Probate
another liquidation fraud scam
more than a Human Rights Violation (HRV) → a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (CAH)
Although this explanation is simplified the principles are as set out
Like the fraudulent liquidation industry concerning corporations/businesses, the liquidation of personal estates on death is a lucrative 'market' for Legal vultures – and it is achieved through jiggery-pokery of 'secondary' law (Rules/Procedures/Practices of Courts) DEFEATING Supreme & Primary Laws – and the more levels of Courts, each with their own differing Rules etc., the more the abusive complexities of 'secondary' laws, and hence the more protected the fraud scams of liquidators.
UDHR/ECHR/Constitutions are Supreme Laws (and in that order of Supremity); Statutory Laws made & enacted by Parliaments are 'Primary' laws; Rules/Procedures/Practices of Court which are made, through a Board appointed for same purpose, by Legals for the benefit of Legals, and to the detriment of Society as a whole are 'secondary' laws – and secondary laws are structured so as to specifically DEFEAT Primary and/or Supreme Laws – all of which close the doors of Justice to society, which thus renders a Justice system dishonest & corrupt & a nation as a neo-Nazi State.
Justice systems have evolved through decades/centuries of manipulations by Legals, totally incompetent of understanding Systems & Controls, and who have essentially compiled a complex web of hidden abusive, fraudulent, criminal practices behind a tatty veneer of Human Rights false respectability.
By 'secondary' Law it is meant those Statutory Instruments which are effected into Law by a blanket Act of Parliament/Oireachtas vis: Statutory Instrument Act 1947, which 'secondary' laws unlawfully bypass proper & full Parliament/Oireachtas process.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1947/act/44/enacted/en/print
And under which (for e.g.) the specific Rules of Court, drawn up by a Board, become Law but without formal process of a Bill through Parliament.
(The Board is as set out at:-
http://courts.ie/rules.nsf/LookupPageLink/Circuit+Rules+Introduction?OpenDocument )
Again: these 'secondary' Laws are structured in such a way so as to DEFEAT Supreme & Primary Laws – hence VIOLATE UDHR/ECHR/Constitution.
One can see a clear example of Justice violation by viewing: SI 510/2001 – Circuit Court Rules; Order 28 'Summary Judgement'.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/si/510/made/en/print#l1-30
Order 28 is an example of how a Judge can ignore & DEFEAT the UDHR/EHCR/Constitution & Primary Law which places the family unit as 'the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State' (UDHR)
ECHR & Constitution provide similar/identical assurances.
YET – 'secondary' law (Circuit Court Rules) unlawfully DEFEAT this SUPREME LAW protection.
The Family Home Protection Act 1976 (FHPA)(& as amended by Family Law Act 1995 & 1996) is ignored by Judges.
FHPA S10. Provides: 'the Circuit Court, … shall, if a defendant so requires, transfer the proceedings to the High Court, …' - but Judges unlawfully ignore such requirements requested by a Defendant.
More still – the Constitution was superseded by the UDHR then later also the ECHR and still no provision made to COMPEL lower Court Judges to refer clear Rights violations to the High Court or above.
Rights violations are achieved by unlawful summary judgements by which process the Judge is unlawfully/unconstitutionally empowered to accept the prima facie evidence of a plaintiff – in other words, unless a person appears to defend, and even if appearance to defend, the defendant is placed in the onerous position of disproving plaintiff WITHOUT the Judge FIRST verifying the Plaintiff's application.
i.e. THE LAW DOES NOT PROTECT – 'protect' being a POSITIVE obligation.
Therefore a judge is allowed, by unlawful/unconstitutional 'secondary' law to DEFEAT the UDHR/ECHR/Constitution by NOT verifying the 'evidence' & allegations as submitted by a Plaintiff.
AND, because these abuses are achieved through SYSTEMIC & SYSTEMATIC 'secondary' Laws they are in fact Human Rights Violations (HRVs).
BUT, BUT, BUT, moreover, these HRVs are done KNOWINGLY, hence INTENTIONALLY – it follows that these HRVs are CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
BUT, Judges (in Courts lower than High Courts) can hide behind a Constitutional provision of Art34.3.2 & 3 which, to effect, states that no lower Court shall have jurisdiction to question the validity of a law, …...'
What this means is that Judges must 'follow orders' – according to the Rules, that is, i.e. unlawful 'secondary' law, regardless of whether it clearly violates the Constitution, and whereby precedences are set – BUT, such precedences violates the UDHR & ECHR as was clearly established at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi War Criminals – i.e. 'following orders' is NO defence.
Consequently the Constitutional provision (here, in Ireland's case) of Art34.3.2 & 3 are HRVs – as Judges cannot simply ignore a Human Right that is unlawfully negated or negatived by a nation's 'secondary' Law.
BUT, this IS the methodology of achieving fundamental Human Rights Violation (HRV) & Crimes Against Humanity (CAH) → through 'legalised' jiggery-pokery
---
Probate is the term & process whereby a deceased person & person's estate are determined and Executor or administrator appointed so as to 'wind up', finalise, the estate.
Common Law recognises that ownership of property/goods (of whatever nature: cash, toys, land …. etc.) must rest ultimately with a natural person – companies etc. have natural persons that have share ownership whilst trusts have persons (trustees) with executive authority (not ownership) to beneficiaries.
A person can die testate (leaving a Will of Beneficiaries and, usually, named Executors) or intestate (no Will) – in both cases ownership of the deceased's estate passes immediately, but temporarily, to the most senior Justice of the country – until the issue of Will/no-Will is determined by a Probate Court.
In the case of a Will ownership theoretically rests immediately (upon death of the person) with the Beneficiaries & Creditors but in practice it rests temporarily with the senior Justice until such time as the Will is confirmed by Court & the Executor is confirmed as appointed and the Executor has complied with determination of Beneficiaries & Creditors and the wishes as per Will
In the case off 'no Will' (or no Executor named in a Will) an Administrator is appointed to determine who, by law, is entitled to Benefit & who has preferential creditor claims & other issues.
Note: it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person NOT to have a line of Beneficiaries – it can be that those Beneficiaries can never be established (within reasonable bounds) but there is ALWAYS Beneficiaries, it only requires reasonable effort to try to establish those persons.
All this seems perfectly logical & immensely fair – BUT it is NOT beneficial to 'liquidation vultures'. Much as convicted UK surgeon Ian Paterson felt that business would be better if he could convince patients of malignity of e.g. breast cancer so as to perform unnecessary operations –> butchery – so too is it beneficial for Legals to engage butchery litigation & scams – to somehow obtain temporary ownership of a deceased estate (c.f. insolvent company, etc.)
This is achieved through the 'jiggery-pokery' of creating a pseudo-persona vis: a 'personal representative of the deceased' distinctly different to Executor (or Administrator), but being the same natural person, whereby full ownership of the estate now moves from the most senior Justice to this pseudo-persona, which is in fact a non-person because a deceased person CANNOT have a 'personal representative' because the deceased person is no longer a person – and thereby the estate can be fraudulently raided by this pseudo-persona BEFORE the Beneficiaries can receive their entitlement, of what little is left – AND ALL WITH JUDICIAL COMPLICITY
A 'personal representative of a deceased person' violates all REASON as upon death a person no longer exists, so too does a personal representative no longer exist.
This creation of a pseudo-persona (personal representative) TOTALLY VIOLATES Supreme Law AND Primary Law – it is achieved SOLELY by fraudulent manipulation of upper Laws by 'secondary' Laws (those laws manipulated by Judges, with the able assistance of the Legal community – i.e. the Rules/Procedures/Practices of Courts; for how else can a Legal progress without joining the bandwagon???)
It is NOT necessary for ownership to pass from the senior Justice until the Beneficiaries are determined.
It is also NOT necessary for matters to be confused by the use of two different terms vis: Executor & Administrator
It simply requires appointment by Court of a person so entitled & empowered to establish the Will/no Will & hence establish Beneficiaries, Creditors etc. –> Executive powers but no ownership.
If any Beneficiary or Creditor were to challenge the Executor then that B/C has a minefield of gang-banging by Legals within the corrupt (in)Justice system.
It should also be noted that these kinds of fraud scams violate Supreme Laws and alone FULLY JUSTIFIES the invoking of UDHR Preamble Right to oppose tyranny & oppression.
ALL Judges are FULLY KNOWING that these fraud scams:- are INTENTIONAL, are SYSTEMIC & SYSTEMATIC, are protective of corporate & other Organised Crime, aggregate Nationally & Internationally, are CAUSAL of mass disparities & Starvation Genocides – hence are CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
Claimed ignorance of these realities is no excuse.
It is by free choice that a person appointed as Judge acts as:
a Judge – looking downwards from Supreme Law – constructively protecting,
OR
as a Tyrant - looking upwards from 'secondary' law – destructively disprotecting.
It is also free-choice whether anyone invokes UDHR Preamble Right to rebel against Tyrants
Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.