to exclude things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”

This confirms the broad, inclusive interpretation unless specified otherwise.

🆚 Compare With:

Word Meaning
Includes Open-ended, illustrative, and expanding the definition.
Means Closed-ended, restrictive — limits to the listed items.
Includes only / Means and includes Restrictive — explicitly narrows the scope to the listed items.

✅ Summary:

In legal documents, “includes” generally expands the scope of the term it defines, not limits it. It's a signal that the list is illustrative, not exhaustive — unless the document clearly says otherwise.

The whole Birth Certificate thing seems to hang on a thread of Dog Latin, Trust and 'estate' to which we are the Beneficiaries. In all honesty I have NEVER seen any evidence that this is the case. I have never seen any documentation that clearly shows my name with contents of the estate defined - unlike actual Trust documents.

It's all presumption... and continually perpetuated by those adamant that this Trust/estate exists! I have repeatedly put it to those that believe this CQV Trust exists to come clean and verify with evidence.

None is ever forthcoming.

I've studied this long enough to know that when you walk into a (lower) court you’re in administrative jurisdiction. The Judge (re-named as a Judge rather than a Magistrate a few months or so back), they are administrating legislation and "common law".

Most people have no clue what "common law" is - thinking it has something to do with the "common people".

No. It's prior law cases which upholds/supports the current law. The very reason you will find in paperwork filed in court references to prior rulings/cases which support the plaintiff (or defendant) case.

Here is what is being touted to say in court to in some way support the Strawman theory… (quote) “We (not I) are the Beneficiary to that Estate, Your Honour, & we reserve our Rights (in Private Capacity), [to Prosecutor:] is there any objection?

My response?….

You are not standing in private capacity in a court (you are in a PUBLIC forum), so how can you reserve your rights in a Private capacity? When you speak , you are speaking without ANY privacy.
When you speak of being the beneficiary of the "estate" what estate are you speaking of? The alleged STRAWMAN estate? The Constructive trust?
Where is the PROOF of an estate? Where is PROOF of the Cusip Number and the alleged millions/billions in the account? NEVER have I seen any evidence (though I have followed specific instructions to try and confirm the alleged existence of the account - without success!)

The entire article refutes the Strawman conspiracy. NO court has EVER upheld any aspect of the Strawman. No matter how it has been presented. Case after case after case has been thrown out of court as nothing more than “gibberish”.

People need to “Get it!”.

There is no remedy or relief using the Strawman or Birth Certificate theory. When people finally wake up that this conspiracy theory is in no way helping to brake the shackles of modern slavery, only then will there be real change to our governance.

IMHO There is only ONE presumption. The presumption of an authority that is higher than oneself.

Having said that, the consciousness of those on the planet today necessitates that there are "social contracts" to ensure that we don't devolve into a “Lord of the Flies" scenario. The issue is not that "laws" are bad. In fact they can be very necessary to ensure justifiable fairness. The issue today is the extent of the control on the people via laws which effectively make slaves of the people. And that won't change until the people understand they don't NEED the government to be their own moral compass, or “parent”, and they see that government is simply an outplaying of the unwillingness for people to take personal responsibility for their actions.

I concur with AI which simply aggregates all the known information into a cohesive answer. I concur with Rob Sudy that the Strawman conspiracy is invalid.

Here's something I asked AI - the answers completely debunk the conspiracy theory.

Q. Is there a perpetual Trust attributed to every individual which contains an estate to which they are the beneficiary, and from which the Trustee can offset all government charges, fees and levy's for the benefit of the beneficiary?

Answer:
No, there is not a perpetual trust automatically attributed to every individual that contains an estate from which a trustee can offset all government charges, fees, and levies on behalf of the individual.

This idea is commonly associated with sovereign citizen or freeman-on-the-land theories, which assert that:

A secret trust or "strawman" account is created when a person is born (often tied to their birth certificate),
That this trust holds monetary value or assets, and
That one can access or benefit from it by invoking specific legal phrases or declaring sovereignty.

Here's the legal and factual reality:

No secret trust or estate is created at birth:
- When a birth is registered, a record is created for civil administration (birth certificate), not a trust or estate.
- Governments do not set up hidden financial accounts in your name.
No trustee is managing an account for your benefit:
- There's no legal mechanism in place whereby the state or another party acts as a trustee for a fictional legal entity created in your name.
Government fees and taxes are legally binding:
- Individuals are required by law to pay taxes, fines, and fees. There's no fund you can access to offset them.
Courts have consistently rejected these claims:
- Attempts to avoid taxes or legal responsibilities using these arguments have been dismissed as frivolous, and often result in fines or criminal charges.

What is real:

Trusts can be created through legal instruments (like wills or living trusts), but these must be intentionally established by a settlor, with defined terms and parties (settlor, trustee, beneficiary).
Government benefit programs (e.g., Social Security, pensions, welfare) exist, but these are not secret trusts—they're regulated, means-tested, and transparent.

If you came across this idea in a document, video, or seminar, it’s important to know that such claims are not supported by law or financial institutions, and relying on them can lead to serious legal consequences.

Q. What is the purpose of the Cest Que Vie Trust?

The term "Cestui Que Vie Trust" (also spelled Cestui Que Vie or Cestui Que Vie Act) originates from old English trust and estate law, and it has a legitimate historical and legal context. However, in modern times, it's been misrepresented—especially in conspiracy theories. So let's clarify both the real historical/legal meaning and the misuse in modern pseudolegal theories.

✅ Legitimate Legal Meaning of a Cestui Que Vie Trust:

Cestui Que Vie (French for "he who lives") refers to the beneficiary of a trust, particularly in relation to life interests or life estates.

Historical Background:

Originated from English common law (notably around the 1666 Cestui Que Vie Act).
Designed to determine legal ownership and claims to property where the actual person might be absent, missing, or presumed dead.
It allowed the government or other parties to deal with property or estates when someone had disappeared (e.g., went to sea and didn't return) but was not confirmed dead.

Purpose:

To manage estates when the person who owns them is missing or unaccounted for.
To ensure property isn’t left in legal limbo.
To allow for claims to be made or for the state to take temporary control (e.g., managing tax responsibilities or tenancy rights).

Example:

If a landowner went missing during a war, a Cestui Que Vie arrangement allowed someone else (like the state or a family member) to manage the property on their behalf until their status was confirmed.

❌ Misuse in Pseudolegal or Conspiratorial Contexts:

In various sovereign citizen, freeman-on-the-land, and redemption theories, the Cestui Que Vie Trust is said to be:

A secret trust created at birth by governments using your birth certificate.
Worth millions or billions of dollars.
Accessible if you use the right legal codes or declare your sovereignty.
Managed by governments to control you as a corporate entity or legal fiction.

⚠️ This is not true. No government secretly creates trusts or accounts in your name for your benefit. Courts and tax authorities around the world have consistently rejected these ideas as frivolous and fraudulent.

Summary:

Definition A trust involving a missing or absent beneficiary.A secret trust created by the government using your birth certificate.
Purpose Manage estate/property rights when someone is missing.Allegedly lets you avoid taxes and government obligations.
Reality Historical and still used in specific legal contexts.Fabricated and has no legal standing.

Q. Does the government operate on a presumption that all persons are dead thereby administering a Cest Que Vie Trust?

No, the government does not operate under the presumption that all persons are dead, nor does it use this presumption to administer a Cestui Que Vie Trust for every individual.

This idea is a myth rooted in pseudolegal conspiracy theories, particularly those promoted by sovereign citizen movements. These theories are not supported by actual law, and have been consistently rejected by courts.

🔍 Where the Myth Comes From:

The claim usually goes like this:

When your birth certificate is created, the government declares you "legally dead" or creates a legal fiction of you (often called a “strawman”) and places your estate into a Cestui Que Vie Trust, which it controls.

They often cite the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 in England, which was about managing property of people presumed dead during times of plague or war when individuals were missing for long periods.

✅ The Legal Reality:

Presumption of Death is rare and specific:
- It only applies when a person has been missing for 7 years or more (or in special cases, like a shipwreck or war).
- Even then, a court order is needed to declare someone legally dead.
Cestui Que Vie Trusts are not standard government practice:
- These trusts may still be used in private estate law, but not as a universal structure for every citizen.
- They are used only in specific legal and estate scenarios, not as a way to govern people or manage hidden accounts.
Your birth certificate is not a trust document:
- It is a civil record, nothing more.
- It does not create a trust, a corporation, or a legal fiction that the government uses to exploit you.
Governments do not presume you're dead:
- Quite the opposite — governments maintain active records to prove you are alive (tax filings, driver's licenses, census, etc.).
- You’re treated as a living person with legal rights and responsibilities.

📌 Important Note on Sovereign Citizen Claims:

These ideas often sound like:

“You can access your secret trust account.”
“You are the beneficiary of a multi-million-dollar estate.”
“Use certain words or codes to reclaim your legal status.”

These claims are not legally valid, and using them in real-world scenarios (like trying to avoid taxes or debts) has led to:

Hefty fines
Criminal charges
Loss of legal credibility

✅ Bottom Line:

The government does not presume you're dead.
It does not manage a Cestui Que Vie Trust for you.
These theories are false and have no legal foundation.

What is the purpose of a Constructive Trust in legal cases?

A Constructive Trust is a legal remedy used by courts to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure fairness when someone has wrongfully obtained or holds property that should, in fairness, belong to someone else.

It is not a trust created by a written document or agreement, but rather "constructed" by the court as a form of equitable relief.

✅ Purpose of a Constructive Trust

The primary purpose is to:

Prevent unjust enrichment by recognizing that although someone has legal title to property, they must hold it for the benefit of another because it would be unjust for them to keep it.

🔍 When is a Constructive Trust Imposed?

Courts may impose a constructive trust in cases involving:

Fraud or Misrepresentation:
- Example: Someone tricks you into transferring your property to them under false pretenses.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty:
- Example: A trustee, lawyer, or financial advisor misuses your assets for personal gain.
Unjust Enrichment:
- Example: Someone benefits from property or money that rightfully belongs to you, and keeping it would be unfair.
Mistaken Transfers:
- Example: Money is transferred to the wrong party by mistake, and they refuse to return it.
Implied Agreements or Promises:
- Example: A couple builds a home together, but the title is in one person's name. If the other contributed significantly, a constructive trust might be imposed.

📘 Example Scenario:

Let’s say Alice gives Bob money to buy a house for her, but Bob puts the house in his own name and claims it as his. Alice sues. The court might say:

"Bob holds this house in a constructive trust for Alice,"
meaning Bob is the legal owner on paper, but in equity, Alice is the rightful beneficiary.

⚖️ Key Legal Characteristics:

FeatureDescription
Created by Court order (not agreement)
Based on Equity, fairness, and prevention of unjust enrichment
Legal title Remains with the holder until court intervenes
Beneficiary The person who is wrongfully deprived of the property
Purpose To restore the rightful position between parties

🚫 What It Is Not:

Not a regular trust created through a trust deed or will.
Not something you set up intentionally.
Not a tax or asset-planning tool (although it can affect such things).

✅ Summary:

A Constructive Trust is an equitable remedy imposed by courts to:

Correct wrongdoing,
Address unjust enrichment,
Recognize that someone is holding property they shouldn't rightly keep,
And transfer the beneficial ownership to the person who deserves it.

Q. Why is a constructive trust created when dealing with defending an infringement penalty ?

A constructive trust is generally not created in typical cases involving infringement penalties (such as traffic fines or regulatory offenses). However, your question may stem from confusion or misinterpretation of how constructive trusts work and when they apply.

Let’s clear this up by looking at two key points:

✅ 1. What is an infringement penalty?

An infringement penalty is typically a fine or sanction issued by a government authority for breaching a law or regulation. Examples include:

Speeding or traffic violations
Parking fines
Breaches of health, safety, or environmental regulations

These are administrative or quasi-criminal matters, where the state is enforcing compliance through financial or legal penalties.

In these cases:

You are either liable or not, based on the facts and the law.
There's no trust relationship involved.
There’s no constructive trust, because no one is holding your property unjustly.

❌ 2. Why a constructive trust does not apply to penalties:

A constructive trust is a civil equitable remedy, used when:

One party has obtained property through wrongful means, and
The court finds it would be unjust for them to retain it.

This does not describe the situation in infringement cases, where:

The government is not holding your property unjustly.
The issue is your alleged breach of a law, not a wrongful gain by the state.

So, courts do not impose constructive trusts to defend against lawful penalties like speeding fines. That argument would be irrelevant and dismissed.

⚠️ Where this misunderstanding comes from:

This idea is sometimes promoted in pseudolegal movements (like the "sovereign citizen" movement). They claim:

“The government is holding my property or legal identity in a trust,” or
“I’m the beneficiary of a trust and not liable for fines.”

These claims are legally baseless and have been rejected by courts worldwide.

🧠 Summary:

Concept Application to Infringement Penalties
Constructive Trust❌ Not relevant — there's no unjust enrichment or wrongful holding of your property.
Government holding a trust❌ False — no trust is created when you're fined.
Proper defense✅ Based on facts (e.g. no breach occurred, mistaken identity, improper notice, etc.)

✅ What can you do if you're issued an infringement notice?

Request review or appeal the notice (most jurisdictions allow this).
Challenge the notice in court on proper legal grounds (e.g., procedural errors, lack of evidence).
Seek legal advice if you believe the penalty is unfair or invalid.

In law, what is the "Four Corner Rule"?

In law, the "Four Corners Rule" (also known as the "Four Corners Doctrine") is a principle of contract interpretation that states:

A written contract must be interpreted solely by what is contained within its "four corners" — the document itself — without considering outside evidence.

📜 Core Idea:

If a written agreement is clear and unambiguous, the court will look only at the document itself to determine the parties’ intentions — not at outside statements, negotiations, or documents.

🧱 Why it's called the “Four Corners Rule”:

The term "four corners" refers to the literal four corners of a piece of paper — meaning, everything relevant must be within the physical boundaries of the document.

⚖️ Purpose:

To protect the integrity of written agreements.
To prevent parties from later claiming different meanings or understandings not expressed in the contract.
To ensure certainty and reduce litigation over oral statements or intentions.

🆚 Related Legal Principle: Parol Evidence Rule

The Parol Evidence Rule is closely related and says:

When a written contract is intended as a complete and final expression of the agreement, prior or contemporaneous oral or written statements cannot be used to contradict, modify, or supplement it.

Together, these rules favor the written word as the best evidence of an agreement.

✅ When the Four Corners Rule Applies:

The contract is clear and unambiguous on its face.
The document is intended to be the final expression of the agreement.

❌ When External Evidence May Be Allowed (Exceptions):

If the contract is ambiguous or incomplete on its face.
If there are claims of:
- Fraud
- Duress
- Mistake
- Illegality
To interpret industry terms or customary usage.

In those cases, courts may look outside the four corners to clarify intent.

📘 Example:

Imagine a contract says:

“John agrees to sell his car to Mary for $10,000. Payment due on July 1.”

If John later claims, “We agreed I could keep the car for another 6 months,” the court will likely ignore that unless it's written in the contract, because of the Four Corners Rule.

✅ Summary:

Four Corners Rule
Definition: Interpretation of a document based solely on its written content
Purpose: To preserve clarity, certainty, and the integrity of written agreements
Outside Evidence Allowed?: Only if the document is ambiguous or incomplete.

Off Grid in the Matrix

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?