confused capacities & agreements

[noblepa]

IANAL, and perhaps I am a bit slow this morning, but I still haven't seen either Parzival or Dnatural make any kind of point.

They ramble on about all kinds of things related to trusts and life estates, but, so far, I have seen no point to any of this.

What am I missing?

[wserra]

What is it about the law that makes ignoramuses believe they're scholars?

[Pottapaug1938]

What is it about the law that makes ignoramuses believe they're scholars?

I think that it's the fact that the Internet has made it possible for pissants like parzival et al. to find scraps of real lawyer-talk, and decide that they are Quite the Legal Genius. Their complete ignorance of how to do actual legal research is dismissed because that's elitism, or something. Confirmation bias weighs heavily, here, as is the "research method" involving starting with a desired conclusion, and then mining quotes to "support" that conclusion.

[Dnatural]

What is happening through this dialogue is it really enforces the level of power the system has on the minds of men. It reminds of the movie Django whereby the master being shaved by his servant, with a straight razor, is not at all afraid as his slave is no longer programmed to think outside of what the master has programmed him to be.

I would like to thank those who are now speaking about law. Finally we are on tract but still submissive to our societal held roles and misguided beliefs, handed down from equally ignorant guardians (those whom [also] lack knowledge).

Each of you are still speaking from equity. You do not see any other law, which is its preemption, as you believe it was repealed to a subordinate law. SMFH

I HAVE FEE SIMPLE you say... yes you do my friend which is proof you have a right of use, as a tenant, upon the land. You own a title to use and b/c you think you control the land (you do in the scheme of equity), under the Law of Property... hey hold on here perhaps I should give you the definition of property as defined in the Settled Land Act and Law of Property..

(xx)“property” includes any thing in action, and any interest in real or personal property;

That's what you own.. an action. You have a title to motion in fee simple. To convey at your will according to what all others in fee simple will accept...not real land as the government does not have a right to land as was settled in the acts.. (bring a motion before court... haha)

Then some of you go on about that the maxims of law have been excluded in today's law... so we both agree that the self evident truths are no longer a part of the law, and that the property you hold onto you will never possess allodial or allodium titles... why b/c the law said so... you are proving my point. Self evident truths are not a part of the law (perhaps read that again as it proves that you are no longer dealing in truth but fact.)... I really do not know how much harder you can all slap your own selves in the face and still not see it... you are continuing to act as tenants. (btw the land title registry document that my roommate holds, clearly says tenant first than owner). Quatloos'ers you are, FOR GREATER CERTAINTY, tenants and will forever be one b/c of your held beliefs.

Blind they are, see they do not.

Parzival was attempting to bring in the history so those on Quatloos could see the difference between what is land and what is property, what is law and what is equity and try (I suspect) to attempt to give evidence in the fact that equity is your agreement, nothing more, and so when you release that agreement you are standing in what capacity? (s. 186 Law of Property, as in all law whereby one was never informed of the agreement (deed poll) there must be a release OR the law for which it stands upon is void).

Do you believe in one breath slavery is abolished and then in the next give birth to an heir (in fee simple) that owes a portion of the public debt... what is slavery again? Paying back promises called currency, backed by a belief in its value which is nothing more than trading words (incorporeal) to control property, made estates through the creation of undivided shares, by those who have agreed to be life tenants... OMG.

In reality, according to law and its history, you all belong to a settlement which you have agreed to through undue influences in a society which programs Qautloos'ers to fight for their right to a use in land... this is what you continue to repeal the rights offered in fee simple as a tenant.

Sad life whereby most believe in the burden of tax and a fear that it may all come tumbling down while they play the game, trying to bankrupt their neighbours. Wow!

[Burnaby49]

What is it about the law that makes ignoramuses believe they're scholars?

Michael Millar is a prime example. He's going to jail because of his obsessive belief that he's a legal genius who knows the law better than any judge or Crown counsel. In actual fact his only legal expertise is his own deluded understanding of the demented fantasy law that exists only in his head. He has no understanding whatever of real law. But, as the sovereign movement showed us, he's just one of legions.

[Dnatural]

What is it about the law that makes ignoramuses believe they're scholars?

I think that it's the fact that the Internet has made it possible for pissants like parzival et al. to find scraps of real lawyer-talk, and decide that they are Quite the Legal Genius. Their complete ignorance of how to do actual legal research is dismissed because that's elitism, or something. Confirmation bias weighs heavily, here, as is the "research method" involving starting with a desired conclusion, and then mining quotes to "support" that conclusion.

Haha... why in hell would anyone with knowledge of the law then demote themselves into being a lawyer? Perhaps research who created Cambridge and Oxford so to arrive at what a lawyer is and what he was/is trained to do... he deals with a part of the law without knowledge of the whole. Read about the hatred between the Inns and the Universities.

I assure you the second a lawyer utters one word in chambers he has lost as the law destroys equity when one is acting in his true capacity. We are not speaking equity so if you read what I or Parzival is trying to convey we are not speaking or trying to speak from a mind of a lawyer. I mean a lawyer only can speak fact about abstract not truth. Simple really.

[Dnatural]

IANAL, and perhaps I am a bit slow this morning, but I still haven't seen either Parzival or Dnatural make any kind of point.

They ramble on about all kinds of things related to trusts and life estates, but, so far, I have seen no point to any of this.

What am I missing?

I will go with slow with the understanding that as a result of undue influences intentionally induced into a society (settlement) has [most] everyone bamboozled into believing that law is to control people not land and that a citizen is the only choice they have... which in the scheme of things if you desire to trade incorporeal hereditaments (titles) then you have to be a legal person or you cannot possess & own these titles to concepts. Hard to read it is and even harder to let go of one's own limitations.

[NYGman]

(xx)“property” includes any thing in action, and any interest in real or personal property;

That's what you own.. an action.

No, no, no and no! I am not saying your unattributed definition is correct, but even being kind to you on that front, the word 'includes' means not limited to but are examples of, plus the 'and' clearly indicates it can be property. You clearly can't even understand the definitions you post, I need not read on. This is the same type of contorted reading other so called experts do, and it shows they lack understanding of the simplest things in law. That and property has a dictionary definition that would make it clear to any idiot that land, house, and other items are covered under the definition of property, for which real property is just one type, intellectual property for example is another.

So you may think you have cracked it, but courts and lawyers do not agree, good luck with this when it matters to.

[Dnatural]

(xx)“property” includes any thing in action, and any interest in real or personal property;

That's what you own.. an action.

No, no, no and no! I am not saying your unattributed definition is correct, but even being kind to you on that front, the word 'includes' means not limited to but are examples of, plus the 'and' clearly indicates it can be property. You clearly can't even understand the definitions you post, I need not read on. This is the same type of contorted reading other so called experts do, and it shows they lack understanding of the simplest things in law. That and property has a dictionary definition that would make it clear to any idiot that land, house, and other items are covered under the definition of property, for which real property is just one type, intellectual property for example is another.

So you may think you have cracked it, but courts and lawyers do not agree, good luck with this when it matters to.

Yes.... this is the issue with the English language as includes also means this and nothing else whereby then the conjunction 'and' is what the includes already has defined. This is also in a English dictionary... NOW if it said 'or' then this something completely different than that which follows includes. So if property is action then it is also personal and real action. Remember property ONLY defines undivided shares in incorporeal hereditaments. What is incorporeal... not real as in not of substance but rather concept. With this as our basis then if you reread the definition of property it then makes sense as opposed to your definition whereby you are commingling private and public matters in law so would be construed to be vexatious.

The other clue is when the definition uses the word described, thereby relying on the interpreter to make his own discernment, and so without the entire history of what became known as property they will revert to the new definitions used most frequently. What does property really mean when it also has definitions in the act for legal & equitable estates as well as what is land, to which the interpreter would have to know the capacity they are referring to so as to properly discern the context of the word used.

Unfortunately my friend you are using the fee simple (under equitable) use ideology as opposed to the law referenced in the act. Thereby your definition is skewed towards the ideas already learnt but not yet fully studied.

include (redirected from includes)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Idioms, Encyclopedia.
includeverb absorb, adscribere, be composed of, be formed of, be made up of, begird, boast, bound, bracket, circumscribe, classify, close in, combine, compass, comprehend, comprehendere, consist of, contain, cover, embody, embrace, encircle, engird, envelop, girdle, hold, incorporate, involve, merge, put a barrier around, span, subsume, surround, take in, unify, unite
Foreign phrases: In eo quod plus sit semper inest et minus.The less is always included in the greater. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another.

[Arthur Rubin]

Yes.... this is the issue with the English language as includes also means this and nothing else whereby then the conjunction 'and' is what the includes already has defined.

No. Only in law, and rarely that, now. It seems to be more common in 17th century English law, but it still wan't the dominant legal definition.

[Dnatural]

An attempt to arrive at this undisputed truth as referenced in law, now time immemorial - so now construed to be prescribed as law...

English Law beginnings - William the Conqueror (AD 1066) usurped the land. Became the fidei commissum of all land and created tenants-in-chief as the overlords of carved out manors. This is the first level of use. He was a disseisor through disseisen. Only those with direct title under the king were of the common law. All others were subject to their lords for the law or to the Roman Church which were learned in perpetuity instruments we call corporations (a lawyers birth place).

Statute of Uses 1535 - recognizes the feoffee as a pass through only in order for the user to remain or be granted legal & equitable title. Gave right to parliament to create uses under trusts through registration of all use called estates. The use is an equitable interest with a feoffee holder of the newly created legal title to the use only. Second level of use.

Monarchy settled land (1925) on behalf of the true owner thereby correcting the unlawful usurpation which originally created English law. Thus the power was back into the hands of the people. The government - like 1535 - gained a charter to use that which was settled until the settlor would return. Government created an extension of itself - acting as a life tenant - by creating franchises called citizens. The citizens were given the privilege to be the trustees in the land held, acting as assumed owners. This is the third level of use.

Lawyers today only learn how to discern law under the 3rd level of use, to which all citizens are subject to, as a result of their own agreements to being facilitators of transferring the 'use of' land all the while believing they are the true owners... the settled land act states who the true owner is and the duty and powers of life tenants, statutory owners and trustees.

The government then (same year 1925) has to form laws to govern this new level of use to land (now accountable for the waste) and forms the Law of Property and Trustee Act.

This is what Quatloos'ers are arguing about. They are advocating that the settled land act has been repealed and all the laws which formed the act; now time immemorial. Where has it been repealed inasmuch as it can no longer be accessed? If this was true then what gave the power for the government to act if what gave them the power is no longer of force and effect?

Really... seriously... then if you believe this then clearly you have no idea what makes law... law. How can this be repealed? If it was possible to repeal an act that gave one power to act then everything is in anarchy and lawyers are nothing more than mindless vikings, tools for the elites to do their bidding (lords of the use), so to govern their own ignorance and those who follow... Shepard and his sheep. Well that best describes the current regime.

The elite and law makers are not idiots, they knew they had to base law in truth and so give man his free will, for if not then all law subsequent would be against the will of man and therefore unlawful. It is so simple. It is your capacity that determines your fate evident through your own actions (property), to be subject to the use as opposed to possessing absolute ownership in land. You cannot obtain absolute ownership in equity (socialist) therefore it must be against your will UNLESS you only want a use to land and so give up your right wittingly or unwittingly to the value held in trust and the credit land can only afford.

[Dnatural]

Sorry not following your train of thought here. What is the subject matter of the 18th amendment whereby the 21st repealed.

[HardyW]

I have not seen any Quatloos-ers, except possibly Parzival, claim the Settled Land Act 1925 have been repealed. Certainly in England it is still current law http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... 8/contents
But quite likely in your jurisdiction of British Columbia it may have been replaced by legislation specific to that jurisdiction.

But what you HAVE been told is that the vast majority of land that is bought and sold is not subject to settlement, nor to tenure for life and potential reversion. Most normal property transactions (again referring to England but I'm sure the same is true in Canada maybe with different terminology) are freehold or leasehold and governed by the Law of Property Act 1925 as amended over the years since then. So it is not the capacity of the buyers, but the nature of the sale contract, that determines what sort of tenure applies.

[Dnatural]

...
I am here to tell Quatloos'ers that b/c a law is repealed by a subsequent law that if this subsequent law does not speak to the matter in question then the law that was repealed is active.
...

A good counter example to this absurd claim is the 18th and 21st amendments to the US Constitution.

The 18th created prohibition, outlawing essentially all alcoholic beverages.

The 21st amendment stated simply "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." It said nothing more on the subject of alcohol sales, at least at the federal level.

The 21st also contained a clause that gave the states the right to regulate alcohol sales, but, other than that, did not "speak to the matter in question ".

Are you saying that alcohol sales are still prohibited in the US?

To say that " the law that was repealed is active" is an oxymoron, and a stupid one at that.

Sorry not following your train of thought here. What is the subject matter of the 18th amendment whereby the 21st repealed.

[wserra]

I assure you the second a lawyer utters one word in chambers he has lost

I am in the process of retiring after a forty-four-year career as a litigator. A medmal trial coming up right after Labor Day, two more medmals and an automotive products case through the middle of next year, then I'm done. I'm fortunate to be able to retire, especially since our youngest is starting in two weeks at an Ivy League school.

Whatever would I do without some anonymous zlub assuring me that, as soon as I open my mouth, I lose?

[parzival]

its seems this thread is being hijacked, I did not ask any one to comment, or try to help me prove a point, this is not the subject matter of the post.

please stop hijacking the post.

since many are jumping all over the place, when there is a commentary from canlii with footnotes that are being ignored.
seems people can not read all the words so lets walk through this slowly...

Unsettled Estates: Manitoba’s Forgotten Statute and the Chupryk Case

I.
this short note is intended as the first of three interconnected pieces of varying lengths, two of which appear in this issue. They will cover significant and supposedly discrete areas of the law of real property, from the rules governing settled land and successive estates to those governing the partition and sale of concurrently shared interests; from the statutory rules conferring powers upon trustees to facilitate dealings with trust property, to the implications of Manitoba’s unique Perpetuities and Accumulations Act. Given the wide-ranging nature of this ramshackle enterprise, I hope the reader will understand why I have divided it into three parts; and forgive me, at the same time, for the measure of repetition which is inescapably required by such an exercise.

subject matter f the chupryk case: is a MORTGAGE, or right to mortgage

II.
The facts in Chupryk may be briefly stated. On the death of his wife, Michael Chupryk found himself (or so the Court determined) the life tenant of a dilapidated and deteriorating property; he was also the holder of a one-third share in the remainder interest, the other two-thirds being vested in Sophie Haykowski, Mr. Chupryk’s god-daughter and relative by marriage. Initially, this arrangement subsisted under a trust, but the trustee (Mrs. Haykowski’s son) improperly extinguished the trust by transferring the legal title into the names of Mr. Chupryk and Mrs. Haykowski. Both were elderly and in poor health. Yet despite this, old Michael Chupryk, who lived in a small cottage at the rear of the property, saw potential for improving the value of the entire inheritance. He felt that if he could raise a modest amount of capital – four or five thousand dollars, he thought, should do the job – he would be able to restore the decrepit rooming-houses which fronted the property (and were currently unfit for habitation), and thereby arrest the process of deterioration while securing a small income from the land. Mrs. Haykowski, the principal remainderperson, was of another mind. She wanted the entire freehold to be sold as quickly as possible, so that she could secure her share of the proceeds. 2011 CanLIIDocs 240

THE SEEDS OF CONFUSION to this case.....

In concluding that the powers conferred by the Trustee Act6 were no longer available to it in the circumstances, the Court had denied to itself not only the ability to authorize Mr. Chupryk’s mortgage, which in truth it had no desire to do; but also the most obvious and direct basis for granting Mrs. Haykowski’s order of sale. Casting about for some juridical basis for making such an order, and avowedly renouncing7 any temptation to administer “palm tree justice”, their eyes turned to the possibility that use might be made of what they termed the “Settled Lands Acts”. In the end, they determined that they could not do so, but their efforts in this context were to my mind unfortunate, and have generated misconceptions which still persist.

now lets get to the point,
SETTLED ESTATES AND SETTLED LAND what is the difference, and what issue is professor irvine establishing?

When O’Sullivan JA states, in the above-quoted passage, that “Manitoba has no Settled Lands Act,” his words are literally true. Manitoba has never had a statute of that name. Nor has any other Canadian province, so far as I am aware. The English statutes bearing that title – both the Settled Land Act of 1882, and the climactic Settled Land Act of 192511 – have been the object of sometimes wistful academic commentary in Canada, but have never been fully adopted in any Canadian jurisdiction. As Professor Waters put it, “The Settled Land Acts of 1882 and 1925 in England never came to Canada.”12 So Manitoba is hardly unique in not having a statute by that name.

so there has never been a settled land act written by the colony?

In Doe d. Hanington y. McFadden, (c 836) z N.B.R. z6o (Berton's
Reports), Chipman, C.J., at p. 267, says:
The rule laid down by Blackstone is that "Colonists carry with them
only so much of the English law as is applicable to their own situation
and the condition of an English colony; such, for instance, as the
general rules of inheritance, and of protection from personal injuries:"
The same doctrine is maintained by Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Vaughan,
(1769) 4 Burr. 2494; Campbell v. Hall, (1774) Lofft, 655; 20 Howell's
State Trials ; 239. In the case of The Attorney-General v. Stewart, (1817)
2 Mer. 143, in which the question was whether the Statute of Mortmain
(9 Geo. 2, ch. 36) extended to the Island of Grenada, Sir William
Grant, M.R., also adopts substantially the same rule, and makes the
determination of the point to depend upon this consideration—"Whether
it be a law of local policy, adapted solely to the country in which it was
made, or a general regulation of property, equally applicable to any
country in which it is by the rules of English law that property is
governed." He comes to the conclusion that the Mortmain Act is
quite inapplicable to Grenada or any other colony, because "in its
causes, its provisions, its qualifications, and its exceptions, it is a law
wholly English; calculated for purposes of local policy, complicated
with local establishments, and incapable, without great incongruity in
the effect, of being transferred as it stands into the code of any other
country."

so we can see legislation is a local policy, but when deals with PROPERTY.....

general regulation of property, equally applicable to any
country in which it is by the rules of English law that property is
governed."

now lets get to the determination of settled estates and settled land act and the differences....

However, O’Sullivan JA’s assertion, in the same sentence, that Ontario and British Columbia “have enacted Settled Lands Acts” throws some light on what he is really trying to say. So do his perceptions, expressed in that same paragraph, as to what a proper “Settled Land Act” does, what its functions are. It seems that when O’Sullivan JA refers to “Settled Land” legislation, he is using the expression in a loose or generic sense, rather than as a more meticulously historic (or more pedantic) commentator might do

but the procession of more modest enactments which proceeded and heralded them, and bore the name “Settled Estates Acts.”

dont forget subject matter.........

If that is indeed O’Sullivan JA’s position – that for practical purposes, the English legislation can be regarded as an unevenly-paced but consistent progression, gradually extending the powers of disposal affecting settled land – it is a perfectly coherent and tenable perspective upon the law. But if, taking this inclusive view of what “Settled Land Acts” means, he still says that Manitoba has none, he is simply wrong, as I shall show presently.

subject matter of settled estates, and settled land is opposites,

A different, but less disturbing criticism that might be leveled at his analysis is simply that in its “lumping together” of Settled Estates Acts and Settled Land Acts, it conceals more than it reveals. For purists, as they might term themselves, would certainly insist that despite their superficial similarities of name and function, there is a gulf between them in terms of the social and political theory which underlies them.

why lawyers ignore footnotes is crazy, it goes againt all you where educated on finding the source to law, as shown by josh blackman and his LAW COURSE for the UNIVERSITY.....

This is not the place to examine the political struggle which attended the introduction of the first Settled Land Act in 1882, but it was regarded at the time as little short of revolutionary. Sir Arthur Underhill, writing in 1909 and reminiscing about the evolution of the land law over the previous hundred years, called it “This great Act, the greatest Real Property Act, I think, of the Century.”13

the ignored footnote.....

13 Sir Arthur Underhill, “Changes in the English Law of Real Property During the Nineteenth Century” reprinted in Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, ed, Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, vol 3 (Boston, Mass: Little, Brown and Company, 1909) 673 at 681.

with a link the the source quoted.... https://archive.org/details/selectessay ... /page/n707

since most wont read the true difference in settled "estates" vs Settles "land" acts, ill post some screen shots,















this is interesting




dont forget to look to the other areas of this jurisprudence quoted in canlii commentary.... pg 591


so it seems the real issue is the basic understanding which the lawyers are proving they also do not know, and they want to be paid as lawyers that do not understand the whole law, only half the law, being the assumed half, and ignored the source being common law.....

[Dnatural]

I have not seen any Quatloos-ers, except possibly Parzival, claim the Settled Land Act 1925 have been repealed. Certainly in England it is still current law http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... 8/contents
But quite likely in your jurisdiction of British Columbia it may have been replaced by legislation specific to that jurisdiction.

But what you HAVE been told is that the vast majority of land that is bought and sold is not subject to settlement, nor to tenure for life and potential reversion. Most normal property transactions (again referring to England but I'm sure the same is true in Canada maybe with different terminology) are freehold or leasehold and governed by the Law of Property Act 1925 as amended over the years since then. So it is not the capacity of the buyers, but the nature of the sale contract, that determines what sort of tenure applies.

Thank you for the clarification and also speaking to my assumed interpretation of what most Quatloos'ers were in fact saying.

I would agree that all land held is subject to the contract... registry instruments today reflect a purchaser of the title of use. The are a legal disseisor currently and only made unlawful when a claim for the land held is made by one acting in the capacity of settlor, to the SLA, and they then refuse, neglect or fail to create or transfer a requisite legal estate back into the trust in order to be vested by the true owner.

Land is held in the SLA. Property is noticed in the LOP via purchase. Is this what you also understand?

[parzival]

I have not seen any Quatloos-ers, except possibly Parzival, claim the Settled Land Act 1925 have been repealed. Certainly in England it is still current law http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... 8/contents
But quite likely in your jurisdiction of British Columbia it may have been replaced by legislation specific to that jurisdiction.

But what you HAVE been told is that the vast majority of land that is bought and sold is not subject to settlement, nor to tenure for life and potential reversion. Most normal property transactions (again referring to England but I'm sure the same is true in Canada maybe with different terminology) are freehold or leasehold and governed by the Law of Property Act 1925 as amended over the years since then. So it is not the capacity of the buyers, but the nature of the sale contract, that determines what sort of tenure applies.

the reforms have been posted yet ignored, I guess that will be the next walk through since to many words confuse to many...

Prescriptions extinctive vs acquisitive
Re Alfrey Investments Ltd. and Shefsky Developments Ltd. et al., 1974 CanLII 709 (ON SC)
Extinguishment of Owner's Title. A person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner, and exercising possibly the ordinary rights of ownership, has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of The Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title. 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.

is a law of extinctive, not of acquisitive prescription is the same as . It operates to bar the owner out of possession, not to confer title on the trespasser or disseisor in possession.
prescription is the grant to the monarchy,
possession is the law of property, based on the common law land tenure, based from the prescriptions
extinctive is in fee (statute of uses), acquisitive is absolute (free agent).
***Links to source in first post***

Land (Settled Estates) Act
By following the reforms and repeals also explains the history and authority, yet only up till the last reform, then must keep looking to these reforms all the way to the common law grant the governments can not change, yet can make equity whatever they want……...
LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REPORT ON THELAND (SETTLED ESTATE) ACT

http://www.bcli.org/sites/default/files ... te_Act.pdf
Trustee act
A Modern Trustee Act for British Columbia
A Report prepared for the British Columbia Law Institute by its Committee on the Modernization of the Trustee Act
http://www.bcli.org/sites/default/files ... teeAct.pdf

not my fault no one can read...

but the procession of more modest enactments which proceeded and heralded them, and bore the name “Settled Estates Acts.”

what is law of repeal, and how does it apply to colony rules, vs common law rules of PROPERTY...........................
the colony can only create law for its subject, where common law is the land settlement, the groups agreement , you know the constitutional monarchy, or are we going to ignore constitution and what that means as well, A TRUST.............and CONSTITUTED..........

please explain how a colony can change the rules to successive interests in land?

the life tenant gets the right to sale, mortgage and lease lands from the settled land act, not the settled estates act, so what happens if the settled land act does not apply, how can the life tenant manage the estate in fee simple without the act of settled land?

[obadiah]

Wow.

[Dnatural]

I assure you the second a lawyer utters one word in chambers he has lost

I am in the process of retiring after a forty-four-year career as a litigator. A medmal trial coming up right after Labor Day, two more medmals and an automotive products case through the middle of next year, then I'm done. I'm fortunate to be able to retire, especially since our youngest is starting in two weeks at an Ivy League school.

Whatever would I do without some anonymous zlub assuring me that, as soon as I open my mouth, I lose?

Congratulations on the completion of a very rewarding and challenging career.

The only question I would ask, a reflection of what I stated, did you ever have the opportunity to be involved in a chamber meeting whereby the plaintiff was no longer acting in the right of a person, under the laws of equity, but instead brought in the laws which substantiated his or her right to be noticed as settlor to the Settled Land Act?

If so - not thinking you would ever be privy to such a private matter, acting as a lawyer, so perhaps I should of been not so lazy in my development of what I was in fact referring to - how could you have been heard since you no longer have jurisdiction to speak to the subject matter.

So I apologize as I cannot foresee a lawyer ever being subject to such a hearing (I could be wrong) and so my initial comment is more tongue and cheek than fact... and it was not properly thought before delivery.

As for you youngest... you have to be proud as I would be standing in your shoes.

I would contemplate the development of a lawyer today to the rigorous training of a medical doctor whereby the doctor, in his goal to receive his diploma, will only receive about a weeks training in nutrition (although endorsed by the current industry giants) even though nutrition is the cornerstone to health and preventive medicine. Why is this? I could conclude by being a once member of society that it does not pay the bills of every industry that needs issues in order to stimulate the economy. So why is a lawyer never trained either in absolute ownership (droit, droit) vs. assumed ownership and one's right to chose. And b/c nutrition is not formally taught then is it also in the process of being repealed from our language in order to argue the premise of limited liability among the choices of processed food?... I suspect now also rhetorical.

Enjoy your retirement and would entertain the day to pick your brain. Best wishes. I mean this sincerely.