confused capacities & agreements

[Dnatural]

Frederic William Maitland said, “equity without the law would be as a castle in the air, impossibility.”

This simple quote explains it all and is evident that today's lawyers firmly believe that the law has been repealed (should look up the word prescription) even though that equity, the jurisprudence without self evident truth, its jurisdiction is only over matters concerning concepts annexed to the law (land) itself, that b/c it blankets the courts today it is all that exists... 'The law has been repealed' they boldly exclaim... over & over... without any knowledge of what is law before equity.

Building their castles in the air - so to speak.

It is called 'Subject Matter'. Lawyers [it is true] can only argue the subject matter pertaining to the abstract.

It is also true that if a certain body of law has nothing to do with the subject matter in question then it has no jurisdiction.

10 million dollar question is.. . Can equity repeal the law when they are not the same subject matter? ... rhetorical.

Can the Law of Property (LOP) repeal anything in the Settled Land Act (SLA) when it is the SLA that gave the LOP its right to force and effect over equitable estates... not legal title?

Did the USA fight for independence from the law (result - unlawful trespass/treason, &c) or for the right to create a constitution over equitable interest, which is legal. (Hint: the USA fought a constitutional monarchy so a creature of equity).

Is the preemption naturally excluded from the courts today b/c they do not deal with the same subject matter? Is this a logical conclusion?

LOP s.185 Merger.

'There is no merger by operation of law only of any estate the beneficial interest in which would not be deemed to be merged or extinguished in equity.'

AND

LOP s. 186 Rights of pre-emption capable of release.

'All statutory and other rights of pre-emption affecting a legal estate shall be and be deemed always to have been capable of release, and unless released shall remain in force as equitable interests only.'

As you see lawyers can only deal with the subject matter 'equitable interests', the same as the Law of Property, those interest that have not been released evident by the fact that equity is the bases of their courts.

So once released (one's agreement to the equitable interest only, now split into legal and equitable titles to property via government agency) would one not be noticed under the rights of settlor under the SLA; once released. SLA is the preemption. Equity is the evidence of the exclusion.

Chambers can here both law and equity BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME b/c it is commingling private & public. So what parzival was attempting to do is prove that the law is still active, BUT lawyers cannot access it, as they have no right to the law, only equity. I have, and I suspect parzival has, a right to the law, the preemption, the higher law based on self evident truths whereby lawyers can only deal in the legal quagmire, the cesspool of arguing issues that ONLY are concerned with limited liability actions... 'those that are annexed to the land but not the land itself'. ([in quotes] Coke, Blackstone, Maitland, Putney, et al., their description not mine).

They will ALWAYS be defeated in law b/c the law cannot hear them as equity cannot hear the law. It is this simple.

Trying my best to simplify this so that the Quatloss'ers castles that are floating in the air, supported by nothing except fiction, that there is - in truth not fictional fact - land below their clouds and as such it is going to be painful when it all comes crashing down.

More Dnatural horsedroppings; and no more accurate or literate than those of parzival. To give but one example:

"Did the USA fight for independence from the law (result - unlawful trespass/treason, &c) or for the right to create a constitution over equitable interest, which is legal. (Hint: the USA fought a constitutional monarchy so a creature of equity)."

We fought for the independence of our thirteen states; and then we created, first, the Articles of Confederation (1777) and then the Constitution (1787). Equity had (and has) nothing to do with it all. We did NOT "fight for independence from the law"; indeed, we STARTED with English common law, and then built upon it with our own common and statute law, and the Constitution.

I won't even attempt to respond to this as it does more to support what I just said then refute it... blind one is... see they cannot. Your castle looks to be closer to the land than once thought... hold on.

[Pottapaug1938]

More Dnatural horsedroppings; and no more accurate or literate than those of parzival. To give but one example:

"Did the USA fight for independence from the law (result - unlawful trespass/treason, &c) or for the right to create a constitution over equitable interest, which is legal. (Hint: the USA fought a constitutional monarchy so a creature of equity)."

We fought for the independence of our thirteen states; and then we created, first, the Articles of Confederation (1777) and then the Constitution (1787). Equity had (and has) nothing to do with it all. We did NOT "fight for independence from the law"; indeed, we STARTED with English common law, and then built upon it with our own common and statute law, and the Constitution.

I won't even attempt to respond to this as it does more to support what I just said then refute it... blind one is... see they cannot. Your castle looks to be closer to the land than once thought... hold on.
[/quote]

You must be twins, because one of you could not possibly be that clueless.

[Pottapaug1938]

Chambers can here both law and equity BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME

Oh, yes they can. Law and equity have been merged in federal courts, and in 47 of our 50 states, for decades. If you bothered to consult legal authorities published in the 20th century, or later, you might learn that for yourself.
[/quote]

This is b/c you think the common law that merged with equity is the same common law which originated from AD 1066... they are not.

[/quote]

Of course it isn't the same common law, Blackstone. Not only has more than a millennium passed, since 1066, with many additions to the common law; much of the common law has been abolished by statute or constitutional provision. In the US, we have been developing our own common law, for centuries; so what England has done, since then, is of no application whatsoever in modern American jurisprudence, except in (at most) a historical sense.

And, by the way -- it wasn't "common" law which merged with equity; it was "law". Among other things, that's why American lawyers no longer describe themselves as "attorneys at law and counselors in equity", unless they choose to do so because they like the way that it reads.

[Dnatural]

More Dnatural horsedroppings; and no more accurate or literate than those of parzival. To give but one example:

"Did the USA fight for independence from the law (result - unlawful trespass/treason, &c) or for the right to create a constitution over equitable interest, which is legal. (Hint: the USA fought a constitutional monarchy so a creature of equity)."

We fought for the independence of our thirteen states; and then we created, first, the Articles of Confederation (1777) and then the Constitution (1787). Equity had (and has) nothing to do with it all. We did NOT "fight for independence from the law"; indeed, we STARTED with English common law, and then built upon it with our own common and statute law, and the Constitution.

I won't even attempt to respond to this as it does more to support what I just said then refute it... blind one is... see they cannot. Your castle looks to be closer to the land than once thought... hold on.

You must be twins, because one of you could not possibly be that clueless.
[/quote]

'We fought for the independence of our thirteen states'...from what, who did you fight? Your first sentence. What did you fight for as a state is of mind and so annexed to the land but not the land itself... for if it was for land then you fought against every single individual's right to corporeal hereditaments in which England has only a trust to (hint: 'constitutional monarchy'). One can not steal what the other party does not first possess.... FFS.

Show me one single ruling that speaks to USA holding droit, droit to land and I will show you that you just said you are a slave, to a fiction, through involuntary servitude. Only a man can possess ownership & possession of land... a fiction of law CANNOT b/c it is a fiction.

Perhaps it be best to take a break and call upstairs for your mother to make you a sandwich as you are appearing to be light headed.

NEXT!

[Dnatural]

Chambers can here both law and equity BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME

Oh, yes they can. Law and equity have been merged in federal courts, and in 47 of our 50 states, for decades. If you bothered to consult legal authorities published in the 20th century, or later, you might learn that for yourself.

This is b/c you think the common law that merged with equity is the same common law which originated from AD 1066... they are not.

[/quote]

Of course it isn't the same common law, Blackstone. Not only has more than a millennium passed, since 1066, with many additions to the common law; much of the common law has been abolished by statute or constitutional provision. In the US, we have been developing our own common law, for centuries; so what England has done, since then, is of no application whatsoever in modern American jurisprudence, except in (at most) a historical sense.

And, by the way -- it wasn't "common" law which merged with equity; it was "law". Among other things, that's why American lawyers no longer describe themselves as "attorneys at law and counselors in equity", unless they choose to do so because they like the way that it reads.
[/quote]

'In the US, we have been developing our own common law, for centuries..' to what. What is the basis of your new common law. Does this law ONLY deal with incorporeal hereditaments or does this law deal with corporeal hereditaments.

All that has been said here is that the USA cannot ever repeal any laws it first does not have right to appeal. You are in agreement to only deal with titles annexed to the land but not the land itself!!!!!

This looks to be the reason for the entirety of this exercise... to prove a point, at the level of one's programming, not unlike any other religion (tag line: Home of the free) whereby they can ONLY deal with the fictions created in law so believe they have no recourse except to obey the fiction created by law... THIS IS INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE and so proof that there is no law to speak of to which you have come to believe through the religion of the USA. Please stop hitting yourself. To be law it HAS TO be free of slavery and involuntary servitude... do you inner-stand rhyme and reason? You are saying you are subject to the fiction, you are subject to the a group. What is this if you cannot leave the group of English and American law? It is a belief and not law.

No wonder all we hear about is transhumanism and legal persons b/c evidently there are no more men left, just slaves to the fiction.

[Pottapaug1938]

'We fought for the independence of our thirteen states'...from what, who did you fight? Your first sentence. What did you fight for as a state is of mind and so annexed to the land but not the land itself... for if it was for land then you fought against every single individual's right to corporeal hereditaments in which England has only a trust to (hint: 'constitutional monarchy'). One can not steal what the other party does not first possess.... FFS.

Show me one single ruling that speaks to USA holding droit, droit to land and I will show you that you just said you are a slave, to a fiction, through involuntary servitude. Only a man can possess ownership & possession of land... a fiction of law CANNOT b/c it is a fiction.

Perhaps it be best to take a break and call upstairs for your mother to make you a sandwich as you are appearing to be light headed.

NEXT!

I've been trying to respond to this gibberish for the last 10 minutes; but you show yourself to be so profoundly clueless as to the state of American law, and so hung up on centuries-old, antiquated legal tomes, texts and verbiage, that I've finally decided that your challenge is so idiotic that it does not deserve the respect of a cogent reply. You might as well challenge me to find a court case addressing the state of free and socage tenure, in the United States.

[Pottapaug1938]

Dnatural hallucinated:

'In the US, we have been developing our own common law, for centuries..' to what. What is the basis of your new common law. Does this law ONLY deal with incorporeal hereditaments or does this law deal with corporeal hereditaments.

It deals with all kinds of law, Blackstone. The "basis of [our] common law is American appellate court cases, interpreting the Constitution, statutes (which can and have abolished common law), and prior court cases.

All that has been said here is that the USA cannot ever repeal any laws it first does not have right to appeal.

More gibberish. In my lifetime, I have seen many laws repealed. Before my lifetime, the 18th Amendment to our Constitution was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

[Dnatural]

'We fought for the independence of our thirteen states'...from what, who did you fight? Your first sentence. What did you fight for as a state is of mind and so annexed to the land but not the land itself... for if it was for land then you fought against every single individual's right to corporeal hereditaments in which England has only a trust to (hint: 'constitutional monarchy'). One can not steal what the other party does not first possess.... FFS.

Show me one single ruling that speaks to USA holding droit, droit to land and I will show you that you just said you are a slave, to a fiction, through involuntary servitude. Only a man can possess ownership & possession of land... a fiction of law CANNOT b/c it is a fiction.

Perhaps it be best to take a break and call upstairs for your mother to make you a sandwich as you are appearing to be light headed.

NEXT!

I've been trying to respond to this gibberish for the last 10 minutes; but you show yourself to be so profoundly clueless as to the state of American law, and so hung up on centuries-old, antiquated legal tomes, texts and verbiage, that I've finally decided that your challenge is so idiotic that it does not deserve the respect of a cogent reply. You might as well challenge me to find a court case addressing the state of free and socage tenure, in the United States.

YOU ARE RIGHT!... everything you have said up until this point. Although without any meat added to the subject matter... regardless it is still 100% my fault for in engaging in Quatloos... like if I went to an orgy and began to complain that there is another guy in this room besides me. Not kewl.

This is not the right forum for logical reasons... the fact is 'Only if one does not show that they know, they cannot therefore ever be proven that they know.' I mean this would go against every fiber of education and [if you are a lawyer] reason one goes to work every morning. Stupid me. Dummy right here.

I see it. And I apologize for stringing everyone along for my own self gain. I mean this sincerely that there are many out there that need to be under continual supervision and brought to justice for their tenancy crimes. Without lawyers and the judicial system that supports them, whereby there is no higher law then that which the law society establishes (true law when one's own union investigates its own union), it would be anarchy, wards of the state running amok.

A lawyers guild is the highest rule of the state and I should've not stuck my nose in where it does not belong.

[Pottapaug1938]

Dnatural STILL hasn't a clue about why his posts get no respect, here.

[parzival]

and about common law not being law lol

what is a mortgage, and who can mortgage, also leads us into LOP.....

https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... rue&bhcp=1

Mortgage
The transfer of the ownership of an asset by way of security for particular obligations on the express or implied condition that it will be re-transferred on the discharge of the secured obligations.
A legal mortgage is the most secure and comprehensive form of security interest. It transfers legal title to the Mortgagee and prevents the mortgagor from dealing with the mortgaged asset while it is subject to the mortgage. However, legislation has affected the characteristics of a legal mortgage over land. As a result of the Law of Property Act 1925, a legal mortgage over land is now normally created by a document creating a "charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage" rather than by the mortgagor transferring the legal title to the land to the mortgagee. Even though title is not transferred to the mortgagee (as it is with a mortgage of other assets), this type of security interest gives the mortgagee equivalent rights.

Report'on
Section'35'of'the'
Property Law Act
http://www.bcli.org/sites/default/files ... aw_act.pdf

A. General
Real! property! law! recognizes! certain! categories! of! rights! over! land! owned! by!
another!person.!!These!rights!include!positive!easements!and!statutory!rights!of!
way,!which!allow!their!holder!to!use!land!belonging!to!someone!else!in!a!certain!
way.!!They!include!restrictive!covenants!and!negative!easements,!which!prevent!
land!belonging!to!another!from!being!used!in!a!particular!manner.!!They!also!inG
clude!profits(à(prendre,!which!confer!the!right!to!remove!or!extract!products!or!
materials! from! the!land!like! timber!and!minerals.!!Most!of! these!rights!are!creG
ated!by!private!agreement,!and!some!result!from!agreements!between!a!private!
party!and!a!public!authority.!!They!are!said!to!be!incorporeal,!meaning!that!they!
do!not!give!the right to possession of the land itself.

you can read it...... not worthy of fixing..

LAW AND EQUITY ACT
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 253
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... #section36

Application of Act
1 The rules of law enacted and declared by this Act are part of the law of British Columbia and must be applied in all courts in British Columbia.

Application of English law in British Columbia
2 Subject to section 3, the Civil and Criminal Laws of England, as they existed on November 19, 1858, so far as they are not from local circumstances inapplicable, are in force in British Columbia, but those laws must be held to be modified and altered by all legislation that has the force of law in British Columbia or in any former Colony comprised within its geographical limits.

Laws not in force in British Columbia
3 Section 28 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1828 and all sections of the Real Property Act, 1845 are not in force in British Columbia.

Equitable relief for plaintiff
4 If a plaintiff or petitioner claims to be entitled to an equitable estate or right or to relief on an equitable ground against a deed, instrument or contract, or against any right, title or claim asserted by a defendant or respondent in a cause or matter, or to relief founded on a legal right that, before April 29, 1879, could only have been given by the court as a court of equity, the court, either as a court of law or equity, and every judge of it, must give the plaintiff or petitioner the relief that ought to have been given by the court in a suit or proceeding in equity for the same or similar purpose properly commenced before April 29, 1879.

so does the common law, specifically Settle Land Act(s) apply in BC? how CANADA?
how about law of property act 1925?


AND
I dont see any right of absolute ownership in the colony acts of property, yet there is absolute ownership to LANDS in the common law that includes dominion as a SUCCESSIVE INTEREST IN PROPERTY..(what is the doctrine of estates in possession, remainder and reversion in common law).
PROPERTY LAW ACT
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 377
http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... 1#section1

Certain interests prohibited or permitted
10 (1) An estate in fee simple must not be changed into a limited fee or fee tail, but the land, whatever form of words is used in an instrument, is and remains an estate in fee simple in the owner.

(2) A limitation which, before June 1, 1921, would have created an estate tail transfers the fee simple or the greatest estate that the transferor had in the land.

(3) This Act does not prevent the creation of a determinable fee simple or a fee simple defeasible by condition subsequent.

(4) A possibility of reverter or a right of entry for condition broken may be registered under the Land Title Act against the title to the land affected in the same manner as a charge.

Americans can stay ignorant i dont care,,,,,
YOUR POROPRTY LAW IS BASED ON ENGLISH LAW OF LIFE TENANTS AND FEE SIMPLE ESTATES IN POSSESSION ONLY!!

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Percy still thinks he's a house, but Dee has upped the ante and thinks he's a castle.

Progress of some sort.

[parzival]

and for the Americans , history of USA law of property

unless Indiana law journal is lying as well, also have from harvard and yale etc, they all the same, English common law of the land APPLIES, by RECEPTION, and common law gets its power from "PRESCRIPTION" as posted from HARVARD
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ ... ontext=ilj

Tenure indeed survived only in the difference between freeholds and copyholds, in a few
honorable tenures, and in some customs of descent, such as gavelkind.
But the common law's "wonderful calculus of estates," to use Maitland's phrase, was in full force: e.g., the fee simple absolute; the fee
simple determinable or conditional and the consequent possibility of reverter and right of entry; the fee tail general or special, male or (theoretically) female; the base fee; life intersts of various sorts, including
dower and curtesy; reversions, remainders and executory interests; powers
of appointment; leaseholds of different kinds; incorporeal interests; and
four varieties of concurrent ownership. Beside the common law, equity
had constructed a parallel and even wider range of interests, though restrictive covenants were not to be born until 1848.2 Common law and
equity had combined to produce a mortgage which no one could understand "by the light of nature."' The artificial distinction between real
and personal property, derived originally from the feudal remedies for
the recovery of land, controlled succession on intestacy and the basic
structure of settlements.' These settlements frequently made, combined
and laid out in succession the various permissible interests in land so as
to control enjoyment and provide family endowment to the full extent
of the generous limits allowed by the rules against remoteness. Both legal
and equitable interests were enduring and effective against the land. An
unusual yet perhaps illuminating statement of the well-known rules as to
the priority of legal and equitable interests was made in 1832 by J. J.
Park, then the first and original Professor of Law and Jurisprudence in
King's College, London.

and goes on and on and on......

The Law of Property Act, 1925, Section 1, made the basic move to
implement this policy. Legal estates were restricted to two, the fee
simple absolute in possession and the term of years absolute." Lesser
legal interests such as easements and rent charges for value were restricted to five,'2 while all other interests in land were declared to be
equitable." Thereafter consequential directions were given concerning
the vesting and devolution of the legal estate in land, of which I wish to
mention those relating to settlements, concurrent ownership, title on
death and mortgages.
Settlements. An initial problem of terminology must be cleared out
of the way. In England "the word 'settlement' is used in a general sense
for all kinds of arrangements whereby property is given to particular
persons in succession."' 4 The word "arrangement" includes dispositions by deed and will alike, and is wide enough to cover, for example,
the creation of a determinable fee followed by a possibility of reverter as
well as a life interest with remainders over." The word "trust" in England is almost an alternative, for since 1925 all settlements in this sense
must be created by way of trust, 6 but the bare or simple trust (where A
holds the legal estate on trust for B absolutely) does not constitute a

settlement. In the United States, I understand, neither word is entirely
appropriate; settlement is not generally used, and future interests can be
created other than by way of trust. In this article I propose to use "settlement" in the general English sense explained above.

haha oooops

[parzival]

please post a link to a current law of property act for a USA state, and you will also see it is worded the exact same, future interest, right of reverter, and right of entry, but these are TRUST TERMS for property, HAHAHAHA

so how is a life tenant not in A TRUST?

and where do the rules to the LIFE TENANT OF THE USA originate from?



in other words prove anyone, as life tenants or government have an absolute ownership over the territory in which the people grant in trust to the government to have that power. then purchase those lands..is purchase an absolute right. can you purchase an absolute right

the SUBSEQUENT CONVEYANCE for valuable consideration after a VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE is fraud...

[parzival]

could not resist, lol

more from Indiana law journal,
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ ... te] AND

American law. It seems that in the United States overreaching dispositions may occur in three ways.2
" First, the trust instrument may
authorize or direct a sale.
Secondly, American courts have inherent
jurisdiction to direct dispositions of land subject to future interests or
trusts where adherence to the terms of the instrument would, through
change of circumstances or for other reasons, be unfair or defeat the
original purpose.

Further, some states, including Indiana,2" have by
statute enlarged this jurisdiction based on reasonable necessity by permitting the court to authorize dispositions which are advantageous to the
beneficiaries.

A sale of land subject to concurrent interests may be
ordered in a partition action if that is the only practicable way of dealing with the property. In all these cases beneficial interests are overreached and continue in the money produced by the disposition.
Comment. As regards the English system of overreaching, Professor Lawson has said in his invaluable Hamlyn lectures on "The Rational
Strength of English Law": "I regard this wholesale combination of a
rigorous regime for the land itself with an astonishingly free regime for
the endowments to which it may be devoted as one of the most brilliant
feats of the English mind. . . . Moreover, this is one point at which
English law is ahead of all the other common law systems .... " including that of the United States.
Now you may reply, with some force, that Indiana and many other
States could achieve this feat of ratiocination by a stroke of the pen permitting trustees to sell out of court, and that being "ahead" depends upon
where one wants to go. N

[parzival]

but as babies need the hand held and to sometimes come back to certain issues of the whole requires one to rehash what should be common knowledge, like the wiki posts on the history of ENGLISH COMMON LAW that was deleted, and also posts proving common law applies to all ENGLISH LAW COLONIES based IN LIFE TENANTS TO LANDS....

You seem to believe that the common law is unchanging and eternal. However, real lawyers know that common law can be changed by statute, or (in the US) by constitutional amendment. English common law, after 1783, is only of advisory relevance to current American law.

sure, I do not deny common law does not apply to citizens of a municipal territory as life tenants,

yet do not ignore private international law and law of domicile, the life tenant is a resident and domiciled within a territory of another,

A free agent, has his own dominion, and is not bound to the municipal law of the English subjects under life tenant to a land trust in common law that was created before USA was even a thought...

do not ignore rules of jurisdiction so lets review them.

personal jurisdiction, is based on your domicile, the state or prov laws they write, from a grant of common law (or reception)

subject matter, is the law one uses for remedy to the issue, SLA, LOP, trustee, criminal code etc, based on an exact issue between a "thing " (property where your rights come from) and a law that says another can not do that thing...

then we have the subject matter jurisdiction, where the above is the subject matter of the issue, where, subject matter jurisdiction is where the "THING" property or person resides,

so if the person is from California and has property in BC, and the issue is the property the subject matter jurisdiction is in BC, the territory it is in, and the law used against the California individual will be of the property in BC and the laws of his domicile,

so please explain how equity a law of created by a state or territory in which you do not belong can have jurisdiction?

and how can jurisdiction be created without this agreement without a fraud on the court as established by case law.....

[AnOwlCalledSage]

When did you first think you were a house? Did someone lead you up the garden path? In a manor of speaking I think you need closure.

[Pottapaug1938]

parzival wrote: [a mess of legal word-salad gibberish]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

[Pottapaug1938]

parzival wrote: [a mess of legal word-salad gibberish]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

His delusions remind me of Van Pelt's assertion that the words "In God We Trust", on US currency, created some sort of resulting trust creating a right to redeem said currency in lawful money.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

His delusions remind me of Van Pelt's assertion that the words "In God We Trust", on US currency, created some sort of resulting trust creating a right to redeem said currency in lawful money.

It probably does. I was told that in the UK the "I promise to pay the bearer" on notes means that if you turn up at the Bank of England with an old One Pound Note (and I still have one!) and demand your pound will result in the cashier giving you... ta-dah... a one pound coin

[NYGman]

i did that last week with an old paper 10. Took it in to BoE, came out with a new plastic one, Magic, I tell you, Magic.