Scottish Allodial claim

[The_Nidhogg]

Apologies for the brief hiatus- real life and all that! So I found this document being debated and drawn up over on ssotl and thought I'd share some uniquely Scottish nonsense. It links with their plan to use the declaration of arbroath to seize the nation however also seems to be a more general document to be used for freedom baptism a la the letters Freemen often send to the Queen etc.

The Sovereign Nation of Scotland
Official Residence, place yours here, Near but outwith UK
Tel: number Email: addy
DATE
RECORDED DELIVERY NUMBER AH-----------

The First Minister Alex Salmond The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP

Dear Mr. Salmond,
NOTICE OF CLAIM Notice to Agent is notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is notice to Agent. According to Stair it would seem that, before the abolition of feudal titles, allodial title lay with the Crown (however you might like to define that term): “Allodial is that, whereby the right is without recognisance, or acknowledgement of a superior, having a real right in the thing; thus are moveables enjoyed; and lands and immoveables were so till these feudal customs. Now there remains little allodial, for lands holden feu, or burgage, or lands mortified, are not allodial seeing they acknowledge a superior having the direct right, ….. Yet the superior's right in the sovereign power, is not feudal, but allodial with us.” (Stair, The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, p.333, para.4). (My emphasis). Since the abolition of feudal tenure, ownership titles are still subject to the same encumbrances as before: “An estate of dominium utile of land shall, on the appointed day, cease to exist as a feudal estate but shall forthwith become the ownership of the land and, in so far as is consistent with the provisions of this Act, the land shall be subject to the same subordinate real rights and other encumbrances as was the estate of dominium utile.” (Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 2 (1)). (My emphasis). Such titles are clearly not allodial titles and one must ask to whom the real rights and and encumbrances are now subordinate? The Act also states that no further feudal titles may be issued. (Section 2 (3)). Since it is now clear that the Crown can have no further use for it and since true abolition must place it in the hands of the owners; We, the sovereign people of Scotland hereby claim the Allodial title for the whole of Scotland, including the seabed out to 200 miles from Our coast, or to the median line between Scotland and another state, whichever is the greater. 1

Such claim includes all land above as well as below the water. Such claim extends below the land surface to the centre of the earth and above the land surface to the outer edge of the atmosphere. Such claim includes all mineral and other rights connected with the land. If you know of any other valid claim to these rights by Scotland or the United Kingdom, you are required to notify such claim and the basis upon which it is made within 30 days of your receipt of this notice. If any such valid claim exists it will be easy for you to produce it. Failure to do so will have three consequences: 1) It will negate any claim Scotland or the United Kingdom may produce in the future. 2) It will place you under personal bar, preventing you from denying the above claim in future. 3) The public will be notified of your failure to respond and the implications of their ownership of allodial title. Any of these callings not answered will be founded upon.
Sincerely,

(Whoever is signing), Sovereign without the states of Scotland or the United Kingdom.
Copies: The Secretary of State for Scotland; The Prime Minister Minister, UK.

Now my puir wee brain doesn't like these big walls of text so let's break it down.

NOTICE OF CLAIM Notice to Agent is notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is notice to Agent.

Sovereign gibberish copypasta, not sure where it origionated but I'm betting the other side of the Atlantic. Maybe one of you old colonials knows? :P44

According to Stair it would seem that, before the abolition of feudal titles, allodial title lay with the Crown (however you might like to define that term): “Allodial is that, whereby the right is without recognisance, or acknowledgement of a superior, having a real right in the thing; thus are moveables enjoyed; and lands and immoveables were so till these feudal customs. Now there remains little allodial, for lands holden feu, or burgage, or lands mortified, are not allodial seeing they acknowledge a superior having the direct right, ….. Yet the superior's right in the sovereign power, is not feudal, but allodial with us.” (Stair, The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, p.333, para.4)

Well first I am delighted some of you are reading stair, seeing as he awknowledges Acts as valid laws that should stand you in good stead for avoiding doing a clifford. However as the ssotl do not specify which edition they are quoting I am having trouble identifying the chapter refernced. I am using the 4th edition.

I will try and analyse what we have been supplied with but i would rather have the context.
So what is stair saying here? While I can't find the quoted paragraph Stairs inst 4ed bk2 tit 3 S1 discusses ownership of land:

The property of things is either Allodial or Feudal: Allodial,(fo termed from a Gothic word, which fignifies Patrimonial) is “the property of things to which one has right, without any recognizance or awknowledegement of another ;” in thofe the right wholly belongs to the propietor: all things were thus enjoyed before the feudal law and cuftoms took place, and at this day all moveables belong to us in that manner.

Stair goes on to state that the feudal system in his day was decaying and becoming more and more like allodial ownership. I think its fairly obvious then that the result of the abolition of feudalism is not that the land goes from the nobility to the the public (or the ssotl) but that those nobles go from having a feudal ownership to an allodial one. The crown is described as the Lord paramount and superior of superiors but the queen has not claimed all the remaining feudal estates as her personal property I think its safe to assume the former suzerians are now owners.

Since the abolition of feudal tenure, ownership titles are still subject to the same encumbrances as before: “An estate of dominium utile of land shall, on the appointed day, cease to exist as a feudal estate but shall forthwith become the ownership of the land and, in so far as is consistent with the provisions of this Act, the land shall be subject to the same subordinate real rights and other encumbrances as was the estate of dominium utile.” (Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, Section 2 (1)). (My emphasis). Such titles are clearly not allodial titles and one must ask to whom the real rights and and encumbrances are now subordinate

Contary to what the ssotl claim above, the rights are allodial. As defined by stair they are not held in feu in but owned outright and therefore are allodial. Now that does not mean they are free from all restrictions. The laws of the land such as the wildlife and countryside scotland act 1981 still apply restrictions to the use of the land. Subordinate real rights are most commonly leases: that section of the act is to stop noble landowners from using the change in status of their land to evict tenants.

The Act also states that no further feudal titles may be issued. (Section 2 (3)). Since it is now clear that the Crown can have no further use for it

it does say that no further feudal titles may be issued but that has nothing to do with whether or not the crown can have any further use for it. And indeed requireing a use for something is not, and has never been a prerequisite for owning it. The crown could own it even if the only intended use was to walk the occasional corgi.

We, the sovereign people of Scotland hereby claim the Allodial title for the whole of Scotland,

The land belongs to the owners; you cannot just claim it. While the state does possess the authority in scotland to seize private land under certain special conditions ordinary people cannot do it. Just because we have the right to roam following the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003  does not change that they are still private land and cannot just be seized by wee mad Hamish McJakey.

if you know of any other valid claim to these rights by Scotland or the United Kingdom, you are required to notify such claim and the basis upon which it is made within 30 days of your receipt of this notice. If any such valid claim exists it will be easy for you to produce it. Failure to do so will have three consequences: 1) It will negate any claim Scotland or the United Kingdom may produce in the future. 2) It will place you under personal bar, preventing you from denying the above claim in future. 3) The public will be notified of your failure to respond and the implications of their ownership of allodial title.

Foisted unilateral aggreement see Watson v Lord Advocate

This really annoys me. The distribution of land in this country is horribly unbalanced and while the Scottish Governments buyback schemes are a step forward I do think more needs to be done, however this moronic nonsense only clouds and muddies what should be a serious debate.

Hopefully I interpreted Stair correctly- I do find his archaic style difficult.
Reguards,
The Nidhogg

[The_Nidhogg]

this is due to be submitted tomorrow.

[The_Nidhogg]

So we have a little bit of drama about this afterall! Unfortunately as I am not in the loop properly on this one (I worry they will do something stupid like storm a court and rather not be even tangently involved) details are a little thin on the ground.

For starters they have given themselves a separate name within the ssotl. I was hoping they'd pick something to do with the 'traditional' collective noun for a group of highlanders but instead they plumped for the rather underwhelming 100 club. sounds like a life insurance policy for centennials, yet considering the groups aim is probably destined to be even less profitable.

While I was off galavanting abroad the sovs decided to assemble their 100 LIVING MEN and march to parliament and present their demands. They scheduled the march for 22 August. Naturally only 8 of them actually volunteered to attended and from what i can glean from back handed comments less than that turned up and they were turned away from parliament without seizing ownership of all land in Scotland. I know. I was shocked too.

so thats it? gg thanks for playing?

not quite.

they have another event scheduled for Tuesday:

Time: September 23, 2014 from 7:30pm to 9:30pm
Location: Bonnybridge Community Centre, Bonnybridge
Street: Bridge Street,
City/Town: Bonnybridge
Website or Map: https://plus.google.com/11274…
Event Type: meeting
Organized By: eeen alone
Latest Activity: yesterday

I can't make it, but i'll keep an ear to the ground.



regards,

The Nidhogg

[PeanutGallery]

NOTICE OF CLAIM Notice to Agent is notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is notice to Agent.

Sovereign gibberish copypasta, not sure where it origionated but I'm betting the other side of the Atlantic. Maybe one of you old colonials knows? :P44

I actually did some research on this, I can confirm it does indeed come from our beloved and errant colonial cousins. Specifically California and a text called the California Law Review of 1913. So it's only a hundred years old. However like all Sovrun quotations and woo, once you actually read the source material the meaning given is made somewhat clearer, as the text I reproduce below should hopefully illustrate.

Notice to agent is notice to principal - As a rule of Agency it is undoubtedly well settled that notice to the agent acting within the course of his employment and scope is notice to his principal. This rule is based either upon the legal identity of principal and agent or upon the presumption that the agent has disclosed the notice to his principal, in accordance with his duty (Mechem, Agency, Secs 718, 719.). When however, the interest of the agent in a given transaction is adverse to that of his principal the presumption does not operate and notice to the agent is not notice to the principal (Mechem, Agency, Secs 723; 31 Cyc 1595 and cases cited).

It's nothing more than the title of a paragraph dealing with the complicated area of law surrounding agents and principals in transactions. The actual text makes it clear that notice to agent is not always notice to the principal, the inverse of this 'rule' seems to be a Sovrun addition which makes it the catchy piece of woo we all know and love. The code goes on to explain about agents and principals and notices but I really couldn't be bothered to further delve through that text.

Of course this does make me wonder where they manage to find this stuff in the first place. It's on pages 459-460 of the review and having read some of that tome I would surmise to say that while it is an interesting historical document, it is rather dry and technical and not exactly a gripping read.

[notorial dissent]

Strangely enough, for a community that is as largely functionally illilterate this one is, there are individuals who spend their free time looking for things like this. I know of a couple of these who spend their time hunting for little nuggets like that. Scarily enough, they are good enough at finding them, but they have next to no reading comprehension, and to a one refuse to accept that words can have totally different meanings dependent upon where and how they are used, or that context often has as to do with it as anything else. To them words can only have one concrete absolute meaning.

[Pottapaug1938]

The essential problem is that the sovrun idiots assume that, since notice to agent is notice to principal (or, as they often put it, "principle"), the converse is necessarily true.

[PeanutGallery]

It's just I admire them for FINDING this stuff, it shows a degree of intelligence, however I cannot for the life of me see how they can FIND it but then MISS the sentence that says that in some circumstances notice to agent is not notice to principal.

In regard to the Freeman interpretation of words I have observed that often that interpretation is based on misunderstood homonyms, misconstrued lexemes and misplaced paronyms. They may well have their one sacrosanct definition of a word, but it's often nowhere near the definition given in their dictionary.

To give an example, a common Freeman argument often video'd and placed onto YouTube concerns the Freemans claimed right to "travel". They make the claim, based on their outdated copy of Black's dictionary (regardless of if they are in the US or not), that driving is a commercial activity because Blacks defines driving as:

One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902

Which to be fair is accurate. What the Freeman doesn't bother to do is look up the definitions of the other important word in that list (at least the word important to Freemen and Sov's) employed.

This signifies both the act of doing a thing and the being under contractor orders to do it. U. S. v. Morris, 14 Pet. 475, 10 L. Ed. 543; U. S. v. The Catharine, 2Paine, 721, Fed. Cas. No. 14.755.

Now Freemen and Sovruns all claim that employed must mean doing it as a job. Which isn't it's meaning in their own holy bible. You can be employed at a task without it being paid, it would be fair to say that when I took my dog for a walk early this morning I was employed in the task of exercising my pet animal. I wasn't paid for it (I mean she did leave me something to pick up, but I wouldn't consider THAT payment).

[notorial dissent]

Blind pig metaphor.

Much of it is the insistence that words have ONLY one meaning, and in particular the meaning that suits there purpose, is what I keep running in to. Their reading level is what I would consider minimal at best and their comprehension next to non-existent.

[PeanutGallery]

And yet they all claim to have been studying "the law" for quite some time.