confused capacities & agreements

If a word salad post claims that we need not pay taxes, it goes in the appropriate TP forum. If its author claims that laws don't apply to him/her, it goes in the appropriate Sov forum. Only otherwise unclassifiable word salad goes here.
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

Reception statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent by which the new nation adopts, or receives, the English common law before its independence to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, as well as the precedents originating from it, as the default law because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state.

All US states have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion, but there is a special case of partial reception for Louisiana.[1]
Initial reception of English common law into new colonies and adoption of common law on decolonization
In Commentaries on the Laws of England, Sir William Blackstone described the process by which English common law followed English colonization:

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 been 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 hath been held, 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, are immediately there in force.... 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.

In other words, if an "uninhabited" or "infidel" territory is colonised by Britain, the English law automatically applies in the territory from the moment of colonisation, but if the colonised territory has a pre-existing legal system, the native law would apply (effectively, a form of indirect rule) until it is formally superseded by the English law by Royal Prerogative, subjected to the Westminster Parliament.

As colonies gained independence from Britain, the newly-independent countries usually adopted English common law precedent as of the date of independence as the default law to carry forward into the new nation, to the extent that was not explicitly rejected by the founding documents or government.

In some cases, the carry-forward was simply understood, with no express provision in either the new independence constitution or legislation. In other cases, the new legislature preferred to state redundantly but safely that common law had been received during the colonial period. Examples of both patterns are described below.
United States
After the 1776 American Revolution, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly-independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that the legislation or the constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[2] Some states enacted reception statutes as legislative statutes, but other states received the English common law by provisions of their constitution or by court decision. British traditions such as the monarchy were rejected by the US Constitution, but many English common law traditions such as habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties were adopted in the United States. Significant elements of English common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States because they have never been rejected by American courts or legislatures.[3]
https://www.iuslaw.org/common-law-reception-statutes/
State Statutes Adopting the Common Law of England
Soon after declaring independence from England, the various former colonies — now emerging states — passed statutes adopting most of the common law of England. They then began independently adding to this common law. Below are sample reception statutes from some of the states.
:brickwall:
:beatinghorse:
Last edited by parzival on Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

how is it possible that this is not known, or is it being ignored due to a certain subject matter that can change everything....

I guess possession is 9/10ths of the law, yet as settlor that 1/10th stands above all....hmmmm :whistle:

common law is law of the land for English law subjects, within municipal law.

the land tenure in 1688 was made into a trust "constitution" and accepted all the "estates"

1882 SLA returns the lands in trust by giving a choice.......

those that take a subsequent conveyance from the CROWN CORPORATION from the MONARCHY (trustee to lands) expresses the trust as settlor taking from the crown corporation what the settlor gave as a gift(SLA), as life tenant under LOP........ :haha:

after reading this, i decided best to edit, especially for the freeman and belengers and anna von roths out there.(knowing the requirements, very few will choose this act, since they only want a loop whole to play the system and can not do what is required)..

this is an individual choice and must be permanent in nature, and the SLA has very strict guidelines, if anyone has any questions I suggest using the required act and sections and "APPLY" to the court how you see fit to get the answers you seek...

since many of the freeman belief will take the act and run with it, and will be worse off than trying to take the common law estate with a colony act of legislation...

so anyone reading this, USE CAUTION get answers from the court (not a lawyer they dont care or read it) before you do anything.........
User avatar
eric
Trivial Observer of Great War
Posts: 1327
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by eric »

Here's a short and easy summary of this entire thread:
1. An obscure point of law is somehow dreadfully important in a manner not clearly explained;
2. Various obsolete and ancient references are quoted in an attempt to explain how important this all is - the missing factor is why it matters anyways;
3. Multitudes point out that much of this point of law has been superseded by follow-on legislation;
4. The original poster then tries to prove, again using the same obsolete and ancient references, that this point of law cannot in some unknown manner ever be struck down.

Simple summary of twelve pages of excess verbiage condensed down to a few lines. Plans for the coming days are to rethatch my cottage using the branches from the forest that I am allowed to collect for free, passing one twelfth of my hay crop to the local baron, and then if I have some free time, drowning a few witches for fun and sport. After all, these are all ancient laws that bear as much relevance to today's society and of course cannot be superseded.
User avatar
AnOwlCalledSage
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2456
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: M3/S Hubble Road, Cheltenham GL51 0EX

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by AnOwlCalledSage »

No man, regardless of their reliance on later statutes and citing repeals will convince me that my right to kill a Scotsman carrying a bow and arrow within the city walls of York is not still valid law. :Axe:
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by AndyK »

wserra wrote: Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:43 pm I just deleted two verbose Percy posts (Is there another kind?) which were nothing more than reposts of previous verbose Percy posts.

Someone suggested moderating Percy, and I said that he had done nothing to deserve it. More of this stuff will change that conclusion.
Twas I making the suggestion. I further propose that the basis for rejecting posts not be duplicative content (which would actually require reading them), but adherence to the simple laws of English grammar and composition.

I.e., Any post not containing (outside of quoted material) complete sentences, proper punctuation, and commonly accepted spelling (allowing for English and American variants) will be summarily refused admission to the forum and relegated to the comfy chair.

Once Percy overcomes that hurdle, the bar will be raised to requiring proper attribution / citation of all quoted material and disallowance of non-authorative sources such as any Wiki.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 6138
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by Pottapaug1938 »

AndyK wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:03 pm
wserra wrote: Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:43 pm I just deleted two verbose Percy posts (Is there another kind?) which were nothing more than reposts of previous verbose Percy posts.

Someone suggested moderating Percy, and I said that he had done nothing to deserve it. More of this stuff will change that conclusion.
Twas I making the suggestion. I further propose that the basis for rejecting posts not be duplicative content (which would actually require reading them), but adherence to the simple laws of English grammar and composition.

I.e., Any post not containing (outside of quoted material) complete sentences, proper punctuation, and commonly accepted spelling (allowing for English and American variants) will be summarily refused admission to the forum and relegated to the comfy chair.

Once Percy overcomes that hurdle, the bar will be raised to requiring proper attribution / citation of all quoted material and disallowance of non-authorative sources such as any Wiki.
To that, I would add a requirement that paragraphs be coherent, and consist of a narrative which clearly states the points -- if any -- to be made.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by The Observer »

I think all of this was an overwrought exercise in proving what most Quatloosians already knew. Now that we have reached that point, we want to change the rules and start moderating what we invited to happen. Let's quickly review what happened here:

(1) parzival shows up and uses the "New Articles from Contributors" option to post his/her screed. They were perfectly within their rights to do so, since the powers that be here made that option possible to do so.

(2) From there, the posts/responses went downhill. While the responses accurately depicted parzival's theory as being incoherent, vague and out of touch with today's legality, everyone just kept pounding that point home over and over.

(3) Predictably, parzival defended by posting more of the same incoherent, vague and out of touch cut-n-pastes.

(4) Instead of ignoring this garbage for what it really was, we decided that we needed to elevate this tragedy to a forum of its own. In a sense, we rewarded parzival for his endeavors; he then increased naturally the amount of manure he had been offloading here. And in return, we just kept pounding away because raw meat is just so attractive.

(5) After a couple of weeks of this, suddenly we have gotten "woke" to this situation and discover that we are extremely unhappy with the results. Thus, it is all parzival's fault and we need to slap the idiot around severely for merely taking us at our word that they could post to their heart's content.

Here is where our hypocrisy comes into play; If you look at the index page to the forums, you see these descriptors:
Have a stupid theory why you shouldn't have to pay taxes? 861? Non-Filer? Sovereign Citizen? Believe that the federal courts are actually admiralty courts or that the only real citizens of the USA live in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the District of Columbia, then this forum is for you.
If you feel the sudden urge to use only red ink, denounce your name in ALL CAP LETTERS, affix your thumb print on legal documents, copyright your moniker, convene your own private grand jury at the local BBQ dive, or go sailing every time you see gold fringe on a courtroom flag, then this forum is for you.
None of this warns the incoherent rambler who enters that they are going to be moderated, censored, challenged, whacked, savaged, deleted, or dumped as our frustration and anger increases when they fail to submit and meekly go away. If you were to present those quotes above to any neutral party who hasn't been a regular here, they might very well say that it sounds like we want these types of posters to come here and share their lack of knowledge with us.

And this is not a new situation to any of us Quatloosians; we have seen this typical scenario play out time and time again with the same results. Why? Because we failed to implement the one rule at the beginning of these scenarios that quickly shuts down the poster, the topic and the rising frustration.

Simply put, parzival needs to be told that he or she has had the opportunity to share his theory with us, and that despite the incoherence and vagueness, it is now time for them to show proof that this garbage will work in a court of law. By that, I mean they will need to cite recent court cases where these arguments actually convinced a justice or justices that support their contention. After all, if the Supreme Court has been convinced in the past that arguing old Norman laws has gotten people off the hook, I want to know it so I can do the same.

And parzival needs to be held to that one issue. It will need to be pointed out that no further posting of cut-n-paste from old laws and law books will be allowed; otherwise they will be deleted since we have moved on to the acid test. The only thing that will be accepted will be citations of court cases in the recent past (the last 20-30 years) where there were rulings in favor of parzival's theory that did not get overruled by a higher court or were repealed by a legislative authority. If parzival cannot do that (and I am confident that they cannot do that since they have not done so up to this point) then we will declare their theory to be a failure and a scam, then lock the topic. The same will happen if parzival refuses to provide the proof and continues to post the incoherent gibberish as though it is proof.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by NYGman »

I gave up, once it was clear that even a simplistic Wikipedia definition of subject matter was incomprehensible to him. The fact that he insists it somehow applies to me as a life tenant of some sort, with a trust relationship between myself and the government as trustee, me thinks not even the chosen one could get through to him. His postings do nothing but support the convoluted thinking his mind had to go through to connect the dots. It may even mean something to him but for the sources to be old, unreliable, and superceded, it means nothing to us.

To live in a world where you are always right and far superior to others must be a wonderful place to be. Shame no one lives there.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
User avatar
AnOwlCalledSage
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2456
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: M3/S Hubble Road, Cheltenham GL51 0EX

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by AnOwlCalledSage »

The Observer wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:34 pm I think all of this was an overwrought exercise in proving what most Quatloosians already knew. Now that we have reached that point, we want to change the rules and start moderating what we invited to happen.
I'm not for a censoring. In general I quite like these kind of posts. When I got addicted to Flat Earth videos, it wasn't really from the point of view of wanting to ridicule the poster (although that wasn't hard), it was more requiring me to codify why such a belief was nonsensical. It made me sharpen up on my own critical faculties.

Most of the "intrusions" have been dumb, but the resultant discussions with the regulars have been interesting and enlightening. Where this one deviates from the norm is that there is no point. There is no intriguing question to be considered and it is a massive facepalm. It is quite worthless as an intellectual exercise, but I think the sidelining of it to this topic gives those who aren't interested an opportunity to ignore.

I await a coherent thought from our two protagonists but I think we've empirically got to a reasonable position in keeping this off the general forums.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7624
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by wserra »

What AndyK, Pottapaug and Obs would require of posters is of course desirable. I have a problem with the mandatory part.

Censorship ("moderation" is a euphemism) has to be a last resort, based on clear criteria which should leave as little room as possible for interpretation. Moderation for abuse, racism or pedophilia (see "Lawyerdud"), repetition, false or unsupported claims of success - no problem. Posting unsupported arguments - even gibberish - is trickier. True, certain posters carry it past reasonable limits. But that's why those posters are in a forum with the name like the present one. That name is a hint and a half to the casual browser.

I was going to write that I don't like censorship, but I'm sure that Andy, Pottapaug and Obs don't like it either. I'll put it this way - I see it as an evil, something that should not be needed to remedy simple gibberish.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

Funny how everything posted is YOUR LAW, FROM YOUR SCHOLARS AND JUDGES...

I DID NOT WRITE THIS STUFF :haha:

i think need to look to the common law again....
173 Voluntary disposition of land how far voidable as against purchasers.
(1)Every voluntary disposition of land made with intent to defraud a subsequent purchaser is voidable at the instance of that purchaser.
(2)For the purposes of this section, no voluntary disposition, whenever made, shall be deemed to have been made with intent to defraud by reason only that a subsequent conveyance for valuable consideration was made, if such subsequent conveyance was made after the twenty-eighth day of June, eighteen hundred and ninety-three.
yes lots of words, yet the intent is to defraud, since you are impying equity conveys ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP WHEN IT DOES NOT...

then LIE ABOUT IT,,,, BEING TRAINED IN LAW AND PART OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF YOUR STATE/PROV...

what is with the INTENT TO DEFRAUD?

some help just in case forgotten, oh wait common law is forgotten, so wont understand this either...
A Treatise on the Construction of the Statutes, 13 Eliz. C. 5, and 27 Eliz by William Roberts 1845 , pg 613 -614

“From what has been produced in the early part of this treatise the reader may think it pretty manifest that courts of law and equity have generally agreed in holding the voluntariness of a conveyance, exclusive of the operation of this fifth section of the act. Strong presumptive evidence at least of the fraudulent intent within the meaning of the 27 Eliz., though he be disinclined to a full acquiescence in the opinion of a great judge, (a) who has said that every voluntary conveyance,|| followed by a subsequent conveyance for valuable consideration, though there be no fraud in that voluntary conveyance, yet, according to the determinations, such mere voluntary conveyance is void at law, by the subsequent purchase for valuable consideration.”
:naughty:
wserra wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:47 pm What AndyK, Pottapaug and Obs would require of posters is of course desirable. I have a problem with the mandatory part.

Censorship ("moderation" is a euphemism) has to be a last resort, based on clear criteria which should leave as little room as possible for interpretation. Moderation for abuse, racism or pedophilia (see "Lawyerdud"), repetition, false or unsupported claims of success - no problem. Posting unsupported arguments - even gibberish - is trickier. True, certain posters carry it past reasonable limits. But that's why those posters are in a forum with the name like the present one. That name is a hint and a half to the casual browser.

I was going to write that I don't like censorship, but I'm sure that Andy, Pottapaug and Obs don't like it either. I'll put it this way - I see it as an evil, something that should not be needed to remedy simple gibberish.
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

the real issues derives from ignorance to look to the history of the said governments and the laws they used to become governments of a territory based on the law of another.....

so lets look to history, English law and all colonies created from the English law is based on DOMINION, being lands, "territory"

the English common law can only be created by the monarchy, (since 1535 a dual system, govt (as fee simple) and the monarchy)

the monarchy is a trustee to lands, a constitutional monarchy requires acceptance, a gift of the estate ("lands in trust = Estate)

monarchy creates a land trust corporation by municipal law. **to be part of govt or a land trust corporation you must be a life tenant first... YOU NEED TO EXPRESS THE TRUST..acceptance....**

the governments SELL titles to LIFE TENANTS to EXPRESS THE TRUST = ACCEPTANCE.... statute of use 1535 and fraudulent conveyances 1541( where modern equity of life tenants starts, where the cestui que trust ENDS,,, taken from the faiths and given to govt,,,, political causes that shaped the statute of uses read it... :snooty: )

municipal corporations are EQUITY, the managers of the trust!!!! and how one accepts the LAND SETTLEMENT for a SETTLED ESTATE IN TRUST,,, = LOP......

then the settlor as life tenant takes from government that gets its POWER by a grant of LAW, (prescriptions and receptions of those prescriptions of LAND (property in trust)) from the monarchy IN TRUST.............

the rules are simple, one can only give what they have to give nothing more, so how does a trustee (monarchy) give to government anything but a use,,, under a subsequent conveyance to what was voluntary given by the settlor to join the group, **** ACCEPTANCE = NO FRAUD****

now the settlor takes from the government (since the govt constitution) a subsequent title to join the group and expresses what was given...

trust law 101....

the settlor grant to trustee, "COMMON LAW"
trustee now assumed owner in equity or can not manage the trust....
the trustee (monarchy) creates a company (municipal corporations act W&M 5&6)and transfers the right of ADMINISTRATION of the trust UNDER THE COMMON LAW LAND TRUST.

govt then has the right to make rules for what granted by law, UNDER THE RULES OF THE FIRST TRUST,,, common law.....
yet govt can not change the common law, yet can only add to it, yet only for its subjects based on there RESIDENCE, based on the territorial grant and reception of the common law land trust.....

now the settlor, becomes LIFE TENANT by not terminating the agreement and accepting a title from the government within equity "the trust" for "trustee" to "interact" in a "legal " sense..... equal with each other,

so how can a trust convey 100% of what was given with FULL NOTICE OF THE TRUST (SLA AND LOP ACTS), they cant.....

as you can see, everything you are implying is fundamentally wrong, and with full notice and the jurisprudence to the trust...

Ignorance of the law and its history is no excuse it is written....... or could not be judges :whistle:

settlor must grant dominion to monarchy
monarchy = trustee
government = municipal corporation
citizen = life tenant = AGENCY of govt. (not agent to the govt ) law of agency.....(yet can be settlor also)
the gift is a land trust, and is a gift to all of the group, IN TRUST,
the gift is the right of ownership and possession of lands, to join the group under a sole MONARCHY based on the laws of the LAND.
everyone retains the right of ownership, but gives up this right for municipal rights and duties to an ESTATE in trust as life tenant....

the powers govt has is gifted by the people, to the common law, the govt only manages the USE under a trust of land that is the common law tenure....

and the SUPREME COURT is wrong?
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.


fidei commissum is also known as cestuique trust as the “beneficiary”.
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.
1881 SCC 6, 5 SCR 538 -Mercer v. Attorney General for Ontario
(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 contented 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 forever, BUT THE ACT CONTEMPLATES NO SUCH THING;
and seems you all are running with this fact and is wrong!!!
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 forever, BUT THE ACT CONTEMPLATES NO SUCH THING;
once again CORPORATIONS DO NOT HAVE THIS CAPACITY IN ENGLISH LAW..... :naughty:
as corporations capable of holding property, real and personal, to them, their successors and assigns forever,
but fee free to run with that :whistle:
:beatinghorse:
Last edited by parzival on Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 7624
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by wserra »

Percy post repeating verbatim a previous post deleted.

Keep it up, Percy, and you'll be moderated. Takes three mouse clicks.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

wserra wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:57 pm Percy post repeating verbatim a previous post deleted.

Keep it up, Percy, and you'll be moderated. Takes three mouse clicks.
why dodge the topic?

maybe its due to lawyers not liking them proved wrong by their own laws and act... since so far, i have proved everything you all are implying as wrong with your own jurisprudence..

damn with all the years combined of law school here sure cant do much but moderate your beliefs into an intent to show equity is more than what it is.... :violin:
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

wserra wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:57 pm Percy post repeating verbatim a previous post deleted.

Keep it up, Percy, and you'll be moderated. Takes three mouse clicks.
I dare you to read some of what is posted.....
how about this?
The Political Causes Which Shaped the Statute of Uses
W. S. Holdsworth

dont be afraid to learn the history of fee simple in land law....

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1324477?se ... b_contents

while your at it, why not post your own discussion on it?

holdworth is one of the most quoted in case law today......

might even find out why the freeman and belengers are spouting the crap they are, since they also dont understand land law, or equity or how REFORMS for the 2 seperate jurisdictions create what law is today, or who these jurisdictions create law for .... :haha:
User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by NYGman »

He really has no clue, does he? He has it so wrong, it isn't even on the same plane as some of our other sovereigns. It is a shame that he thinks my land is beholden to any monarch past or present, he is but a fool on a fool's errand, better luck convincing himself the Earth is not flat.

There is no trust, there is no monarch, there is no common law as you believe it to be. This argument is no more, it is deceased, gone to meet its maker, it isn't close to reality. And like a famous parrot, it isn't true, just because you say it is.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

once again, the monarchy creates law for the land tenure,

the land tenure has always been granted to another GROUP,
feudal tenure was to lord manors,
ancient was to the faith,
modern to govt.....

now the capacities within the tenures also changed...

had many capacities, knight service , fee simple, and many others, 12 or more, can be found in the first instututes of the laws of England by littleton....

the ancient the capacities where reduced, there was only 6 or so, found in coke upon littleton....

the modern is based in EVERYONE fee simple under a LIFE ESTATE....

so personal jurisdiction has changed, subject matter has changed,and the SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION has changed due to equity,....
R. v. C. (W. J.), 2008 MBCA 11 (CanLII)
How does repealing a statute affect another statute that incorporates it by reference?
28 Generally speaking, when legislation is repealed, it ceases to be law. As described by Professor Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 4th ed. (Markham: Butterworths Canada Ltd., 2002) (at p. 527):
Repeal is the key terminal event in the operation of legislation. When a repeal takes effect, the repealed legislation ceases to be law and ceases to be binding or to produce legal effects. … It also means that everything dependent on the repealed legislation for its existence or efficacy ceases to exist or to produce effects.)

29 This rule can be displaced by statute and, indeed, several survival clauses were built into the federal Interpretation Act. One of these clauses, s. 44(h) of the Interpretation Act, provides some assistance in addressing the issue at hand. It reads as follows:
Where an enactment, in this section called the “former enactment”, is repealed and another enactment, in this section called the “new enactment”, is substituted therefor,
(h) any reference in an unrepealed enactment to the former enactment shall, with respect to a subsequent transaction, matter or thing, be read and construed as a reference to the provisions of the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter as the former enactment, but where there are no provisions in the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter, the former enactment shall be read as unrepealed in so far as is necessary to maintain or give effect to the unrepealed enactment.[emphasis added]

why does the lawyers ignore the foundations,,,,, that is why,,,, the law and agreement is not the same in equity as common law.... and is different in every manor, but fee simple and life tenants, where only govt and equity now makes the laws based on the colony laws, under a common law tenure....

why is the magna charta still law, yet no one in equity can access it but GOVT :haha:
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

NYGman wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:39 pm He really has no clue, does he? He has it so wrong, it isn't even on the same plane as some of our other sovereigns. It is a shame that he thinks my land is beholden to any monarch past or present, he is but a fool on a fool's errand, better luck convincing himself the Earth is not flat.

There is no trust, there is no monarch, there is no common law as you believe it to be. This argument is no more, it is deceased, gone to meet its maker, it isn't close to reality. And like a famous parrot, it isn't true, just because you say it is.
so please show me how common law does not apply? in equity of course it can not apply, what is the point of this convo.

common law is IMPLIED in equity,,,,, :whistle:
ignorance of this topic is mind blowing,,...

must be american
https://www.iuslaw.org/common-law-reception-statutes/
State Statutes Adopting the Common Law of England
Soon after declaring independence from England, the various former colonies — now emerging states — passed statutes adopting most of the common law of England. They then began independently adding to this common law. Below are sample reception statutes from some of the states.
Reception Statute of Virginia (1776)

“And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.”
Reception statute of Pennsylvania (1777)

“( 1.) Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the l4th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted. (2.) Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, . . . as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no force or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”
:whistle:
:beatinghorse:
ya no english common law :haha:
parzival
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:22 pm

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by parzival »

now lets look at law of repeals closer....
R. v. C. (W. J.), 2008 MBCA 11 (CanLII)
How does repealing a statute affect another statute that incorporates it by reference?
28 Generally speaking, when legislation is repealed, it ceases to be law. As described by Professor Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 4th ed. (Markham: Butterworths Canada Ltd., 2002) (at p. 527):
Repeal is the key terminal event in the operation of legislation. When a repeal takes effect, the repealed legislation ceases to be law and ceases to be binding or to produce legal effects. … It also means that everything dependent on the repealed legislation for its existence or efficacy ceases to exist or to produce effects.)

29 This rule can be displaced by statute and, indeed, several survival clauses were built into the federal Interpretation Act. One of these clauses, s. 44(h) of the Interpretation Act, provides some assistance in addressing the issue at hand. It reads as follows:
Where an enactment, in this section called the “former enactment”, is repealed and another enactment, in this section called the “new enactment”, is substituted therefor,
(h) any reference in an unrepealed enactment to the former enactment shall, with respect to a subsequent transaction, matter or thing, be read and construed as a reference to the provisions of the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter as the former enactment, but where there are no provisions in the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter, the former enactment shall be read as unrepealed in so far as is necessary to maintain or give effect to the unrepealed enactment.[emphasis added]
what is a subsequent transaction,
(h) any reference in an unrepealed enactment to the former enactment shall, with respect to a subsequent transaction, matter or thing,
common law is for the land settlement as stated in SLA 1925 and is different than the LIFE ESTATE UNDER A TRUST OF LAND created by SLA...
] be read and construed as a reference to the provisions of the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter as the former enactment
Meanwell v. Meanwell, 1941 CanLII 456 (MB CA)
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 as we can see, colony can make only rules for the colony and those subject by residence...yet is also based on a subject matter to a thing or or what is really meant a right to a thing,.......

funny how when we get down to the actual rules of determination a judge must follow, they are ignored for the equitable assumption that is only true when life tenant vs life tenant for an issue under law of proerty.

and is a complete different beast as settlor under the SLA....
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7559
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: confused capacities & agreements

Post by The Observer »

wserra wrote: Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:47 pm I have a problem with the mandatory part.
You didn't seem to have a problem with mandating that Van Pelt had to provide proof for what he was claiming and deleting his future posts that failed to meet that criteria. That is the only thing that I think should be done here. parzival is now regurgitating the same material he has posted before and you are having to delete it which allows him to accuse you of censorship - and he is correct to a degree in that regard. At least requiring him to provide proof would move the conversation along and provide him with the opportunity, even if he fails to take it, of continuing the conversation.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff