confused capacities & agreements

[parzival]

The
Florida
Municipal
Officials’
Manual

http://www.floridaleagueofcities.com/do ... 70d6ded5_0

A. THE ENGLISH BACKGROUND
The origins of American municipal government lie in English history. As England emerged from the
non-urbanized medieval period and began to develop urban centers, citizens with vested interests in
the development of their communities as trade centers sought authority from the Crown to exercise
some control over local aff airs. The king (or queen) would respond to these requests by granting “charters” to these groups, whereby they were empowered to promote local improvements and to regulate
certain aspects of community life. The charter was viewed as a grant only of those powers which were
specifi cally and explicitly granted therein; in other words, the grant of authority was narrowly defi ned
and strictly limited. Eventually, these chartered groups came to be recognized as “municipal corporations,” similar to private, commercial corporations, which also were authorized by the Crown. At fi rst,
such grants of authority were given only to narrowly defi ned groups, usually the leading businessmen
of the community. Over time, as democratic institutions developed, control of charters shifted from
such narrow groups to the general population of the community, complete with the democratic election of leaders to exercise the granted powers.
This pattern for the formation of English municipal governments was extended to the American
colonies. In America, municipal charters were granted by the Crown to a handful of urban centers. When
the Revolution transformed the colonies into states, the state governments assumed the role of the
Crown as the source of municipal- government authority; that is the state governments assumed the
role of granting municipal charters. From this practice evolved the traditional American legal principle
that a municipality is a creature of the state, may exist only with the consent of the state, derives its powers from the state, and enjoys only those powers w

In short, the Legislature was free to control municipal aff airs by means of local acts.

as you can now start to see all nations under municipal law (almost the whole planet) are all playing within a second level of trust

it is like when best buy and future shop join, the employees move with the sealing and sale of the agreement (constitution), yet the building may be leased, yet all the things within the building is now best buys products as soon as the agreement is settled.

best buy can also write laws for its employees, yet only with the rules of the state of prov the corporation resides in and where the employees work IN....

best buy can make laws outside of state and prov, and can even make laws that are not allowed, and the only way the unjust law written outside the rules of the state will be found unjust if ones makes issue,

so if no one makes issue for lets say 100 years, or even 50 years, can it become law?

sure of the people of that territory create a new constitution agreeing to be subject to it, then those in best buy would now be required to do what was previously a wrong.....

yet, this new rule and constitution only applies to that RESIDE as a permanent domicile .......

the rules of domicile determine what law one is subject too, and who is assumed owner is the one with equitable rights and duties under municipal law as life tenants....

so what happens when the domicile is not one of a municipal territory?

what happens when a life tenant interact with one that is not a life tenant, what laws apply to each?

the subjects of a state volunteered to that state authority, so what happens when that state authority is required to return a reversionary interest within the common law that has a right of entry for failure to comply with an act that requires one to transfer the said property (of any kind) to another within a set amount of time like in the LOP Act?

is this getting any clearer? or does one have to literally walk you through every aspect of YOUR OWN SYSTEM.....

[Dnatural]

as for Dnantural

you guys play the oldest trick in the book, change of subject matter, and direction.

people need to realize when in court if you loose your subject matter, and go off on a tangent not part of the subject matter to the case you are vexatious, and gets tossed....

so dnatural has only fallen for a trick, and when he starts to only deal with the determining factors within the law that pertains to the one it applies to removes that issue, while proving the issue and also the intent of the other party in one swoop......

kinda like how the common law land tenure ensure absolute freedom of the individual of life liberty and land, where citizens get rights of life liberty and property.

Correct.. you beat the subject matter inside, outside, everywhere possible but they cannot see it through the jurisdiction they have become accustom to. So my way of looking at the jurisdiction issue, so to speak, answer their rebuttals and see if they can notice the difference between the two.

Subject matter is the lands held in trust and the jurisdiction is that which is annexed to the lands, through a grant, offered to the government for right of use, as agency, which when acting as trustee to the lands splits the equitable title into a legal and equitable title in order to enforce the rules of law that enforces an agreement, with its agents, who do not have privity to the grant but unwittingly agreed via action of the deed, which determines their capacity in law.

[obadiah]

Can you just make your point in one or two sentences? I keep getting lost in the walls of text.

[Burnaby49]

Can you just make your point in one or two sentences? I keep getting lost in the walls of text.

If he could, and did, this discussion would have been over about 300 replies ago.

[Dnatural]

Can you just make your point in one or two sentences? I keep getting lost in the walls of text.

If he could, and did, this discussion would have been over about 300 replies ago.

Has nothing to do with the bias of those responding... a vested interest in the status quo.

You are lost, I would conclude, b/c that is the intention of equity, to avoid the truth and concentrate on the facts that support the fiction. It is perfect by design when the truth is available but hidden, for without the truth the fiction in law could not operate.

Government and lawyers conspire the production of volunteer agreements to which not one of them can force acceptance as this would destroy all law the very second one is in the proper capacity to speak against. Society now nurtures the fiction in consequence of the truth... and most are none the wiser... ignorance is bliss [not to all men].

[AnOwlCalledSage]

If Percy is under the impression that he is a house, then Dee thinks he's a vacant lot - there's no foundation underpinning his claims, or at least nothing concrete

[Burnaby49]

It's been all gibberish so far but this hits a new peak;

You are lost, I would conclude, b/c that is the intention of equity, to avoid the truth and concentrate on the facts that support the fiction. It is perfect by design when the truth is available but hidden, for without the truth the fiction in law could not operate.

Government and lawyers conspire the production of volunteer agreements to which not one of them can force acceptance as this would destroy all law the very second one is in the proper capacity to speak against. Society now nurtures the fiction in consequence of the truth... and most are none the wiser... ignorance is bliss [not to all men].

The above makes absolutely no sense to me whatever. The sequences of words, I assume deliberately chosen by Dnatural, are unintelligible even as individual sentences, never mind as an attempt to convey an understandable message. We've transitioned into the random number word generation selection mode. As the forum says, a true word salad.

[wserra]

We may be looking at a Psych 201 project here: how long will otherwise intelligent people respond to utter gibberish?

[HardyW]

as you can now start to see all nations under municipal law (almost the whole planet)
you mean all nations that have municipalities
are all playing within a second level of trust
No, the word trust does not appear once in the paragraphs you quoted.

it is like when best buy and future shop join, the employees move with the sealing and sale of the agreement (constitution), yet the building may be leased, yet all the things within the building is now best buys products as soon as the agreement is settled.
best buy can also write laws for its employees, yet only with the rules of the state of prov the corporation resides in and where the employees work IN....
yes pretty much true. For example the company can require employees to wear company uniform when at work.
best buy can make laws outside of state and prov, and can even make laws that are not allowed, and the only way the unjust law written outside the rules of the state will be found unjust if ones makes issue,
yes so if the company requires men and women wear different uniforms, but the state/prov has antidiscrimination laws, probably nothing will happen until an employee makes a complaint.
so if no one makes issue for lets say 100 years, or even 50 years, can it become law?
it is still company policy, the word law is not accurate.

sure of the people of that territory create a new constitution agreeing to be subject to it, then those in best buy would now be required to do what was previously a wrong.....
if the new govt made a stronger antidiscrimination law, then yes of course the company would have to comply.
yet, this new rule and constitution only applies to that RESIDE as a permanent domicile .......
to be more precise it applies to the business that operates in that territory. But the company may have its HQ, that is its domicile, in another province or country.
the rules of domicile determine what law one is subject too,
broadly correct
and who is assumed owner is the one with equitable rights and duties under municipal law as life tenants....
again with the life tenants obsession?
I would think it's very rare for law of property to devolve to the municipal level. In your own quote above you find a municipal corporation (we would call it the CITY COUNCIL or similar) has only the powers given to it in its charter or by law. Perhaps planning/ zoning laws, but they do not affect ownership.

so what happens when the domicile is not one of a municipal territory?
In case you are confused, a Can province or US state is not a municipality. From the definition of domicile you gave earlier, someone can be domiciled in Victoria (municipality), and British Columbia (province), and Canada (sovereign state). But some small areas are unincorporated.
What happens there will be set out in provisional legislation, probably the Local Government Act.

what happens when a life tenant interact with one that is not a life tenant, what laws apply to each?
again with the life tenants obsession?
I thought you were claiming everyone on the planet was a life tenant. So let us make this clear.
Tenure for life is very rare. If you were a life tenant you would know it, because the conditions would have been made known to you when you inherited the property/land/estate. Beyond that, your question is meaningless, they are just two living people "interacting" in whatever way you are contemplating.

the subjects of a state volunteered to that state authority, so what happens when that state authority is required to return a reversionary interest within the common law that has a right of entry for failure to comply with an act that requires one to transfer the said property (of any kind) to another within a set amount of time like in the LOP Act?
Not sure that would be a likely scenario, but I suppose it could happen. Imagine a wealthy man dies and leaves some land in his will to the state or city council to build a school. The terms of the will say if at any time the land is no longer needed by the state/city as a school, ownership reverts to the heirs of the testator. Then I guess the state/city has to comply like any other trust beneficiary. And by the way BC calls it Property Law Act not LOP.

is this getting any clearer? or does one have to literally walk you through every aspect of YOUR OWN SYSTEM.....
You have now been walked through. And it's YOUR SYSTEM too.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

He Tells Her (for Ruth B.)

He tells her that the Earth is flat -
He knows the facts, and that is that.

In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong.

But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win.
He stands his ground.

The planet goes on being round.

- Wendy Cope

[Pottapaug1938]

We may be looking at a Psych 201 project here: how long will otherwise intelligent people respond to utter gibberish?

I think that there's an element of schadenfreude, here; but I am fast approaching my limit (if I'm not there already) with these two nitwits. It's just about time to tell these two to either 1) make their points -- if any -- concisely and clearly, with citations to cases with actual relevance to the laws of the countries mentioned; or 2) submit to editing and/or moderation.

[AndyK]

They both are convinced that (1) they have made their points multiple times and (2) we are either too dense or programmed to see the light of their brilliance.

Nothing we can do will change that.

Even ignoring both of them 100% of the time won't accomplish anything,

[noblepa]

parzival wrote:

"...apply to your state court and ask for yourself if English common law applies to the land law in an IMPLIED manner. and if laws of property created by govt can remove the common law, since the colonies can only add to it within the means and end it was written for within the common law."

This only further illustrates your ignorance of American law. There is no such thing as "applying to a state court"; courts are there to adjudicate actual cases and controversies, and not to render legal advice. And, once again, legislatures, and Congress, can and have abolished provisions of the common law, through legislation or Constitutional amendment; and again, English common law, at least since 1783, has no validity within the US. We ceased to be colonies, at the latest, when the Treaty of Paris was signed.

really, post the treaty, who are the parties, what was agreed, and who all agreed to it......

I know that it is futile trying to answer you with facts, but here goes...

Treaty of Paris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783)

The parties were King George III of Great Britain (through his representatives) and The United States, through its representatives.

Key points that were agreed to:

Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia[15]) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof,
Establishing the boundaries of the United States, including but not limited to those between the United States and British North America from the Mississippi River to the Southern colonies. Britain surrenders their previously owned land,
Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;
Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;
The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands and "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to British subjects" (Loyalists);
United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;
Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released; all property of the British army (including slaves) now in the United States is to remain and be forfeited;
Great Britain and the United States are each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;
Territories captured by either side subsequent to the treaty will be returned without compensation;
Ratification of the treaty is to occur within six months from its signing.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Great Britain and the United States are each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;

Ooh! Does this mean I can row up and down Ol' Man River? Only been there once, but if I'd known of this I'd have hired a dingy!

[Dnatural]

Syllogism:

God created man so man cannot be greater than its creator. (natural)

Man created corporations so corporations cannot be greater than man. (common law)

Corporations became persons to which all are equal under the eyes of equity, whereby that person which benefits public policy the greatest equates to the benefit of the whole and so earns the benefit of the ears of justice. (equity)

The issue is the subject matter. Each is under a separate jurisdiction that stems from this syllogism to which governs their actions according to the laws formed, in order to accommodate the level of consciousness each individual is at i.e. their agreements equals the law they are subject to.

Subject Matter is Land. All law is created from land so as to not enforce a will against another. Man's free will is sanctified. He has free choice directly under creation. This HAS TO be held in trust or it will go against the syllogism and so destroy all law. (You think for one second that the law is not perfected?... this is your personal nemesis b/c you are unwittingly thinking otherwise).

Subject matter is equitable estates/property. (now read the Treaty of Paris again). Those interest that belong to persons under equity which is not the land itself but the titles annexed to the land, through an original grant/agreement to rights to a use.

Now the issue discussed in the entirety of the topic 'confused capacities & agreements'.... is Parzival & I are discussing the perfection in law according to this syllogism. We are bringing to light the law whereby the subject matter is the lands now held in trust.

(The law is perfect. I love the law as it protects the syllogism. If it did not and only protected the person (fiction) created by law than it cannot be law, it's equity and so proof of a fraud.

Quatloos is discussing the person only and claiming that it is all there is b/c man and creation have been repealed thereby causing imperfection to the law They try and substantiate their reason for attack b/c their laws that govern equitable titles ONLY, under government (person), does not speak to there being anything else besides those laws which create persons, in order to intercourse in commerce. They are right. Two different subject matters so one cannot commingle with the other.

We (Parzival & I) see this... pushing the red button, the red button, the red button equaling banana, banana, banana arriving at jackpot and arguing who got the best banana (equity) whereas we are discussing what created the red button as the subject matter which is the law.

The law cannot EVER be repealed by rules subordinate to it. (Proof: read the syllogism again so as to perfect law).

Equity only circumvented the law, as is explained in numerous accounts throughout history, but cannot ever, EVER repeal the law.

I just cannot get any more clearer than this (imho). I am sorry if you are all unable to see this. Argue until your blue in the face, beat the fu*k out of each other each day... afterall that is how a lawyer and every citizen - persons - earn their keep within public policy.

[Dnatural]

Deleted due to duplicate post 3 minutes earlier

AndyK

[Burnaby49]

I just cannot get any more clearer than this (imho). I am sorry if you are all unable to see this. Argue until your blue in the face, beat the fu*k out of each other each day... afterall that is how a lawyer and every citizen - persons - earn their keep within public policy.

So there you have it. He himself agrees that it's a fool's errand to try and make any sense out of his idiotic babbling since he's unable to write a coherent summary.

[Dnatural]

I just cannot get any more clearer than this (imho). I am sorry if you are all unable to see this. Argue until your blue in the face, beat the fu*k out of each other each day... afterall that is how a lawyer and every citizen - persons - earn their keep within public policy.

So there you have it. He himself agrees that it's a fool's errand to try and make any sense out of his idiotic babbling since he's unable to write a coherent summary.

B/c it is not a summary it is the basics... the summary has been posted many times, based on these basics I just presented. Sorry not speaking your language... what size of a banana did you get today?

[NYGman]

Syllogism:

God created man so man cannot be greater than its creator. (natural)

Man created corporations so corporations cannot be greater than man. (common law)

That only works if you believe in God, what if you do not, then the above is meaningless. Your basis of law should not rely in the belief of a god, it should be independent of divinity.

[Dnatural]

I just cannot get any more clearer than this (imho). I am sorry if you are all unable to see this. Argue until your blue in the face, beat the fu*k out of each other each day... afterall that is how a lawyer and every citizen - persons - earn their keep within public policy.

So there you have it. He himself agrees that it's a fool's errand to try and make any sense out of his idiotic babbling since he's unable to write a coherent summary.

B/c it is not a summary it is the basics... the summary has been posted many times, based on these basics I just presented. Sorry not speaking your language... what size of a banana did you get today?

This may assist you with inner-standing what is summary vs basics as it is evidenced you're no scientist...

5 MONKEYS AND A BANANA (less than a minute to get to the point).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgJ8-IaBSeY