To start off a little about me: I am a new member that has studied the history of roman, justinian ,English law, including the creation of the modern system of equity including the prescriptions of common law and equity (pre 1535), the creation of international law and the law of nations and municipal law, I have studied the top scholars for many years my library is in excess of 1000 books from: Coke, Littleton, Bracton, Mansfield, Blackstone, Holdsworth,Story etc..
I find it hard to believe anyone within any jurisdiction of law, (in our current era) can justify that there is no such thing as absolute freedom of the individual as a free agent.
yet once one has the realization in a complete manner to the whole issue the “sovereign citizen” is a pipe dream, a citizen can not circumvent the choice of equity by choosing the capacity of an equitable subject within municipal law with only a right of possession as trustee to the settled lands.
My real issue is not with the sovereign citizen being wrong, it is the effects of the equitable system of prescriptions and privity of estate that are the true culprits.
The way the law is written, if one does not look to the entire history from the original, majority will confuse what that law is, and will also not have a true realization in permanent manner for what they truly want, the English law as written created each individual as a beneficiary, yet this beneficiary is the trustee benefit, not the benefit of the settlor.
With the many agreements creating many different capacities in addition to an original agreement within the different levels of English law and Equity has created a multi level contract with different levels of privity based on the individual's capacity to them.
What I see is a type of Armageddon within Equity currently unfolding partly due to ignorance of the people subject to the English system of law plus, choosing not to learn the history that binds them in law, but more so the system of equity and those that administer in right of the common law prescriptions with full knowledge of the ENTIRE HISTORY to the use and privity and capacities to feudal, ancient and modern system of common law and equity.
Truth is from a certain point of view, point of view is based on ones agreements, the agreements one makes is the truth one is held to in law, not a belief but an actual agreement, yet the foundation of the group take priority and are in addition to the individual agreements.
To many are playing in this grey area of the group agreement without defining what the true intent of the individual is.
Do to the severity of this issue and the effects as well as the terms of use that I have agreed to I (being with right of private territory within private international law(private domicile)) will only discuss this matter in a general history aspect dealing with the freedom issue that can and does show the history of capacity and privity to the different jurisdictions, and in my opinion is the only issue required to discuss to put this issue of sovereign citizen into perspective due to the history of freedom within English law and equity and the trust within it.
Majority are only ignorant of the laws of common law and equity due to not understanding the very basics to interactions between men/women, this is also partially because the law of repeals in regards to the issue and capacity attached to that issue that only can be seen when looking at the whole history to the modern land tenure (3 levels) being English law and equity.
Without correcting the beliefs of the majority within the international law scheme will in my opinion cause the people to revolt due to not understanding, we can see this in many videos at law schools and universities where the law students themselves are fed up with the secrets and scream F*** THE LAW,
This is crazy since law is our own agreements, as individuals choose the capacity by the agreements that are unknown to the majority, and is the cause to this effect and the reason for this post.
Most seem not to be able to find the agreement that makes them subject due to the 3 levels of jurisdictions to the use, and being subject not to the monarchy but as subjects of a municipal corporation in a form of AGENCY BY RATIFICATION.
https://uslawessentials.com/20141216wha ... ification/
Battle of the Fee-simple vs Function of government (fee-simple)
A society where the majority do not know how or why they are subject to Government authority, and those administering that authority will not openly tell the citizens how they are subject.
The government by forcing an agreement onto those that have no idea what that agreement is, also removes there own freedoms to choose free agent by the assumption of slavery…..
The issue is confusion to agreements which creates a legal capacity to the agreements majority ignores or does not understand fully.
Ignorance of your agreements (law) is no excuse.
You can not have one estate at common law and another under statute of use (legislation)!
source: https://archive.org/download/areadablee ... df#page=53A Readable Edition of Coke Upon Littleton pdf page 53
A lawful or pure inheritance] Here it is well put in the disjunctive lawful or pure, for every fee-simple is not lawful. A disseisor, abator,intruder, usurper, &c. Have a fee-simple, has it either by purchase or descent. If by wrong, then either by disseisin, intrusion,abatement,usurpation, &c.
Pg 511 pdf
But since Littleton wrote, all uses are transferred by act of parliament into possession, so that the case which littleton here puts is thereby altered. Yet it is necessary to be known what the common law was before the making of the statute, [otherwise the application of the statute could not be discovered]
nota. A use is a trust or confidence reposed in some other, which is not out of the land, but as a thing collateral thereto and annexed in privity to the estate of the land, and to the person touching the land, scilicet, that Cestui Que us shall take the profit, and that the ter-tenant shall make an estate according to his direction. So that cestui que use had neither jus un re nor jus ad rem, but only only a confidence and trust, for which he had no remedy by common law, but for breach of trust his only remedy was by subpena in chancery.
Pg 590 No remitter if one estate be at common law and other under stat of use.
The reason is no folly can be attributed to the infant in accepting the feoffment at the time it was made. Hence therefore, in this case the law respects the time of the foeffment, and not the time of the death: and albeit the infant might have waived the estate at his full age, yet [seeing that would be to his loss and prejudice, he shall have the benefit of the feoffment till his ancestor's death,when] the right of the estate tail descending on him either within age, or of full age, shall work a remitter[to his estate in tail]. But since littleton wrote, there is a great alteration in remitters by the statute of uses H.8.c.10; for if a tenant in tail now make a feoffment in fee to the us of his son (within age) and his heirs, and dies, and the right of the estate tail descends to the son within age, yet he in not remitted, because the statute executes the possession in such plight, manner, and form, as the use was limited; [ whereby the issue is in, not of the estate discontinued, but of a new use under the statute]. But if the issue in tail in this case waives the possession, and bring a formedon in the descender, and recover against the feoffees, he shall thereby be remitted to the estate tail; otherwise the lands may be so incumbered that the issue in tail would be at great inconvenience; but if no formedon be brought, and that issues dies, his issue shall be remitted; because an estate in fee-simple at common law descends upon him.
The issue of who has privity of estate, and to what estate, there is a capacity and a thing, where the thing one takes can create a cestui que trust where the trust agreement creates a capacity of life tenant and move one from an absolute capacity as free agent into another as life tenant and trustee as the usufruct.
source: https://archive.org/details/gopetre02perrA treatise on the law of trusts and trustees
RIGHTS OF CESTUIS QUE TRUST. Pg 512
The,income shall not be alienable by anticipation, nor subject to be taken for debts until paid over to the cestui. (a) It is not possible, however, for a man to create a trust to pay the income to himself for life, with a provision against alienation by anticipation, so as to prevent his creditors from coming at the income by a bill in equity. (a.) A cestui having a vested equitable interest though contingent may convey it subject to the contingency.
ABSOLUTE FREEDOMS ARE TRUE, yet not available to the municipal subject as citizens in the same manner and form as a free agent, in other words if you choose equity you don't have absolute freedoms as a free agent, you have the rights and duties as the subject.
To make everyone believe equity is mandetory in contrast to the entire planet is slavery and is incorrect, everyone within English law and Equity has choosen the modern system of life tenant as subjects of a juristic unit and what you will be held subject to.
Only once that choice is accepted is one bound to that agreement.(majority don't know how they are subject or to what)
Absolute Freedoms of the Free Agent
The main confusion seems to come from Blackstone Commentaries (codified the modern system of English law), many read jurisprudence without seeing the divisions, free agent vs municipal subject and what these 2 different jurisdictions create.(forgetting joining the group agreement)
source: https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-101/ (also available on archive.org)Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1
Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals“The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative.
Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons:
relative, which are indigent to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other.
By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it. But with regard to the absolute duties, which man is bound to perform considered as a mere individual, it is not to be expected that any human municipal laws should at all explain or enforce them. For the end and intent of such laws being only to regulate the behavior of mankind, as they are members of society, and stand in various relations to each other, they have consequently no business or concern with any but social or relative duties.”
Agreements and Capacity
Private international law and the conflict in laws is part of the new modern system of law based on territory and those that reside within that territory are bound to that state/provincial laws. English law and jurisdiction for the subject is based on international law (law of nations) and the law of domicile that was created from prescription of ancient and feudal common law of land tenure based on fee simple as life tenant with only a right of possession under what is know known as Law of Property, the other moderns systems are also based on the same rules of Law of property where all within international law only have a right of possession (use) under a strict settlement based on the feudal land tenure by prescription.
Private international law, and the retrospective operation of statutes; a treatise on the conflict of laws, and the limits of their operation in respect of place and time
by Savigny, Friedrich Karl von, 1779-1861 https://archive.org/details/privateinte ... t/page/n11
Jones on Prescription: A Practical Treatise on the Real Property Limitation Act of Revised https://archive.org/details/jonesonpres ... g/page/n28
Acquisitive Prescription. Its Existing World-Wide Uniformity https://archive.org/details/jstor-783887/page/n1
Prescription Other Than in Fee https://archive.org/details/jstor-1323435/page/n1
Confused capacity and agreements
The confusion is understandable due to the history and time that has evolved, yet has evolved into defining these capacities and agreement as a subject to the English law ONLY, yet without looking to each grant from the original source to today one can easily forget (immemorial) where time immemorial then takes place, yet is an agreement that has a condition precedent and condition subsequent to a future right nothing more.
When one looks at the agreements like magan charta, statute of uses, fraudulent conveyances, bill or rights 1688, act of settlements in the 1700 to the settled land in the 1800's, all of the grants from the monarchy (pre 1688) and then from the constitutional monarchy (after 1688) moving of all previous capacities of the feudal, ancient into a modern land tenure in fee-simple absolute.
One can see by studying the grants and prescriptions that the common law has only made grants to an organization: Lord Manors of the Magna Charta era, or the Governments of the settled estates granted to the municipal corporations as juristic units of the crown corporation of the modern era.
Any international government that assumes the laws of equity also join the equitable group of English law by it use and acceptance(municipal law).
The citizens of the modern tenure as life tenants in fee-simple absolute are the same serfs and slaves of the feudal land tenure as established by Holdsworth and many others.
The citizen ratifies an agency under the municipal law jurisprudence all governments enforce as being subject by the law of domicile, and the law of adverse possession and prescriptions.
Getting answers from the sourceBOOK 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.”
Many are not familiar that the modern system of law is a combination of many territories from roman law and justinian law plus many others up until 1900, when one looks to the creation of these other jurisdictions pre prescription to the English law and equity one will find they are all based on a hierarchy system where the one acting as sovereign is a trustee to whom only a select few compared to the whole group had a future right in trust based on a use for a fee, what is now known as life tenant in fee-simple (an agency to that agreement).
The main issue is the assumptions of equity that have been dealt with fully by the consolidated acts of 1925 that have determined all these issues previously based on common law and equity judgements and why the statute of uses and fraudulent conveyances and act of settlements etc.
When we discuss law and jurisdiction many do not understand the true issue or how to find the seat in law for themselves never mind another, this in itself injures all those as free agents ( & life tenants by vexatious litigations) even though English common law and equity restrict this by prohibitions and limitation on behalf of the free agent in accordance with the common law principles first and of the trust (equity) second as an icing(equity) on the cake(common law).
source: https://archive.org/details/ahistoryger ... g/page/n10A History of Germanic Private Law
“"The transfer of land for the use of one person for certain purposes to be
carried out either in the lifetime or after the death of the person conveying it has its
basis in Germanic law. It was popularly held that land could be transferred for the use
from one person to another in local custom. The formal English or Saxon law didn't
always recognize this custom. The practice was called Salman or Treuhand. Sala is
German for "transfer". It is related to the Old English sellen, "to sell"."
Pollock and Maitland describe cestui que use as the first step toward the law of agency.
They note that the word "use" as it was employed in medieval English law was not from
the Latin usus, but rather from the Latin word opus, meaning "work". From this came
the Old French words os or oes". Although with time the Latin document for conveying
land to the use of John would be written ad opus Johannis which was interchangeable
with ad usum Johannis, or the fuller formula, ad opus et ad usum, the earliest history
suggests the term "use" evolved from ad opus.”
Freeman and Legal system are equally to blame
I have a hard time with the knowledge I have that those with full knowledge are not explaining the true choices and are forcing the equitable choice in breach of the fraudulent conveyance act and playing on the ignorance of s.5 of that common law act. (A Treatise on the Construction of the Statutes, 13 Eliz. C. 5, and 27 Eliz https://archive.org/details/atreatiseon ... og/page/n9) I am sitting on the sidelines watching these 2 factions battle it out in a very vicious manner, I also understand most lawyers don't care or have not looked into the use for a fee and the fact that law of property is 1st year law school and the history to the use in common law is not part of the teaching in law school (yet is optional in 1st year), yet how many do know and are allowing this forced agency to continue with full knowledge?
I hope to get a real discussion on how to actually work together as 3 different jurisdictions settlor, govt and citizen (since monarchy is no longer needed) to possibly over time incorporate the entire history slowly into the knowledge of the people (citizens and lawyers).
It is my honest belief this is the only salvation to the major issue of sovereign citizen, detax plus so much more due to one being forced to an agreement they are not told about yet freedom should tell them to go look, yet majority will not take the time and effort to study the foundations to all agreements and laws and jurisdictions around the world and how we got here today, since all modern English law is based on the law of repeal.
Without following the history and what was and what was not written in the next statute that may still apply from over 1000 years ago is a lot to ask, and with equity creating a whole new jurisdiction and moving everyone equally under life tenants within municipal law only creates a situation many can not see.R. v. C. (W. J.), 2008 MBCA 11 (CanLII)
How does repealing a statute affect another statute that incorporates it by reference?
28 Generally speaking, when legislation is repealed, it ceases to be law. As described by Professor Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 4th ed. (Markham: Butterworths Canada Ltd., 2002) (at p. 527):
Repeal is the key terminal event in the operation of legislation. When a repeal takes effect, the repealed legislation ceases to be law and ceases to be binding or to produce legal effects. … It also means that everything dependent on the repealed legislation for its existence or efficacy ceases to exist or to produce effects.)
29 This rule can be displaced by statute and, indeed, several survival clauses were built into the federal Interpretation Act. One of these clauses, s. 44(h) of the Interpretation Act, provides some assistance in addressing the issue at hand. It reads as follows:
Where an enactment, in this section called the “former enactment”, is repealed and another enactment, in this section called the “new enactment”, is substituted therefor,
(h) any reference in an unrepealed enactment to the former enactment shall, with respect to a subsequent transaction, matter or thing, be read and construed as a reference to the provisions of the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter as the former enactment, but where there are no provisions in the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter, the former enactment shall be read as unrepealed in so far as is necessary to maintain or give effect to the unrepealed enactment.[emphasis added]
I hope to find a way to discuss with learned individuals on a proper solution that does not injure any capacity and their choice.
What I think is required is a slow learning process over a period of time to allow the knowledge of history and the facts associated with this history can be absorbed in a constructive and not destructive manner, since in reality we either work together by agreements or nothing is left but force, and many are using force when agreements took us out of the stone age era of force and into the modern era of true freedoms by an agreement.
I hope I have come to the right place to discuss and work on this very serious and extremely delicate matter since it is hard to find those with a full understanding of the system of laws and jurisdiction, and there seem to be many lawyers and other in the legal field that could help address what you see and how as a whole can work to correct this matter of assumed slavery and how equity actually enforces the acceptance due to the agreements majority are not aware of due to the history of slavery to the recognized freedoms we have today, to what seems to be slavery by ignorance(soft tyranny) of the individual.
Why is this not the topic, since the freeman detaxers and all other major issues is based on not understanding the law they are subject to.
When one truly knows the differences between free agent and municipal agent, along with the true effects especially the responsibilities of those choices, then the ones that are trying to play both sides of the fence will be seen as such, and therefore by not making a permanent choice with full knowledge those being then in equity can be subject to those extreme punishments without being able to claim a fraud that could possibly circumvent the punishments they in fact agree to.
How many here can source the exact act of legislation (modern law) that makes one subject by acceptance and understand it?
How many hear fully understand the entire history of English law and how it applies today as a whole?
The issues seem to be based on belief since the English law is very specific and justifies absolute freedoms, yet majority of the “public” and “lawyers” are the only ones that are establishing a belief of absolute power of government when a government only has what was granted by the Constitutional Monarchy.
A “Constitution” signifies a constituted trust, taking possession of a thing in right of another.
I am unfamiliar with any modern English law that gives a trustee ultimate authority over a settlor and can force a constitution of a trust.
I see no wrong in an individual choosing self determination, yet I also agree with the jurisprudence you can not be self determined and a citizen.
If the individuals claiming that they want absolute freedoms are refused that recognition you get freeman on the land, new faiths,detaxers and all kinds of A4V schemes all are trying to circumvent what is already circumvented by the statute of uses and settlements.
If these individuals truly want to be free agents, set them free, the problem then the choice must be permanent in nature and must understand the choice, where without the history they will never be able to leave and will do nothing but attack the system they are forced (out of ignorance) to be subject to.
So please forgive me, yet it seems this is a topic that is most ignored yet requires the most attention to the main issues at hand, especially for those that breach their agreements.
