confused capacities & agreements

[Dark Optimist]

How can you derail gibberish? Nobody has a clue what Dnatural and Parzival are on about so, after being diverted from religion, the thread may have eventually ended up discussing British Columbia small brewery IPA's in the natural course of events.

Is this an alternative to Godwin's law? If so, I think it's a much more civilized end result of devolution of the thread.

[Dnatural]

Looking through the unimaginative responses without substance to myself or Parzival, and then looking at another thread with these same [seemly] troglodytes who try and save face by zeroing in on everything except the real subject (in which they continue to prove our points but cannot feel the proverbial slapping of their own face), that this website operates as a packer boat which just waits for the fishing boats to come in and unload their real substance. Smart... good to see what the high seas are filled with today as opposed to trolling their own lines.

I have an extremely hard time accepting that [supposedly] educated persons can be without logic, rhyme or reason. I just won't believe it and reading their diatribes they interact like they are all hooked up to their head sets playing Xbox... if these are lawyers it does prove my point [and I suspect yours Parzival], and so I have got exactly what I wanted... so quid pro quo.

Left brained primates do suffer from the creativity to go outside of the program and invent their own way. And those dependent upon the use of right brain only, are wingnuts. Without balance of the primordial division in the mind it is impossible to arrive at truth, as their facts cannot ever be checked by reasoning b/c it is interpreted as conflict instead.

Science again fellas & gals [and any other letters that desires not to be left out], such as why psychologist will never treat a narcissist b/c they know, through experience, that the narcissist will always think that they know better and so will not listen to the one learned in the reason why the narcissist is there in the first place... the psychologist knows that they are not seeking help for their afflictions, they are needing their ego stroked instead.

Lawyers and judges I am not gunning for you, you are never in my sights b/c the law has already perfected the purpose of its tenure... to prove that facts in equity will remain as truth until the truth of the law annuls the fact.

[Pottapaug1938]

Looking through the unimaginative responses without substance to myself or Parzival, and then looking at another thread with these same [seemly] troglodytes who try and save face by zeroing in on everything except the real subject (in which they continue to prove our points but cannot feel the proverbial slapping of their own face), that this website operates as a packer boat which just waits for the fishing boats to come in and unload their real substance. Smart... good to see what the high seas are filled with today as opposed to trolling their own lines.

I have an extremely hard time accepting that [supposedly] educated persons can be without logic, rhyme or reason. I just won't believe it and reading their diatribes they interact like they are all hooked up to their head sets playing Xbox... if these are lawyers it does prove my point [and I suspect yours Parzival], and so I have got exactly what I wanted... so quid pro quo.

Left brained primates do suffer from the creativity to go outside of the program and invent their own way. And those dependent upon the use of right brain only, are wingnuts. Without balance of the primordial division in the mind it is impossible to arrive at truth, as their facts cannot ever be checked by reasoning b/c it is interpreted as conflict instead.

Science again fellas & gals [and any other letters that desires not to be left out], such as why psychologist will never treat a narcissist b/c they know, through experience, that the narcissist will always think that they know better and so will not listen to the one learned in the reason why the narcissist is there in the first place... the psychologist knows that they are not seeking help for their afflictions, they are needing their ego stroked instead.

Lawyers and judges I am not gunning for you, you are never in my sights b/c the law has already perfected the purpose of its tenure... to prove that facts in equity will remain as truth until the truth of the law annuls the fact.

"Unimaginative responses?" You don't deserve any better, Snowflake; and you peg the "chutzpah needle" when you whine about our responses being "without substance". Each and every one of your posts, and those of parzival, have been wholly without substance. You have yet to make a coherent point, or accurately state what the law is -- instead, you use centuries-old legal tomes which have long ceased to have any relevance except for perhaps a historical background. Recall my quote from Crain v. Commissioner, above; and try to realize that you, and parzival, will not get a respectful response, from any of us, until your writings merit one.

[Dnatural]

Looking through the unimaginative responses without substance to myself or Parzival, and then looking at another thread with these same [seemly] troglodytes who try and save face by zeroing in on everything except the real subject (in which they continue to prove our points but cannot feel the proverbial slapping of their own face), that this website operates as a packer boat which just waits for the fishing boats to come in and unload their real substance. Smart... good to see what the high seas are filled with today as opposed to trolling their own lines.

I have an extremely hard time accepting that [supposedly] educated persons can be without logic, rhyme or reason. I just won't believe it and reading their diatribes they interact like they are all hooked up to their head sets playing Xbox... if these are lawyers it does prove my point [and I suspect yours Parzival], and so I have got exactly what I wanted... so quid pro quo.

Left brained primates do suffer from the creativity to go outside of the program and invent their own way. And those dependent upon the use of right brain only, are wingnuts. Without balance of the primordial division in the mind it is impossible to arrive at truth, as their facts cannot ever be checked by reasoning b/c it is interpreted as conflict instead.

Science again fellas & gals [and any other letters that desires not to be left out], such as why psychologist will never treat a narcissist b/c they know, through experience, that the narcissist will always think that they know better and so will not listen to the one learned in the reason why the narcissist is there in the first place... the psychologist knows that they are not seeking help for their afflictions, they are needing their ego stroked instead.

Lawyers and judges I am not gunning for you, you are never in my sights b/c the law has already perfected the purpose of its tenure... to prove that facts in equity will remain as truth until the truth of the law annuls the fact.

"Unimaginative responses?" You don't deserve any better, Snowflake; and you peg the "chutzpah needle" when you whine about our responses being "without substance". Each and every one of your posts, and those of parzival, have been wholly without substance. You have yet to make a coherent point, or accurately state what the law is -- instead, you use centuries-old legal tomes which have long ceased to have any relevance except for perhaps a historical background. Recall my quote from Crain v. Commissioner, above; and try to realize that you, and parzival, will not get a respectful response, from any of us, until your writings merit one.

Thank you for the term of endearment, Cupcake, then let's return to actual discussion as we know weak minds only discuss people, average minds events and strong minds ideas.

Not law but an operation of law, has - in your mind - the operation of remitter been redacted, annulled, left to pasture, repealed... in-other-words does this remedy exist today? And if so what is it speaking to? (Please stay on topic... how else are we going to arrive at the intended destination).

[Pottapaug1938]

"Unimaginative responses?" You don't deserve any better, Snowflake; and you peg the "chutzpah needle" when you whine about our responses being "without substance". Each and every one of your posts, and those of parzival, have been wholly without substance. You have yet to make a coherent point, or accurately state what the law is -- instead, you use centuries-old legal tomes which have long ceased to have any relevance except for perhaps a historical background. Recall my quote from Crain v. Commissioner, above; and try to realize that you, and parzival, will not get a respectful response, from any of us, until your writings merit one.

Thank you for the term of endearment, Cupcake, then let's return to actual discussion as we know weak minds only discuss people, average minds events and strong minds ideas.

Not law but an operation of law, has - in your mind - the operation of remitter been redacted, annulled, left to pasture, repealed... in-other-words does this remedy exist today? And if so what is it speaking to? (Please stay on topic... how else are we going to arrive at the intended destination).
[/quote]

"Crain v. Commissioner".

Your gibberish is meaningless. The term "remitter" is of relevance, if at all, only in the area of real property law. Outside of that, it is completely irrelevant.

[parzival]

once again the issue is municipal law,,,, that deals with the rights to english common law of the land...

so once again no municipal law in USA, so lets start there, to prove reception of the ENGLISH COMMON LAW and how constitutions and treaties are a subsequent conveyance to the common law....

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.20.180

Judges' oath of office, official bonds.
Every judge of such municipal court, before he or she enters upon the duties of his or her office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of judge of the municipal court of the city of . . . . . . (naming such city) according to the best of my ability; and I do further certify that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of an organization that advocates, the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence." The oath shall be filed in the office of the county auditor. He or she shall also give such bonds to the state and city for the faithful performance of his or her duties as may be by law or ordinance directed.

this one speaks for itself,.....

https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/11/munic ... ers-guide/

Municipal Codes: A Beginner’s Guide

and the foundation differences...

Monism and dualism in international law
he United States of America has a "mixed" monist-dualist system; international law applies directly in US courts in some instances but not others. US Constitution, art. VI, does indeed say that treaties are part of the Supreme Law of the Land, as suggested by the quote above; however, its Supreme Court, as late as the recent case of Medellín v. Texas,[8] has restated that some treaties are not "self-executing." Such treaties must be implemented by statute before their provisions may be given effect by national and sub-national courts. Similarly with regard to customary international law, its Supreme Court stated, in the case of the Pacquete Habana (1900), that "international law is part of our law." However, it also said that international law would not be applied if there is a controlling legislative, executive, or judicial act to the contrary...[9]

Treaties ratified in accordance with the Constitution automatically become part of the municipal law of the USA".[7]

watch the video
http://www.imla.org/about-imla/about-mission-history

and the finally

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4508020?se ... b_contents

Municipal Law and International Law Tangle Once More
J. G. Collier
The Cambridge Law Journal
Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 7-9

so ya, that says everything in one docuemnt about USA, and WHAT these English law colonies really are....

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... al#p279021

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... al#p279022

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... al#p279023

[morrand]

Not law but an operation of law, has - in your mind - the operation of remitter been redacted, annulled, left to pasture, repealed... in-other-words does this remedy exist today? And if so what is it speaking to? (Please stay on topic... how else are we going to arrive at the intended destination).

"Crain v. Commissioner".

Your gibberish is meaningless. The term "remitter" is of relevance, if at all, only in the area of real property law. Outside of that, it is completely irrelevant.

It is completely relevant within the context that Dnatural appears to be working in, to wit:

To test my conviction as to stating that whether all laws today only govern land, and not people, we can begin with our earlier mention of William the Conqueror in AD 1066, who did just that... conquered England. People come and go but land is constant. If you make rules of how the land shall be managed, then through these rules will come to affect those who chose to live upon the land.

Promulgating rules of the land does not affect the rights of men, and his free will, but rather affect a man when he volunteers to be a servant to the land... the land serves us, it gives naturally and we in turn give back through our appreciation for what it gives. This is a closed circuit from which allows energy to flow. ...

To come from this with the inner-standing that law is about land, and the estates created therefrom, should one then consider to stop learning about how to navigate laws which have to do with the idea of the legal person, as this is proof of equity, and instead focus on what are the laws of the land, and how did they come to be?

So remitter, being (according to Wiktionary) "The sending or placing back of a person to a title or right formerly held; the restitution of one who obtains possession of property under a defective title, to his rights under some valid title by virtue of which he might legally have entered into possession only by suit," is entirely relevant. Somehow. Perhaps. I don't really know, because that whole document is a heaping pile of ipse dixit based on ipse dixit, with highly questionable connections to reality throughout, e.g.:

A great movie concerning the rigidness of common law can be witnessed in The Merchant of Venice - Shakespeare

Ah, yes, one of Shakespeare's finest films, much better than his later work, Showgirls.

Anyway, within the world that is described in that document (which is not our own), real estate law underlies all aspects of life. But as I am unfamiliar with the operation of law within that world, I do not know whether remitter exists there today. If it does, I can guess that it would work to restore a person who is subjected to the Statute of Uses to their natural state of existence under common (land) law. Close?

[parzival]

Not law but an operation of law, has - in your mind - the operation of remitter been redacted, annulled, left to pasture, repealed... in-other-words does this remedy exist today? And if so what is it speaking to? (Please stay on topic... how else are we going to arrive at the intended destination).

"Crain v. Commissioner".

Your gibberish is meaningless. The term "remitter" is of relevance, if at all, only in the area of real property law. Outside of that, it is completely irrelevant.

It is completely relevant within the context that Dnatural appears to be working in, to wit:

To test my conviction as to stating that whether all laws today only govern land, and not people, we can begin with our earlier mention of William the Conqueror in AD 1066, who did just that... conquered England. People come and go but land is constant. If you make rules of how the land shall be managed, then through these rules will come to affect those who chose to live upon the land.

Promulgating rules of the land does not affect the rights of men, and his free will, but rather affect a man when he volunteers to be a servant to the land... the land serves us, it gives naturally and we in turn give back through our appreciation for what it gives. This is a closed circuit from which allows energy to flow. ...

To come from this with the inner-standing that law is about land, and the estates created therefrom, should one then consider to stop learning about how to navigate laws which have to do with the idea of the legal person, as this is proof of equity, and instead focus on what are the laws of the land, and how did they come to be?

So remitter, being (according to Wiktionary) "The sending or placing back of a person to a title or right formerly held; the restitution of one who obtains possession of property under a defective title, to his rights under some valid title by virtue of which he might legally have entered into possession only by suit," is entirely relevant. Somehow. Perhaps. I don't really know, because that whole document is a heaping pile of ipse dixit based on ipse dixit, with highly questionable connections to reality throughout, e.g.:

A great movie concerning the rigidness of common law can be witnessed in The Merchant of Venice - Shakespeare

Ah, yes, one of Shakespeare's finest films, much better than his later work, Showgirls.

Anyway, within the world that is described in that document (which is not our own), real estate law underlies all aspects of life. But as I am unfamiliar with the operation of law within that world, I do not know whether remitter exists there today. If it does, I can guess that it would work to restore a person who is subjected to the Statute of Uses to their natural state of existence under common (land) law. Close?

lol wrong subject matter, LAND is the subject matter jurisdiction...... and the subject matter, and the personal jurisdiction is by where you reside... in a municipal territory under English law of property, = estates in reversion remainder and reversion in common law, not remainder, reversion and executory devices lol.... life liberty and land, vs life liberty and property of a municipal subject... as LIFE TENANT ......

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... er#p278332

the remitter was removed by the moderator so need to repost it....

trust by operation of law, requires a redress by operation of law.....

https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-302/

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
BOOK 3, CHAPTER 2
Of Redress by the Mere Operation of Law

HE remedies for private wrongs, which are effected by the mere operation of law, will fall within a very narrow compass: there being only two instances of this sort that at present occur to my recollection; the one that of retainer, where a creditor is made executor or administrator to his debtor; the other, in the case of what the law calls a remitter.

II. REMITTER is where he, who has the true property or jus proprietatis in lands but is out of possession thereof and has no right to enter without recovering possession in an action, has afterwards the freehold cast upon him by some subsequent, and of course defective, title: in this case he is remitted, or sent back, by operation of law, to his ancient and more certain title.4 The right of entry, which he has gained by a bad title, shall be ipso facto [for that reason] annexed to his own inherent good one; and his defeasible estate shall be utterly defeated and annulled, by the instantaneous act of law, without his participation or consent.5 As if A disseizes B; that is, turns him out of possession, and dies leaving a son C; hereby the estate descends to C the son of A, and B is barred from entering thereon till he proves his right in an action: now, if afterwards C the heir of the disseizor makes a lease for life to D, with remainder to B the disseizee for life, and D dies; hereby the remainder accrues to B, the disseizee: who thus gaining a new freehold by virtue of the remainder, which is a bad title, is by act of law remitted, or in of his former and surer estate.6 For he has hereby gained a new right of possession, to which the law immediately annexes his ancient right of propriety.

IF the subsequent estate, or right of possession, be gained by a man’s own act or consent, as by immediate purchase being of full age, he shall not be remitted. For the taking such subsequent estate was his own folly, and shall be looked upon as a waiver of his prior right.7 Therefore it is to be observed, that to every remitter there are regularly these incidents; an ancient right, and a new defeasible estate of freehold, uniting in one and the same person; which defeasible estate must be cast upon the tenant, not gained by his own act or folly. The reason given by Littleton,8 why this remedy, which operates silently and by the mere act of law, was allowed, is somewhat similar to that given in the preceding article; because otherwise he who has right would be deprived of all remedy. For as he himself is the person in possession of the freehold, there is no other person against whom he can bring an action, to establish his prior right. And for this cause the law does adjudge him in by remitter; that is, in such plight as if he had lawfully recovered the same land by suit. For, as lord Bacon observes,9 the benignity of the law is such, as when, to preserve the principles and grounds of law, it deprives a man of his remedy without his own fault, it will rather put him in a better degree and condition than in a worse. Nam quod remedio destituitur, ipsa re valet, si culpa absit. [What is without remedy, is thereby strengthened, if free from fault.] But there shall be no remitter to a right, for which the party has no remedy by action:10 as if the issue in trial be barred by the fine or warranty of his ancestor, and the freehold is afterwards cast upon him; he shall not be remitted to his estate tail:11 for the operation of the remitter is exactly the same, after the union of the two rights, as that of a real action would have been before it. As therefore the issue in could not by any action have recovered his ancient estate, he shall not recover it by remitter.

AND thus much for these extrajudicial remedies, as well for real as personal injuries, which are furnished by the law, where the parties are so peculiarly circumstanced, as not to be able to apply for redress in the usual and ordinary methods to the courts of public justice.

[parzival]

and why municipal law and law of the land takes priority....
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-101/

BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1
Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
The objects of the laws of England are so very numerous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other; both of which are equally productive of confusion.

Now, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong; or, as Cicero,1 and after him our Bracton,2 has expressed it, sanctio justa, jubens honesta et prohibens contraria; it follows, that the primary and principal objects of the law are rights, and wrongs. In the prosecution therefore of these commentaries, I shall follow this very simple and obvious division; and shall in the first place consider the rights that are commanded, and secondly the wrongs that are forbidden by the laws of England.

Rights are however liable to another subdivision; being either, first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things. Wrongs also are a divisible into, first, private wrongs, which, being a infringement merely of particular rights, concern individuals only, and are called civil injuries; and secondly, public wrongs, which, being a breach of general and public rights, affect the whole community, and are called crimes and misdemeanors.

The objects of the laws of England falling into this fourfold division, the present commentaries will therefore consist of the four following parts: 1. The rights of persons; with the means whereby such rights may be either acquired or lost. 2. The rights of things; with the means also of acquiring and losing them. 3. Private wrongs, or civil injuries; with the means of redressing them by law. 4. Public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors; with the means of prevention and punishment.

We are now, first, to consider the rights of persons; with the means of acquiring and losing them.

Now the rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the municipal law are to two sorts; first, such as are due from every citizen, which are usually called civil duties; and, secondly, such as belong to him, which is the more popular acceptation of rights or jura. Both may indeed be comprised in this latter division; for as all social duties are of a relative nature, at the same duties are of a relative nature, at the same time that they are due from one man, or set of men, they must also be due to another. But I apprehend it will be more clear and easy, to consider many of them as duties required from, rather than as rights belonging to, particular persons. Thus, for instance, allegiance is usually, and therefore most easily, considered as the duty of the people, and protection as the duty of the magistrate; and yet they are, reciprocally, the rights as well as duties of each other. Allegiance is the right of the magistrate, and protection the right of the people.

Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposed of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.

and the estate in municipal law.... under the common law.....

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 11
Of Estates in Possession, Remainder, and Reversion
HITHERTO we have considered estates solely with regard to their duration, or the quantity of interest which the owners have therein. We are now to consider them in another view; with regard to the time of their enjoyment, when the actual pernancy of the profits (that is, the taking, perception, or receipt, of the rents and other advantages arising therefrom) begins. Estates therefore, with respect to this consideration, may either be in possession, or in expectancy: and of expectancies there are two sorts; one created by act of the parties, called a remainder; the other by act of law, and called a reversion.

I. Of estates in possession, (which are sometimes called estates executed, whereby a present interest passes to and resides in the tenant, not depending on any subsequent circumstance or contingency, as in the case of estates executory) there is little or nothing peculiar to be observed. All the estates we have hitherto spoken of are of this kind; for, in laying down general rules, we usually apply them to such estates as are then actually in the tenant’s possession. But the doctrine of estates in expectancy contains some of the nicest and most abstruse learning in the English law. These will therefore require a minute discussion, and demand some degree of attention.

An executory devise of lands is such disposition of them by will, that thereby no estate vests at the death of the devisor, but only on some future contingency. It differs from a remainder in three very material points: 1. That it needs not any particular estate to support it. 2. That by it a fee-simple or other less estate, maybe limited after a fee-simple. 3. That by this means a remainder may be limited of a chattel interest, after a particular estate for life created in the same.

and reversion, remainder left out, since it is a subsequent estate like executory lol......

III. An estate in reversion is the residue of an estate left in the grantor, to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted out by him.40 Sir Edward Coke41 describes a reversion to be the returning of land to the grantor or his heirs after the grant is over. As, if there be a gift in tail, the reversion of the fee is, without any special reservation, vested in the donor by act of law: and so also the reversion, after an estate for life, years, or at will, continues in the lessor. For the fee-simple of all lands must abide somewhere; and if he, who was before possessed of the whole, carves out of it any smaller estate, and grants it away, whatever is not so granted remains in him. A reversion is therefore never created by deed or writing, but arises from construction of law; a remainder can never be limited, unless by either deed or devise. But both are equally transferable, when actually vested, being both estates in praesenti, though taking effect in futuro.

The doctrine of reversions is plainly derived from the feudal constitution. For, when a feud was granted to a man for life, or to him and his issue male, rendering either rent, or other services; then, on his death or the failure of issue male, the feud was determined and resulted back to the lord or proprietor, to be again disposed of at his pleasure. And hence the usual incidents to reversions are said to be fealty and rent. When no rent is reserved on the particular estate, fealty however results of course, as an incident quite inseparable, and may be demanded as a badge of tenure, or acknowledgment of superiority; being frequently the only evidence that the lands are held at all. Where rent is reserved, it is also incident, though not inseparably so, to the reversion42 The rent may be granted away, reserving the reversion; and the reversion may be granted away, reserving the reversion; and the reversion may be granted away, reserving the rent; by special words: but by a general grant of the reversion, the rent will pass with it, as incident thereunto; though by the grant of the rent generally, the reversion will not pass. The incident passes by the grant of the principal, but not e converso [on the other hand]: for the maxim of law is, “accessorium non ducit, sed sequitur, suum principale” [“the accessory does not precede but follows his principal”].43

and goes on to say...

In order to assist such persons as have any estate in remainder, reversion, or expectancy, after the death of others, against fraudulent concealments of their deaths, it is enacted by the statute 6 Ann. c. 18. that all persons on whose lives any lands or tenements are held, shall (upon application to the court of chancery and order made thereupon) once in every year, if required, be produced to the court, or its commissioners; or, upon neglect or refusal, they shall be taken to be actually dead, and the person entitled to such expectant estate may enter upon and hold the lands and tenements, till the party shall appear to be living.

and...

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 20
Of Alienation by Deed
IN treating of deeds I shall consider, first, their general nature; and, next, the several sorts or kinds of deeds, with their respective incidents. And in explaining the former, I shall examine, first, what a deed is; secondly, its requisites; and, thirdly, how it may be avoided.

and...

THESE are the principal species of deeds or matter in pais, by which estates may be either conveyed, or at least affected. Among which the conveyances to uses are by much the most frequent of any; though in these there is certainly one palpable defect, the want of sufficient notoriety: so that purchasers or creditors cannot know with any absolute certainty, what the estate, and the title to it, in reality are, upon which they are to lay out or to lend their money. In the ancient feudal method of conveyance (by giving corporal seizin of the lands) this notoriety was in some measure answered; but all the advantages resulting from thence are now totally defeated by the introduction of death-bed devises and secret conveyances: and there has never been yet any sufficient guard provided against fraudulent charges and encumbrances; since the disuse of the old Saxon custom of transacting all conveyances at the county court, and entering a memorial of them in the chartulary or ledger-book of some adjacent monastery;218 and the failure of the general register established by king Richard the first, for mortgages made to Jews, in the capitula de Judaeis, of which Hoveden has preserved a copy. How far the establishment of a like general register, for deeds, and wills, and other acts affecting real property, would remedy this inconvenience, deserves to be well considered. In Scotland every act and event, regarding the transmission of property, is regularly entered on record.219 And some of our own provincial divisions, particularly the extended county of York, and the populous county of Middlesex, have prevailed with the legislature220 to erect such registers in their several districts. But, however plausible these provisions may appear in theory, it has been doubted by very competent judges, whether more disputes have not arisen in those counties by the inattention and omissions of parties, than prevented by the use of registers.

these are the interests in COMMON LAW, where only the estate in possesion and executory are within legislation... by grant of law from the COMMON LAW LAND TENURE...

https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... w-england/

BOOK 2: RIGHTS OF THINGS
Chap. 1: Of Property in General
Chap. 2: Of Real Propety and, First, of Corporeal Hereditaments
Chap. 3: Incorporeal Hereditaments
Chap. 4: Of the Feudal System
Chap. 5: Of the Ancient English Tenures
Chap. 6: Of the Modern English Tenures
Chap. 7: Of Freehold Estates, of Inheritance
Chap. 8: Of Freeholds, Not of Inheritance
Chap. 9: Of Estates Less than Freehold
Chap. 10: Of Estates Upon Condition
Chap. 11: Of Estates in Possession, Remainder, and Reversion

[Dnatural]

"Unimaginative responses?" You don't deserve any better, Snowflake; and you peg the "chutzpah needle" when you whine about our responses being "without substance". Each and every one of your posts, and those of parzival, have been wholly without substance. You have yet to make a coherent point, or accurately state what the law is -- instead, you use centuries-old legal tomes which have long ceased to have any relevance except for perhaps a historical background. Recall my quote from Crain v. Commissioner, above; and try to realize that you, and parzival, will not get a respectful response, from any of us, until your writings merit one.

Thank you for the term of endearment, Cupcake, then let's return to actual discussion as we know weak minds only discuss people, average minds events and strong minds ideas.

Not law but an operation of law, has - in your mind - the operation of remitter been redacted, annulled, left to pasture, repealed... in-other-words does this remedy exist today? And if so what is it speaking to? (Please stay on topic... how else are we going to arrive at the intended destination).

"Crain v. Commissioner".

Your gibberish is meaningless. The term "remitter" is of relevance, if at all, only in the area of real property law. Outside of that, it is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]

Then let's look into property law as to set the foundations for remitter. We can do this by looking into the worldwide acceptance of acquisitive prescription in commerce.

(technically challenged here [new to this forum] how does one attach a capture?)

[parzival]

ok how about this one....

mike and shane want to get into an agreement on land, they both agree on the rules of dominion and that an agreement must be in place to have authority over another based on residing within that dominion(territory)

Mike grants lands to shane with only 4 requirements,

1. can have the land back at anytime.
2. anything made from the lands with in trust, is shared equally with all of shanes other customers, and if mike takes back the land, only at that time will shane be required to pay 2% of all the transactions based on the natural resources that come from the lands he takes back when he leaves.
3.the land is granted as undivided share, meaning the one leaving carves out what they want from the whole group grant...
4. the land trust agreement can only be constituted by taking the lands in trust as trustee, and bound by the use, same as all in the group and equal within your own law of the land.

shane now has to many customers and needs to make a land trust company to manage the estates in trust and regulate the use as agreed by all members..

mike accepts the transfer by joining and accepting titles not from shane anymore, but his company created to manage the estates in trust.

shane granted this power to another and no longer has thep ower to manage the people to the lands, the lands where transferred by act of law. yet mike and the others must agree by joining the land trust company created or remove the trust as required..

as we can see, shane is nor the company nor mike are true owners of the estates, not the land the estates are created from and mike does not OWN ALL LANDS OF THE GROUP, only a share......

so as we can see, by mike taking from the company of from the shane, expresses a trust as stated in Bill fo Rights 1688 as well as the municipal corporations created by common law, as well as the municipal corporations now under their own constitution.....

these are very basic facts to contracts and trust, to not see your own system by ignoring your roots does not help you or anyone, it just allows the assumption to continue....

[Pottapaug1938]

Then let's look into property law as to set the foundations for remitter. We can do this by looking into the worldwide acceptance of acquisitive prescription in commerce.

(technically challenged here [new to this forum] how does one attach a capture?)

Don't bother. Real property law has no relevance to the law of commerce.

[Pottapaug1938]

so as we can see, by mike taking from the company of from the shane, expresses a trust as stated in Bill fo Rights 1688 as well as the municipal corporations created by common law, as well as the municipal corporations now under their own constitution.....

these are very basic facts to contracts and trust, to not see your own system by ignoring your roots does not help you or anyone, it just allows the assumption to continue....

Wrong.

[parzival]

so as we can see, by mike taking from the company of from the shane, expresses a trust as stated in Bill fo Rights 1688 as well as the municipal corporations created by common law, as well as the municipal corporations now under their own constitution.....

these are very basic facts to contracts and trust, to not see your own system by ignoring your roots does not help you or anyone, it just allows the assumption to continue....

Wrong.

not what your scholars and MUNICIPAL LAWS say....
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 60#p279092

anyone that tries to say USA does not follow municipal law gets an immediate ignore...... this page along destroys the beliefs by fact of law....



http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 49#p279138

take away the common law, then you take away your limited sovereignty

[parzival]

its seems the topic is over, due to the issue was ignorance of the WHOLE law, where government gets its power, yet to be govt need to be a CITIZEN, under common law of the land in trust as life tenant, and any land you purchase will state tenant in common or joint tenant under a fee simple estate.....

by ignoring municipal law, allows the foundations to be over reached by a subsequent conveyance, where the lands can never be injure, YOU CAN NEVER OWN THEM ABSOLUTE, just as LIFE TENANTS UNDER A TRUST OF LAND....

the last post destoyes the belief English common law of estates in possession, remainder and reversion apply along with the doctrine of remitter, which is now written as SLA, LOP and Trustee Act 1925, and can not be changed, just added to... and are subject to that grant.....

this also proves everyone that has been trying to refute this fact of law, would also breach the requirements of common law if the situation presented itself to you currently...

[parzival]

"Unimaginative responses?" You don't deserve any better, Snowflake; and you peg the "chutzpah needle" when you whine about our responses being "without substance". Each and every one of your posts, and those of parzival, have been wholly without substance. You have yet to make a coherent point, or accurately state what the law is -- instead, you use centuries-old legal tomes which have long ceased to have any relevance except for perhaps a historical background. Recall my quote from Crain v. Commissioner, above; and try to realize that you, and parzival, will not get a respectful response, from any of us, until your writings merit one.

Thank you for the term of endearment, Cupcake, then let's return to actual discussion as we know weak minds only discuss people, average minds events and strong minds ideas.

Not law but an operation of law, has - in your mind - the operation of remitter been redacted, annulled, left to pasture, repealed... in-other-words does this remedy exist today? And if so what is it speaking to? (Please stay on topic... how else are we going to arrive at the intended destination).

"Crain v. Commissioner".

Your gibberish is meaningless. The term "remitter" is of relevance, if at all, only in the area of real property law. Outside of that, it is completely irrelevant.

Then let's look into property law as to set the foundations for remitter. We can do this by looking into the worldwide acceptance of acquisitive prescription in commerce.

(technically challenged here [new to this forum] how does one attach a capture?)
[/quote]

have to upload a picture to a free site then post the link by using the image button then putting the link inside the beginning and end quote.

[parzival]

Then let's look into property law as to set the foundations for remitter. We can do this by looking into the worldwide acceptance of acquisitive prescription in commerce.

(technically challenged here [new to this forum] how does one attach a capture?)

Don't bother. Real property law has no relevance to the law of commerce.

thats not what these say, and they are from the USA and current, especially the first link the video clearly states that property is everything , dont forget life tenants "bundle of sticks" for rights
why not post your state law of property

how about a video, from the USA, since they think they are different in some way

https://www.coursera.org/lecture/americ ... rt-1-Ndz3j

and the full 2 year property law course of the USA, by josh blackman...

the first lesson, Prop 1 - Class 1 From Nature to Commons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA3mpbs ... doImn3Ygrb

Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposed of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.

[parzival]

Question for parzival/Dnatural.

Do you agree with the propositions that the monarchy held/holds land as the king's prerogative (which is common law, or law of the land), the Roman church created uses as right in property (canon law), the private sector created the second level of use (which is equity law), and that everyday banking policies constitute admiralty law or the law of commerce?

Your answer to this question will clarify much.

already answered that..... scroll back please... you guys and Dnatural are funny 4 pages a day

[eric]

ok how about this one....

mike and shane want to get into an agreement on land, they both agree on the rules of dominion and that an agreement must be in place to have authority over another based on residing within that dominion(territory)

Mike grants lands to shane with only 4 requirements,

1. can have the land back at anytime.
2. anything made from the lands with in trust, is shared equally with all of shanes other customers, and if mike takes back the land, only at that time will shane be required to pay 2% of all the transactions based on the natural resources that come from the lands he takes back when he leaves.
3.the land is granted as undivided share, meaning the one leaving carves out what they want from the whole group grant...
4. the land trust agreement can only be constituted by taking the lands in trust as trustee, and bound by the use, same as all in the group and equal within your own law of the land.

shane now has to many customers and needs to make a land trust company to manage the estates in trust and regulate the use as agreed by all members..

Just a note from someone who knows more about this type of deal than you do - it's called contract farming. How the scenario would actually work out:
1. Mike is land rich and cash poor.
2. Shane is in the opposite situation and is looking for land to farm.
3. They sober up the next morning after a night of drinking at the Lazy Ace where they signed the deal and both look for ways to get out of a deal that has no advantages for either of them. Yes this would be the view out my window if the Lazy Ace wasn't blocking my sight lines:
https://www.alamy.com/canola-field-in-b ... 91237.html

[Pottapaug1938]

Parzival -- you are wasting your time when you are trying to convince us that the law of real property applies to every fact of our lives, or that ancient English laws always are relevant to modern American life. They just aren't. No amount of word salad, no marginally relevant videos -- which given your past track record, you would misunderstand, in any event, and no mélange of UK, Canadian and American law will change that.

Plain and simple -- neither you nor Dnatural have any clue as to what the law is. Do yourselves a favor, and save your breath.