confused capacities & agreements

[rogfulton]

That sure is a pile of words in English. Too bad they make about as much sense as my grandmother when she denied being a radio just because she found a flower pot.

Edited to add: she made more sense once we got her back on her meds.

[Arthur Rubin]

Should this thread be moved into one of the Sovereign sections? Although I've never quite seen that particular word salad before, it certainly seems incompatible with real property ownership laws.

[HardyW]

Should this thread be moved into one of the Sovereign sections? Although I've never quite seen that particular word salad before, it certainly seems incompatible with real property ownership laws.

I wouldn't think so, the "Sovereign sections" are where we discuss, and sometimes mock, notable sovereign-type individuals and groups. But maybe a new sub board à la Pigpen could be created called something like "Previous threads of dubious value".

Then some notable ones could be moved there such as those of
Jamie0331 http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=11812
Cracker and Uilliam http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=11848
Apefarms http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=11876
daddy http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=11983

[parzival]

Contracts vs trust within English law and equity

Before I start this next post, since some may take what is presented the wrong way,

The freeman detaxers and religious beliefs and citizens in my opinion (and as the jurisprudence shows) are wrong there is no trust for these capacities, these capacities are equitable capacities with no right of inheritance to the land tenure, and these individual groups within equity can only create law within the grant from the use for a fee from the government within the Law of Property.

Blackstone commentaries explains hereditament (both types) plus what each tenure system is, and what capacities within English law that have inheritances, along with what are the types of estate within English law can be found in BOOK 2: RIGHTS OF THINGS (do not ignore footnotes)

Chap. 1: Of Property in General
Chap. 2: Of Real Propety and, First, of Corporeal Hereditaments
Chap. 3: Incorporeal Hereditaments
Chap. 4: Of the Feudal System
Chap. 5: Of the Ancient English Tenures
Chap. 6: Of the Modern English Tenures
Chap. 7: Of Freehold Estates, of Inheritance
Chap. 8: Of Freeholds, Not of Inheritance
Chap. 9: Of Estates Less than Freehold
Chap. 10: Of Estates Upon Condition
Chap. 11: Of Estates in Possession, Remainder, and Reversion
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... w-england/

I also agree with the English law & equity; those that try to play both sides of the common law and statute of uses should have the most severe punishments for trying to take a trust of another as trustee or quasi trustee or any other capacity, no one but the rightful owner has that power as your agreement states and nothing more.

Law is your agreements, without law there is only force and slavery, ignorance of your agreements is your individual responsibility and no other, anything else would destroy agreements and interactions between men/women that took us out of the stone age.

Yet to join a group, one then chooses the group laws; the English law group also has its own system of law and are based on many other groups laws combined into its own English law group which are now based on territory and who is the owner of that territory based on the rules of law of repeal based on land tenure and equity is a use to what makes up the tenure, where equity is the trust.

The settlor (free agent) grants to the Monarchy as trustee, the new trustee (monarchy) grants a use to govt (municipal corp the crown), the govt sells titles to life tenants (municipal subject) that agree to this system based on a use for a fee. Where the law of property creates the powers of life tenant into an assumed owner the same as the Monarchy and govt, yet to a different hereditament and use in trust, “legal and equitable titles times 3”, 3 levels of trust, 3 different levels of legal and equitable title to the same land tenure in common law yet each level of trust does not give the whole granted to it, it is in trust, under a different act of legislation (agreements), what does the agreement say, who granted, who is the receiver and what was given exactly since 1086?.

Privity of agreements also applies to act of law, Government are bound to Statute of Uses, Citizens of the Government Law of Property, based on the Settled Land Act, Settlements Act and Bill of Rights from the monarchy to the crown corporation govt is also 2 fold, you have those elected by the life tenants that are life tenants, the 2nd is an appointed govt as seal holders to the monarchy and succession of what is held in trust to the monarchy.

As this forum topic is proving by the replies majority do not understand what agreements and the rights and duties they have to these agreements and why they are rights and duties, and is the main issue for both sides, when there is a simple answer that explains the issues within the English law itself.

I am not here to blame, make conflict in any manner or talk down to anyone, I am here to discuss these major factors written within the ENglish law and how this is being overlooked by everyone but the judges, and why it seems most do not agree or understand with the judgements of the judges that must follow ALL THE LAW as it is written and PRESCRIBED based on what each individual agrees with by the law of domicile, this website terms of service seems to understand this legal fact.

The point to this whole topic is that the agreements tell all, yet no one looks to the source, there is a trust, just not for the capacity of life tenant or the statutory owner with a title by fee-simple.

It also seems that majority as citizens believe they are an absolute owner of the lands and things attached one purchases or inherited from a citizen or government this is false.

Everyone in equity is a life tenant and equal within equity only when life tenant vs life tenant with an assumed right of ownership in trust until the one in the capacity as settlor (rightful owner in trust law) chooses to terminate the settlement, or there would be no such thing as freedom in the current modern system of English law and equity.

Just because one does not look, does not mean citizen is slavery, everyone has chosen citizen with full notice of the trust , unless one chooses to ignore the Law of Poperty Act that creates a residence and municipal subect as tenant for life with only a use for a fee under a trust of land.

Now to get on with the topic of the post.

I am sure everyone agrees on the absolute freedoms of: no one can be forced to join a group or to constitute a trust in order to create a right over another without their knowledge or consent.

On that note I will now address what English law and equity determines as a contract and a trust.

Let's look to what the English law says for determining an agreement, and if the agreement is a contract or trust.


I hope we can all agree a contract (principal and agent within law of agency) is something granted away with no future right to what was conveyed, where a trust (principal and agent within law of agency PLUS (in addition to) the rules of trust law, uses and trusts) something is retained by the one granting the thing under a condition to be in trust for another.

TRUST: It is an equitable obligation the binds the trustee, to deal with property owned by him, the trust property, for the benefit of persons, known as beneficiaries, of whom he my be one, and anyone of who may enforce the obligation OR for the furtherance of certain purposes, such as charitable purposes.

The first fork in the law that needs to be determined is the agreement/conveyance and what was granted, was this grant as a contract or a trust? once that is determined either contract law or trust law rules follow.

In order to be within English law one must accept the groups agreement and grant what is required to join the group or one does not have the capacity in contracts or trusts within English law to create a conveyance under a trust as established by Law of Property Act.

Here is a good treatise that explains the law of property and the statute of uses and the differences in the two different jurisdictions..
A Stepping Stone to the Law of Real Property; being an elementary treatise on the Statute of Uses https://books.google.ca/books/about/A_S ... edir_esc=y



Therefore the first requirement in trust law within English law is to have the Legal Capacity to create a trust, in other words one must first agree to the trust = “must be a life tenant in equity, under law of property”.

In order to constitute a trust within English law, the current English law of equity calls this the 3 certainties and is as follows.

Contract law or trust law?

Source: THE UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA LAW STUDENTS' SOCIETY http://www.uviclss.ca/blog/student-reso ... d-outlines

“TRUST LAW CHECKLIST”
A VALID EXPRESS TRUST FOR PERSONS
STEP 1: CAPACITY: Does the settlor of the trust have the legal capacity to create a trust?

Apply the Law

“State the Law: to transfer property into the hands of a trustee or to validly declare oneself to hold property in trust on behalf of another one must have the legal capacity necessary to deal with the property intended to be the subject matter of the trust”

A settlor MUST:
Be a legal person (individual or corporation), as only legal persons can hold an interest in property
Have an interest in property, as a trust obligations applies to property
Have legal capacity to deal with their interest in property, as a settlor disposes of their interest in property be creating a trust

STEP 2: THE THREE CERTAINTIES: Knight v Knight

Assess whether the three certainties are met in the context of a given fact pattern, setting out the relevant rules and applying them to the facts and, if asked to do so, consider underlying factors that may influence a judicial decision on whether all of the three certainties are present.

CERTAINTY OF INTENTION

Certainty of Intention: refers to the intention of the settlor to create a trust

Apply the Law for Certainty of Intention

“State the law: for an express trust to exist there must be certainty (i) that another person is to hold property on trust for other persons or purposes or (ii) that the settlor himself holds property on trust for another person or purposes”

the intention can be expressed in writing, orally or inferred from written or oral evidence or even from the circumstances or conduct alone - no specific words are required to create a trust and words such as “in trust” or “as trustee for” are not required to show such an intention to create a trust nor do they necessarily lead to a finding of trust

Precatory expression are usually not sufficient to create a trust “ my hope, my wish, my expectation, etc” unless sufficient intention is found to create the trust

No formal steps required except in certain circumstances – testamentary trusts and statute of frauds

A. Intention can be:

Orally
In writing
Express
Inferred from conduct; or circumstances
Intended to make a full gift, therefore anything following is repugnant (Walker)
CERTAINTY OF SUBJECT MATTER

Certainty of Subject Matter: the property that is to be held in trust AND the amount/share of the trust property that the beneficiaries are to receive.

Apply the Law for Certainty of Subject Matter

“State the law: there are two aspects to certainty of subject matter: (i) certainty of property subject to the trust obligation; and (ii) certainty of amounts the beneficiaries are to receive. It is important for the trustee to know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, what property the trust obligation relates to and what the obligation is with respect o the distribution of income, property or capital trust.”

in Re Beardmore it was said that the certainty of subject matter must be known at the time the trust takes effect

The property and the person to whom it is to be given, must be certain, in order to raise a trust (Sprange)

A Certainty of Property Subject to the Trust Obligation

State the law: certainty of property subject to the trust obligation can be met by (a) reference to a specific piece of property or; (b) to a formula for determining the property subject to the trust obligation

If the court can, on objective standards, identify the quantum of trust property on a request by the trustees then the trust will not fail.

A. Ways to be Certain

Reference to a specific piece of property ie. legal description of land
Reference to a specific fund or amount of specific fund ie. bank, account #, and transit #
Formula to determine ie. “sufficient sum to pay $100 per month”
Okay if it is uncertain at time will is written or takes effect for testamentary
If capable of identification on objective basis i.e. sufficient sum so as to provide reasonable income for A would be OK (Re Golay’s Will Trust)
For inter vivos, nominal sum can be put in and you can add more money later… but don’t try to define further contributions with ambiguous language or trust may be void/left with only nominal sum.

Not Certain

Amount not known at the time “3/5 of the net estate” (Beadmore)
Unknown which bank accounts to be split up “from 3 accounts, 4 listed” (Romaniuk)

STEP 3: CONSTITUTION of a TRUST

REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRUST TO BE CONSTITUTED

Trustee must have title to the property : either legal or equitable, depending on the subject matter

State the law: for a trust to come into existence the trustee must have title to the property (be it legal or equitable) that is to be subject to the trust obligation. The title may be legal or equitable depending on the intent subject matter of the trust”

Result of Constituting a Trust: Once constituted, settlor cannot revoke or alter the trust unless this power has been expressly retained.

WAYS OF CONSTITUTING A TRUST

Settlor can transfer the intended trust property to another person to hold as trustee;
Settlor can declare himself to be a trustee with respect to property she owns
A third party can deliver property to the intended trustee

in Milroy v. Lord two ways of constituting a trust were noted – one can either: (i) transfer the property to another person to be held in trust for the intended donee (ii) declare oneself to be the trustee of the property or (iii) to have a third party transfer the property to the trustee that is intended to be the subject matter of the trust. The settlor must do everything he can to effect the transfer.

Declaring oneself to be a trustee requires clear evidence (Milroy v. Lord); see also e.g., Paul v. Constance and Watt v. Watt Estate as examples of situations in which the evidence was considered sufficiently clear to indicate that the settlor had declared himself a trustee

KEY POINTS

Settlor must do everything he can to effect the transfer
Three modes of transfer : direct gift, transferring to trustee, or declaring of trustee
Courts will not substitute one mode for another (Milroy)3


How Legal Interests in Property Are Transferred

Land: the instrument for transferring legal title to land usually takes the form of a deed
Chattels: transfer of title normally involves the transfer of possession. Sometimes a symbolic delivery may suffice.
Keys to a safe
Choses in Action: transferred by assignment. The assignment must be in writing and signed by the assignor.
Negotiable Instruments: transferred by negotiation
Securities: security transfers are legislatively mandated and vary

How Equitable Interests in Property Are Transferred

A person who has equitable interest in property can constitute the trust of that equitable interest by:
an assignment of the equitable interest to a trustee on trust for the proposed donee;
a declaration by that person that he or she is a trusee of the equitable interest for the proposed done
an instruction to existing trustees to hold the equitable interest in favour of the new intended beneficiary

Anyone that determines all agreements including Acts of the Juristic Unit and the Statutes from the Monarchies one will then understand what was given and to whom, and the conditions it was given

Express Trust Requirements

Saugestad v. Saugestad, 2006 BCSC 1839 (CanLII)
The requirements for the creation of an express trust include the three certainties: the language of the settlor must be imperative, the subject matter or trust property must be certain, and the objects of the trust must be certain: see Waters, Law of Trusts in Canada, supra, at 85, citing Knight v. Knight (1840), 3 Beav. 148, 49 E.R. 58. A self-declaration of trust can validly constitute a trust, provided there is clear evidence of the intention to do so; specific language declaring oneself a trustee is not required: see Waters, supra at 150-151; Watt v. Watt Estate, (1987) 49 Man.R. (2d) 317, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 534 (C.A.); Paul v. Constance, [1977] 1 W.L.R. 527, [1977] 1 All E.R. 195 (C.A.)

As we can see, the life tenant under law of property are under a use for a fee and is a trust, and not acting in their own right but in right of the crown agency as municipal subject, (agency by ratification at age “the express trust of a person”) and have constituted the group trust,

“where specific language declaring oneself a trustee is not required since it is the base requirement to join the group as life tenant.”

Constitution is a declaration of a trust where possession has been transferred, why the BNA Act 1867, and the statutes Westminster 1923 giving the powers required for Canada to constitute the trust granted by the monarchy by an act of law.

What is the Crown?

The crown only has an equitable interest (use) in lands and only holds the lands as a legal interest by a grant of law based on a trust of land granted to the Monarchy as a Crown Corporation as “Legal Personage”.

the current monarchy is a fideicommissarius (roman law), the government does not own the titles they sell to the municipal subject, the titles sold are in trust as trust for sale as established by the law of property.( creating an express trust).

Rochon (Litigation Guardian) v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1060 (CanLII)
[29] Upon the request of the Court, counsel looked further into the legislative history of the Crown Proceeding Act, specifically, the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia which preceded that legislation. In its Report on Civil Rights: Part 1 – Legal Position of the Crown, (1972), the Law Reform Commission reviewed the common law of Crown immunity, analyzed various options, and made a number of recommendations.
(30) With respect to the identity of the Crown, the Commission wrote at page 9:
The word “Crown” may be confusing to some. In law, the Crown is a term of art, the meaning of which bears little resemblance to the chattel that sits in the Tower of London to be gazed at by sightseers. The “Crown” is a description for Her Majesty Elizabeth II in her legal personage as Sovereign.
The expression describes “…corporate legal entity to which the law ascribes the legal rights and obligations of the various semi-sovereign units of government created by the BNA Act” It is necessary to speak of the Crown in the right of “the particular unit of government”. Therefore, for our purposes is Her Majesty in the right of BC,…

Const. 1867 deals with “property” the rule was inverted

Mercer v. Attorney General for Ontario, 1881 CanLII 6 (SCC)
The sovereign chosen by society holds the land in trust for the people, as a fidei commissum.
( Blacks law 9th edition : fideicommissum: from brevity, the fideicommissum will here be called “the trust”, the person upon whom it was imposed (fiduciarius) 'the trustee', and the person in whose favor it was imposed (fideicommissarius) the “beneficiary”.
Fideicommissarius: See Cestuequi Trust.
Cestuequi Trust: One who possesses equitable rights in property.
Cestque vie: The person whose life measures the duration of trust,gift,estate, or insurance contract.)
(701-2)…It was admitted by the learned counsel who represented the provinces in the argument before us, that this was true with respect to all matters of legislation, but it was contended that when the Act (Const. 1867) deals with “property” the rule was inverted and that the provinces take “all property” not by the Act in precise terms given to the Dominion.
The sole foundation for this contention appears to me to be based upon an assumption which in my judgment is altogether ERRONEOUS, namely, that the BNA Act, transfers as it were the legal estate in the Crown property from the Crown and vests it in the Dominion and the provinces respectively as corporations capable of holding property, real and personal, to them, their successors and assigns for ever, BUT THE ACT CONTEMPLATES NO SUCH THING.

Due to the Settled Land Act creating the powers of Law of property and the rights and duties of those in possession of the equitable estate (including a Corporation that has no inheritance BOOK 1, CHAPTER 18 Of Corporations) we need to look to the granting authority definitions as well as law of property definitions, where Law of Property applies only to those that have given acceptance as stated in both law or property and Settled Land Act.

BOOK 1, CHAPTER 18
Of Corporations
WE have hitherto considered persons in their natural capacities, and have treated of their rights and duties. But, as all personal rights die with the person; and, as the necessary forms of investing a series of individuals, one after another, with the same identical rights, would be very inconvenient, if not impracticable; it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public to have any particular rights kept on foot and continued, to constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality.

THESE artificial persons are called bodies politic, bodies corporate, (corpora corporata) or corporations: of which there is a great variety subsisting, for the advancement of religion, of learning, and of commerce; in order to preserve entire and for ever those rights and immunities, which, if they were granted only to those individuals of which the body corporate is composed, would upon their death be utterly lost and extinct. To show the advantages of these incorporations, let us consider the case of a college in either of our universities, founded ad studendum et orandum [for study and prayer], for the encouragement and support of religion and learning. If this was a mere voluntary assembly, the individuals which compose it might indeed read, pray, study, and perform scholastic exercises together, so long as they could agree to do so: but they could neither frame, nor receive, any laws or rules of their conduct; none at least, which would have any binding force, for want of a coercive power to create a sufficient obligation. Neither could they be capable so retaining any privileges or immunities:.......

IV. WE come now, in the last place, to consider how corporations may be dissolved. Any particular member may be disfranchised, or lose his place in the corporation, by acting contrary to the laws of the society, or the laws of the land; or he may resign it by his own voluntary act.60 But the body politic may also itself be dissolved in several ways; which dissolution is the civil death of the corporation: and in this case their lands and tenements shall revert to the person, or his heirs, who granted them to the corporation; for the law does annex a condition to every such grant, that if the corporation be dissolved, the grantor shall have the lands again, because the cause of the grant fails.61 The grant is indeed only during the life of the corporation; which may endure for ever: but, when that life is determined by the dissolution of the body politic, the grantor takes it back by reversion, as in the case of every other grant for life. And hence it appears how injurious as well to private as public rights, those statutes were, which vested in king Henry VIII, instead of the heirs of the founder, the lands of the dissolved monasteries. The debts of a corporation, either to or from it, are totally extinguished by its dissolution; so that the members thereof cannot recover, or be charged with them, in their natural capacities:62 agreeable to that maxim of the civil law,63 “si quid universitati debetur, singulis non debetur; nec, quod debet universitas, singuli debent.” [“Whatever is owed to a university, is not due to each member; nor is each individually responsible for university debts.”]

A CORPORATION may be dissolved, 1. By act of parliament, which is boundless in its operations; 2. By the natural death of all its members, in case of an aggregate corporation; 3. By surrender of its franchises into the hands of the king, which is a kind of suicide; 4. By forfeiture of its charter, through negligence or abuse of its franchises; in which case the law judges that the body politic has broken the condition upon which it was incorporated, and thereupon the incorporation is void.

https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-118/

The Settled Lands Act 1925 is law


The senior court judges continually state the same thing, Settled Land Act is not only fact of law, its general principles still continue to govern the rights and liabilities of a tenant for life under a strict settlement.

The SLA 1925 is applicable as stated in Chupryk v. Haykowski, 1980 CanLII 3025 (MB CA):
"The Act of 1882 was amended in small particulars by further statutes passed in 1884, 1887, 1889, and 1890, but its policy has stood the test of time, and though it has now been repealed and replaced by the Settled Land Act 1925, its general principles still continue to govern the rights and liabilities of a tenant for life under a strict settlement".

Settled Land Act Definitions
Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... ection/117

(iv)“Determinable fee” means a fee determinable whether by limitation or condition;
(vii)“Hereditaments” mean real property which on an intestacy might before the commencement of this Act have devolved on an heir;
(viii)“Instrument” does not include a statute unless the statute creates a settlement;
(ix)“Land” includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals whether or not held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of buildings (whether the division is horizontal, vertical or made in any other way) and other corporeal hereditaments; also a manor, an advowson, and a rent and other incorporeal hereditaments, and an easement, right, privilege, or benefit in, over, or derived from land, and any estate or interest in land [F2,but does not (except in the phrase “trust of land”) include] an undivided share in land;
(x)“Lease” includes an agreement for a lease, and “forestry lease” means a lease to the Forestry Commissioners for any purpose for which they are authorised to acquire land by the M1Forestry Act, 1919;
(xi)“Legal mortgage” means a mortgage by demise or subdemise or a charge by way of legal mortgage, and “legal mortgagee” has a corresponding meaning; “legal estate” means an estate interest or charge in or over land (subsisting or created at law) which is by statute authorised to subsist or to be created at law; and “equitable interests” mean all other interests and charges in or over land or in the proceeds of sale thereof; an equitable interest “capable of subsisting at law” means such an equitable interest as could validly subsist at law, if clothed with the legal estate; and “estate owner” means the owner of a legal estate;
(xii)“Limitation” includes a trust, and “trust” includes an implied or constructive trust;
(xiv)“Manor” includes lordship, and reputed manor or lordship; and “manorial incident” has the same meaning as in the M2Law of Property Act, 1922;
(xviii)“personal representative” means the executor, original or by representation, or administrator, for the time being of a deceased person, and where there are special personal representatives for the purposes of settled land means those personal representatives;
(xix)“Possession” includes receipt of rents and profits, or the right to receive the same, if any; and “income” includes rents and profits;
(xx)“property” includes any thing in action, and any interest in real or personal property;
(xxi)“purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for value, and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who in good faith acquires an interest in settled land for value; and in reference to a legal estate includes a chargee by way of legal mortgage;
(xxii)“Rent” includes yearly or other rent, and toll, duty, royalty, or other reservation, by the acre, or the ton, or otherwise; and, in relation to rent, “payment” includes delivery; and “fine” includes premium or fore-gift, and any payment, consideration, or benefit in the nature of a fine, premium, or fore-gift;
(xxiii)“Securities” include stocks, funds, and shares;
(xxiv)“Settled land” includes land which is deemed to be settled land; “settlement” includes an instrument or instruments which under this Act or the Acts which it replaces is or are deemed to be or which together constitute a settlement, and a settlement which is deemed to have been made by any person or to be subsisting for the purposes of this Act; “a settlement subsisting at the commencement of this Act” includes a settlement created by virtue of this Act immediately on the commencement thereof; and “trustees of the settlement” mean the trustees thereof for the purposes of this Act howsoever appointed or constituted;
(xxvi)“Statutory owner” means the trustees of the settlement or other persons who, during a minority, or at any other time when there is no tenant for life, have the powers of a tenant for life under this Act, but does not include the trustees of the settlement, where by virtue of an order of the court or otherwise the trustees have power to convey the settled land in the name of the tenant for life;
(xxvii)“Steward” includes deputy steward, or other proper officer, of a manor;
(xxviii)“Tenant for life” includes a person (not being a statutory owner) who has the powers of a tenant for life under this Act, and also (where the context requires) one of two or more persons who together constitute the tenant for life, or have the powers of a tenant for life; and “tenant in tail” includes a person entitled to an entailed interest in any property; and “entailed interest” has the same meaning as in the M3Law of Property Act, 1925;
(xxix)A “term of years absolute” means a term of years, taking effect either in possession or in reversion, with or without impeachment for waste, whether at a rent or not and whether subject or not to another legal estate, and whether certain or liable to determination by notice, re-entry, operation of law, or by a provision for cesser on redemption, or in any other event (other than the dropping of a life, or the determination of a determinable life interest), but does not include any term of years determinable with life or lives or with the cesser of a determinable life interest, nor, if created after the commencement of this Act, a term of years which is not expressed to take effect in possession within twenty-one years after the creation thereof where required by statute to take effect within that period; and in this definition the expression “term of years” includes a term for less than a year, or for a year or years and a fraction of a year or from year to year;
(xxx)“Trust corporation” means the Public Trustee or a corporation either appointed by the court in any particular case to be a trustee or entitled by rules made under subsection (3) of section four of the M4Public Trustee Act, 1906, to act as custodian trustee, and “trust for sale” [F5has the same meaning] as in the M5Law of Property Act, 1925;

Now with the jurisprudence to law of domicile for the equitable subjects and private international law for the free agents and how the equitable rights and duties to an agreement that creates a capacity of fee simple,

hopefully now one can start to understand free agent vs municipal subject is based on an agreement, which creates the capacity in accordance with what one receives from another that does not truly have droit droit (right of ownership and possession), why when an individual takes from the government or citizen or any other class of English subject is taking that thing in trust, and then the descent or purchaser become the trustee.

The one you received the thing or power from is only a trustee and not true owner, an assumed owner in trust with a legal power to sale, mortgage etc the lands as the Settled Land Act states or the life tenants would have no power to act as assumed owners and would have to apply to the court to do anything with the lands like they had to before the Settled Land Acts..

Free agent vs Municipal Subject

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] 1 SCR 425, 1990 CanLII 135 (SCC)
This difference flows from the nature of corporate existence. While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities.

The cestui que is a land trust, and was never repealed, yet the power to manage the cestui que trust and the subject was taken from the ecclesiastic jurisdictions and given solely to the crown corporations by the statute of uses 1535.

Life Tenant (modern) is the Cestui Que use (feudal)

O'Dell v. Hastie 1968 513 SK QB
“A trustee, in the proper sense of the term, is one who holds the legal title to property for the benefit of another, known as the Cestui Que trust. All that is necessary to establish the relation of trustee and Cestui Que trust is to prove that the legal title was in the former and the equitable title in the latter. Being proved, no matter how, the relation of trustee and cestui que trust is thereby established.”

Trusts. Restraints on Alienation of Cestui's Equitable Life Estate.
Effect of Acquisition of Remainder by Cestui Harvard Law Review Vol 29
https://archive.org/details/jstor-1326081

Authorities differ as to the nature of the reversionaly interest. The trustees may be regarded as possessing the absolute legal title, the plaintiff having an equitable life estate and the acquired equitable reversion in fee.

Secondly, it is suggested that the trustees have an estate for the plaintiff's life, followed by a legal reversion in fee held by the plaintiff.

If the cestui here acquired an equitable reversion, his life estate could not merge therein in violation of the statute, so far as to give him an alienable equitable fee. See Moore's Estate, supra. But if such a merger were possible and the life estate extinguished, then by the rule of common law the cestui could force the trustee to transfer to him the legal life estate. Inches v. Hill, io6 Mass. 575. See 2 PERRY, TRUSTS, 5 ed., ? 8i6 a.On the other hand, if the cestui acquired a legal reversion, no question of merger could ever arise, for there can be no fusion of estates of dissimilar nature.

Perry seems to be the best authority and most quoted in regards to the statutory trust of the modern system created by the ecclesiastics in the feudal tenure (Now under statute of uses and 1.R.3.c.1).

Most seem to ignore footnotes (& side notes) to the current jurisprudence, by following the footnotes of the current scholars take you to perry and his treatise on trusts and trustee when under the exact trust now written into the Settled Land Act of the modern system of fee simple absolute.

A treatise on the law of trusts and trustees
by Perry, Jairus Ware, 1821-1877; https://archive.org/details/gopetre02perr/page/n10

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. Upon application of all the cestuis

pg 513
§ 828. Trust property or property substituted for it may be recovered from the trustee and all persons having notice of the trust.

Pg 516
If the trustees convey the estate by a breach of the trust, the cestui que trust " may follow the estate into the hands of a volunteer, whether he had notice of the trust or not ; and into the hands of one who takes by descent from any other than a bona fide purchaser without notice; and into the hands of a purchaser for value, if he has notice of the trust. ' Equity will follow trust funds into the hands of any one with notice.

Pg 517
Even the statute of limitations does not apply to a purchaser taking the property with full notice of the trust, and therefore by fraud. ^ The purchaser under such circumstances becomes a trustee, and liable in the same manner as the person from whom he purchased ; for, knowing another's rights to the property, he throws away his money.

Any collusion between the trustee and purchaser will render the sale voidable. Even trover may be maintained against a purchaser in breach of the trust with full knowledge of the trust. (a) And the rule applies not only to direct or express trusts, but also to all constructive trusts,' equitable incumbrances, and liens for resulting trusts and for the purchase-money.

But the trust following property purchased with trust funds does not arise absolutely; it is optional with the cestui to claim the property as subject to the trust, or to repudiate the trust as to the property, and rely on a personal claim against the trustee, and when he becomes aware of his right to elect, he must exercise it within a reasonable time.

As we are starting to see, the capacities and assumptions are based on individual agreements, where absolute freedoms are not available to municipal subjects, this makes a situation where the agreements determines what is truth for the individual (finding the seat in law for each individual and thing).

This catch22 to law and agreements while adding the mistakes of who one is, and what rights one has based on your individual agreements is making the beneficiary in equity as fee simple think they can take the assets of the trust as trustee and is what makes these other groups vexations, not that the trust is fake, it is the capacity and agreement that is overreaching the absolute rights (taking priority), the history to how English law became what it is today as equity and those confusions due to 1000’s of years of laws that make up Engish law.

No trustee can take a trust from the settlor in breach of the agreement, the agreement is written yet it seems majority has forgotten and why prescriptions and adverse possession is the foundation to English law, as the links in the very first post established by the rules of prescriptions.

[Pottapaug1938]

What's your point -- or do you even have one?

[rogfulton]

What's your point -- or do you even have one?

Or do you know?

[notorial dissent]

So many many many words. Yet in summary and summation of information delivery and value delivered totally null nil zero. Wholesale unwarranted senseless slaughter of defenseless electrons.

[parzival]

To help out the few that still cannot understand what is posted and the topic of this post “confused capacities to confused agreements” and once again must point out the issue.
It seems those as citizens (including many members of this website) can not understand who they are (LIFE TENANTS), and seem to also ignore this fact, then assume they have an absolute right of ownership when these SUBJECTS of the English law does not have that right, power or ability as is being pointed out within English law and equity.
YOU ARE ALL LIFE TENANTS UNDER A TRUST OF LAND !
By showing and stating you do not understand what is posted (shown in great detail) only proves this fact, yet your proving your own ignorance to your own agreements at the same time, by not knowing your in such an agreement…AND WHY THIS POST.
This confusion is due to terribly written English law as being shown, ( I did not write these, I am not blackstone, coke , littleton etc ) the citizens somehow have a belief they are owners when citizens and all those in Equity can only be LIFE TENANT and the citizens do not want to acknowledge they are in fact bound to a settlement and a trust as subjects.
This then takes us to the other side of this coin of this ignorance to law and equity, the freeman, detaxers and religious views that have a belief of some trust as beneficiary, which is also completely false, then these sovereign citizen group and citizens are fighting over the trust by A4V (rules of set off to trust only for the settlor), the right to make laws as an absolute owner over their dominion as free agent also which no one in English law subject has that right, plus many other confused issues due to not understanding WHO they are acting as or WHAT the English law is or what it represents (means and ends) , in other words everyone but the senior court judges seem to be confused on the very basics, yet most on this site slander and libel themselves and these other confused individuals and groups, when the one libel are also wrong in every manner and form also…..
The point of the “topic” is to prove where the ignorances are found (due to the fundamentals of English law posted in the first post are not understood), by not looking pre 1985, then to the next tenure to 1525 and then to the tenure that created both the previous by looking to 1086, then to learn what English law foundation is you must go much farther, past justinian and roman all the way to egyptian, and if you think this is not written then that ignorance is stopping you from looking where you will find the scholars of coke, littleton etc have also written these into english……..
I am so far unaware of anyone with any facts to dispute what is being posted by precedent and jurisprudence and acts and statutes lets not forget the treatise that explains these issues in detail many seem to ignore then continue to spout libel comments (which i don't care) yet shows much…..
Once again I am not here to comment or be part of any libel or slander or attacks in any manner or form, I am here to show the law that seems to be ignored and discuss it, yet so far all i see is english subject ridiculing themselves due to their own individual ignorance of the uses and trust all within English law are bound to as the common law of the LAND.

BOOK 3, CHAPTER 27
Of Proceedings in the Courts of Equity
AGAIN; neither a court of equity nor of law can vary men’s wills or agreements, or (in other words) make wills or agreements for them. Both are to understand them truly, and therefore both of them uniformly. One court ought not to extend, nor the other abridge, a lawful provision deliberately settled by the parties, contrary to its just intent. A court of equity, no more than a court of law, can relieve against a penalty in the nature of stated damages; as a rent of 5£ an acre for plowing up ancient meadow:34 nor against a lapse of time, where the time is material to the contract; as in covenants for renewal of leases. Both courts will equitably construe, but neither pretends to control or change, a lawful stipulation or engagement.
THE statute having thus, not abolished the conveyance to uses, but only annihilated the intervening estate of the feoffee, and turned the interest of cestuy que use into a legal instead of an equitable ownership; the courts of common law began to take cognizance of uses, instead of sending the party to seek his relief in chancery. And, considering them now as merely a mode of conveyance, very many of the rules before established in equity were adopted with improvements by the judges of the common law. The same persons only were held capable of being seized to a use, the same considerations were necessary for raising it, and it could only be raised of the same hereditaments, as formerly. But as the statute, the instant it was raised, converted it into an actual possession of the land, a great number of the incidents, that formerly attended it in its fiduciary state, were now at an end. The land could not escheat or be forfeited by the act or defect of the feoffee, nor be aliened to any purchaser discharged of the use, nor be liable to dower or curtesy on account of the seizin of such feoffee; because the legal estate never rests in him for a moment, but is instantaneously transferred to cestuy que use, as soon as the use is declared. And, as the use and the land were now convertible terms, they became liable to dower, curtesy, and escheat, in consequence of the seizin of cestuy que use, who was now become the terre-tenant also; and they likewise were no longer devisable by will.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-327/

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 20
Of Alienation by Deed
USES and trusts are in their original of a nature very similar, or rather exactly the same: answering more to the fidei-commissum [trust] than the usus-fructus [the usufruct], of the civil law; which latter was the temporary right of using a thing, without having the ultimate property, or full dominion of the substance.147 But the fidei-commissum, which usually was created by will, was the disposal of an inheritance to one, in confidence that he should convey it or dispose of the profits at the will of another. And it was the business of a particular magistrate, the praetor fidei-commissarius [judge of trusts], instituted by Augustus, to enforce the observance of this confidence.148 So that the right thereby given was looked upon as a vested right, and entitled to a remedy from a court of justice: which occasioned that known division of rights by the Roman law, into jus legitimum, a legal right, which was remedied by the ordinary course of law; jus fiduciarium, a right in trust, for which in courtesy, for which the remedy was only by entreaty or request.149 In our law, a use might be ranked under the rights of the second kind; being a confidence reposed in another who was tenant of the land, or terre-tenant, that he should dispose of the land according to the intentions of cestuy que, or him to whose use it was granted, and suffer him to take the profits.150 As, if a feoffment was made to A and his heirs, to the use of (or in trust for) B and his heirs; here at the common law A the terre-tenant had the legal property and possession of the land, but B the cestuy que use was in conscience and equity to have the profits and disposal of it.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-220/

Back to the topic


This next post is fairly long due to the history of english law most do not look into, this is a simple post using wikipedia, due to wikipedia not being acceptable in a court of law as fact of law I have also attached links to treatises in English for anyone that one to take a closer look…..
When looking over this history, law is based on the rules of repeal, where only the parts of the law changed for the exact same capacity to the exact same thing in issue, only then does a repeal act as repeal, yet anytime that capacity and thing have the same issue if the new repealed law does not deal with that same capacity and things in an exact manner, the old law comes alive again to deal with that injury, yet the only one with the jurisdiction to deal with the matter is the current holder of that power, and may not be the same entity that controlled that power in a previous tenure, example an exact issue in 1380, to the exact same issue in 2019, where in 2019 only the government or senior courts have that ability now, (law of repeals can be found by case law in previous posts in this topic, trying not to have any duplicates)
Usurpation of lands 1066

Source: en.wikipedia.org/
William I (c. 1028 – 9 September 1087), usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087. A descendant of Rollo, he was Duke of Normandy from 1035 onward. After a long struggle to establish his power, by 1060 his hold on Normandy was secure, and he launched the Norman conquest of England six years later. The rest of his life was marked by struggles to consolidate his hold over England and his continental lands and by difficulties with his eldest son.
William's final years were marked by difficulties in his continental domains, troubles with his eldest son, and threatened invasions of England by the Danes. In 1086 William ordered the compilation of the Domesday Book, a survey listing all the landholdings in England along with their pre-Conquest and current holders. William died in September 1087 while leading a campaign in northern France, and was buried in Caen. His reign in England was marked by the construction of castles, the settling of a new Norman nobility on the land, and change in the composition of the English clergy. He did not try to integrate his various domains into one empire but instead continued to administer each part separately. William's lands were divided after his death: Normandy went to his eldest son, Robert Curthose, and his second surviving son, William Rufus, received England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Conqueror

Domesday Book 1086

Source: en.wikipedia.org/
Domesday Book Latin: Liber de Wintonia "Book of Winchester") is a manuscript record of the "Great Survey" of much of England and parts of Wales completed in 1086 by order of King William the Conqueror. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states:
Then, at the midwinter [1085], was the king in Gloucester with his council ... . After this had the king a large meeting, and very deep consultation with his council, about this land; how it was occupied, and by what sort of men. Then sent he his men over all England into each shire; commissioning them to find out "How many hundreds of hides were in the shire, what land the king himself had, and what stock upon the land; or, what dues he ought to have by the year from the shire."
It was written in Medieval Latin, was highly abbreviated, and included some vernacular native terms without Latin equivalents. The survey's main purpose was to determine what taxes had been owed during the reign of King Edward the Confessor, which allowed William to reassert the rights of the Crown and assess where power lay after a wholesale redistribution of land following the Norman conquest.
The assessors' reckoning of a man's holdings and their values, as recorded in Domesday Book, was dispositive and without appeal. The name "Domesday Book" (Middle English for "Doomsday Book") came into use in the 12th century. As Richard FitzNeal wrote in the Dialogus de Scaccario (circa 1179):
for as the sentence of that strict and terrible last account cannot be evaded by any skilful subterfuge, so when this book is appealed to ... its sentence cannot be quashed or set aside with impunity. That is why we have called the book "the Book of Judgement" ... because its decisions, like those of the Last Judgement, are unalterable.
The manuscript is held at The National Archives at Kew, London. In 2011, the Open Domesday site made the manuscript available online.
The book is an invaluable primary source for modern historians and historical economists. No survey approaching the scope and extent of Domesday Book was attempted again in Britain until the 1873 Return of Owners of Land (sometimes termed the "Modern Domesday") which presented the first complete, post-Domesday picture of the distribution of landed property in the British Isles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book

Cestui Que Trust creation

Cestui que (/ˈsɛstwi ˈkeɪ/; also cestuy que, "cestui a que") is a shortened version of cestui a que use le feoffment fuit fait, literally, "The person for whose benefit the feoffment was made." It is a Law French phrase of medieval English invention, which appears in the legal phrases cestui que trust, cestui que use, or cestui que vie. In contemporary English the phrase is also commonly pronounced "setty-kay" (/ˈsɛtikeɪ/) or "sesty-kay" (/ˈsɛstikeɪ/). According to Roebuck, Cestui que use is pronounced "setticky yuce" (/ˌsɛtɨkiˈjuːs/). Cestui que use and cestui que trust are more or less interchangeable terms. In some medieval materials, the phrase is seen as cestui a que.
The cestui que use is the person for whose benefit the trust is created. The cestui que trust is the person entitled to an equitable, as opposed to a legal, estate in the trust assets. Thus, if land is granted to A, for the use of B while in trust, with remainder to C when the trust terminates, A is the trustee, B is cestui que use, and C the cestui que trust. Ordinarily B and C would be the same person, so the terms are generally synonyms. Principally owing to their cumbersome nature, both have been virtually superseded by the term "beneficiary" in general law of trusts.
The cestui que use and trust were rooted in medieval law, and became a legal method to avoid the feudal (medieval) incidents (payments) to an overlord, while leaving the land for the use of another, who owed nothing to the lord. The law of cestui que tended to defer jurisdiction to courts of equity as opposed to common law courts. The cestui que was often utilized by persons who might be absent from the kingdom for an extended time (as on a Crusade, or a business adventure), and who held tenancy to the land, and owed feudal incidents to a lord. The land could be left for the use of a third party, who did not owe the incidents to the lord.
This legal status was also invented to circumvent the Statute of Mortmain. That statute was intended to end the relatively common practice of leaving real property to the Church at the time of the owner's death. Two conceptualizations, not mutually exclusive, of the term mortmain ("dead hand") of the term explain its origin(s): First, the "dead hand" may be characterized as that of the deceased donor and former owner to whose desire, as embodied in the testamentary provision that the Church hold title to the property, remained subject. Second, because the Church as a nonnatural person recognized at common law never died, the land never left the "dead hand" or, more accurately, the nonliving hand of the Church. Before the Statute of Mortmain, large amounts of land were bequeathed to the Church, which never relinquished it. This legal arrangement was in contradistinction to others in which the land could be transferred to anyone, inherited only through a family line (sometimes sex-specific), or revert to a lord or the Crown upon death of the tenant. Church land had been a source of contention between the Crown and the Church for centuries. Cestui que use allowed religious orders to inhabit land, while the title resided with a corporation of lawyers or other entities, who nominally had no relation to the Church.
History in German and Roman law
It is the opinion of William Holdsworth quoting such scholars as Gilbert, Sanders, Blackstone, Spence and Digby, that cestui que in English law had a Roman origin. An analogy exists between cestui que uses and a usufructus (usufruct) or the bequest of a fideicommissum. These all tended to create a feoffement to one person for the use of another. Gilbert writes, (also seen in Blackstone): "that they answer more to the fideicommissum than the usufructus of the civil law." These were transplanted into England from Roman civil law about the close of the reign of Edward III of England by means of foreign ecclesiastics who introduced them to evade the Statute of Mortmain. Others argue that the comparison between cestui que and Roman law is merely superficial. 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".
The earliest appearance of cestui que in the medieval period was the feoffee to uses, which like the Salman, held on account of another. This was called the cestui que use. It was because the feoffor could impose on him many various duties that landowners acquired through his instrumentality the power to do many things with their land. This was a to avoid the rigidity of medieval common law of land and its uses. Germanic law was familiar with the idea that a man who holds property on account of, or to the use of another is bound to fulfill his trust. Frankish formulas from the Merovingian period describe property given to a church ad opus sancti illius. Mercian books in the ninth century convey land ad opus monachorum. The Domesday Book refers to geld or money, sac and soc held in ad opus regus, or in reginae or vicecomitis. The laws of William I of England speak of the sheriff holding money al os le rei ("for the use of the king").
Others state that the cestui que use trust was the product of Roman Law. In England it was the invention of ecclesiastics who wanted to escape the Statute of Mortmain. The goal was to obtain a conveyance of an estate to a friendly person or corporation, with the intent that the use of the estate would reside with the original owner.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestui_que

A Treatise on Parochial Settlements: In Two Parts. 1. On the Law of Settlement. 2. On Evidence
https://archive.org/details/atreatiseon ... g/page/n17
Statute of uses 1535

The Statute of Uses (27 Hen 8 c 10) was an Act of the Parliament of England that restricted the application of uses in English property law. The Statute was originally conceived by Henry VIII of England as a way to rectify his financial problems by simplifying the law of uses, which moved land outside the royal tax revenue, traditionally gathered through seisin. His initial efforts, which would remove uses almost completely, were stymied at the 1529 Parliament by members of the House of Commons, many of whom were landowners (who would lose money) and lawyers (who benefited in fees from the confusing law on uses). Academics disagree on how the Commons were brought around, but an eventual set of bills introduced in 1535 was passed by both the Lords and Commons in 1536.
The eventual bills invalidated all uses that did not impose an active duty on trustees, with the beneficiaries of the use being held as the legal owners of the land, meaning they had to pay tax. The Statute partially led to the Pilgrimage of Grace, and more importantly the development of trusts, but academics disagree as to its effectiveness. While most agree that it was important, with Eric Ives writing that "the effect which its provisions had upon the development of English land law was revolutionary", some say that by allowing uses and devises in certain areas it not only failed to remove the fraudulent element from land law but actively encouraged it.
Background
The common law of England did not provide for a way to dispose of land held by feudal tenure through wills, only urban land, and instead uses were applied, which allowed a landowner to give his land to one or more feoffees, to dispose of it or treat it as the original landowner provided. It was viewed with distrust due to the possibility of abuse; Edward Coke wrote that "there were two Inventors of Uses, Fear and Fraud; Fear in Times of Troubles and civil Wars to save their Inheritances from being forfeited; and Fraud to defeat due Debts, lawful Actions, Wards, Escheats, Mortmains etc". With as many as 13 of such feoffees, there was much confusion over the title to land following a lord's death, as evidenced by the case of Sir John Fastolf, which lasted from 1459 to 1476. While this was a problem that needed correcting, the actual motivation of the Statute was not to do so, but instead to bolster the finances of Henry VIII. For several years prior to the Statute, Henry had been struggling with the need to raise revenue; his royal lands did not provide enough, loans and benevolences would have destroyed his personal popularity; as a result, simply increasing the size of his royal lands was the best option. He turned his attention to land law, arguably the most well developed and complex parts of the common law, and sought to reform it to further his aims. This was well-aimed, since it was uses that were destroying his income; the royal revenue was traditionally gathered through seisin, which uses completely ignored.
Two bills were drawn up to be submitted to Parliament in 1529. The first, which took note of "grate trobull, vexacion, and unquietness amonges the kynges suggettes for tytyll of londes, tenements, and other heriditamentes as well by intayle as by uses and forgyng of false evidence", was a radical and "drastic" act bill that would have removed uses completely (unless registered at the Court of King's Bench or Court of Common Pleas) and abolished entails "so that all manner of possessions be in state of fee simple from this day forward for ever", although barons and above were allowed entails; in addition, nobody was allowed to buy such land without the king's licence. These measures were to obtain the support of the nobility for the second bill, which gave the King wardship over all the land held by noble orphans. When the orphan came of age and asked for the return of the lands, the king was to have a year's revenue from a third of those lands. While this plan was acceptable to barons and other senior nobles, it required passing by the House of Commons. The large landowners in the Commons felt that it prohibited them from making secure wills, while the lawyers saw it as stripping valuable business away from them by simplifying such cases; with these groups making up the majority of Parliament, these plans came to nothing.
The Parliament of 1532 saw another attempt by Henry to push the bill through, but it again met resistance; while the support of the nobility was valuable, it was useless in the Commons. Henry instead sought to appeal to one of the two opposition groups, and picked the lawyers. Many lawyers admitted that the uses made fraud easy and open, and in addition the lawyers of the common law were jealous of the Court of Chancery's equitable jurisdiction, and sought to strip it away. As a result, Henry decided to bring them over to his side by frightening them, listening to a petition against court procedure and lawyers' fees, and openly musing about putting a clause in the draft bills that would fix the amount they could charge; Holdsworth argues that this was the reason the lawyers chose to ally with Henry, and the reason for the Statute's passage. John Bean disagrees, arguing first that many lawyers were landowners, and would have lost more personally than any reduction in fees could have produced, and second that even if they had been convinced, it is unlikely that lawyers made up a majority of the Commons and could have pushed a bill through alone.
Repeal
The whole Act was declared, by section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1924, to have been repealed by the Law of Property Act 1922.
The whole Act was repealed by section 207 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Law of Property Act 1925. The repeal of the statute of Uses did not affect the operation thereof in regard to dealings taking effect before the commencement of the Law of Property Act 1925.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Uses

The Political Causes Which Shaped the Statute of Uses
W. S. Holdsworth
Harvard Law Review
Vol. 26, No. 2 (Dec., 1912), pp. 108-127 (20 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1324477?se ... b_contents
Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571

The Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571 (13 Eliz 1, c 5), also known as the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, was an Act of Parliament in England, which laid the foundations for fraudulent transactions to be unwound when a person had gone insolvent or bankrupt. The provisions contained in the 1571 Act were replaced by Part IX of the Law of Property Act 1925, which has since been replaced by Part XVI of the Insolvency Act 1986.
“For the avoiding of feigned, covinous and fraudulent feoffments, gifts, grants, alienations, bonds, suits, judgments and executions, as well of lands and in tenements, as of goods and chattels, more commonly used and practised in these days than hath been seen or heard of heretofore; which feoffments, gifts, grants etc have been and are devised and contrived of malice, fraud, covin, collusion or guile to the end, purpose and intent to delay, hinder or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, etc; not only to the let or hindrance of the due course and execution of law and justice, but also to the overthrow of all true and plain dealing, bargaining and chevisance between man and man, without the which no commonwealth or civil society can be maintained or continued.
Be it therefore declared, ordained and enacted, that all and every feoffment, gift, grant, alienation, bargain and conveyance of lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods and chattels, or any of them, by writing or otherwise, and all and every bond, suit, judgment and execution at any time had or made to or for any intent or purpose before declared and expressed, shall be from henceforth deemed and taken, only as against that person or persons, his or their heirs, successors, executors, administrators and signs of every of them, whose actions, suits, debts, etc; by such guileful, covinous or fraudulent devices and practices, as is aforesaid, are, shall or might be in anywise disturbed, hindered, delayed or defrauded, to be clearly and utterly void, frustrate, and of none effect, any pretence, color feigned consideration, expressing of use or any other matter or thing to the contrary notwithstanding.
Provided that this act or anything therein contained shall not extend to any estate or interest in land, tenements, hereditaments, leases, rents, commons, profits, goods or chattels, had, made, conveyed or assured, or hereafter to be had, made, conveyed or assured, which estate or interest is or shall be, upon good consideration and bona fide, lawfully conveyed or assured to any person or persons, or bodies politic or corporate, not having at the time of such conveyance or assurance to them made any manner of notice or knowledge of such covin, fraud or collusion as is aforesaid.”
It is clear from the text of the statute that it was framed in a purposive manner. So if someone had the intention of defrauding a creditor, unless a transaction was made bona fide and for good consideration, it would be void.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulen ... s_Act_1571

A Treatise on the Construction of the Statutes, 13 Eliz. C. 5, and 27 Eliz
https://archive.org/details/atreatiseon ... og/page/n9

The Interregnum 1649–1660

The Interregnum was the period between the execution of Charles I on 30 January 1649 and the arrival of his son Charles II in London on 29 May 1660 which marked the start of the Restoration. During the Interregnum, England was under various forms of republican government (see Commonwealth of England; this article describes other facets of the Interregnum).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interregnum_(England)

Restoration

The Restoration of the English monarchy took place in 1660 when King Charles II returned to England after the Interregnum (with periods of Commonwealth and Protectorate rule), which started after the end of the Second English Civil War, with the execution of King Charles I of England on 30 January 1649.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_(England)

Bill of Rights 1688 & 1689

The English Bill of Rights was an act signed into law in 1689 by William III and Mary II, who became co-rulers in England after the overthrow of King James II. The bill outlined specific constitutional and civil rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy. Many experts regard the English Bill of Rights as the primary law that set the stage for a constitutional monarchy in England. It’s also credited as being an inspiration for the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Glorious Revolution
The Glorious Revolution, which took place in England from 1688-1689, involved the ousting of King James II.
https://www.history.com/topics/british- ... -of-rights

Bill of Rights [1688]
1688 CHAPTER 2 1 Will and Mar Sess 2
X1Whereas the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the Estates of the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the Names and Stile of William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and Comons in the Words following viz
[X5And in all and every such Case or Cases the People of these Realmes shall be and are hereby absolved of their Allegiance] And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled holding Communion or Professing F4... as aforesaid were naturally dead [X6
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will ... troduction

The Bill of Rights, also known as the English Bill of Rights, is an Act of the Parliament of England that sets out certain basic civil rights and clarifies who would be next to inherit the Crown. It received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1689 and is a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William III and Mary II in February 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament. It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and reestablished the right of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law. It also includes no right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights described and condemned several misdeeds of James II of England.
These ideas reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England. It also sets out – or, in the view of its drafters, restates – certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Act of Settlement 1700 and 1701

The Act of Settlement is an Act of the Parliament of England that was passed in 1701 to settle the succession to the English and Irish crowns on Protestants only. The next Protestant in line to the throne was the Electress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland, I of England and Ireland. After her the crowns would descend only to her non-Roman Catholic heirs.
The act was prompted by the failure of King William III & II and Queen Mary II, as well as of Mary's sister Queen Anne, to produce any surviving children, and the Roman Catholic religion of all other members of the House of Stuart. The line of Sophia of Hanover was the most junior among the Stuarts, but consisted of convinced Protestants. Sophia died on 8 June 1714, before the death of Queen Anne on 1 August 1714. On Queen Anne's death, Sophia's son duly became King George I and started the Hanoverian dynasty in Britain.
Along with the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement remains today one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession not only to the throne of the United Kingdom, but to those of the other Commonwealth realms, whether by assumption or by patriation. The Act of Settlement cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm's own parliament and, by convention, only with the consent of all the other realms, as it touches on the succession to the shared crown.
Original context
Following the Glorious Revolution, the line of succession to the English throne was governed by the Bill of Rights 1689, which declared that the flight of James II from England to France during the revolution amounted to an abdication of the throne and that James' daughter Mary II and her husband, William III (who was also James' nephew), were James' successors. The Bill of Rights also provided that the line of succession would go through their descendants, then through Mary's sister Anne and her descendants, and then to the issue of William III by a possible later marriage. During the debate, the House of Lords had attempted to append Sophia and her descendants to the line of succession, but the amendment failed in the Commons.
Mary II died childless in 1694, after which William III did not remarry. In 1700, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, who was Anne's only child to survive infancy, died of a fever at the age of 11. Thus, Anne was left as the only person in line to the throne. The Bill of Rights excluded Catholics from the throne, which ruled out James II and his descendants. However, it did not provide for the further succession after Anne. Parliament thus saw the need to settle the succession on Sophia and her descendants, and thereby guarantee the continuity of the Crown in the Protestant line.
With religion and lineage initially decided, the ascendancy of William of Orange in 1689 would also bring his partiality to his foreign favourites that followed. By 1701 English jealousy of foreigners was rampant, and action was considered necessary for correction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

A Treatise on Parochial Settlements: In Two Parts. 1. On the Law of Settlement. 2. On Evidence
https://archive.org/details/atreatiseon ... g/page/n17

Settled Land Act 1882 - 1925

Source: en.wikipedia.org/
The Settled Land Acts were a series of English land law enactments concerning the limits of creating a settlement, a conveyancing device used by a property owner who wants to ensure that provision of future generations of his family.
Two main types of settlement
Under a trust for sale, the property, which can be real or personal (land or goods), is transferred by the owner by deed or will to trustees who are obliged to sell the property and hold the proceeds of sale for the beneficiaries.
A strict settlement can only be created over land and it was a device which was used by a landowner to keep the land within his family.
By using the device of the strict settlement the ownership of the property was divided over time by using limited freehold estates.
The limited freehold estates
A fee tail is a limited estate with succession confined to the direct descendants of the original holder of the estate – descendent determined according to ancient heirship rules which leaned in favour of the eldest son.
A life estate is an estate to last someone's lifetime, either the grantee's lifetime or the lifetime of someone else – a life estate pur autre vie. These estates were used in the creation of a strict settlement.
The most common example of strict settlement occurs where a landowner provides in his will that the land is to go to his eldest son for life and then the remainder is to pass to his son's eldest son in fee tail.
Settlement would often provide for payment of an annuity to the widow (jointure). Provision could be made for the younger children of the landowner by giving them a capital sum on reaching a certain age or getting married (portions). These were capital sums designed to set them up for life. They were secured by charging them on the land.
The strict settlement meant that the land was effectively inalienable.
Disadvantages of strict settlements
The eldest son could not sell the land.
It was not feasible to grant a long lease of the property.
He often could not even open and work any mines on the land himself as the laws of waste apply to life estates and they provide that you cannot open new mines unless you are unimpeachable for waste. Even if he was unimpeachable for waste he would often not have the money to open them. This meant that the optimum benefit could not be obtained from the land and meant that many landowners became impoverished.
The life tenant would have to pay the widow her annuity and the other children their portions.
It was difficult to mortgage the land.
Land could be mismanaged and fall into severe disrepair.
These difficulties were compounded by the fact that very often the settlement would continue on ad infinitum through the process of resettlement. The son's eldest son who was entitled to the fee tail could by barring the entail create a fee simple and bring the settlement to an end. He was not entitled to his interest in possession until his father died. While his father lived he could not bar the entail unless his father consented to it. His father would be reluctant to give his consent as this would mean the land would pass outside the family. Obviously the son would be in need of money to sustain him until he became entitled in possession. A compromise would be reached which would enable the land to remain in the family but at the same time satisfy the son's need for cash. The father and son would bar the entail but there would be a resettlement of the land which usually took the form of a conveyance to the father for life, to the eldest son for life remainder to his eldest son in tail. Ie the fee tail was passed back another generation. As part of the settlement the eldest son would be granted an immediate annuity on the land or a lump sum. If the family fell on hard times, these resettlements meant that the deterioration of the land and the impoverishment of the landowners continued for generation after generation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settled_Land_Acts

Here is a large selection of treatises to explain the Settled Land Acts in detail, https://archive.org/search.php?query=se ... land%20act

Trustee Act

English trust law concerns the creation and protection of asset funds, which are usually held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, but also share a history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts were mostly used where people left money in a will, created family settlements, created charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investments, especially in unit trusts and pension trusts, where trustees and fund managers usually invest assets for people who wish to save for retirement. Although people are generally free to write trusts in any way they like, an increasing number of statutes are designed to protect beneficiaries, or regulate the trust relationship, including the Trustee Act 1925, Trustee Investments Act 1961, Recognition of Trusts Act 1987, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Trustee Act 2000, Pensions Act 1995, Pensions Act 2004 and the Charities Act 2011.
Trusts are usually created by a settlor, who gives assets to one or more trustees who undertake to use the assets for the benefit of beneficiaries. Like in contract law no formality is required to make a trust, except where statute demands it (e.g. transfers of land, shares, for wills). To protect the settlor, English law demands a reasonable degree of certainty that a trust was intended. To be able to enforce the trust's terms, the courts also require reasonable certainty about which assets were entrusted, and which people were meant to be the trust's beneficiaries. Unlike some offshore tax havens and the United States, English law requires that a trust has at least one beneficiary if it is not charitable. The Charity Commission monitors how charity trustees perform their duties, and ensures charities serve the public interest. Pensions and investment trusts are closely regulated to protect people's savings and ensure that trustees or fund managers are accountable. Beyond these expressly created trusts, English law recognises "resulting" and "constructive" trusts that arise by automatic operation of law to prevent unjust enrichment, to correct wrongdoing or to create property rights where intentions are unclear. Although the word "trust" is used, resulting and constructive trusts are different because they mainly create property-based remedies to protect people's rights, and do not merely flow (like a contract or an express trust) from the consent of the parties. Generally speaking, however, trustees owe a range of duties to their beneficiaries. If a trust document is silent, trustees must avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest, manage the trust's affairs with reasonable care and skill, and only act for purposes consistent with the trust's terms. Some of these duties can be excluded, except where the statute makes duties compulsory, but all trustees must act in good faith in the best interests of the beneficiaries. If trustees breach their duties, the beneficiaries may make a claim for all property wrongfully paid away to be restored, and may trace and follow what was trust property and claim restitution from any third party who ought to have known of the breach of trust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_trust_law

Law of Property Act

The Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20) is a statute of the United Kingdom Parliament. It forms part of an interrelated programme of legislation introduced by Lord Chancellor Lord Birkenhead between 1922 and 1925. The programme was intended to modernise the English law of real property. The Act deals principally with the transfer of freehold or leasehold land by deed.
The LPA 1925, as amended, provides the core of English land law, particularly as regards many aspects of freehold land which is itself an important consideration in all other types of interest in land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Property_Act_1925

English common law, real property

Source: en.wikipedia.org/
In English common law, real property, real estate, realty, or immovable property is land which is the property of some person and all structures (also called improvements or fixtures) integrated with or affixed to the land, including crops, buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, and roads, among other things. The term is historic, arising from the now-discontinued form of action, which distinguished between real property disputes and personal property disputes. Personal property was, and continues to be, all property that is not real property.
In countries with personal ownership of real property, civil law protects the status of real property in real-estate markets, where estate agents work in the market of buying and selling real estate. Scottish civil law calls real property "heritable property", and in French-based law, it is called immobilier ("immovable property").
Historical background
The word "real" derives from Latin res ("thing"), which was used in Middle English to mean "relating to things, especially real property".
In common law, real property was property that could be protected by some form of real action,[clarification needed] in contrast to personal property, where a plaintiff would have to resort to another form of action. As a result of this formalist approach, some things the common law deems to be land would not be classified as such by most modern legal systems, for example an advowson (the right to nominate a priest) was real property. By contrast the rights of a leaseholder originate in personal actions and so the common law originally treated a leasehold as part of personal property.[citation needed]
The law now broadly distinguishes between real property (land and anything affixed to it) and personal property (everything else, e.g., clothing, furniture, money). The conceptual difference was between immovable property, which would transfer title along with the land, and movable property, which a person would retain title to.
In modern legal systems derived from English common law, classification of property as real or personal may vary somewhat according to jurisdiction or, even within jurisdictions, according to purpose, as in defining whether and how the property may be taxed.
Identification of real property
To be of any value a claim to any property must be accompanied by a verifiable and legal property description. Such a description usually makes use of natural or manmade boundaries such as seacoasts, rivers, streams, the crests of ridges, lakeshores, highways, roads, and railroad tracks or purpose-built markers such as cairns, surveyor's posts, fences, official government surveying marks (such as ones affixed by the National Geodetic Survey), and so forth. In many cases, a description refers to one or more lots on a plat, a map of property boundaries kept in public records.
Estates and ownership interests defined
The law recognizes different sorts of interests, called estates, in real property. The type of estate is generally determined by the language of the deed, lease, bill of sale, will, land grant, etc.through which the estate was acquired. Estates are distinguished by the varying property rights that vest in each, and that determine the duration and transferability of the various estates. A party enjoying an estate is called a "tenant".
Some important types of estates in land include:
Fee simple: An estate of indefinite duration, that can be freely transferred. The most common and perhaps most absolute type of estate, under which the tenant enjoys the greatest discretion over the disposal of the property.
Conditional Fee simple: An estate lasting forever as long as one or more conditions stipulated by the deed's grantor does not occur. If such a condition does occur, the property reverts to the grantor, or a remainder interest is passed on to a third party.
Fee tail: An estate which, upon the death of the tenant, is transferred to his or her heirs.
Life estate: An estate lasting for the natural life of the grantee, called a "life tenant". If a life estate can be sold, a sale does not change its duration, which is limited by the natural life of the original grantee.
A life estate pur autre vie is held by one person for the natural life of another person. Such an estate may arise if the original life tenant sells her life estate to another, or if the life estate is originally granted pur autre vie.
Leasehold: An estate of limited term, as set out in a contract, called a lease, between the party granted the leasehold, called the lessee, and another party, called the lessor, having a longer estate in the property. For example, an apartment-dweller with a one-year lease has a leasehold estate in her apartment. Lessees typically agree to pay a stated rent to the lessor. Though a leasehold relates to real property, the leasehold interest is historically classified as personal property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property

[parzival]

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 1
Of Property, in General
The former book of these commentaries having treated at large of the jura personarum [rights of persons], or such rights and duties as are annexed to the persons of men, the objects of our inquiry in this second book will be the jura rerum [rights of things], or those rights which a man may acquire in and to such external things as are unconnected with his person. These are what the writers on natural law style the rights of dominion, or property, concerning the nature and original of which I shall first premise a few observations, before I proceed to distribute and consider its several objects.

There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. And yet there are very few, that will give themselves the trouble to consider the original and foundation of this right. Pleased as we are with the possession, we seem afraid to look back to the means by which it was acquired, as if fearful of some defect in our title; or at best we rest satisfied with the decision of the laws in our favor, without examining the reason or authority upon which those laws have been built. We think it enough that our title is derived by the grant of the former proprietor, by descent from our ancestors, or by the last will and testament of the dying owner; not caring to reflect that (accurately and strictly speaking) there is no foundation in nature or in natural law, why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land; why the son should have a right to exclude his fellow creatures from a determinate spot of ground, because his father had done so, before him; or why the occupier of a particular field or of a jewel, when lying on his death-bed and no longer able to maintain possession, should be entitled to tell the rest of the world which of them should enjoy it after him. These inquiries, it must be owned, would be useless and even troublesome in common life. It is well if the mass of mankind will obey the laws when made, without scrutinizing too nicely into the reasons of making them. But, when law is to be considered not only as matter of practice, but also as a rational science, it cannot be improper or useless to examine more deeply the rudiments and grounds of these positive constitutions of society.
Wills therefore and testaments, rights of inheritance and successions, are all of them creatures of the civil or municipal laws, and accordingly are in all respects regulated by them; every distinct country having different ceremonies and requisites to make a testament completely valid: neither does any thing vary more that the right of inheritance under different national establishments. In England particularly, this diversity is carried to such a length, as if it had been meant to point out the power of the laws in regulating the succession to property, and how futile every claim must be that has not its foundation in the positive rules of the state. In personal estates the father may succeed to his children; in landed property he never can be their immediate heir, by any the remotest possibility: in general only the eldest son, in some places only the youngest, in others all the sons together, have a right to succeed to the inheritance: in real estates males are preferred to females, and the eldest male will usually exclude the rest; in the division of personal estates, the females of equal degree are admitted together with the males, and no right of primogeniture is allowed.

This one consideration may help to remove the scruples of many well-meaning persons, who set up a mistaken conscience in opposition to the rules of law…...
But, after all, there are some few things, which notwithstanding the general introduction and continuance of property, must still unavoidably remain in common; being such wherein nothing but an usufructuary property is capable of being had; and therefore they still belong to the first occupant, during the time he holds possession of them, and no longer. Such (among others) are the elements of light, air, and water; which a man may occupy by means of his windows, his gardens, his mills, and other conveniences: such also are the generality of those animals which are said to be ferae naturae [wild nature], or of a wild and untamable disposition; which any man may seize upon and keep for his own use or pleasure. All these things, so long as they remain in possession, every man has a right to enjoy without disturbance; but if once they escape from his custody, or he voluntarily abandons the use of them, they return to the common stock, and any man else has an equal right to seize and enjoy them afterwards.

Again; there are other things, in which a permanent property may subsist, not only as to the temporary use, but also the solid substance; and which yet would be frequently found without a proprietor, had not the wisdom of the law provided a remedy to obviate this inconvenience. Such are forests and other waste grounds, which were omitted to be appropriated in the general distribution of lands: such also are wrecks, estrays, and that species of wild animals, which the arbitrary constitutions of positive law have distinguished from the rest by the well-known appellation of game. With regard to these and some others, as disturbances and quarrels would frequently arise among individuals, contending about the acquisition of this species of property by first occupancy, the law has therefore wisely cut up the root of dissension, by vesting the things themselves in the sovereign of the state; or else in his representatives, appointed and authorized by him, being usually the lords of manors. And thus the legislature of England has universally promoted the grand ends of civil society, the peace and security of individuals, by steadily pursuing that wise and orderly maxim, of assigning to every thing capable of ownership a legal and determinate owner.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-201/

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 13
Of the Title to Things Real, in General
The foregoing chapters having been principally employed in defining the nature of things real, in describing the tenures by which they may be held, and in distinguishing the several kinds of estate or interest that may be had therein, I come now to consider, lastly the title to things real, with the manner of acquiring and losing it. A title is thus defined by Sir Edward Coke,1 titulus est justa causa possidendi id quod nostrum est; or, it is the means whereby the owner of lands has the just possession of his property.
There are several stages or degrees requisite to form a complete title to lands and tenements. We will consider them in a progressive order.
1. The lowest and most imperfect degree of title consists in the mere naked possession, or actual occupation of the estate; without any apparent right, or any shadow or pretense of right, or any shadow or pretense of right, to hold and continue such possession. This may happen, when one man invades the possession of another, and by force or surprise turns him out of the occupation of his lands; which is termed a disseizin, being a deprivation of that actual seizin, or corporal freehold of the lands, which the tenant before enjoyed.
II. The next step to a good and perfect title is the right of possession, which may reside in one man, while the actual possession is either in himself or in another. For if a man be disseized, or otherwise kept out of possession, by any of the means before-mentioned, though the actual possession be lost, yet he has still remaining in him the right of possession; and may exert it whenever he thinks proper, by entering upon the disseizor, and turning him out of that occupancy which he has so illegally gained. But this right of possession is of two sorts: an apparent right of possession, which may be defeated by proving a better; and an actual right of possession, which will stand the test against all opponents. Thus if the disseizor, or other wrongdoer, dies possessed of the land whereof he so became seized by his own unlawful act, and the same descends to his heir; now the heir has obtained an apparent right, though the actual right of possession resides in the person disseized; and it shall not be lawful for the person disseized to divest this apparent right by mere entry or other act of his own, but only by an action at law.2 For, until the contrary be proved by legal demonstration, the law will rather presume the right to reside in the heir, whose ancestor died seized, than in one who has no such presumptive evidence to urge in his own behalf. Which doctrine in some measure arose from the principles of the feudal law, which, after feuds became hereditary, much favored the right of descent;
III. The mere right of property, the jus proprietatis, without either possession or even the right of possession. This is frequently spoken of in our books under the name of the mere right, jus merum; and the estate of the owner is in such cases said to be totally divested, and put to a right.4 A person in this situation may have the true ultimate property of the lands in himself: but by the intervention of certain circumstances, either by his own negligence, the solemn act of ancestor, or the determination of a court of justice, the presumptive evidence of that right is strongly in favor of his antagonist; who has thereby obtained the absolute right of possession. As, in the first place, if a person disseized, or turned out of possession of his estate, neglects to pursue his remedy within the time limited by law; by this means the disseizor or his heirs gain the actual right of possession: for the law presumes that either he had a good right originally, in virtue of which he entered on the lands on question, or that since such his entry he has procured a sufficient title; and therefore, after so long an acquiescence, the law will not suffer his possession to be disturbed without inquiring into the absolute right of property. Yet, still, if the person disseized or his heir has the true right of property remaining in himself, his estate is indeed said to be turned into a mere right; but, by proving such his better right, he may at length recover the lands.
Thus, if a disseizor turns me out of possession of my lands, he thereby gains a mere naked possession, and I still retain the right of possession, and right of property. If the disseizor dies, and the lands descend to his son, the son gains an apparent right of possession; but I still retain the actual right both of possession and property. If I acquiesce for thirty years, without bringing any action to recover possession of the lands, the son gains the actual right of possession, and I retain nothing but the mere right of property. And even this right of property will fail, or at least it will be without a remedy, unless I pursue it within the space of sixty years.
IV. A complete title to lands, tenements, and hereditaments. For it is an ancient maxim of the law,5 that no title is completely good, unless the right of possession be joined with the right of property; which right is then denominated a double right, jus duplicatum, or droit droit.6 And when to this double right the actual possession is also united, when there is, according to the expression of Fleta,7 juris et seisinae conjunctio [a conjunction of the right and seizin], then, and then only, is the title completely legal.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-213/

A Stepping Stone to the Law of Real Property; being an elementary treatise on the statute of uses https://books.google.ca/books?id=7XpjAA ... er&f=false

Commonwealth realm

A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state in which Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning constitutional monarch and head of state. Each realm function as an independent co-equal kingdom from the other realms. As of 2019, there are 16 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. All 16 Commonwealth realms are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation of 53 member states. Elizabeth II is Head of the Commonwealth.
In 1952, Britain's proclamation of Elizabeth II's accession used the term realms to describe the seven sovereign states of which she was queen—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon. Since then, new realms have been created through independence of former colonies and dependencies and some realms have become republics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwea ... lth_realms

Commonwealth of Nations

The Commonwealth of Nations, normally known as the Commonwealth, is a political association of 53 member states, nearly all of them former territories of the British Empire. The chief institutions of the organisation are the Commonwealth Secretariat, which focuses on intergovernmental aspects, and the Commonwealth Foundation, which focuses on non-governmental relations between member states.
The Commonwealth dates back to the first half of the 20th century with the decolonisation of the British Empire through increased self-governance of its territories. It was originally created as the British Commonwealth of Nations through the Balfour Declaration at the 1926 Imperial Conference, and formalised by the United Kingdom through the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The current Commonwealth of Nations was formally constituted by the London Declaration in 1949, which modernised the community, and established the member states as "free and equal".
The human symbol of this free association is the Head of the Commonwealth, currently Queen Elizabeth II, and the 2018 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting appointed Charles, Prince of Wales to be her designated successor, although the position is not technically hereditary. The Queen is the head of state of 16 member states, known as the Commonwealth realms, while 32 other members are republics and five others have different monarchs.
Member states have no legal obligations to one another. Instead, they are united by English language, history, culture and their shared values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values are enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter and promoted by the quadrennial Commonwealth Games.
The countries of the Commonwealth cover more than 29,958,050 km2 (11,566,870 sq mi), equivalent to 20% of the world's land area, and span all six inhabited continents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

as the history to English law shows when one takes the time to look, is that the transition from a tyranny into an absolute freedoms was and is already settled, the tyranny is actual a soft tyranny due to those volunteering are not looking at what the English system is and who they in within that system as legal rights and duties to a legal estate in trust.

the next area of confusion is in the history to the international law, law of nations and the creation of the modern system under juristic law under a constitution from a grant of the monarchy to a CROWN corporation in which the subject get there rights and duties by volunteering as life tenants and do not understand this fact of law that is the foundations to English law and equity majority to have seemed to forgotten.

[NYGman]

Is it at all possible to post a one or two sentence, or at least no longer than a paragraph, and absolutely not pages, with quoted texts and headers. Please try to write it simply without the use of legal terms, as I am not sure you are using terms correctly. To be honest, we Don't care about you logic, or the history right now as it is really hard to figure out what you are on about. Trying to slug through your posts is hurting my head, as I really can't follow it, as it doesn't seem to make much sense to read for me. I honestly had to give up trying to figure out what you are on about as I don't know you premise or point.

So if you want to have a discussion, please sumerize your pont. I think it may be something along the lines of people are property, or there rights are based on those of property, but as that can't be right, or even for the moment, assuming it correct (on a park) please i how that would change things. If you want to point our something, please simplify what you are saying. You should be able to boil it down to a sentence or two. What is your position. Try starting with:


I believe that man is not subject to... Because...

If that is what you are trying to say even, it's so hard to figure out.

[Pottapaug1938]

Also, please spare us the endless cut-and-paste from antique legal tomes. Anyone who is halfway competent in reading and understanding the law would give us a sentence or two summing up your conclusions; and the quotes would be tied into those conclusions. Trying to read through your sludge of legalese is like being shown a pile of nuts, bolts, wires, glass, steel panels and so on, and then being told that I can build a car out of those.

[NYGman]

Trying to read through your sludge of legalese is like being shown a pile of nuts, bolts, wires, glass, steel panels and so on, and then being told that I can build a car out of those without any instruction

Spot on, but with a small tweak.

[parzival]

Since there still seems to be confusion to the post due to the amount of words, it seems anything over a certain amount of words confuses, and also explains why the Englilsh law books are not able to be understood by some, to many words stretched over too long of a period I will once again post the issue and only the issue and then see where that takes the topic them.

The issue is confused capacities to confused agreements.

The citizen and the sovereign citizen group are both wrong on the foundations to English law and equity as follows:

Confused capacities:
Citizens:

believe they are true owners as a Engish subject bound to the law of property.
state there is no such thing as a trust.
understand they are bound by government but can not prove why.
are bound to law of domicile, yet do not know why.

Sovereign citizens:

Believe they are not subject to any law but the law they write
Believe there is a trust for those subject as English law subject
Believe they are free and not bound to government rule

The detaxers:

Are just playing whatever they want to try to circumvent the common law tenure and equitable fees like the faiths did pre 1535 not to pay tax but reap the citizen benefits.

The faiths:

Believe they can create whatever law they want and take priority over all others.
Are playing the same game as detaxers, trying to play both sides of equity and common law to pick and choose how the group benefits and restrictions apply to them, again trying to circumvent the common law and equity rules they are bound to for joining the group.

Confused agreements
what happens when the individual making issue is not part of Equity as a life tenant?

Each one of the classes of subjects (capacities in law) within English law only have certain rights and duties based on who is making an issue.

When the sovereign citizens make claim against any other capacity as life tenant this is life tenant vs life tenant, where the law used by both is LAW OF PROPERTY, and are equal within that law, yet the judges are correct, and the citizens for the most part on the fraudulent claims based on what is claimed and by whom and the one in possession of what is claimed.

Now to make this super simple we will stop here since many words confuses and will build from this next question.

What happens if you as life tenant get a notice from one claiming to be settlor to the Settled Land Act 1925 as required by that act,
(For the sake of holding a type of moot situation all the information in the notice is correct as required by the settled land act,)

Do you (as citizens) comply with the notice to transfer the required legal estate as required by s.16(1)(ii), or would you refuse and neglect those duties based on your belief without looking to the Settled Land Act 1925 ?

[parzival]

the basics to English law is a person with a right to a thing, why there is a capacity (person) and the equitable right as fee simple to act as assumed owner under a trust of law.
the thing is the hereditaments, corporeal and incorporeal, and is what is in trust.

as we can see, confused capacity and agreements is the issue for the citizen, and those playing freeman, or sovereign citizen, due to not understanding the history and how the uses and trust was implemented in its current form.

fee-simple and citizens only have an equitable right as assumed owners, and The Statute of Limitations is a law of extinctive, not of acquisitive prescription. It operates to bar the owner out of possession, not to confer title on the trespasser or disseisor in possession.

I learn something new every day!

what i find interesting is how burnaby has pointed to the exact issue within English law and equity ... the punch line....

fee-simple and citizens only have an equitable right as assumed owners, and The Statute of Limitations is a law of extinctive, not of acquisitive prescription. It operates to bar the owner out of possession, not to confer title on the trespasser or disseisor in possession.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

what i find interesting...

I think this is where you are going wrong. No-one finds this interesting.

[parzival]

Trying to read through your sludge of legalese is like being shown a pile of nuts, bolts, wires, glass, steel panels and so on, and then being told that I can build a car out of those without any instruction

Spot on, but with a small tweak.

from A History of Germanic Private Law https://archive.org/details/ahistoryger ... g/page/n10

[parzival]

what i find interesting...

I think this is where you are going wrong. No-one finds this interesting.

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 1
Of Property, in General
The former book of these commentaries having treated at large of the jura personarum [rights of persons], or such rights and duties as are annexed to the persons of men, the objects of our inquiry in this second book will be the jura rerum [rights of things], or those rights which a man may acquire in and to such external things as are unconnected with his person. These are what the writers on natural law style the rights of dominion, or property, concerning the nature and original of which I shall first premise a few observations, before I proceed to distribute and consider its several objects.

There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. And yet there are very few, that will give themselves the trouble to consider the original and foundation of this right. Pleased as we are with the possession, we seem afraid to look back to the means by which it was acquired, as if fearful of some defect in our title; or at best we rest satisfied with the decision of the laws in our favor, without examining the reason or authority upon which those laws have been built. We think it enough that our title is derived by the grant of the former proprietor, by descent from our ancestors, or by the last will and testament of the dying owner; not caring to reflect that (accurately and strictly speaking) there is no foundation in nature or in natural law, why a set of words upon parchment should convey the dominion of land; why the son should have a right to exclude his fellow creatures from a determinate spot of ground, because his father had done so, before him; or why the occupier of a particular field or of a jewel, when lying on his death-bed and no longer able to maintain possession, should be entitled to tell the rest of the world which of them should enjoy it after him. These inquiries, it must be owned, would be useless and even troublesome in common life. It is well if the mass of mankind will obey the laws when made, without scrutinizing too nicely into the reasons of making them. But, when law is to be considered not only as matter of practice, but also as a rational science, it cannot be improper or useless to examine more deeply the rudiments and grounds of these positive constitutions of society.
Wills therefore and testaments, rights of inheritance and successions, are all of them creatures of the civil or municipal laws, and accordingly are in all respects regulated by them; every distinct country having different ceremonies and requisites to make a testament completely valid: neither does any thing vary more that the right of inheritance under different national establishments. In England particularly, this diversity is carried to such a length, as if it had been meant to point out the power of the laws in regulating the succession to property, and how futile every claim must be that has not its foundation in the positive rules of the state. In personal estates the father may succeed to his children; in landed property he never can be their immediate heir, by any the remotest possibility: in general only the eldest son, in some places only the youngest, in others all the sons together, have a right to succeed to the inheritance: in real estates males are preferred to females, and the eldest male will usually exclude the rest; in the division of personal estates, the females of equal degree are admitted together with the males, and no right of primogeniture is allowed.

This one consideration may help to remove the scruples of many well-meaning persons, who set up a mistaken conscience in opposition to the rules of law…...
But, after all, there are some few things, which notwithstanding the general introduction and continuance of property, must still unavoidably remain in common; being such wherein nothing but an usufructuary property is capable of being had; and therefore they still belong to the first occupant, during the time he holds possession of them, and no longer. Such (among others) are the elements of light, air, and water; which a man may occupy by means of his windows, his gardens, his mills, and other conveniences: such also are the generality of those animals which are said to be ferae naturae [wild nature], or of a wild and untamable disposition; which any man may seize upon and keep for his own use or pleasure. All these things, so long as they remain in possession, every man has a right to enjoy without disturbance; but if once they escape from his custody, or he voluntarily abandons the use of them, they return to the common stock, and any man else has an equal right to seize and enjoy them afterwards.

Again; there are other things, in which a permanent property may subsist, not only as to the temporary use, but also the solid substance; and which yet would be frequently found without a proprietor, had not the wisdom of the law provided a remedy to obviate this inconvenience. Such are forests and other waste grounds, which were omitted to be appropriated in the general distribution of lands: such also are wrecks, estrays, and that species of wild animals, which the arbitrary constitutions of positive law have distinguished from the rest by the well-known appellation of game. With regard to these and some others, as disturbances and quarrels would frequently arise among individuals, contending about the acquisition of this species of property by first occupancy, the law has therefore wisely cut up the root of dissension, by vesting the things themselves in the sovereign of the state; or else in his representatives, appointed and authorized by him, being usually the lords of manors. And thus the legislature of England has universally promoted the grand ends of civil society, the peace and security of individuals, by steadily pursuing that wise and orderly maxim, of assigning to every thing capable of ownership a legal and determinate owner.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-201/
not my fault everyone afraid to learn who they are truly acting as..

I wonder if the question will be answered or not LOL......

What happens if you as life tenant get a notice from one claiming to be settlor to the Settled Land Act 1925 as required by that act,
(For the sake of holding a type of moot situation all the information in the notice is correct as required by the settled land act,)

Do you (as citizens) comply with the notice to transfer the required legal estate as required by s.16(1)(ii), or would you refuse and neglect those duties based on your belief without looking to the Settled Land Act 1925 ?

[parzival]

granted everyone should understand settled land act and know how to answer the question, yet by the posts is a difficult question, since one would be required to understand all the information I have posted. (the amount of information is not my fault it is the English system)

on that note, let me ask another question, feel free to answer both if you wish, these are just moot scenarios that have no real legal or lawful force behind them, so let er rip. its a moot....

if you as citizen with legal title try to sell (anything) to a settlor for valuable consideration, is this type of conveyance a legal conveyance or considered fraudulent conveyance within the fraudulent conveyance of English law and equity?

in other words can the citizen sell to a settlor (or anyone not within English law) as a valuable consideration that transfers the right of absolute ownership and possession (droit droit)?

[Dark Optimist]

I've said this about other posters - I'm wondering if someone is trying to build a better bot and figured they'd use us to help train the system.

It is not moot because it's not relevant.

The fact that the code of Hamurabi is still studied for historical or philosophical purposes does not give it any relevance to current day and place.

A law passed in another country in another century that has long since been superseded by other legislation and case law has no relevance. If I am going to engage in a thought experiment, I have a very long list of items to contemplate before this.

[parzival]

I've said this about other posters - I'm wondering if someone is trying to build a better bot and figured they'd use us to help train the system.

It is not moot because it's not relevant.

The fact that the code of Hamurabi is still studied for historical or philosophical purposes does not give it any relevance to current day and place.

A law passed in another country in another century that has long since been superseded by other legislation and case law has no relevance. If I am going to engage in a thought experiment, I have a very long list of items to contemplate before this.

once again dodging the questions

What happens if you as life tenant get a notice from one claiming to be settlor to the Settled Land Act 1925 as required by that act,
(For the sake of holding a type of moot situation all the information in the notice is correct as required by the settled land act,)

Do you (as citizens) comply with the notice to transfer the required legal estate as required by s.16(1)(ii), or would you refuse and neglect those duties based on your belief without looking to the Settled Land Act 1925 ?

if you as citizen with legal title try to sell (anything) to a settlor for valuable consideration, is this type of conveyance a legal conveyance or considered fraudulent conveyance within the fraudulent conveyance of English law and equity?

in other words can the citizen sell to a settlor (or anyone not within English law) as a valuable consideration that transfers the right of absolute ownership and possession (droit droit)?

the settled land act is law, not my fault you dont understand the history to it,

as stated in Chupryk v. Haykowski, 1980 CanLII 3025 (MB CA):
"The Act of 1882 was amended in small particulars by further statutes passed in 1884, 1887, 1889, and 1890, but its policy has stood the test of time, and though it has now been repealed and replaced by the Settled Land Act 1925, its general principles still continue to govern the rights and liabilities of a tenant for life under a strict settlement".

ignorance of prescriptions and express trusts is the issue created from the statute of use,

SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
INTRODUCTION, SECTION 4
Of the Countries Subject to the Laws of England
Besides these adjacent islands, our more distant plantations in America, and elsewhere, are also in some respect subject to the English laws. Plantations or colonies, in distant countries, are either such where the lands are claimed by right of occupancy only, by finding them desert and uncultivated, and peopling them from the mother country; or where, when already cultivated, they have either gained, by conquest, or ceded to us by treaties. And both these rights are founded upon the law of nature, or at least upon that of nations. But there is a difference between these two species of colonies, with respect to the laws by which they are bound. For it has been held,35 that if an uninhabited country be discovered and planted by English subjects, all the English laws then in being, which are the birthright of every subject,36 are immediately there in force. But this must be understood with very many and very great restrictions. Such colonists carry with them only so much of the English law, as is applicable to their own situation and the condition of an infant colony; such, for instance, as the general rules of inheritance, and of protection from personal injuries. The artificial refinements and distinctions incident to the property of a great and commercial people, the laws of police and revenue, (such especially as are enforced by penalties) the mode of maintenance for the established clergy, the jurisdiction of spiritual courts, and a multitude of other provisions, are neither necessary nor convenient for them, and therefore are not in force. What shall be admitted and what rejected, at what times, and under what restrictions, must, in case of dispute, be decided in the first instance by their own provincial judicature, subject to the revision and control of the king in council: the whole of their constitution being also liable to be new-modeled and reformed by the general superintending power of the legislature in the mother country. But in conquered or ceded countries, that have already laws of their own, the king may indeed alter and change those laws; but, till he does actually change them, the ancient laws of the country remain, unless such as are against the law of God, as in the case of an infidel country.37

Our American plantations are principally of this latter sort, being obtained in the last century either by right of conquest and driving out the natives (with what natural justice I shall not at present inquire) or by treaties. And therefore the common law of England, as such, has no allowance or authority there; they being no part of the mother country, but distinct (though dependent) dominions. They are subject however to the control of the parliament, though (like Ireland, Man, and the rest) not bound by any acts of parliament, unless particularly named.

With respect to their interior polity, our colonies are properly of three sorts. 1. Provincial establishments, the constitutions of which depend on the respective commissions issued by the crown to the governors, and the instructions which usually accompany those commissions; under the authority of which, provincial assemblies are constituted, with the power of making local ordinances, not repugnant to the laws of England. 2. Proprietary governments, granted out by the crown to individuals, in the nature of feudatory principalities, with all the inferior regalities, and subordinate powers of Legislation, which formerly belonged to the owners of counties palatine: yet still with these express conditions, that the ends for which the grant was made be substantially pursued, and that nothing be attempted which may derogate from the sovereignty of the mother-country. 3. Charter governments, in the nature of civil corporations, with the power of making bye-laws for their own interior regulation, not contrary to the laws of England: and with such rights and authorities as are specially given them in their several charters of incorporation. The form of government in most of them is borrowed from that of England. They have a governor named by the king, (or in some proprietary colonies by the proprietor,) who is his representative or deputy. They have courts of justice of their own, from whose decisions an appeal lies to the king and council here in England. Their general assemblies which are their house of commons, together with their council of state being their upper house, with the concurrence of the king or his representative the governor, make laws suited to their own emergencies. But it is particularly declared by statute 7 and 8 W. III. c. 22. that all laws, bye-laws, usages, and customs, which shall be in practice in any of the plantations, repugnant to any law, made or to be made in this kingdom relative to the said plantations, shall be utterly void and of none effect; and, because several of the colonies had claimed the sole and exclusive right of imposing taxes upon themselves, the statute 6 Geo. III. c. 12. expressly declares, that all his majesty’s colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate to and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; who have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever. And this authority has been since very forcibly exemplified, and carried into act, by the statute 7 Geo. III. c. 59. for suspending the legislation of New York; and by several subsequent statutes.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-004/

I should not even have to post this, everyone should know what group they have joined......

International law
In international law, a sovereign state, sovereign country, or simply state, is a political entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.
While according to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state
Government
A government is the system or group of people governing an organized community, often a state.
In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, executive, and judiciary. Government is a means by which organizational policies are enforced, as well as a mechanism for determining policy. Each government has a kind of constitution, a statement of its governing principles and philosophy. Typically the philosophy chosen is some balance between the principle of individual freedom and the idea of absolute state authority (tyranny).
While all types of organizations have governance, the word government is often used more specifically to refer to the approximately 200 independent national governments on Earth, as well as subsidiary organizations.
Historically prevalent forms of government include monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, theocracy and tyranny. The main aspect of any philosophy of government is how political power is obtained, with the two main forms being electoral contest and hereditary succession.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
State
The term state refers to a form of polity, that is typically characterised as a centralized organisation. There is no single, undisputed, definition of what constitutes a state. A widely-used definition is a state being a polity that, within a given territory, maintains a monopoly on the use of force, but many other widely used definitions exist.
Some states are sovereign, while other states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony, where supreme authority lies in another state. The term "state" also applies to federated states that are members of the federation, in which sovereignty is shared between member states and a federal body.
Speakers of American English often use the terms "state" and "government" as synonyms, with both words referring to an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory. In British and Commonwealth English, "state" is the only term that has that meaning, while "the government" instead refers to the ministers and officials who set the political policy for the territory, something that speakers of American English refer to as "the administration".
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
Polity
A polity is an identifiable political entity. It can be defined as any group of people who have a collective identity, who have a capacity to mobilize resources, and are organized by some form of institutionalized hierarchy. A polity can be the government of a country, or country subdivision, or any other group of people organized for governance (such as a corporate board).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity
Local government
A local government is a form of public administration which, in a majority of contexts, exists as the lowest tier of administration within a given state. The term is used to contrast with offices at state level, which are referred to as the central government, national government, or (where appropriate) federal government and also to supranational government which deals with governing institutions between states. Local governments generally act within powers delegated to them by legislation or directives of the higher level of government. In federal states, local government generally comprises the third (or sometimes fourth) tier of government, whereas in unitary states, local government usually occupies the second or third tier of government, often with greater powers than higher-level administrative divisions.
The question of municipal autonomy is a key question of public administration and governance. The institutions of local government vary greatly between countries, and even where similar arrangements exist, the terminology often varies. Common names for local government entities include state, province, region, department, county, prefecture, district, city, township, town, borough, parish, municipality, shire, village, and local service district.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government
List of sovereign states
The following is a list providing an overview of sovereign states around the world, with information on their status and recognition of their sovereignty.
The 206 listed states can be divided into three categories based on membership within the United Nations system: 193 member states, two observer states and 11 other states. The sovereignty dispute column indicates states whose sovereignty is undisputed (190 states) and states whose sovereignty is disputed (16 states, of which there are six member states, one observer state and nine other states).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states