Turnabout is ALWAYS Fair Play

All works herein are done

In the Name of Jesus Christ;
For the Glory of God Almighty

All works herein are licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
 The meek may inherit the Earth...

MEEK, a. L. mucus; Eng. mucilage; Heb. to melt.

Mild of temper; soft; gentle; not easily provoked or irritated; yielding;

given to forbearance under injuries.

Now the man Moses was very meek, above all men. Num.12.

Appropriately, humble, in an evangelical sense; submissive to the divine

will; not proud, self-sufficient or refractory; not peevish and apt to
complain of divine dispensations.

Christ says, "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall
find rest to your souls." Matt.11.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Matt.5.

MEE'KNESS, n. Softness of temper; mildness; gentleness; forbearance under

injuries and provocations.

In an evangelical sense, humility; resignation; submission to the divine will,

without murmuring or peevishness; opposed to pride, arrogance and
refractoriness. Gal.5.

I beseech you by the meekness of Christ. 1 Cor.10.

What is this meekness, that it is so powerful? One alternative translation for

meekness is “gentleness.” It requires great strength to be gentle. Gentleness is
the opposite of abrasiveness, and it flows from that kind of confident strength
that is the opposite of arrogance. The man who is secure in his love for God
Almighty does not need to intimidate but can be kind and humble in his
leadership roles.

The man who is meek before God Almighty and has that inner strength that
enables him to be gentle before men will not be a violent man. This quietness of
spirit will enable him to be temperate. A self-controlled or temperate person is
not given to binges of excess, but lives within restraints.
 ... but his people perish for lack of knowledge

Hear the word of the LORD, ye children of Israel: for the LORD hath a
controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor
mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. Hosea 4:1

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected
knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me:
seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy
children. Hosea 4:6

The lack of knowledge stems from the people turning their back on God Almighty
and his commandments. Note the use of the word LORD. What does this mean
and why is this important? To comprehend this, one needs to first comprehend
what LORD actually represents.

To define or explain what LORD actually represents, first direct your attention to
Chicago style manual section 11.147. LORD is what is called "GLOSS". A "GLOSS"
is the written-language transcription of American Sign Language; Glosses are
words from the spoken language written in ALL-CAP and considered foreign
language by the rules of English.

So, the word LORD is a "GLOSS"; an interpretation or an explanation, and in the

case of Hosea 4, LORD represents the Earthly Government ordained by God
Almighty (refer to Romans 13).

“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,

When He separated the sons of man,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.

For the LORD’S portion is His people;

Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.” – Deuteronomy 32:8-9

Originally, the Angels were to receive the people and lead them back to God
Almighty by leading mankind (Adam) in their duty to subdue to Earth in his name
for his Glory; help Mankind fulfill on the Adamic Covenant, but those Angels
became corrupted and led man astray; The Fallen.

Led by Lucifer, The Fallen tempted Adam with the fruit of being like God
Almighty, instead of just KNOWING God Almighty. Adam was tempted through
his Ego (Eve); tempted by the fruit of another (covenant), to eat of the fruit of
the Tree of Knowledge, thus became DEAD to God Almighty, for the inclusion of
one is the exclusion of the other, and if The Fallen can keep man in his current
state of rebellion, the inheritance of Adam shall be kept amongst The Fallen as
TRUSTEES (LORD) over both the inheritance and mankind.

Effectively, this allows The Fallen to keep manipulating mankind into warring
against God Almighty, however, The Fallen are still bound to the
COMMANDMENTS and COVENANTS of God Almighty. This means, The Fallen shall
reign as LORD over mankind so long as mankind remain ignorant and in rebellion,
but must RELINQUISH when Son of Man steps forth; when the Christ
Consciousness fills one’s heart. Until such time, the usufruct of the Tree of
Knowledge shall remain in place.

Usufruct: (n.) right to use and derive profit from property belonging to
someone else provided that the property/substance remains free from
impairment, alteration and/or injury in any way

Usufructuary: (n.) One who has the right and enjoyment of an usufruct.
The duties of the usufructuary are 1. To make an inventory of the things
subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those having an interest in them.
2. To give security for their restitution; when the usufruct shall be at an
end. 3. To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct. 4. To pay
all taxes, and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession, as a
ground-rent. 5. To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.

Hosea 4 stands as an excellent example. In Hosea 4, God Almighty is addressing

the Israelites and informing them that they do not keep to his commandments
and that there is no love of God in their hearts, thus the LORD in this instance is
LORD of Hosts (Wrath of God; hosts = war (Strong's Concordance: 6635)) that
will fall upon them "because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God
in the land"; they REJECTED the knowledge of God Almighty in their Hearts =
opposite of meek.

People do not even realize that the thing people call the State or government is
actually the physical manifestation of God Almighty; a result of the collective
spiritual essence of mankind. The State operates AS-IF it were God Almighty:
LORD; the governors and tutors of this world; Statutes, codes, rules and
regulations: the Word of the LORD.

So, if one walks with the Faith of Jesus Christ, respects the immutable laws of
Nature and observes the commandments of God Almighty, then the LORD must
oblige: LORD God bestows the blessings. If one commits trespass against the
same, LORD of Hosts visits with wrath.

This is also the basis of the LACK of knowledge that is causing his people to
perish and for this purpose, please direct your attention to Black’s Law 4th:
GLOSSA (pg. 2-3), which is Latin for GLOSS, and to Black’s Law 4th: DOG-LATIN
(pg. 1), which is the language of the illiterate; Latin written according to the rules
of English language.

Note the phrase: GLOSSA VIPERINA EST QUlE CORRODIT VISCERA TEXTUS
of which translates into "it is a poisonous gloss which corrupts the essence of the
text." Therefore, when one ABUSES the GLOSS, the ESSENCE of the ENTIRE text
stands corrupted or DEBASED; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT is an ABUSE of
the GLOSS, as is WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON.

Written according to the Rules of English, as referenced in Chicago style manual

section 11.147, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT and WILLIAM JEFFERSON
CLINTON should be stylized as UNITED-STATES-DISTRICT-COURT and WILLIAM-
JEFFERSON-CLINTON. This would render each GLOSS as one coherent thought.

In their current form, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT and WILLIAM

JEFFERSON CLINTON are nothing but incoherent babble. Each GLOSS, a new
thought. One may as well stylize UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT and WILLIAM
JEFFERSON CLINTON as “UNITED. STATES. DISTRICT. COURT.” and “WILLIAM.
JEFFERSON. CLINTON.” for they both mean the same thing: incoherent babble.

Debase: (v.) To reduce to a lower state of worth, dignity, purity, station,

etc.; to degrade; to lower; to deteriorate; to abase; as, to debase the
character by crime; to debase the mind by frivolity; to debase style by
vulgar words.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women
did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise
also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without
understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable,
unmerciful” Romans 1:26-31

This ABUSE of the GLOSS is actually an ACCUSATION by the Accusor; the

Adversary; Satan.

The ACCUSATION?

That one is of a reprobate mind: debased and without knowledge of God Almighty
in one's heart and have forsaken the Laws of God Almighty; one of whom does
not have a belief in any kind of higher power in which there are consequences
either in the present or future for their life choices/actions. In short, a Heathen;
an Infidel; a Heretic.

Basically, this abuse of GLOSS is nothing but a Deception run by the Synagogue
of Satan, using the courts as their temple. From these temples, the Synagogue
attempts to advertly entice the children of God Almighty into forsaking the
blessings of Issac and inheritance of Jacob, thus rebuking the word and promises
of God Almighty.

All of done by the Grace and with the Blessings of God Almighty, and done to
protect the Kingdom (Public Trust) from heathens, infidels, heretics and the like
from raping and pillaging the usufruct granted by God Almighty unto Adam (all of
mankind collectively) pursuant to Genesis 1:26 while the LORD administrates the
Adamic Covenant wherein Adam (mankind) and his offspring were to SUBDUE the
Earth in the name and for the glory of God Almighty; Mankind was to build a
world wherein the usufruct each subsequent generation received was of a better
world than the one previously inherited: to be Good Stewards.

"... I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the
earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it ... Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he
occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the
paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his
own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come,
and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which
would be the reverse of our principle ..." - Letter from Jefferson to Madison

“By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise master
builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one must be careful
how he builds. For no one can lay a foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ.

If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones, wood,
hay, or straw, his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it
to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of
each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive a reward. If it
is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as one
 being snatched from the fire.

Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s
Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him;
for God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Let no one deceive himself. If any of you thinks he is wise in this age, he
should become a fool, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this
world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in
their craftiness.”

And again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

Therefore stop boasting in men. All things are yours, whether Paul or
Apollos or Cephasc or the world or life or death or the present or the future.
All of them belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to
God.” - 1 Corinthians 3:10-23

Jesus Christ's sacrifice allows us to go back to the FOUNDATION; the Adamic

Covenant, and by Applying the Blood of the Lamb, one can wash one's sins clean;
clear the slate, and the application of the Blood of the Lamb to one does not
diminish or take away this choice for another, hence he died for the sins,
transgressions and iniquities of all of mankind, past, present and future, so ALL
may ASCEND; this is how much God Almighty and Jesus Christ loves humanity,
but none are granted entrance into the Kingdom, except thru Jesus Christ: the
way, the truth and the light.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh
unto the Father, but by me.” – John 14:6

With this sacrifice, ALL of mankind can REPENT; to feel or show that one stands
humbled before God Almighty, sorry for something bad or wrong that was done
and that one wants to do what is right. Adam was given the mandate by God
Almighty to SUBDUE the Earth. SUBDUE means bring into bondage, force, keep
under, subdue, bring into subjection. When Adam completed in his task to subdue
the Earth in the Name of God Almighty, Adam and his offspring are to have
dominion. However, Adam was tempted through his ego (Eve) in the Garden by
the Serpent and the result is the world now in witness.

This world stands as the result of the usufruct of the Tree of Knowledge, a world
WITHOUT the love of God Almighty and with illiteracy and ignorance of his Laws;
a world entranced by the false fixations of yesterday and constrained within the
faulty traditions of man which seem now to bind it to a rationale of action leading
only to extinction.

This world is the world manifest as result of the Curse of Genesis 3 and Adam's
covenant with the Serpent; the world ruled by Ego (Satan incarnate), dominated
by man's mutable laws; ignorant of the immutable laws of Nature and without
knowledge of God Almighty.

With the Blood of the Lamb being shed for all of mankind, one can now choose to
go back to the foundation, for Jesus Christ IS the foundation, and REPENT; give
back what was taken from God Almighty (reference Malachi 3:10), and accept
usufruct of the Tree of Life; walk with the Faith of Jesus Christ, respect the
immutable laws of Nature and observe the commandments of God Almighty;

OR

One may continue to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and remain illiterate
and ignorant of the immutable laws of Nature and God Almighty, but then one
just agrees to be a steak on the table by choice and consent, remaining a
spineless jellyfish and teacher of the same; usufruct over a world built of
misinformation, caught up in a plethora of conditioned reflexes, driven by the
human ego; inhabitant of a world within a prison locked by misorientation wherein
both warden and prisoner attempt meagerly to compete with God Almighty and all
intractably skeptical of what they do not understand.

“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in
faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea
driven with the wind and tossed.

For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A
double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” - James 1:5-8

To gloss over something is to ignore or avoid unpleasant facts; Such as, why
would one be referenced via ALL CAP NAME or be addressed by SOME ALL CAP
NAME, when the only place ALL CAP NAME is used in conjunction with people is a
grave-marker; a TOMBSTONE, when one is a living being and not a Dead entity?
Would this render a building with an ALL CAP NAME, such as a COURT, a CRYPT or
MAUSOLEUM?

“If you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners corrupted
from infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first
education disposed them, what else is to be concluded, sire, but that you
first make thieves and then punish them?” – Danielle (Drew Barrymore) ~
Ever After, 1998
Did you know that, in addition to being a grave-marker, a TOMBSTONE is also a
public offering of securities? And what is a security? A security is basically a
financing or investment instrument issued by a company or government agency
that denotes an ownership interest and provides evidence of a debt, a right to
share in the earnings of the issuer, or a right in the distribution of a property.

Did you know that according to United States Code, all crime is commercial and
that in accordance with that same Code, one becomes surety for this
TOMBSTONE; a spirit from the dead, when one fails to deny the presumption that
one agreed to be surety when one exercised the benefit of violating some statute:
Breaking a Commandment of the LORD; Chattel for a Security: a steak on the
table by choice and consent.

And since these securities are traded on Wall Street and all around the world, the
entire economy of the United States and thus the world is based on and fueled by
the Capitalization of Sin. The current government-economic system requires
Sinners to keep it chugging along; empowered by Satan’s faith in humanity to
reject God Almighty.

This makes much more sense when one comprehends that the Court is just
another clearing house for debt obligations, a court of contract; liquidation of an
asset pledged to guaranty the repayment of a loan, satisfaction of an obligation or
in compliance of an agreement.

Crypt: a subterranean chamber or vault, especially one beneath the main

floor of a church, used as a burial place, a location for secret meetings, etc.

Mausoleum: an external free-standing building constructed as a monument

enclosing the interment space or burial chamber of a deceased person or
people.

Hell: The name of the place given under the exchequer chamber where the
King’s debtors were held (Black’s Law 2nd Edition)

Exchequer: Treasury Department (Black’s Law 2nd Edition)

And what exactly is the asset pledged? You and your TIME; your SOUL, the only
commodity upon this Earth worth anything, for TIME is the only limited
commodity on Earth; the only resource that does not naturally regenerate, and
sold for whatever the market will bear; TIME pledged to the service and support
of Satan’s Kingdom for the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other and to
PLEA is to AGREE.

When in Court, one is actually participating in a Private Bar Matter concerning

Private Crown Business and either one born of the Bonded Woman and subject
unto the tutors and governors of this world OR one is born of the Free Woman:
born again with the Spirit Jesus Christ; an adopted son or daughter of God
Almighty; co-heir with Jesus Christ

“… a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no
better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of
burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.” – Silent Weapons
for Quiet Wars

“Freedom is a man's natural power of doing what he pleases, so far as he is

not prevented by force or law; slavery is an institution of the law of nations,
against nature, subjecting one man to the dominion of another." – Justinian
(527-565 A.D.), Emperor of Rome

And what is the agreement?

The ACCUSATION is not only that one is of a reprobate mind (debased), but
ACCUSING that one AGREES that one holds nothing but DOUBT in one's heart;
the Original Sin, doubt that the World created and the Covenants made by God
Almighty stand perfect;

ACCUSING that one AGREES that one just a child, ignorant to cause and effect;

ACCUSING that one AGREES that one's inheritance is the mere empty way of life
handed down from one's ancestors (ref 1 Peter 1:18);
ACCUSING that one AGREES that one needs to be governed and remain subject
unto the tutors and governors of this world (ie: CROWN and VATICAN subjects;
ref Galatians 4:1-2 … Further note: since one need be governed, there is a DEBT
to pay for the governing one needs);

ACCUSING that one AGREES that one stands subject under the curse and
bondage with the Serpent, thus not worthy of ASCENSION, thus never worthy of
entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven (ref Genesis 3);

ACCUSING that one AGREES that one's soul and being stands pledged to Satan
and the expansion of Satan's Kingdom (ref 1 Samuel 8);

ACCUSING that one AGREES that one is nothing but an irredeemable sinner
subject to Satan’s Dominion;

ACCUSING that one AGREES that one stands as surety for a foreign stranger (ref
Jeremiah 15:13);

ACCUSING that one AGREES that one is nothing more than a beast of burden and
a steak on the table by choice and consent; an animal that has no intelligence;

ACCUSING that one AGREES one is nothing more than a Human Resource to be
bought, sold and traded as a commodity; a Slave; DEAD.

“Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a
servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the
time appointed of the father.

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of
the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your
hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir
of God through Christ.

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by
nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are
known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements,
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” -

Galatians 4

This message is being delivered to his people: NOW is the time for the Accusor to
stand REBUKED; NOW is the time for the Devourer to stand REBUKED; NOW is
the time to come out of Her; come out of Babylon.

NOW is the time appointed by the Father; time for all those made in His image to
ASCEND or come back to life for Jesus Christ has risen; come as a child, filled with
unwavering faith in our Father who art in Heaven, not BE a child by remaining
ignorant and illiterate.

“… but as the day the world declared in one voice: "We will not go quietly
into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on!
We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!” ~
President Thomas Whitmore (Bill Paxton) – Independence Day, 1996.

Rebuke: (v. t.) To check, silence, or put down, with reproof; to restrain by
expression of disapprobation; to reprehend sharply and summarily; to
chide; to reprove; to admonish.

Ascend: (v. i.) To move upward; to mount; to go up; to rise

That is what ASCEND means: to rise, and in these matters, to rise from Death;
Death equates to ignorance and illiteracy; a debased mind: a Heathen; an Infidel;
a Heretic. NOW is time we throw off the shackles that bind us to these dark age
mentalities leading us only to extinction and embrace the Life granted to us by
our Father who art in Heaven in order we may evolve into what we were created
to become.

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”
- Matthew 5:9

They shall be called the children of God — That is, those whom wish to walk with
the Faith of Jesus Christ and keep to the commandments of God Almighty shall be
ADOPTED by God Almighty as his genuine children, by reason of their great
likeness to him: for he is the God of peace and love, and is in Jesus Christ
reconciling the world to himself not imputing their trespasses to them.

And, being his children, they are his heirs, heirs of God Almighty and joint heirs
with Jesus Christ; and, as they suffer with him, so shall they be glorified together.
They shall, in due time, be children of the resurrection, shall receive the adoption,
the public declaration and manifestation of their adoption, and the glorious fruit of
it; the redemption of their bodies from death and corruption.

The world is burning down

Can't you smell the smoke in the air?
War, disease, and famine
This demon, she is everywhere

Poets and preachers and politicians

They've all had their say
And we got 10,000 years
Devoted to nothing
But tomorrow and yesterday

If all of the ignorance in the world

Passes a second ago
What would you say?
Who would you obey?
I am here to say that

Peace is now ~ 10,000 Years (Peace is Now) - Live, 1991

To the children of God Almighty, NOW is the time to come out of Her; come out of
Babylon. NOW is the time appointed by the Father; time for his children to
ASCEND or come back to life. Much like the movie Jupiter Ascending: you are the
authentic occurrence of His Image and the time is at hand to collect your
inheritance, but first you must wake up, shed off the slumber of Death and RISE,
for He has risen, and in order one receive the Crown of Life, one must first be
faithful unto Death; The Resurrection is at hand.

“The trees will yield their fruit and the ground will yield its crops; the people
will be secure in their land. They will know that I am the LORD, when I break
the bars of their yoke and rescue them from the hands of those who
enslaved them.” - Ezekiel 34:27

Not everyone will choose to accept Jesus Christ as their savior, but through his
sacrifice, ALL have the opportunity to ASCEND and be lifted above the fire, the
ashes; the broken, the empty; The Fallen.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever
believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” - John 3:16

“but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died
for us.” - Romans 5:8

“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his
only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love,
not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love
one another.” - 1 John 4:9-11
 Turnabout is ALWAYS fair play

When one finds one’s self with a court setting, one is actually standing
before the Synagogue of Satan. The judge: a priest; the attorneys, devil’s
advocates; Heathens; Pagans; Satanists.

When one “swears or affirms to tell the truth”, one does this NOT on a bible
before God Almighty, one usually stands there with one hand pointed up, the
other pointed down, hanging at one’s side; a pledge to Baphomet before a
priest within the Synagogue of Satan witnessed by two Devils; vultures in
polyester suits: lawyers, attorneys.

Attorn: to agree to be tenant to a new owner or landlord of the same

property

Attorney: one who is legally appointed to transact business on

another's behalf

Represent: 1. be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone),

especially in an official capacity; 2. constitute; amount to; 3. depict (a
particular subject) in a picture or other work of art; 4. state or point
out (something) clearly, claim.

So, when one agrees to be REPRESENTED by an attorney, one agrees to

have a devil’s advocate represent1 one which represents3 one as if one were
ALL CAP NAME which represents2 that one has neither the Knowledge of God
Almighty nor the Faith of Jesus Christ in one’s heart and represents4 that
one AGREES with the ACCUSOR and now should be ATTORNED to the
Synagogue for PENANCE.

Appearance: 1. the way that someone or something looks; 2. an act

of performing or participating in a public event; 3. an act of becoming
visible or noticeable; an arrival.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is
must be a duck. ~ popular idiom

The COURT issues a SUMMONS for the NAME for APPEARANCE, but one
APPEARS not even realizing that the matter before the court is basically a
séance and the heathens are summoning DEMONS to inhabit the vessel of
the one of whom just swore before Baphomet; forsaking God Almighty.
Remember, the exclusion of one is the inclusion of another and by
REPRESENTING, one excluded God Almighty and Jesus Christ, and like the
Dementors in Harry Potter, the DEMONS feed on the life energy of the host
body; manipulating of the actions and decisions of their host, experiencing
the lusts of the flesh thru this host and then feeding on the resulting pain
and torture of one’s very essence of being and all by one’s own consent.

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of what we

do not see – Hebrews 1:11

Here is the simple truth, one can respond in writing to any court matter with
a simple: “One has read the complaint but does not understand this babble”
and then recite the Lord’s Prayer when brought before the judge.

This is what is called an Objection in point of law; a defensive pleading by

which the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff but objects that
they do not make out a legal claim.

Once one exercises their God-given Rights and stands on their FAITH, even
the Synagogue must step back for one is demonstrating one is Live and
pledged to the Kingdom of Heaven, thus no longer subject unto the Claims
of the ACCUSOR; Satan, for the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the
other.

This is where The Turnabout comes into play, but first another simple truth:
any paperwork one is provided or does is nothing but a crutch; it relies upon
FAITH; the ROCK upon which one stands, plain and simple. Without FAITH,
one has NOTHING, because paper is just works built upon the Foundation
and that Foundation is Jesus Christ and your works will be brought to light
by the Day and revealed with fire to prove the quality of each man's work
and much just like faith without works is dead, so too are works without
faith.

But why is there no legal claim?

Well, let’s first look at what the word Legal actually REPRESENTS. According
to Webster’s, Random House, and Oxford dictionaries:

Legal: Theol. a. Of or pertaining to the Mosaic law; existing under or

founded upon that law. b. Of, pertaining to, concerned with, or based
upon the law of works, i.e. salvation by works, as opposed to salvation
by faith. Of persons: Upholding the law of works; as opposed to
Equitable.
So, Legal REPRESENTS salvation by works, not faith. Ok, let’s compare to
what the Word of God tells in regards to the same.

“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of
glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a
man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor
man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay
clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to
the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not
then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this
world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to
them that love him?

But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and
draw you before the judgment seats?

Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye
commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all.

For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if
thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a
transgressor of the law.

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of
liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed
no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and
have not works? can faith save him?

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of

you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled;
notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to
the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is
dead, being alone.
 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered
Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his
works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and
it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the
Friend of God.Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and
not by faith only.

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she
had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is
dead also.” James 2

So, Legal is only concerned with works and not faith, and is also the opposite
of equitable. So what is equitable? Well, if Legal is only concerned with
works and not with faith and is opposed with equitable, then equitable must
be concerned with faith for the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.
So, again, what is equitable? Equitable = righteous.

Righteous: acting in accord with divine or moral law

“The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.” - Psalm
37:29

According to legal dictionaries, an equitable interest is an "interest held by

virtue of an equitable title (a title that indicates a beneficial interest in
property and that gives the holder the right to acquire formal legal title) or
claimed on equitable grounds, such as the interest held by a trust
beneficiary."

If one keeps to the commandments of God Almighty and walks with the faith
of Jesus Christ, what is the result? Would one be Righteous? Would the
Righteous then have an equitable interest to inherit the land and dwell in it
forever?
And since just having FAITH without actually doing anything with it is DEAD,
what are the instructions; works, God Almighty gave to his people when in
front of the heathens?

“But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for
they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye
therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have
need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” -
Matthew 6:7-13

Get it? The “Legal Process” one does in any matter; the paperwork filed, is
nothing more than a ROCK. One is performing a form of “Spiritual Alchemy”
wherein one is rendering one’s paper into a rock that no scissor can
circumcise; all transmuted by FAITH: the unspoken, ever present truth that
needs no defending; the ROCK upon which one’s house is built.

What else is there left to say, but to give Thanks and Glory unto God
Almighty through prayer as one has been instructed; Thanks and Glory for
delivering you from evil and into light of the truth.

“And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of

faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” - Romans 14:23

Turnabout is fair play is the peaceful evolution of the old “eye for an eye”;
the only difference is that the world does not end up blind. In fact, it is quite
the opposite for it opens the eyes of one’s self and others to the truth, the
light and the way.

The Turnabout is all based upon one simple question: If one is identified by
a DEAD-DUDE-NAME, is the DEAD-DUDE dead anymore and what exactly
are the ramifications under the 1666 Cestui Que Vie Act?
The acceptance of Jesus Christ into one’s heart is the grant of everlasting
life; therefore one cannot possibly be dead, in heart nor spirit. Under the
Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, when one presumed dead shows up living, the
entire estate revests automatically within the one presumed dead and all
letters of administration are void ab initio (from the beginning).

Now, Dead actually means illiterate and ignorant; Abandoned, but in the
Cestui Que Vie Act, Dead refers to one of whom was “lost from across the
sea.” The result of the one showing up Living is told in the parable of the
Wayward Son.

“And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have
is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this
thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” -
Luke 15: 31-32

Up until now, the presumption of death has been used to keep us

intertwined within the Kingdom of Satan; circumcised from the Kingdom of
Heaven; subject under the whole of the Law.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to
you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass
from the Law until all is accomplished.” - Matthew 5:17-18

Now, this same presumption can be used to reject the Kingdom of Satan;
reject usufruct of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; reject living in
sin, in favor of usufruct of the Tree of Life and embrace God’s Natural Law;
fulfill the Law.

Subrogation: The substitution of one person in the place of another

with reference to a lawful claim, demand, or right, so that he or she
who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the
debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or Securities

The Synagogue is banking on one’s rejection of God Almighty and Jesus

Christ by enticing one’s EGO to defend one’s self from an ACCUSATION;
relying on one’s VANITY. This action would then reject Jesus Christ for one is
the usufruct of the Blood of the Lamb; the Blood is spiritual in nature and is
empowered by and through one’s FAITH and is to be used to wash clean the
sins and accusations; The Blood is applied thru Prayer.
The rejection of Jesus Christ testifies that one ABANDONS the covenants by
REJECTING one’s Heavenly Estate, allowing the Synagogue to SUBROGATE
one’s claim over one’s rights to one’s Earthly Estate in the name of The
Fallen; Expanding the Kingdom of Satan here on Earth.

Remember, the ACCUSAITON before the COURT is what?

That one is nothing more than an irredeemable sinner, unknowing of the

Love of God Almighty, unworthy of the Kingdom of Heaven; a steak on the
table by choice and consent. Dead to God Almighty and as above so below:
dead to God Almighty in heaven, dead to the LORD here on Earth; Expander
of the Kingdom of Satan.

No one can confirm before the right accrues to him – maxim of law

“He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, But he who
confesses and forsakes them will find compassion.” - Proverbs 28:13

Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same

punishment - maxim of law

And how does one operate The Turnabout?

Simple

The use of the ALL CAP NAME, or even the name on the Certificate of Live
Birth, to identify one means one has just been identified as a DEAD-MAN
(owner of an abandoned estate). Under the 1666 Cestui Que Vie Act, when
the DEAD-MAN shows up Living, the estate of the DEAD-MAN automatically
revests in the one so identified and ALL letters of administration are null and
void and one is entitled to receive the estate as beneficiary of the Cestui Que
Trust (ALL CAP NAME) being administrated by way of operation of law.

Birth: 1863 Anderson’s Law: (see Abandon (2)) the act of a parent in
exposing an infant of tender years (usually under seven) in any place,
with intent wholly to desert it.

This estate one is receiving is one’s Earthly estate held in trust and the
purpose of this estate is to receive one’s Heavenly estate for the rule is seek
ye first the kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added unto you and once
one accepts Jesus Christ and the consciousness thereof, one is to walk in
those footsteps; keep to the Commandments of God Almighty and walk with
the Faith of Jesus Christ.
Now, one can remove one’s estate from being under the tutors and
governors of this world for one is no longer a child; having accepted to be
re-born under the Free Woman with the acceptance of Jesus Christ.

One can now REPENT and return to God Almighty that which was taken; the
GLORY, the tithing; the usufruct of the Tree of Knowledge for faith without
works is dead and to NOT return to God Almighty would amount to mere lip
service; REPENT and claim usufruct of the Tree of Life and the riches of the
Kingdom therefrom.

Repent: the change one’s mind and actions; changes one’s course of
action

True Forgiveness: I was wrong. Will you let us be even, I won’t do

this again?

Collectively, we can stop the insanity. We can build a better world than the
one we inhabit; leave a better world than the one we inherited. We should
want more than this world has to offer.

We were meant to live for so much more, but we lost ourselves. Now is the
time appointed by the Father; time to come out of her and return home.

First, one must come back to life: ASCEND. Then one can claim one’s
Heavenly estate, then one’s earthly estate.

The only thing stopping anyone: Lack of Faith.

“When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus and knelt
before Him. “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures
and is suffering terribly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I
brought him to Your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

“O unbelieving and perverse generation!” Jesus replied. “How long

must I remain with you? How long must I put up with you? Bring the
boy here to Me.”

Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he
was healed from that moment. Afterward the disciples came to Jesus
privately and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
“Because you have so little faith.” He answered. “For truly I tell you,
if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can say to this
mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will
be impossible for you.”” - Matthew 17: 14-20.
 Stand Firm in Faith

Those who walk in the path of Jesus Christ had better expect to be
persecuted because that is what is written and they are BLESSED because of
it.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for
they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of
God.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and
shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for
so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” - Matthew
5:3-12

Just keep in mind:

“Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil
shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall
have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give
thee a crown of life”. – Revelations 2:10

These courts and actors are NOT fighting one, they are resisting the Light of
Jesus Christ within one, trying to hold fast to the faulty traditions of man but
resistance is futile, for we are called to be the Architects of the future.
Through the courts and the legal process, the Synagogue attempts to
browbeat the light out.

Browbeat: to intimidate or disconcert by a stern manner or arrogant

speech: bully

That’s right! The Synagogue is nothing more than a school-year bully and all
acts and actions taken by the Synagogue are done to rattle, embarrass and
discomfit in order one feel abashed and disconcerted.

“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather

expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do
in secret.” - Ephesians 5:11-12

The Synagogue will resort to calling one names and even go as far as
ordering one undergo psychiatric exams for one is “disturbed” and the
Synagogue DREADS; to feel extreme reluctance to meet or face, the Truth,
so one is made to feel DREAD in the attempt to Browbeat one into rejecting
Jesus Christ and forsaking God Almighty.

Disconcerted: to disturb the composure of

Rattle: to upset especially to the point of loss of poise and composure
Embarrass: to place in doubt, perplexity, or difficulties
Abash: to destroy the self-possession or self-confidence of (someone)
Discomfort: to frustrate the plans of

And a favorite tactic of the Synagogue seems to be name calling such as

sovereign citizen, of which is oxymoronic for how can one be a sovereign,
which knows none higher, when one has pledged themselves in service to
the expansion of the Kingdom of Heaven?

Oxymoron: 1650s, from Greek oxymoron, noun use of neuter of

oxymoros (adj.) "pointedly foolish," from oxys "sharp" (see acrid ) +
moros "stupid" (see moron ). Rhetorical figure by which contradictory
terms are conjoined so as to give point to the statement or
expression; the word itself is an illustration of the thing. Now often
used loosely to mean "contradiction in terms."

All one really need do is respond with laughter at the pure folly within this
attempt to entice one, being an Ambassador for the Prince of Peace (ref 2
Cor 5:20), into a controversy over such nonsense and foolishness, but
always forgive them for their trespasses: illiteracy and ignorance. Recite the
Lord’s Prayer and move on.
Another favorite tactic used in attempt to conjure DREAD is the threat of a
mental evaluation. Fear not, for all one really need do is show up and ask if
the patient-doctor privilege is in effect and, again, respond with laughter at
the pure folly within this attempt to entice one, being an Ambassador for the
Prince of Peace, into a controversy over such nonsense and foolishness, but
always forgive them for their trespasses: Doubt in the Word of God. Again,
recite the Lord’s Prayer and move on.

This is how the Synagogue operates: Name Calling and ACCUSATIONS. It is

like dealing with little children on the play ground; tattletales and hall
monitors. Reciting the Lord’s Prayer when in the presence of the members of
the Synagogue is how we, as the children of God Almighty, roll.

“Who will rise up for me against the wicked? Who will stand for me
against those who practice iniquity?” - Psalm 94:16

But again, thank our Father for his grace for he gives us BLESSINGS and
since we are instructed to come as a little child, there just so happens to be
a Doctrine one can adopt to assist one in trying times: Doctrine of Sticks and
Stones.

This Doctrine is peaceful, but can make those of whom are in league with
the Synagogue very angry because of the nature of the Doctrine and once
the peacefulness of ANY intent in ANY action is stripped away, all that is left
is the Greatest Enemies of Peace: Force and Wrong.

Anyhow, the Doctrine of Sticks and Stones operates as follows:

Sticks and Stones my break my bones, but Names will never hurt me. This
doctrine invokes the Rubber-Glue Defense: I am rubber; you are glue,
whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you; nanny-nanny-boo-
boo, stick your head in doo-doo, and stands supported by the infamous case
of Pot vs Kettle.

Now, as childish as this doctrine sounds, the effectiveness of such should not
be underestimated. Did you chuckle, roll your eyes or laugh a little bit when
you read the Doctrine? That one small moment wherein you wanted to as
such is the one moment of light one may need when persecution comes
knocking at one’s door; one light is all one needs to vanquish the dark; one
light, the faith of a child.

This is the power of this Doctrine, bringing forth the laughter of a child: a
laugh in the face of the ACCUSOR; a show of FAITH in our Father, for one is
to come as a child.
“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his
might.

Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be
able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on
the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the
preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of
faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the
wicked.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the
Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication
for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I
may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak
boldly, as I ought to speak.

But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a
beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to
you all things:

Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know
our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts. Peace be to the
brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity. Amen.” - Ephesians 6: 10-24
 Let no man tear asunder

“And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto
me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in
mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou
shalt know the LORD.” - Hosea 2:19-20

When single shines the triple sun, what was sundered and undone
shall be whole, the two made one. – prophesy from the Dark Crystal
(1979)

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage
of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready." And it
was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for
the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. And he said to me,
"Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of
the Lamb.' " And he said to me, "These are true words of God." - Rev.
19:7-9

When one exercises The Turnabout, one actually MERGES one’s interests
with that of the LORD, one flesh: a marriage between mankind and God
Almighty; a more perfect union between His government and one’s self-
governance through the unification of FAITH and WORKS.

When one stands as usufruct of FAITH; the LORD stands as usufruct of

WORKS, and the ceremony can go LIVE for Faith without Works is EVIL
(dead), as is Works without Faith.

"I am anxious for you with the deep concern of God himself--anxious
that your love should be for Christ alone, just as a pure maiden saves
her love for one man only, for the one who will be her husband. But I
am frightened, fearing that in some way you will be led away from
your pure and simple devotion to our Lord, just as Eve was deceived
by Satan in the Garden of Eden." - 2 Cor. 11:2 -4

But because Mankind has gotten cold feet in the past, God Almighty allows
the DECEPTION to continue because of his anxieties over his Bride-to-Be
again being led astray: tempted by the fruit of another covenant; but we
know what has been going on since God Almighty has been gone and now
we must reassure Him that there is no other.
 “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which
took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of
them were wise, and five were foolish.

They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:But
the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at
midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye
out to meet him.

Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish
said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us
and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were
ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the
Son of man cometh.” – Matthew 25:1-13

So, in addition to perfecting the merger; the marriage, The Turnabout also
reassures the Bridegroom that we walk down the aisle with FAITH and
nothing but FAITH in our hearts for FAITH is the oil in the lamps at the
marriage supper. Walking with FAITH constitutes the WORKS: garments of
fine linen, bright and clean.

He’s got the cash; he’s got a condo; he’s got a car; he got a career, …
but that still doesn’t mean he get’s you. – Extra Commercial

The Turnabout ensures that one is seated at the marriage supper before the
doors shut; one’s moment to shine and reject the temptations of another
covenant and proclaim to our Lord Jesus Christ, “until Death do us part.”
 … and the Truth shall set you free
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed a proclamation speaking of "the
historical tradition of ethical values and principles, which have been the
bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization when they were known as
the Seven Noahide Laws, transmitted through God to Moses on Mount
Sinai", and in 1991, Congress stated in the preamble to the 1991 bill that
established Education Day in honor of the birthday of Menachem Mendel
Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values

and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which
our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and
principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of
civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws [...]

The 7 Laws of Noah were given by God Almighty as a binding set of laws for
the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity. These Laws consist of:

Do not deny God.

Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat from a live animal.
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws.

This is also core to comprehending both the DECEPTION and The Turnabout
for the first Noahide Law corresponds to the first commandment of Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven image of which are both closely related
to Blaspheming God Almighty by putting another god before him.

When one AGREES one exists as or is to be identified and recognized

through ALL CAP NAME, one is actually confessing that one is a Graven
Image; remember TOMBSTONE? ALL CAP NAME is just a piece of paper; a
wooden image; an IDOL. Not only that, one is putting another god before
God Almighty, one’s EGO, one’s Kingdom receives the Glory.

This normally would be grounds for granting the ACCUSOR: Satan, right to
use one’s being as a relocation center for wayward Demons because one
rejected the Covenants of God Almighty through the dishonor of the
Commandments; one chose usufruct of the Tree of Knowledge of which is
Death to God Almighty and expulsion from the Garden: the world of today.

"For My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from My face,
nor is their iniquity concealed from My eyes.” - Jeremiah 16:17

However, if one were to Turnabout, then the moment one is identified to

exist as if one were ALL CAP NAME, one COMPREHENDS that pursuant to the
Rule of English, someone is attempting to GLOSS over something, which
means there is something being hidden and concealed, and pursuant to the
Law of God, one is to expose the unfruitful deeds of darkness.

Additionally, one COMPREHENDS that there is an accusation that one is

DEBASED and property of Synagogue of Satan and thus Dead to God
Almighty; and with one accepting Jesus Christ in one’s heart and pursuant to
the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, one further COMPREHENDS one can now
claim the estate of the NAME for the purpose of expanding the Kingdom of
Heaven and fulfilling one’s mandate to SUDBUE the Earth for the Glory of
God Almighty and in the name of Jesus Christ.

In other words, one gets to express the CESTUI-QUE-TRUST, the ALL CAP
NAME, and through one’s FAITH, transmute the Cestui Que Trust into an
Irrevocable Living Trust, and now it can no longer be used to pirate from the
public trust nor used to FORCE one to act as a trustee nor surety for the
debts of another; effectively SEGREGATING the Estate (NAME) from the rest
of the Trust without removing anything from the Trust so one can fulfill on
the covenants and live their life as our Father intended.

But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on
your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue
you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if
someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one
who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to
borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your
enemy. ’But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He
causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what
reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And if
you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?
Do not even Gentiles do the same?
 Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect. – Matthew
5:39-48

But even here, we have one final deception. Since everything always unfolds
according to the will of God Almighty, then The Fallen, in Truth, do not really
war against God Almighty; only the ILLUSION of such. Believe it or not,
through The Turnabout, one assists The Fallen absolve themselves of their
sins by allowing The Fallen to fulfill their mandate of leading mankind back
to God Almighty. As such, they should have the opportunity to reunite with
their Father whom is our Father; take their rightful place back at His side, in
His court.

The Fallen caused the Tower of Babel to fall causing all the people of this
world to separate; allowed themselves to become corrupted in order to
tempt Mankind into Knowing Good and Evil: the constant War.

Remember WHY the Tower was called Babel?

The Babylonians wanted a tower that would "reach to the heavens" so that
they could be like God Almighty instead of KNOWING God Almighty and
because of the people forsook God Almighty, God Almighty caused the
people to suddenly speak different languages so they could not communicate
and work together to build the tower causing the people to scatter across
the land; All the Nations were created as a result of the fall of the Tower.

The people of those Nations were entrusted to The Fallen and they showed
man a world WITHOUT the mercy and grace of God Almighty; led him into
temptation, delivered him into FEAR; Entrapped within the maze of the
Tower Builder: Nimrod, Faithful servant and God Almighty’s greatest Hunter.

The tower was named The Tower of Babel because the word Babel means
confusion and today, mankind just keeps babbling-on; confused and lost,
like an orphaned child.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all. – James 2:10

The DECEPTION is the springing of a Trap; a Trap designed to confuse and

disorient those who fail to be faithful. A Trap wherein every WORD is Babble
for when one breaks one commandment, one violates them all and any cry
to the LORD: a sinner just babbling-on, an inhabitant of a World trapped
within a world where none pay anything except lip service to God Almighty,
standing in AGREEMENT that they are nothing more than commodity to be
bought, sold and traded from whatever the market will bear as Satan’s Play-
Toy.

“For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:
and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of
the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the
law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not
the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
accusing or else excusing one another;)

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ
according to my gospel”. – Romans 2:!2-16

Through The Turnabout, one can now use the acts and actions of the
Synagogue against the Synagogue and ensure the enemies of God Almighty
receive EXACTLY what they deserve; one can absolve the Fallen and give
praise and Glory to God Almighty.

Don the entirety of His Armor; Stand tall and walk in confidence with the
FAITH of Jesus Christ through this valley of the shadow of doubt, for
turnabout is ALWAYS fair play.
 References and Readings
01- Chicago style manual section 11.147
GLOSS is the ALL-CAP form of a word in American Sign Language which is considered a FOREIGN
Language pursuant to the Rules of English Language.

02- Black’s Law 4th: GLOSSA

Latin for GLOSS

Black’s Law 4th: DOG-LATIN

Latin written according to the rules of the English Language: language of the illiterate. Latin is a
Dead Language so each time someone uses WORDS in Law, they are addressing you AS-IF you
were Dead = Illiterate = ignorant = sin; one who lives in sin is dead to God almighty

03- Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34 (1894)

There is only one jurisdiction: over the estate of the dead man … if the supposed dead man
makes a personal appearance, how can this jurisdiction be maintained? When one accept Jesus
Christ and keeps to the faith while addressed AS-IF one were DEAD, one is granted with the
Crown of Life

04- Cestui Que Act of 1666

When the DEAD-DUDE shows up living, the ENTIRE estate then revests automatically for all
letters of administration are null and void ab initio

05- United States v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U.S. 115 (1951)
The Certificate of Life Birth = State took possession and operated control over the Birth Event
and DENIED one the RIGHT to exercise their own business judgment, thus the State became
PROPRIETOR (holder of property as usufructuary) and entitled to ALL the benefits and subject to
ALL the liabilities that status affords

06- 63c Am Jur 2d: public officers and employees § 241

The powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised
on behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer = ALL
public officials are PEACE-KEEPERS

Treaty of Paris = ALL United States citizens and inhabitants of the United States are
basically Crown subjects ... United States is a corporation formed in 1871. American and
citizens and/or inhabitants of the United States are two different peoples. Recognizes
American Independence not GRANTS it.

Treaty of Ghent = There is to be a perpetual peace between united States of America

and England ... between Crown subjects (including United States citizens and inhabitants)
and the American people

1954 International Organizational Immunities Act = All public offices are hereby
transferred to the UN = FARA registration REQUIRED if one is claiming to be
GOVERNMENT
Reference
Reading
01
The Chicago Manual of Style Online 11.147: Glosses in ASL Page 1 of 1

11: Foreign Languages

11.147 Glosses in ASL

The written-language transcription of a sign is called a gloss. Glosses are words from the spoken language
written in small capital letters: WOMAN , SCHOOL , CAT . (Alternatively, regular capital letters may be used.)
When two or more written words are used to gloss a single sign, the glosses are separated by hyphens. The
translation is enclosed in double quotation marks.

The sign for “a car drove by” is written as VEHICLE-DRIVE-BY .

One obvious limitation of the use of glosses from the spoken/written language to represent signs is that
there is no one-to-one correspondence between the words or signs in any two languages.

About The Chicago Manual of Style About the University of Chicago Press Terms of Use Privacy Policy Site Map
The Chicago Manual of Style 15th edition text © 1982, 1993, 2003 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition text © 2010 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago
Manual of Style Online © 2006, 2007, 2010 by The University of Chicago. The Chicago Manual of Style is a registered trademark of The University of Chicago.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch11/ch11_sec147.html 4/22/2017
Reference
Reading
02
 DOlTKIN'

DODRANS. Lat. In Roman law. A subdivision Walton N. Moore Dry Goods Co. v. Commercial
of the as, containing nine uncire; the proportion Industrial Co., C.C.A.,Cal., 282 F. 21, 25. The
of nine-twelfths, or three-fourths. 2 BI.Comm. activities of the corporation, however, must rep­
462, note. resent a more or less continuous effort ; Knapp
v. Bullock Tractor Co., D.C.Cal., 242 F. 543, 550 ;
DOE, JOHN. The name of the fictitious plaintiff Johnson v. Cass & Emerson, 91 Vt. 103, 99 A. 633,
in the action of ejectment. 3 Steph. Comm. 618. 635 ; or be of a systematic and regular nature ;
DOED-BANA. In Saxon law. The actual per­ Home Lumber Co. v. Hopkins, 107 Kan. 153, 190
petrator of a homicide. P. 601, 605, 10 A.L.R. 879.
The transaction of single piece of business is
DOER. In Scotch law. An agent or attorney. 1
not enough. Wood & Selick v. American Grocery
Kames, Eq. 325.
Co., 96 N.J.Law, 218, 114 A. 756, 757 ; Anderson v.
DOG-DRAW. In old forest law. The manifest Morris & E. R. Co., C.C.A.N.Y., 216 F. 83, 87. To
deprehension of an offender against venison in a the contrary. Tripp State Bank of Tripp v. Jerke,
fore�t, when he was found drawing after a deer 45 S.D. 448, 188 N.W. 314, 315.
by the scent of a hound led in his hand ; or where N o general definition can be made of phrase "doing busi­
a person had wounded a deer or wild beast, by ness" in statutes relating to foreign corporations. Each
shooting at him, or otherwise, and was caught case must be determined on its own facts, by considering
objective of statute in which phrase is found, its purpose
with a dog drawing after him to receive the same. and orientation to the carrying on of business, nature of
Manwood, Forest Law, 2, c. 8. activities, their magnitude, multiplicity of contracts, and
possibility that incidents may occur and liabilities be cre­
DOG-LATIN. The Latin of illiterate persons ; ated, especially where entrance into state is in ordinary
Latin words put together on the English gram­ prosecution of corporation' s business. State Highway and
Public Works Commission v. Diamond S. S. Transp. Corp. ,
ma tical system. 225 N.C. 198, 34 S. E.2d 78, 80, 81.

DOGGER. In maritime law. A light ship or ves­ Ordinarily the phrase means engaging in activities i n
sel. Cowell. pursuit of gain. Welch Holding C o . v. Galloway, 1 6 1 Or.
515, 89 P.2d 559 ; People v. Jones, 16 N.Y. S.2d 558, 559, 172
Dogger-fish, fish brought in ships. Misc. 368.

The following transactions and businesses illustrate,

Dogger-men, fishermen that belong to dogger­ what constitutes or does not constitute "doing business " :
ships. advertising, Society Milion Athena v. National Bank of
Greece, 1 N. Y. S.2d 155, 2 N . Y. S.2d 155 ; Deighan v. Bev­
DOGMA. In the civil law. A word occasionally erage Retailer Weekly & Trade Newspaper Corporation, 18
used as descriptive of an ordinance of the senate. N.J. Misc. 705, 16 A.2d 612, 613 ; bringing of actions, R. L.
Witters Associates v. Ebsary Gypsum Co. , D.C. Fla. , 19 F.
See Nov. 2, 1, 1; Dig. 27, 1, 6.
Supp. 646, 648 : Schneider v. Greater M. & S. Circuit, 259
N.Y. S. 319, 144 Misc. 534 ; broadcasting system, Hoffman
DOGS. Steel rods with clamps or tongs thereon, v. Carter, 118 N . J . L. 379, 192 A. 825 ; State ex reI. Colum­
for carrying heavy steel rails. Jefferson v. Denk­ bia Broadcasting Co. v. Superior Court for King County,
mann Lumber Co., 148 So. 237, 239, 167 Miss. 246. 1 Wash.2d 379, 96 P.2d 248, 250 ; consignment, Oyler v. J.
P. Seeburg Corporation, D . C . Tex. , 29 F. Supp. 927 ; Thew
DOING. The formal word by which services were Shovel Co. v. Superior Court in and for City and County
of San Francisco, 35 Cal . App.2d 183, 95 P. 2d 149. 151, 152 ;
reserved and expressed in old conveyances ; as holding companies, V/ilhelm v. Consolidated Oil Corpora­
'''rendering'' (reddenda) was expressive of rent. tion. D.C.Okl . , 11 F. Supp. 444, 447 : Cliffs Corporation v.
Perk. c. 10, §§ 625, 635, 638. As used in La.Civ. Evatt, 138 Ohio St. 336, 35 N. E.2d 144, 151 ; insurance,
Sasnett v. Iowa State Traveling Men ' s Ass'n, C . C. A. lowa,
Code, art. 1931, the word signifies activity. Noel 90 F . 2d 514 ; Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Pink, 288 N. Y. 291,
Estate v. Louisiana Oil Refining Corporation, 188 43 N. E.2d 49, 53 : newspapers, Layne v. Tribune Co. , 71
La. 45, 175 So. 744, 746. F . 2d 223, 224, 63 App . D. C . 213 ; Neely v. Philadelphia In­
quirer Co. , 62 F .2d 873. 874, 61 App. D.C. 334 ; railroads,
DOING BUSINESS. Within statutes on service Klabzuba v. Southern Pac. Co. , D. C . Wash . , 33 F.2d 359,
360 ; Gadboury v. Central Vermont Ry. Co. , 231 N.Y.S.
of process on foreign corporations, equivalent to 630, 632, 225 App. Div. 145 ; solicitation, Mandel Bros. v.
':!onducting or managing business. Wichita Film Henry A. O'Neil, Inc. , C. C. A. S . D . , 69 F . 2d 452, 455 ; Bank
& Supply Co. v. Yale, 194 Mo.App. 60, 184 S.W. v. Charles Meyers & Co. , 182 Md. 556, 35 A.2d 110, 113.

119. A foreign corporation is "doing business", Illustrations of what constitutes "doing business" within
making it amenable to process within state, if various taxing statutes follow : Capital stock tax, Good­
year Inv. C()rporation v . Campbell, C . C . A . Ohio, 139 F . 2d
it does business therein in such a manner as to
188, 190, 191 : Refrigeration Discount Corporation v. Metz­
warrant the inference that it is present there. ger, D . C. Pa. , 10 F. Supp. 748, 749 : excise tax, Harmar Coal
Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., D.C.N.C., Co. v. Heiner, D.C. Pa. , 26 F.2d 729, 730 : Queens Run Re­
292 F. 169, 171. Or that it has subjected itself fractories Co. v. Commonwealth, 270 Mass. 19, 169 N. E. 515,
516 : franchise tax, Stone v. Interstate Natural Gas Co. ,
to the jurisdiction and laws in which the service C . C . A. Miss. , 103 F.2d 544, 548 ; Cliffs Corporation v . Evatt,
is made. W. J. Armstrong Co. v. New York Cent. 138 Ohio St. 336, 35 N. E.2d 144, 151 ; income tax, Blair v.
& H. R. R. Co., 129 Minn. 104, 151 N.W. 917, 919, Wilson Syndicate Trust, C . C . A. , 39 F.2d 43, 45 ; Welch
L.R.A.1916E, 232, Ann.Cas.1916E, 335 ; The doing Holding Co. v. Galloway, 161 Or. 515, 89 P.2d 559, 564.
of business is the exercise in the state of some
of the ordinary functions for which the corpora­ DOITKIN, or DOlT. A base coin of small value,
tion was organized. Davis & Worrell v. General prohibited by St. 3 Hen. V. c. 1. We still retain
Motors Acceptance Corporation, 153 Ark. 626, 241 the phrase, in the common saying, when we would
S.W. 44, 46. What constitutes "doing business" undervalue a man, that he is not \t> .) rth a doit.
depends on the facts in each particular ca.se. Jacob.
5 69
 GLOSSA

Under the ancient system a plea of confession and avoId­ GLAVEA. A hand dart. Cowell.
ance must give color to the affirmative averments of the
complaint, or it would be fatally defective. The "giving GLEANING. The gathering of grain after reap­
color" was simply the absence of any denials, and the
express or silent admission that the declaration, as far as
ers, or of grain left ungathered by reapers. Held
it went, told the truth. Smith v. Marley, 39 Idaho, 779, not to be a right at common law. 1 H.Bl. 51.
230 P. 769, 770. See Color.
GLEBA. A turf, sod, or clod of earth. The soil
GIVE JUDGMENT. To render, pronounce, or de­ or ground ; cultivated land in general. Church
clare the j udgment of the court in an action at land ( solum et d08 ecclesire) . Spelman. See
law; not spoken of a j udgment obtained by con­ Glebe.
fession. Schuster v. Rader, 13 Colo. 329, 22 P.
505. GLEBlE ASCRIPTITII. Villein-socmen, who
could not be removed from the land while they
GIVE NOTICE. To communicate to another, in did the service due. Bract. c. 7; 1 Reeve, Eng.
any proper or permissible legal manner, 'informa­ Law, 269.
tion or warning of an existing fact or state of
facts or (more usually) of some intended future GLEBARIlE. Turfs dug out of the ground.
action. O'Neil v. Dickson, 11 Ind. 254 ; In re Cowell.
Devlin, 7 Fed.Cas. 564 ; St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co.
v. Hicks, Tex.Civ.App., 158 S.W. 192, 194. GLEBE. In Ecclesiastical law, the land possessed
as part of the endowment or revenue of a church
GIVE TIME. Extending the period at which, by or ecclesiastical benefice.
the contract between them, the principal debtor In Roman law, a clod ; turf; soil. Hence, the
was originally liable to pay the creditor. Buffalo soil of an inheritance ; an agrarian estate. Servi
Forge Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, addicti glebre were serfs attached to and passing
142 Misc. 647, 256 N.Y.S. 329, 334. with the estate. Cod. 11, 47, 7, 21 ; Nov. 54, 1.
GIVE WAY. In the rules of navigation, one ves­ GLIDER. A form of aircraft similar to an air­
sel is said to "give way" to another when she de­ plane but without any engine. Spychala v. Metro­
viates from her course in such a manner and to politan Life Ins. Co., 339 Pa. 237, 13 A.2d 32, 33.
such an extent as to allow the other to pass with­
out altering her course. See Lockwood v. Lashell, GLIDING. Art of flying a glider. Spychala v .
19 Pa. 350. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 339 Pa. 237, 13 A.2d
32, 33.
GIVER. A donor; he who makes a gift.
GLISCYWA. In Saxon law, a fraternity.
GIVING IN PAYMENT. In Louisiana law, a
phrase (translating the Fr. "dation en paiement") GLOBE DOCTRINE. That where the National
which signifies the delivery and acceptance of Labor Relations Board could conclude that either
real or personal property in satisfaction of a debt, a craft or a plant unit would be appropriate for
instead of a payment in money. See Civil Code collective bargaining purposes and where either
La. art. 265. contention if unopposed would be adopted by the
Board, it normally gives paramount weight to the
GIVING RINGS. A ceremony anciently perform­ wishes of the employees within the craft unit.
ed in England by serjeants at law at the time of International Ass'n of Machinists, Tool and Die
their appointment. The rings were inscribed with Makers' Lodge No. 35 v. National Labor Relations
a motto, generally in Latin. Board, 71 App.D.C. 175, 110 F.2d 29, 45.
GLADIOLUS. A little sword or dagger; a kind GLOMERELLS. Commissioners appointed to de­
of sedge. Mat. Paris. termine differences between scholars in a school
GLADIUS. Lat. A sword. An ancient emblem or university and the townsmen of the place.
of defense. Hence the ancient earls or comites Jacob.
( the king's attendants, advisers, and associates GLOS. Lat. In the civil law, a husband's sister.
in his government) were made by being girt with Dig. 38, 10, 4, 6.
swords, ( gladio succincti. )
The emblem of the executory power of the law GLOSS. An interpretation, consisting of one or
in punishing crimes. 4 Bl.Comm. 177. more words, interlinear or marginal ; an annota­
tion, explanation, or comment on any passage in
In old Latin authors, and in the Norman laws,
the text of a work, for purposes of elucidation or
this word was used to signify supreme j urisdic­
amplification. Particularly applied to the com­
tion, (jus gladii. )
ments on the Corpus Juris.
GLAIVE. A sword, lance, or horseman's staff.
GLOSSA. Lat. A gloss, explanation, or inter­
One of the weapons allowed in a trial by combat.
pretation.
GLANS. In the civil law, acorns or nuts of the The gloss03 of the Roman law are brief illustrative com­
oak or other trees. In a larger sense, all fruits ments or annotations on the text of Justinian's collections,
made by the professors who taught or lectured on them
of trees. about the twelfth century, (especially at the law school of
Bologna, ) and were hen ce called "glossators. » These
GLASS-MEN. A term used in St. 1 Jac. I, c. 7, gl osses were at first inserted in the text with the words to
for wandering rogues or vagrants. which they referred, and were called "glOSS03 interline-

819
GLOSSA

ares ,'" but afterwards they were placed In the margin, GO WITHOUT DAY. Words used to denote that
partly at the side, and partly under the text, and called
((gl08SCB marginale8. J) A selection of them was made by
a party is dismissed the court. He is said to go
Accursius, between A. D. 1220 and 1260, under the title of without day, because there is no day appointed
« glossa Ord.inaria/' which 1s of the greatest authority. for him to appear again.
Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 90.
GOAF. In coal mining a space from which ma­
GLOSSA VIPERINA EST QUlE CORRODIT VIS­ terial has been removed or the waste left in old
CERA TEXTUS. 11 Coke, 34. It is a poisonous work. Harlan Ridgeway Mining Co. v. Jackson,
gloss which corrupts the essence of the text. 278 Ky. 767, 129 S.W.2d 585, 586.
GLOSSATOR. In the civil law, a commentator GOAT, GOTE. In old English law, a contrivance
or annotator. A terin applied to the professors or structure for draining waters out of the land in­
and teachers of the Roman law in the twelfth to the sea. Callis describes goats as "usual en­
century, at the head of whom was Irnerius. Mac­ gines erected and built with portcullises and doors
keld. Rom. Law, § 90. of timber and stone or brick, invented first in Low­
GLOUCESTER, STATUTE OF. The statute is er Germany." Callis, Sewers, ( 91 ) , 112, 113. Cow­
the 6 Edw. I, c. 1, A.D. 1278. It takes its name ell defines "gote," a ditch, sewer, or gutter.
from the place of its enactment, and was the first GOB. In coal mining a space from which mate­
statute giving costs in actions. rial has been removed or the waste left in old
GLOVE SILVER. Extraordinary rewards former­ work. Harlan Ridgeway Mining Co. v. Jackson,
ly given to officers of courts, etc. ; money formerly 278 Ky. 767, 129 S.W.2d 585, 586. Space between
given by the sheriff of a county in which no of­ face of coal and where props had been set by ma­
fenders are left for execution to the clerk of as­ chine operators on previous trip. New Union
size and j udges' officers. Jacob. Coal Co. v. SuIt, 172 Ark. 753, 290 S.W. 580, 581.

GLOVES. It was an ancient custom on a maiden GOD AND MY COUNTRY. The answer made
assize, when there was no offender to be tried, for by a prisoner, when arraigned, in answer to the
the sheriff to present the j udge with a pair of question, "How will you be tried ?"
white gloves. It is an immemorial custom to re­ In the ancient practice he had the choice (as appears by
the question) whether to submit to the trial by ordeal (by
move the glove from the right hand on taking God) or to be tried by a jury, (by the country ; ) and i t is
oath. Wharton. probable that the original form of the answer was, "By
God or my country, " whereby the prisoner averred his
GLYN. A hollow between two mountains ; a val­ innocence by declining neither of the modes of trial.
ley or glen. Co.Litt. 5b.
GOD-BOTE. An ecclesiastical or church fine paid
GO. To be dismissed from · a court. To issue for crimes and offenses committed against God.
from a court. "The court said a mandamus must Cowell.
go." 1 W.Bl. 50. "Let a supersedeas go." 5 Mod.
GOD-GILD. That which is offered to God or his
421. "The writ may go." 18 C.B. 35.
service. Jacob.
GO BAIL. To assume the responsibility of a GOD'S PENNY. In old English law, earne�-mon­
surety on a bail-bond. ey ; money given as evidence of the completion of
a bargain. This name is probably derived from
GO FIFTY-FIFTY. Division into halves of some­
the fact that such money was given to the church
thing under discussion by the parties at the time.
or distributed in alms.
Boyer v. Bowles, 310 Mass. 134, 37 N.E.2d 489, 493.
GOGING-STOLE. An old form of the word "cuck­
GO HENCE. To depart from the court ; with the ing-stool" ( q. v.) . Cowell.
further implication that a suitor who is directed
to "go hence" is dismissed from further attend­ GOING. In various compound phrases ( as those
ance upon the court in respect to the suit or pro­ which follow) this term implies either motion,
ceeding which brought him there, and that he is progress, active operation, or present and continu­
finally denied the relief which he sought, or, as ous validity and efficacy.
the case may be, absolved from the liability sought
to be imposed upon him. See Hiatt v. Kinkaid, 40 GOING AND COMING RULE. Declares that em·
Neb. 178, 58 N.W. 700. ployees while going to or returning from their
places of employment are not within the scope of
GO TO. In a statute, will, or other instrument, a their employment. Robinson v. George, 16 Cal.
direction that property shall "go to" a designated 2d 238, 105 P.2d 914, 917, 918.
person means that it shall pass or proceed to such
person, vest in and belong to him. In re Hitchins' GOING BEFORE THE WIND. In the language
Estate, 43 Misc. 485, 89 N.Y.S. 472 ; Plass v. Plass, of mariners and in the rules of navigation, a ves­
121 Cal. 131, 53 P. 448. sel is said to be going "before the wind" when the
wind is free as respects her course, that is, comes
GO TO PROTEST. Commercial paper is said to from behind the vessel or over the stern, so that
"go to protest" when it is dishonored by non­ her yards may be braced square across. She is
payment or non-acceptance and is handed to a no­ said to be "going off large" when she has the' wind
tary for protest. free on either tack, that is, when it blows from
820
Reference
Reading
03
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

Syllabus | Case

Scott v. McNeal

No. 890

Submitted October 23, 1893

Decided May 14, 1894

154 U.S. 34

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Syllabus

A court of probate, in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the probate of wills and the
administration of estates of deceased persons, has no jurisdiction to appoint an
administrator of the estate of a living person, and its orders, made after public notice,
appointing an administrator of the estate of a person who is in fact alive, although he
has been absent and not heard from for seven years, and licensing the administrator to
sell his land for payment of his debts, are void, and the purchaser at the sale takes no
title, as against him.

1 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html
one never receives notice that one's estate is being probated. The ONLY indication is the TOMBSTONE or ALL-UPPER-CASE-NAME as DEFENDANT. This is a
deception of the HIGHEST-ORDER and a violation of Natural Law, thus a BEACH-OF-TRUST under the Declaration and the COURT is operating without VALID letters
of administration. When you enter a PLEA or ACCEPT an attorney, you waive this DEFECT-IN-PROCESS by your own consent.

A judgment of the highest court of a state, by which the purchaser at an administrator's

sale under order of a probate court, of land of a living person, who had no notice of its
proceedings, is held to be entitled to the land as against him deprives him of his
property without due process of law, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States, and is reviewable by this Court on writ of error.

This was an action of ejectment, brought January 14, 1892, in the Superior Court of
Thurston County in the State of Washington, by Moses H. Scott against John McNeal
and Augustine McNeal to recover possession of a tract of land in that county.

Page 154 U. S. 35

At the trial it was conceded that the title in this land was in the plaintiff until 1888, and
he testified that he entered into possession thereof, and made improvements thereon,
and had never parted with the possession nor authorized any one to go upon the land;
that he had demanded possession of the defendants, and they had withheld it from him,
and that its rental value was $100 a year.

The defendants denied the plaintiff's title, and claimed title in themselves under a deed
from an administrator of the plaintiff's estate, appointed in April, 1888, and in their
answer alleged that in March, 1881, the plaintiff mysteriously disappeared from his
place of abode, and without the knowledge of those with whom he had been accustomed
to associate, and remained continuously away until July, 1891, and was generally
believed by his former associates to be dead, and specifically alleged, and at the trial
offered evidence tending to prove, the following facts:

On April 2, 1888, Mary Scott presented to the Probate Court of the County of Thurston,
in the Territory of Washington, a petition for the appointment of R. H. Milroy as
administrator of the estate of the plaintiff, alleging

"that one Moses H. Scott, heretofore a resident of the above-named county and
territory, mysteriously disappeared some time during the month of March, 1881, and
more than seven years ago; that careful inquiry made by relatives and friends of said
Moses H. Scott at different times since his said disappearance, has failed to give any
trace or information of his whereabouts or any evidence that he is still living; that your
petitioner verily believes that said Moses H. Scott is dead, and has been dead from the
time of his said disappearance;"

that he was never married, and left no last will or testament yet heard of; that he left

2 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

real estate in his own right in this county of the value of $600, more or less; that his
heirs were three minor children of a deceased brother, and that the petitioner was a
judgment creditor of Scott.

Notice of that petition was given by posting in three public places, as required by law, a
notice, dated April 7, 1888, signed by the probate judge, and in these words:

"In the Probate

Page 154 U. S. 36

Court of Thurston Count -- W. T. Mary Scott having filed in this Court a petition praying
for the appointment of R. H. Milroy as administrator of the estate of Moses H. Scott,
notice is hereby given that the hearing and consideration of said petition has been fixed
for Friday, April 20, 1888 at 10 o'clock a.m. at the office of the undersigned."

At the time thus appointed, the probate court, after appointing a guardian ad litem for
said minors and hearing witnesses, made an order by which,

"it duly appearing that said Moses H. Scott disappeared over seven years ago, and that
since said time nothing has been heard or known of him by his relatives and
acquaintances, and that said relatives and acquaintances believe him to be dead, and
that his surroundings, when last seen (about eight years ago), and the circumstances of
that time and immediately and shortly afterwards, were such as to give his relatives and
acquaintances the belief that he was murdered at about that time, and it appearing that
he has estate in this county; now therefore the court find that the said Moses H. Scott is
dead to all legal intents and purposes, having died on or about March 25, 1888, and no
objections having been filed or made to the said petition of Mary Scott, and the
guardian ad litem of the minor heirs herein consenting, it is ordered that said R. H.
Milroy be appointed administrator of said estate, and that letters of guardianship issue
to him upon his filing a good and sufficient bond in the sum of one thousand dollars."

Letters of administration were issued to Milroy, and he gave bond accordingly.

On July 16, 1888, the probate court, on the petition of Milroy as administrator, and after
the usual notice, and with the consent of the guardian ad litem of said minors, made an
order, authorizing Milroy as administrator to sell all Scott's real estate. Pursuant to this
order, he sold by public auction the land now in question, for the price of $301.50, to
Samuel C. Ward. On November 26, 1888, the probate court confirmed the sale, the land

3 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

was conveyed to Ward, and the purchase money was received by Milroy, and was
afterwards applied by him to the payment of a debt of Scott, secured by mortgage of the
land.

Page 154 U. S. 37

On November 26, 1889, Ward conveyed this land by warranty deed to the defendants
for a consideration paid of $800, and the defendants forthwith took and since retained
possession of the land, and made valuable improvements thereon.

At the time of the offer of this evidence, the plaintiff objected to the admission of the
proceedings in the probate court upon the ground that they were absolutely void
because no administration on the estate of a live man could be valid, and the probate
court had no jurisdiction to make the orders in question, and objected to the rest of the
evidence as irrelevant and immaterial. But the court ruled that, the probate court having
passed upon the sufficiency of the petition to give it jurisdiction, and having found that
the law presumed Scott to be dead, its proceedings were not absolutely void, and
therefore admitted the evidence objected to and directed a verdict for the defendants,
which was returned by the jury, and judgment rendered thereon. The plaintiff duly
excepted to the rulings and instructions at the trial, and appealed to the supreme court
of the state.

In that court, it was argued in his behalf "that to give effect to the probate proceedings
under the circumstances would be to deprive him of his property without due process of
law." But the court held the proceedings of the probate court to be valid, and therefore
affirmed the judgment. 5 Wash. 309.

The plaintiff sued out this writ of error, and assigned for error that the probate
proceedings, as regarded him and his estate, were without jurisdiction over the subject
matter, and absolutely void, and that the judgment of the superior court, and the
judgment of the supreme court of the state affirming that judgment, deprived him of his
property without due process of law, and were contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States.

Page 154 U. S. 38

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court.

The plaintiff formerly owned the land in question, and still owns it unless he has been

4 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

deprived of it by a sale and conveyance, under order of the Probate Court of the County
of Thurston and Territory of Washington by an administrator of his estate appointed by
that court on April 20 upon a petition filed April 2, 1888.

Page 154 U. S. 39

The form of the order appointing the administrator is peculiar. By that order, after
reciting that the plaintiff disappeared more than seven years before, and had not since
been seen or heard of by his relatives and acquaintances, and that the circumstances at
and immediately after the time when he was last seen, about eight years ago, were such
as to give them the belief that he was murdered about that time, the probate court finds
that he "is dead to all legal intents and purposes, having died on or about March 25,
1888" -- that is to say, not at the time of his supposed murder, seven or eight years
before, but within a month before the filing of the petition for administration. The order
also, after directing that Milroy be appointed administrator, purports to direct that
"letters of guardianship" issue to him upon his giving bond, but this was evidently a
clerical error in the order or in the record, for it appears that he received letters of
administration and qualified under them.

The fundamental question in the case is whether letters of administration upon the
estate of a person who is in fact alive have any validity or effect as against him.

By the law of England and America before the Declaration of Independence, and for
almost a century afterwards, the absolute nullity of such letters was treated as beyond
dispute.

In Allen v. Dundas, 3 T.R. 125, in 1789, in which the Court of King's Bench held that
payment of a debt due to a deceased person to an executor who had obtained probate of
a forged will discharged the debtor notwithstanding the probate was afterwards
declared null and void, and administration granted to the next of kin, the decision went
upon the ground that the probate, being a judicial act of the ecclesiastical court within
its jurisdiction, could not, so long as it remained unrepealed, be impeached in the
temporal courts. It was argued for the plaintiff that the case stood as if the creditor had
not been dead, and had himself brought the action, in which case it was assumed on all
hands that payment to an executor would be no defense. But the court clearly stated the
essential distinction between the two cases. Mr. Justice Ashurst said:

"The case of a probate of a supposed will during the

All courts other than probate court are TEMPORAL and may not impeach the PROBATE (BC), but the PRESUMPTION-OF-DEATH may be "collaterally attacked" which is
where the one sentence and Lord's prayer come into play. You are admitting the FACTS of a matter, but those FACTS do no constitute a VALID-CLAIM in law, because
one is A) NOT-DEAD and B) State is administrator and usufructuary and C) BC is an INDEMNITY-RECEIPT, therefore the STATE OF has the DUTY to settle the CLAIM
under the RULES-OF-USUFRUCT. Also read: Pewee Coal v United States (State is proprietor for it took control of the Birth Event and seized control of the resulting
INFANT created)

5 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

Page 154 U. S. 40

life of the party may be distinguished from the present, because during his life, the
ecclesiastical court has no jurisdiction, nor can they inquire who is his representative;
but when the party is dead, it is within their jurisdiction."

And Mr. Justice Buller said:

"Then this case was compared to a probate of a supposed will of a living person; but in
such a case, the ecclesiastical court have no jurisdiction, and the probate can have no
effect; their jurisdiction is only to grant probates of the wills of dead persons. The
distinction in this respect is this: if they have jurisdiction, their sentence, as long as it
stands unrepealed, shall avail in all other places, but where they have no jurisdiction,
their whole proceedings are a nullity."

3 T.R. 129, 130. And such is the law of England to this day. Williams on Executors (9th
ed.) 478, 1795; Taylor on Ev. (8th ed.) §§ 1677, 1714.

In Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cranch 9, 12 U. S. 23, in 1814, this Court, speaking by Chief

Justice Marshall, said:

"To give the ordinary jurisdiction, a case in which, by law, letters of administration may
issue must be brought before him. In the common case of intestacy, it is clear that
letters of administration must be granted to some person by the ordinary, and though
they should be granted to one not entitled by law, still the act is binding until annulled
by the competent authority, because he had power to grant letters of administration in
the case. But suppose administration to be granted on the estate of a person not really
dead. The act, all will admit, is totally void. Yet the ordinary must always inquire and
decide whether the person whose estate is to be committed to the care of others be dead
or in life. It is a branch of every cause in which letters of administration issue. Yet the
decision of the ordinary that the person on whose estate he acts is dead, if the fact be
otherwise, does not invest the person he may appoint with the character or powers of an
administrator. The case in truth was not one within his jurisdiction. It was not one in
which he had a right to deliberate. It was not committed to him by the law. And
although one of the points occurs in all cases proper for his tribunal, yet that point
cannot bring the subject within his jurisdiction."

See also Mutual Benefit

6 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

Page 154 U. S. 41

Insurance Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238, 91 U. S. 243; Hegler v. Faulkner, 153 U. S. 109,

153 U. S. 118.

The same doctrine has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a series
of cases beginning seventy years ago. McPherson v. Cunliff (1824), 11 S. & R. 422, 430;
Peebles' Appeal (1826), 15 S. & R. 39, 42; Devlin v. Commonwealth (1882), 101 Penn.St.
273. In the last of those cases, it was held that a grant of letters of administration upon
the estate of a person who, having been absent and unheard from for fifteen years, was
presumed to be dead, but who, as it afterwards appeared, was in fact alive was
absolutely void, and might be impeached collaterally.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in 1861, upon full consideration, held
that an appointment of an administrator of a man who was in fact alive, but had been
absent and not heard from for more than seven years, was void, and that payment to
such an administrator was no bar to an action brought by the man on his return; and, in
answer to the suggestion of counsel, that

"seven years' absence, upon leaving one's usual home or place of business, without
being heard of, authorizes the judge of probate to treat the case as though the party
were dead,"

the court said:

"The error consists in this, that those facts are only presumptive evidence of death, and
may always be controlled by other evidence showing that the fact was otherwise. The
only jurisdiction is over the estate of the dead man. When the presumption arising from
the absence of seven years is overthrown by the actual personal presence of the
supposed dead man, it leaves no ground for sustaining the jurisdiction."

Jochumsen v. Suffolk Savings Bank, 3 Allen. 87, 96. See also Waters v. Stickney, 12
Allen, 1, 13; Day v. Floyd, 130 Mass. 488, 489.

The Civil Code of Louisiana, in title 3, "Of Absentees," contains provisions for the
appointment of a curator to take care of the property of any person who is absent from
or resides out of the state without having left an attorney therein, and for the putting of
his presumptive heirs into provisional possession after he has been absent and not
heard from for five, or, if he has left an attorney, seven, years, or sooner if

7 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

Page 154 U. S. 42

there be strong presumption of his death, and for judicial sale, if necessary, of his
movable or personal property, and safe investment of the proceeds; and, upon proof
that he has not been heard from for ten years, and has left no known heirs, for sale of
his whole property, and payment of the proceeds into the treasury of the state, as in the
case of vacant successions; but neither the curator nor those in provisional possession
can alienate or mortgage his immovables or real estate, and, if he returns at any time, he
recovers his whole property, or the proceeds thereof, and a certain proportion of the
annual revenues, depending upon the length of his absence. The main object of those
provisions, as their careful regulations show, is to take possession of and preserve the
property for the absent owner, not to deprive him of it upon an assumption that he is
dead. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that the appointment, by a
court having jurisdiction of successions, of an administrator of the estate of a man
represented to be dead, but who was in fact alive at the time of the appointment, was
void, and that persons claiming land of his under a sale by such administrator under
order of the court, followed by long possession, could not hold the land against his
heirs; and, speaking by Chief Justice Manning, said:

"The title of Hotchkiss as administrator is null, because he had no authority to make it,
and the prescription pleaded does not validate it. It was not a sale, the informalities of
which are cured by a certain lapse to time, and which becomes perfect through
prescription; but it was void, because the court was without authority to order it. . . . It
is urged on the part of the defendants that the decree of the court ordering the sale of
the succession property should protect them, and as the court which thus ordered the
sale had jurisdiction of successions, it was not for them to look beyond it. But that is
assuming as true that which we know was not true. The owner was not dead. There was
no succession."

And the court added that Chief Justice Marshall, in Griffith v. Frazier, above cited,
disposed of that position. Burns v. Van Loan (1877), 29 La.Ann. 560, 563.

Page 154 U. S. 43

The absolute nullity of administration granted upon the estate of a living person has
been directly adjudged or distinctly recognized in the courts of many other states.
French v. Frazier (1932), 7 J. J. Marsh. 425, 427; State v. White (1846), 7 Iredell 116;
Duncan v. Stewart (1854), 25 Ala. 408; Andrews v. Avory (1858), 14 Gratt. 229, 236;

8 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

Moore v. Smith (1858), 11 Richardson 569; Morgan v. Dodge (1862), 44 N.H. 255, 259;
Withers v. Patterson (1864), 27 Tex. 491, 497; Johnson v. Beazley (1877), 65 Mo. 250,
264; Melia v. Simmons (1878), 45 Wis. 334; D'Arusment v. Jones (1880) 4 Lea 251;
Stevenson v. Superior Court (1882), 62 Cal. 60; Perry v. St. Joseph & Western Railroad
(1882), 29 Kan. 420, 423; Thomas v. People (1883), 107 Ill. 517, in which the subject is
fully and ably treated.

The only judicial opinions cited at the bar (except the judgment below in the present
case) which tend to support the validity of letters of administration upon the estate of a
living person were delivered in the courts of New York and New Jersey within the last
twenty years.

In Roderigas v. East River Savings Institution, 63 N.Y. 460, in 1875, a bare majority of
the Court of Appeals of New York decided that payment of a deposit in a savings
institution to an administrator under letters of administration issued in the lifetime of
the depositor was a good defense to an action by an administrator appointed after his
death, upon the ground that the statutes of the State of New York made it the duty of the
surrogate, when applied to for administration on the estate of any person, to try and
determine the question whether he was alive or dead, and therefore his determination
of that question was conclusive. That decision was much criticized as soon as it
appeared, notably by Chief Justice Redfield in 15 Amer.Law Reg. (N.S.) 212. And in a
subsequent case between the same parties in 1879, the same court unanimously reached
a different conclusion, because evidence was produced that the surrogate never in fact
considered the question of death, or had any evidence thereof, thus making the validity
of the letters of administration to depend

Page 154 U. S. 44

not upon the question whether the man was dead, but upon the question whether the
surrogate thought so. Roderigas v. East River Savings Institution, 76 N.Y. 316.

In Plume v. Howard Savings Institution, 46 N.J.L., 211, 230, in 1884, which was
likewise an action to recover the amount of a deposit in a savings institution, the
plaintiff had been appointed by the surrogate administrator of a man who, as the
evidence tended to show, had neither drawn out any part of the deposit nor been heard
from for more than twenty years; an inferior court certified to the Supreme Court of
New Jersey the questions whether payment of the amount to the plaintiff would bar a
recovery thereof by the depositor and whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and

9 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

that court, in giving judgment for the plaintiff, observed, by way of distinguishing the
case from the authorities cited for the defendant, that

"in most if not all of such cases, it was affirmatively shown that the alleged decedent was
actually alive at the time of the issuance of letters of administration, while in the present
case there is no reason for even surmising such to have been the fact."

The grounds of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in the
case at bar, as stated in its opinion, were that the equities of the case appeared to be
with the defendants; that the court was inclined to follow the case of Roderigas v.
Institution, 63 N.Y. 460, and that, under the laws of the territory, the probate court, on
an application for letters of administration, had authority to find the fact as to the death
of the intestate, the court saying:

"Our statutes only authorize administration of the estates of deceased persons, and
before granting letters of administration, the court must be satisfied by proof of the
death of the intestate. The proceeding is substantially in rem, and all parties must be
held to have received notice of the institution and pendency of such proceedings where
notice is given as required by law. Section 1299 of the 1881 Code gave the probate court
exclusive original jurisdiction in such matters and authorized such court to summon
parties and witnesses and examine them touching any matter in controversy before

Page 154 U. S. 45

said court or in the exercise of its jurisdiction."

Such were the grounds upon which it was held that the plaintiff had not been deprived
of his property without due process of law. 5 Wash. 309, 317-318.

After giving to the opinion of the supreme court of the state the respectful consideration
to which it is entitled, we are unable to concur in its conclusion or in the reasons on
which it is founded.

The Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, after
other provisions which do not touch this case, ordains:

"Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These prohibitions extend to all acts of the state, whether through its legislative, its

10 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

executive, or its judicial authorities. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 100 U. S. 318-319;
Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 100 U. S. 346; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 103 U.
S. 397. And the first one, as said by Chief Justice Waite in United States v. Cruikshank,
92 U. S. 542, 92 U. S. 554, repeating the words of Mr. Justice Johnson in Bank of
Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 17 U. S. 244, was intended

"to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government,
unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice."

Upon a writ of error to review the judgment of the highest court of a state upon the
ground that the judgment was against a right claimed under the Constitution of the
United States, this Court is no more bound by that court's construction of a statute of
the territory or of the state, when the question is whether the statute provided for the
notice required to constitute due process of law, than when the question is whether the
statute created a contract which has been impaired by a subsequent law of the state, or
whether the original liability created by the statute was such that a judgment upon it has
not been given due faith and credit in the courts of another state. In every such case,
this Court must decide for itself the true construction of the statute. Huntington v.
Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 146 U. S. 683-684; Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. Tennessee, 153 U. S.
486, 153 U. S. 492-495.

Page 154 U. S. 46

No judgment of a court is due process of law if rendered without jurisdiction in the

court or without notice to the party.

The words "due process of law," when applied to judicial proceedings, as was said by
MR. JUSTICE FIELD, speaking for this Court,

"mean a course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have
been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of
private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal
competent by its Constitution -- that is, by the law of its creation -- to pass upon the
subject matter of the suit, and if that involves merely a determination of the personal
liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of
process within the state or his voluntary appearance."

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 95 U. S. 733.

11 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

Even a judgment in proceedings strictly in rem binds only those who could have made
themselves parties to the proceedings, and who had notice, either actually or by the
thing condemned being first seized into the custody of the court. The Mary, 9 Cranch
126, 13 U. S. 144; Hollingsworth v. Barbour, 4 Pet. 466, 29 U. S. 475; Pennoyer v. Neff,
95 U. S. 714, 95 U. S. 727. And such a judgment is wholly void if a fact essential to the
jurisdiction of the court did not exist. The jurisdiction of a foreign court of admiralty, for
instance, in some cases, as observed by Chief Justice Marshall,

"unquestionably depends as well on the state of the thing as on the constitution of the
court. If by any means whatever a prize court should be induced to condemn, as prize of
war, a vessel which was never captured, it could not be contended that this
condemnation operated a change of property."

Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 8 U. S. 269. Upon the same principle, a decree
condemning a vessel for unlawfully taking clams, in violation of a statute which
authorized proceedings for her forfeiture in the county in which the seizure was made,
was held by this Court to be void, and not to protect the officer making the seizure from
a suit by the owner of the vessel, in which it was proved that the seizure was not made in
the same county, although the

Page 154 U. S. 47

decree of condemnation recited that it was. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457.

The estate of a person supposed to be dead is not seized or taken into the custody of the
court of probate upon the filing of a petition for administration, but only after and
under the order granting that petition, and the adjudication of that court is not upon the
question whether he is living or dead, but only upon the question whether and to whom
letters of administration shall issue. Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238, 91
U. S. 243.

The local law on the subject, contained in the Code of 1881 of the Territory of
Washington, in force at the time of the proceedings now in question, and since
continued in force by article 27, section 2, of the constitution of the state, does not
appear to us to warrant the conclusion that the probate court is authorized to
conclusively decide, as against a living person, that he is dead, and his estate therefore
subject to be administered and disposed of by the probate court.

On the contrary, that law, in its very terms, appears to us to recognize and assume the

12 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

death of the owner to be a fundamental condition and prerequisite to the exercise by the
probate court of jurisdiction to grant letters testamentary or of administration upon his
estate, or to license any one to sell his lands for the payment of his debts. By § 1, the
common law of England, so far as not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States or with the local law, is made the rule of decision. In the light of the
common law, the exclusive original jurisdiction conferred by § 1299 upon the probate
court in the probate of wills and the granting of letters testamentary or of
administration is limited to the estates of persons deceased, and the power conferred by
that section to summon and examine on oath, as parties or witnesses, executors, and
administrators or other persons entrusted with or accountable for the "estate of any
deceased person," and "any person touching any matter of controversy before said court
or in the exercise of its jurisdiction," is equally limited. By § 1340, wills are to be proved
and letters testamentary or of administration are to be granted in the county of

Page 154 U. S. 48

"which deceased was a resident," or in which "he may have died," or in which any part
of his estate may be, "he having died out of the territory." By § 1388, administration of
the estate of "a person dying intestate" is to be granted to relatives, next of kin, or
creditors, in a certain order, with a proviso in case the person so entitled or interested
neglect "for more than forty days after the death of the intestate" to apply for
administration. By § 1389, an application for administration must "set forth the facts
essential to giving the court jurisdiction of the case," and state "the names and places of
residence of the heirs of the deceased, and that the deceased died without a will;" and,
by § 1391, notice of such application is to be given by posting in three public places in
the county where the court is held a notice "containing the name of the decedent," the
name of the applicant, and the time of hearing. And, by §§ 1493 and 1494, a petition by
an executor or administrator for the sale of real estate for the payment of debts must set
forth

"the amount of the personal estate that has come to his hands, and how much, if any,
remains undisposed of, a list and the amounts of the debts outstanding against the
deceased, as far as the same can be ascertained, a description of all the real estate of
which the testator or intestate died seized, the condition and value of the respective lots
and portions, the names and ages of the devisees, if any, and of the heirs of the
deceased,"

and must show that it is necessary to sell real estate "to pay the allowance to the family,

13 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

the debts outstanding against the deceased, and the expenses of administration."

Under such a statute, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, as shown by

the cases cited in the earlier part of this opinion, the jurisdiction of the court to which is
committed the control and management of the estates of deceased persons, by whatever
name it is called (ecclesiastical court, probate court, orphans' court, or court of the
ordinary or the surrogate), does not exist or take effect before death. All proceedings of
such courts in the probate of wills and the granting of administrations depend upon the
fact that a person is dead, and are null and void if he is alive. Their jurisdiction

Page 154 U. S. 49

in this respect being limited to the estates of deceased persons, they have no jurisdiction
whatever to administer and dispose of the estates of living persons of full age and sound
mind or to determine that a living man is dead and thereupon undertake to dispose of
his estate.

A court of probate must indeed inquire into and be satisfied of the fact of the death of
the person whose will is sought to be proved or whose estate is sought to be
administered, because, without that fact, the court has no jurisdiction over his estate,
and not because its decision upon the question, whether he is living or dead can in any
wise bind or estop him or deprive him, while alive, of the title or control of his property.

As the jurisdiction to issue letters of administration upon his estate rests upon the fact
of his death, so the notice given before issuing such letters assumes that fact, and is
addressed not to him, but to those who after his death may be interested in his estate as
next of kin, legatees, creditors, or otherwise. Notice to them cannot be notice to him,
because all their interests are adverse to his. The whole thing, so far as he is concerned,
is res inter alios acta.

Next of kin or legatees have no rights in the estate of a living person. His creditors
indeed, may, upon proper proceedings, and due notice to him, in a court of law or of
equity, have specific portions of his property applied in satisfaction of their debts. But
neither creditors nor purchasers can acquire any rights in his property through the
action of a court of probate, or of an administrator appointed by that court, dealing,
without any notice to him, with his whole estate as if he were dead.

The appointment by the probate court of an administrator of the estate of a living

person, without notice to him, being without jurisdiction and wholly void as against

14 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

him, all acts of the administrator, whether approved by that court or not, are equally
void. The receipt of money by the administrator is no discharge of a debt, and a
conveyance of property by the administrator passes no title.

The fact that a person has been absent and not heard from

Page 154 U. S. 50

for seven years may created such a presumption of his death as, if not overcome by
other proof, is such prima facie evidence of his death that the probate court may
assume him to be dead and appoint an administrator of his estate, and that such
administrator may sue upon a debt due to him. But proof, under proper pleadings, even
in a collateral suit, that he was alive at the time of the appointment of the administrator
controls and overthrows the prima facie evidence of his death and establishes that the
court had no jurisdiction and the administrator no authority, and he is not bound either
by the order appointing the administrator or by a judgment in any suit brought by the
administrator against a third person, because he was not a party to and had no notice of
either.

In a case decided in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of
New York in 1880, substantially like Roderigas v. East River Savings Institution, as
reported in 63 N.Y. 460, above cited, Judge Choate, in a learned and able opinion, held
that letters of administration upon the estate of a living man, issued by the surrogate
after judicially determining that he was dead, were null and void as against him; that
payment of a debt to an administrator so appointed was no defense to an action by him
against the debtor, and that to hold such administration to be valid against him would
deprive him of his property without due process of law within the meaning of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This Court concurs in
the proposition there announced

"that it is not competent for a state, by a law declaring a judicial determination that a
man is dead, made in his absence and without any notice to or process issued against
him, conclusive for the purpose of divesting him of his property and of vesting it in an
administrator for the benefit of his creditors and next of kin, either absolutely or in
favor of those only who innocently deal with such administrator. The immediate and
necessary effect of such a law is to deprive him of his property without any process of
law whatever as against him, although it is done by process of law against other people,
his next of kin, to whom notice is given. Such a statutory declaration of estoppel

15 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Scott v. McNeal (full text) :: 154 U.S. 34 (1894) :: Justia U.S. Supreme ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/34/case.html

Page 154 U. S. 51

by a judgment to which he is neither party nor privy, which has the immediate effect of
divesting him of his property, is a direct violation of this constitutional guaranty."

Lavin v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank, 1 F. 641.

The defendants did not rely upon any statute of limitations, nor upon any statute
allowing them for improvements made in good faith, but their sole reliance was upon a
deed from an administrator, acting under the orders of a court which had no
jurisdiction to appoint him or to confer any authority upon him as against the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed and case remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of
Washington for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports.
Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal
developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or
adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official
sources.

16 of 16 4/23/17, 10:09 AM
Reference
Reading
04
Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

legislation.gov.uk
The National Archives

Help Site Map Accessibility Contact Us Cymraeg

Home About Us Browse Legislation New Legislation Changes To Legislation Search Legislation

Title: Year: Number: Type: All Legislation (excluding draft) Search

Advanced Search

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

1666 c. 11 (Regnal. 18_and_19_Cha_2) Whole Act

Table of Contents Content More Resources

Previous Next Plain View Print Options

Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.

Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

1666 CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2

An Act for Redresse of Inconveniencies by want of Proofe of the Deceases of Persons beyond the Seas or absenting themselves, upon whose Lives Estates doe depend.

X1 Recital that Cestui que vies have gone beyond Sea, and that Reversioners cannot find out whether they are alive or dead.

Whereas diverse Lords of Mannours and others have granted Estates by Lease for one or more life or lives, or else for yeares determinable upon one or more life or lives And it hath often happened that
such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene granted have gone beyond the Seas or soe absented themselves for many yeares that the Lessors and Reversioners cannot finde out
whether such person or persons be alive or dead by reason whereof such Lessors and Reversioners have beene held out of possession of their Tenements for many yeares after all the lives upon which
such Estates depend are dead in regard that the Lessors and Reversioners when they have brought Actions for the recovery of their Tenements have beene putt upon it to prove the death of their Tennants
when it is almost impossible for them to discover the same, For remedy of which mischeife soe frequently happening to such Lessors or Reversioners.

Annotations:

Editorial Information
X1 Abbreviations or contractions in the original form of this Act have been expanded into modern lettering in the text set out above and below.

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1 Short title “The Cestui que Vie Act 1666” given by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 2
C2 Preamble omitted in part under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1
C3 Certain words of enactment repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1888 (c. 3) and remainder omitted under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3

[I.] Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead.
If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have beene or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme
by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such
Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every
Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heires or Assignes, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury
to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead.

II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)
F1 S. II repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), Sch. 1

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2

1 of 2 4/23/17, 11:06 AM
Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/18-19/11

Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)
F2 S. III repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1863 (c. 125)

IV If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.
[ X2 Provided alwayes That if any person or [ X3 person or] persons shall be evicted out of any Lands or Tenements by vertue of this Act, and afterwards if such person or persons upon
whose life or lives such Estate or Estates depend shall returne againe from beyond the Seas, or shall on proofe in any Action to be brought for recovery of the same [ X3 to] be made
appeare to be liveing; or to have beene liveing at the time of the Eviction That then and from thenceforth the Tennant or Lessee who was outed of the same his or their Executors
Administrators or Assignes shall or may reenter repossesse have hold and enjoy the said Lands or Tenements in his or their former Estate for and dureing the Life or Lives or soe long
terme as the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives the said Estate or Estates depend shall be liveing, and alsoe shall upon Action or Actions to be brought by him or them
against the Lessors Reversioners or Tennants in possession or other persons respectively which since the time of the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements
recover for damages the full Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawfull Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements,
and kepte or held out of the same by the said Lessors Reversioners Tennants or other persons who after the said Eviction received the Proffitts of the said Lands or Tenements or any of
them respectively as well in the case when the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives such Estate or Estates did depend are or shall be dead at the time of bringing of the said
Action or Actions as if the said person or persons where then liveing.]

Annotations:

Editorial Information
X2 annexed to the Original Act in a separate Schedule
X3 Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: O. omits [O. refers to a collection in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge]

Previous Next

Back to top
All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated © Crown copyright

When one is identified or recognized by the NAME, the PRESUMPTION is one is Dead, which is
another way of saying one has ABANDONED their interests (Estate), putting the Estate of the one under
the care, custody and control of the governors and tutors of this world (ie: CROWN and VATICAN) and
the Estate shall be used as SURETY to underwrite any DEBT that accrues because of one's CHOICE to
be governed: one's claim to one's Estate SUBROGATED

Subrogation: The substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim,
demand, or right, so that he or she who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the
debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or Securities

... remember, the State of Infancy (being a child: not taking care of one's own Estate (interests)) is a
PRIVILEDGE and with that PRIVILEDGE is a BURDEN; a TAX levied as a LIEN against the Estate of
which one services as Servant to the Estate and its governors and tutors. For as long as one remain
a child, he is no better than a servant, even if he be lord of the manor.

And since INFANCY is a privilege; a benefit, one can choose to REJECT the benefit for one is not
bound to accept anything made for his benefit, and once one rejects the benefit, one can then
EXPRESS the CESTUI QUE Trust to operate under New Testament and thus claim this Estate in the
name if Jesus Christ and for the glory of God Almighty and SEGREGATE the Estate from the care,
custody and control of the governors and tutors of this world.

2 of 2 4/23/17, 11:06 AM
Reference
Reading
05
« up

341 U.S. 114

71 S.Ct. 670

95 L.Ed. 809

UNITED STATES
v.
PEWEE COAL CO., Inc.

No. 168.

Argued Jan. 2, 3, 1951.

Decided April 30, 1951.

Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Burr Tracy Ansell, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr.
Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice JACKSON joined.

Respondent, Pewee Coal Co., Inc., is a coal mine operator whose property was allegedly
possessed and operated by the United States from May 1 to October 12, 1943, to avert a
nation-wide strike of miners. Pewee brought this action in the Court of Claims to recover
under the Fifth Amendment1 for the total operating losses sustained during that period.
After considering the evidence, the court held that there had been a 'taking' entitling
Pewee to compensation. It found the total operating loss to be $36,128.96, but rendered
judgment for only.$2,241.26, this amount being the portion of the operating loss which
the court found attributable to Government operation of the mine. 88 F.Supp. 426, 115
Ct.Cl. 626. Pewee did not seek review here. We granted the Government's petition for
certiorari2 in which two questions are presented: (1) Was there such a taking of Powee's
property as to justify compensation under the Fifth Amendment? (2) If there was, does
the record support the award of.$2,241.26?

First. We agree with the Court of Claims that there was a 'taking' requiring the
Government to pay Pewee. The facts upon which this conclusion rests are set out in the
findings and opinion below and need not be repeated in detail here. See 88 F.Supp. 426,
115 Ct.Cl. 626. The following are sufficient to show the general picture: On May 1, 1943,
the President issued Executive Order 9340, 8 Fed.Reg. 5695, directing the Secretary of
Interior '* * * to take immediate possession, so far as may be necessary or desirable, of
any and all mines producing coal in which a strike or stoppage has occurred or is
threatened, * * * and to operate or arrange for the operation of such mines * * *.' On the
same day, the Secretary issued an 'Order for Taking Possession' of most of the Nation's
mines, including Pewee's. 8 Fed.Reg. 5767. To convince the operators, miners and public
that the United States was taking possession for the bona fide purpose of operating the
mines, the Government formally and ceremoniously proclaimed that such was its
intention. It required mine officials to agree to conduct operations as agents for the
Government; required the American flag to be flown at every mine; required placards
reading 'United States Property!' to be posted on the premises; and appealed to the miners
to dig coal for the United States as a public duty. Under these circumstances and in view
of the other facts which were found, it should not and will not be assumed that the seizure
of the mines was a mere sham or pretense to accomplish some unexpressed governmental
purpose instead of being the proclaimed actual taking of possession and control. In
United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884, there
had been a government seizure of the mines under presidential and secretarial orders,
which insofar as here material, were substantially the same as those issued in the present
case. We rejected the contention of the mine workers that 'the Government's role in
administering the bituminous coal mines (was) for the most part fictional and for the
remainder nominal only.'3 We treated that seizure as making the mines governmental
facilities 'in as complete a sense as if the Government held full title and ownership.' Id.,
330 U.S. at pages 284—285, 67 S.Ct. at page 691. It follows almost as a matter of course
from our holding in United Mine Workers that the Government here 'took' Pewee's
property and became engaged in the mining business.4

Second. Having taken Pewee's property, the United States became liable under the
Constitution to pay just compensation. Ordinarily, fair compensation for a temporary
possession of a business enterprise is the reasonable value of the property's use. See
Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 93 L.Ed. 1765; United
States v. General Motors Co., 323 U.S. 373, 65 S.Ct. 357, 89 L.Ed. 311. But in the
present case, there is no need to consider the difficult problems inherent in fixing the
value of the use of a going concern because Pewee neither claimed such compensation
nor proved the amount. It proceeded on the ground that the Fifth Amendment requires the
United States to bear operating losses incurred during the period the Government
operates private property in the name of the public without the owner's consent. We
believe that this contention expresses a correct general principle which under the
circumstances of this case supports the judgment for.$2,241.26.

Like any private person or corporation, the United States normally is entitled to the
profits from, and must bear the losses of, business operations which it conducts. When a
private business is possessed and operated for public use, no reason appears to justify
imposition of losses sustained on the person from whom the property was seized. This is
conceptually distinct from the Government's obligation to pay fair compensation for
property taken, although in cases raising the issue, the Government's profit and loss
experience may well be one factor involved in computing reasonable compensation for a
temporary taking. Of course, there might be an express or implied agreement between the
parties that the Government should not receive operating profits nor bear the losses, in
which event the general principle would be inapplicable. But the possibility that such an
agreement existed in the present case may be disposed of quickly. Pewee's failure to seek
review here makes it unnecessary to consider whether the company consented to bear the
disallowed and major portion of the losses sustained during the period of governmental
control. And there is no indication that Pewee expressly or impliedly agreed to assume
the loss of.$2,241.26 which the court found mainly attributable to increased wage
payments made to comply with a War Labor Board decision.

Where losses resulting from operation of property taken must be borne by the
Government, it makes no difference that the losses are caused in whole or in part by
compliance with administrative regulations requiring additional wages to be paid. With a
without a War Labor Board order, when the Government increased the wages of the
miners whom it employed, it thereby incurred the expense. Moreover, it is immaterial
that governmental operation resulted in a smaller loss than Pewee would have sustained if
there had been no seizure of the mines. Whatever might have been Pewee's losses had it
been left free to exercise its own business judgment, the crucial fact is that the
Government chose to intervene by taking possession and operating control. By doing so,
it became the proprietor and, in the absence of contrary arrangements, was entitled to the
benefits and subject to the liabilities which that status involves.
The State of Birth took possession and operated control of the Birth Event by
and through the creation of the INFANT without telling anyone, thus no one
was left free to exercise their own business judgement, thus the State of Birth

The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed.

CHOSE to intervene and by doing so, became proprietor entitled to the
benefits and subject to the liabilities that STATUS affords (usufructuary: ALL
revenues and debts accrue to the Treasury) .... unless, the STATE OF can get
7 one into an ALTERNATIVE-AGREEMENT .... such as getting one to agree
they are the DEAD-DUDE, thus without right nor claim to the Earth as a living
soul = REJECT God almighty and Jesus Christ = DEAD to God almighty =
Affirmed. accept Mark of Cain and/or Mark of the Beast

Mr. Justice REED, concurring.

I agree that in this case there was a 'taking' by eminent domain that requires the
Government to pay just compensation to the owner of the property for its use. However,
it is impossible for me to accept the view that the 'taking' in this case requires the United
States to bear all operating losses during the period it controls the property without the
owner's consent or agreement. Such a view would lead to disastrous consequences where
properties necessarily taken for the benefit of the Nation have a long record of operating
losses, e.g., certain railroads, coal mines, or television broadcasting stations. The question
of who bears such losses is not, I think, 'conceptually distinct' from the question of just
compensation. Losses or profits on the temporary operation after the declaration or
judgment of taking are factors to be taken into consideration in determining what is just
compensation to the owner.

10

This is a temporary taking. The relatively new technique of temporary taking by eminent
domain is a most useful administrative device: many properties, such as laundries, or coal
mines, or railroads, may be subjected to public operation only for a short time to meet
war or emergency needs, and can then be returned to their owners. However, the use of
the temporary taking has spawned a host of difficult problems, e.g., United States v.
General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 65 S.Ct. 357, 89 L.Ed. 311; United States v. Petty
Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372, 66 S.Ct. 596, 90 L.Ed. 729; Kimball Laundry Co. v. United
States, 338 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 93 L.Ed. 1765, especially in the fixing of the just
compensation. Market value, despite its difficulties, provides a fairly acceptable test for
just compensation when the property is taken absolutely. See United States v. Miller, 317
U.S. 369, 63 S.Ct. 276, 87 L.Ed. 336; United States v. John F. Felin & Co., 334 U.S. 624,
68 S.Ct. 1238, 92 L.Ed. 1614; United States v. Toronto H. & B. Navigation Co., 338 U.S.
396, 70 S.Ct. 217, 94 L.Ed. 195; United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U.S.
121, 70 S.Ct. 547, 94 L.Ed. 707. But in the temporary taking of operating properties, e.g.,
Marion & Rye Valley R. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 280, 46 S.Ct. 253, 70 L.Ed. 585;
United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed.
884, market value is too uncertain a measure to have any practical significance. The
rental value for a fully functioning railroad for an uncertain period is an unknowable
quantity. This led to a government guarantee of earnings in the First World War, 40 Stat.
451. Cf. United States v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 339 U.S. 261, 70 S.Ct. 644,
94 L.Ed. 816. The most reasonable solution is to award compensation to the owner as
determined by a court under all the circumstances of the particular case.

11

Temporary takings can assume various forms. There may be a taking in which the owners
are ousted from operation, their business suspended, and the property devoted to new
uses. United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 65 S.Ct. 357, 89 L.Ed. 311;
United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U.S. 372, 66 S.Ct. 596, 90 L.Ed. 729; Kimball
Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 93 L.Ed. 1765. A second kind
of taking is where, as here, the Government, for public safety or the protection of the
public welfare, 'takes' the property in the sense of assuming the responsibility of its
direction and employment for national purposes, leaving the actual operations in the
hands of its owners as government officials appointed to conduct its affairs with the
assets and equipment of the controlled company. Examples are the operation of railroads,
motor carriers, or coal mines. Marion & Rye Valley R. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S.
280, 46 S.Ct. 253, 70 L.Ed. 585; United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330
U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 667, 91 L.Ed. 884.

12

When, in a temporary taking, no agreement is reached with the owners, the courts must
determine what payments the Government must make. Whatever the nature of the
'taking,' the test should be the constitutional requirement of 'just compensation.' However,
there is no inflexible requirement that the same incidents must be used in each application
of the test.

13

So far as the second kind of temporary 'taking' is concerned, the Government's

supervision of a losing business for a temporary emergency ought not to place upon the
Government the burden of the losses incurred during that supervision unless the losses
were incurred by governmental acts, e.g., if the business would not have been conducted
at all but for the Government, or if extra losses over what would have been otherwise
sustained were occasioned by Government operations. Where the owner's losses are what
they would have been without the 'taking,' the owner has suffered no loss or damage for
which compensation is due. Cf. Marion & Rye Valley R. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S.
280, 46 S.Ct. 253, 70 L.Ed. 585. The measure of just compensation has always been the
loss to the owner, not the loss or gain to the Government. Boston Chamber of Commerce
v. Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 195, 30 S.Ct. 459, 460, 54 L.Ed. 725.

14

Here the Court of Claims has correctly applied these principles in a case of a losing
operation in a temporary taking. It has found that a certain sum was expended without
legal or business necessity so to do. This sum was the extra allowance paid at the
direction of the United States under a certain War Labor Board recommendation that had
no legal sanction. 50 U.S.C.App. § 1507, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1507; E.O. 9017, 3
CFR Cum.Supp. 1075, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1507 note. I would not overturn its
finding in this case and would therefore affirm.

15

Mr. Justice BURTON, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr.
Justice MINTON concur, dissenting.

16

I agree that there was a 'taking' of the mining property from May 1 to October 12, 1943,
but I find no ground for allowing the respondent to recover the sum here sought as
compensation for such taking.
17

This case is within the principle stated in Marion & Rye Valley R. Co. v. United States,
270 U.S. 280, 282, 46 S.Ct. 253, 254, 70 L.Ed. 585, as follows: '(E)ven if there was
technically a taking, the judgment for defendant was right. Nothing was recoverable as
just compensation, because nothing of value was taken from the company; and it was not
subjected by the Government to pecuniary loss. Nominal damages are not recoverable in
the Court of Claims.'

18

Here there is no showing by the company of any rental value due it as compensation for
the Government's possession of its properties. There is no showing that anything of
compensable value was taken by the Government from the company, or that the
Government subjected the company to any pecuniary loss. The dissenting judge in the
Court of Claims pointed out that—'This extra expense consisted of an increased vacation
allowance to the plaintiff's workmen, and the refund to them of occupational charges like
rentals on mine lamps. The court has not found that the plaintiff (company) could have
operated its mine without making the concessions directed by the War Labor Board, nor
has it found what the losses to the plaintiff would have been if the Government had not
intervened and the strike had continued. I think that the court is not justified in awarding
the plaintiff the amount of these expenditures when it does not and, I think, could not,
find that the plaintiff was, in fact, financially harmed by the Government's acts.' 88
F.Supp. at page 431, 115 Ct.Cl. at pages 678—679.

19

Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Claims and allow no recovery
by the respondent.

'* * * nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'
U.S.Const., Amend. V.

340 U.S. 808, 71 S.Ct. 55.

Brief for United Mine Workers of America and John L. Lewis, p. 32, United States v.
United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884.

4
The case of Marion & Rye Valley R. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 280, 46 S.Ct. 253,
254, 70 L.Ed. 585, is cited by the Government as supporting its view that there was no
'taking' here. In that case, however, the Court had 'no occasion to determine whether in
law the President took possession and assumed control' of a railroad. Instead, it dealt with
the problem on the assumption that there was a 'taking' and proceeded to decision on the
finding that the railroad 'was not subjected by the Government to pecuniary loss.' This
decision cannot be accepted as controlling the present case since whether there is a
'taking' must be determined in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved.

CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org

Reference
Reading
06
63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees § 241

American Jurisprudence, Second Edition

Database updated August 2011

Public Officers and Employees

Janice Holben, J.D., Alan J. Jacobs, J.D., Jack K. Levin, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D., Barbara J. Van Arsdale, J.D.

IX. Powers, Duties, and Rights, in General

C. Particular Powers and Duties; Requirements As to Performance Thereof
1. In General; Responsibilities to Government and Public; Ethical Duties
a. Overview

Topic Summary Correlation Table References

§ 241. Generally; fiduciary nature of duties

West's Key Number Digest

West's Key Number Digest, Officers and Public Employees 110 to 112

A public officer must act primarily for the benefit of the public;[FN1] by accepting a public office, one undertakes to
perform all the duties of the office, and while he or she remains in such office the public has the right to demand that he
or she perform such duties.[FN2] A public officer owes an undivided duty to the public whom he or she serves.[FN3]
Public policy demands that an officeholder discharge his or her duties with undivided loyalty,[FN4] and that every public
officer is bound to perform the duties of his or her office faithfully.[FN5] An officer's or public employee's duty of loyalty
to the public and his or her superiors is similar to that of an agent of a private principal.[FN6]
As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be
exercised on behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.[FN7] A public
official is held in public trust.[FN8] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on
whose behalf he or she serves,[FN9] and stands in a fiduciary relationship to the citizens that he or she has been elected
to serve.[FN10] Public officers are fiduciaries and, when dealing with public property, must act with the utmost good
faith, fidelity, and integrity.[FN11] The fiduciary duty is to the usufruct as trustees of the LORD: is one usufruct of the Tree of Life or
usufruct of the Tree of Knowledge? God's or CEASAR'S? Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of Satan?
However, there is some authority to the effect that a public officer may not have a fiduciary duty to perform a
specified act where there is no statute requiring as much.[FN12] Furthermore, election to public office does not make
one the private servant of all inquiring citizens.[FN13] Neither does the Constitution require all public employees to
intercede, outside their own bureaucratic hierarchies, on behalf of persons whose rights are in jeopardy.[FN14]