confused capacities & agreements

[parzival]

you know as lawyers when you are walking into a courtroom based on a freeman trying to use any colony law to remove the life tenant is vexatious just by the act and jurisprudence they use.....

well the same applies here for the settlor, nothing in colony laws will allow you to circumvent the land trust anymore than the law or property will allow, and why when a settlor that has complied with ALL the requirements of the SLA to stand as settlor to the common law grant, you know your up the creek without the paddle simply due to the laws of agency and trusts.....

plus the fact you are in acceptance of the land settlement as an usufruct (citizen) that is screwing only yourself for this ignorance, and no law of equity as the trust law will allow anyone to go against the land settlement that all accepted as settled estates in trust for another,,,, the settlor to the SLA...

subject matter and DOMINION are the key to jurisdiction within all colonies, funny thing, you all are fighting for slavery and to remove ones choice of absolute freedoms and do not even know it,

why because you have no idea how you are SUBJECT.....

[parzival]

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 agree fully, yet the reposts are in line with the topic, and include additional information, due to the history of english law being ignored, some will be larger, yet it proves the history ignored..

if we did not have to work through stupid issues like common law applying, and what it is, and the basis to the issue of the topic then no reposts would be needed.

but as babies need the hand held and to sometimes come back to certain issues of the whole requires one to rehash what should be common knowledge, like the wiki posts on the history of ENGLISH COMMON LAW that was deleted, and also posts proving common law applies to all ENGLISH LAW COLONIES based IN LIFE TENANTS TO LANDS....

[parzival]

almost all here are bound by law of agency and as life tenants, yet ignore the foundation to land law, being municipal law..then want to ignore it origins (political causes).......

what was the great revolution in 1600 and in 1800?

[Pottapaug1938]

parzival wrote: "Funny how everything posted is YOUR LAW, FROM YOUR SCHOLARS AND JUDGES..."

The trouble is that it is all OLD, OLD, OLD stuff which either does not apply anymore, or doesn't apply where you claim that it applies. Your assertion that the Magna Carta is still valid law is nonsense; even the dullest first-year law student can quickly ascertain that no version of the Magna Carta has any legal validity, except for two possibilities; and even then, those possibilities speak only in generalities. Any lawyer foolish enough to cite the Magna Carta in court is in line for, at least, a nasty sidebar conference with the judge.

[Pottapaug1938]

but as babies need the hand held and to sometimes come back to certain issues of the whole requires one to rehash what should be common knowledge, like the wiki posts on the history of ENGLISH COMMON LAW that was deleted, and also posts proving common law applies to all ENGLISH LAW COLONIES based IN LIFE TENANTS TO LANDS....

You seem to believe that the common law is unchanging and eternal. However, real lawyers know that common law can be changed by statute, or (in the US) by constitutional amendment. English common law, after 1783, is only of advisory relevance to current American law.

[morrand]

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.

If I may: Van Pelt was also active in the mainline boards. Holding him to a standard of honesty was a very correct thing to do, since that's the standard that applies on the mainline boards. And once he started with the Pythagorean spirals, well....

The "Word Salad Bar," being kicked off to the side under "Other Stuff," is a little different. The standard for honesty is not as rigorous. Witness any of the adventures of Deep Knight posted on the next board down. That is, I think, as it should be. There is a reason for this board to be classified here and not with the regular topics. The only fair reason for shunting a thread to this board, and I assume that threads will always be moved here, not started here, is that they are manifestly beyond any hope of honest debate or scholarship. Once we have crossed that threshold, it doesn't seem quite right to then demand sober reasoning and copious citation of precedent. It doesn't mean they can't be requested. They ought to be, as a matter of good habit if nothing else. But I would not expect someone to be put on moderation simply for failing to prove points in a Word Salad thread.

Redundancy is a closer call. On the whole, I think the redundancy here comes from parzival mistaking volume for merit, and thinking somehow that repeating the assertion proves it, or at least clarifies it. That kind of repetition is annoying, but again, as long as it's confined to this board and doesn't start leaking in to where the adults are talking, I don't see the harm. There's probably more harm in wasting the time to police it, frankly. (If he starts to duplicate posts from here into other threads, however, then it'd be time to warm up the ban hammer.)

One of the benefits of quarantining this particular discussion in this particular place is that it keeps the noise from overwhelming the content. Given the nature of this board, however, I'm not sure that it's any better to try to overwhelm the noise with content. While he could eventually draw moderation or a ban for really bad behavior, as long as his sins are limited to bad scholarship and Gish galloping, and are kept in here where, apparently, they belong, let parzival have his say.

I presume, of course, that answering his points with appropriate snideness, sarcasm, and scimitar wit (for those who have studied the scimitar, or at least are drinking a Wit) will also be in-bounds, or else forget it.

[morrand]

almost all here are bound by law of agency and as life tenants, yet ignore the foundation to land law, being municipal law..then want to ignore it origins (political causes).......

All of these are actual words, yet you omit the connective lignin of coherent explanation that would bind them into a cohesive argument. So, like toilet tissue under the faucet, your argument fails to hold water.

You need not repost your Blackstone, your treatises, and all the rest. We see it. It's upthread already. You've convincingly demonstrated that laws exist, sometimes.

what was the great revolution in 1600 and in 1800?

The introduction of the Catherine wheel. Both times.

[rogfulton]

The introduction of the Catherine wheel. Both times.

Who knew David Byrne was that old?
https://youtu.be/Gy9rSPBKLbs
Sorry, tried to add image but....

[Pottapaug1938]

To help parzival out, I did some research, to find out which provisions of the Magna Carta have any validity today. There are four of them:

Clause 1: “FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.“

The first clause of Magna Carta guarantees the freedom of the English Church. This clause was specifically included to stop the king from interfering in what the Church did, and gave the Church the right to elect its own leaders, rather than have them chosen by the king. King John and the Pope had fallen out over the choice of the Archbishop of Canterbury before Magna Carta, and this first clause was intended to ensure that these problems did not happen again. The fact that this is the first clause is a reminder of the important part that the Church played in bringing Magna Carta about. It is also the reason that English Cathedrals guarded Magna Carta so carefully over the centuries. The last section of Magna Carta mentions the freedom of the Church again, just as a reminder of what had been agreed.

Clause 13: “The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.”

This clause is the most surprising of the four clauses that are still part of the law. It was intended to ensure that the rights that London and other cities and towns had been granted were no longer taken away by the corruption of King John’s reign. One of the rights that was important to the city of London was the right to choose its own mayor, for example. Like the English Church, the people of England wanted to make sure that it wasn’t the king that got to decide everything that was important.

Clause 39: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.“

This clause established the idea that people could only be judged according to the law, and that even the king himself had to follow the law. King John had previously acted as if the law did not apply to him. The other thing that is important about this clause is that it stipulates that a person should be judged by a group of their equals (not by the king or his men). The jury system that still exists in Britain today is a continuation of the idea put forward in this clause.

Clause 40: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

This is one of the shortest, most significant and most timeless clauses of Magna Carta. It ensures that nobody will be deprived of their rights, or have to pay for their rights, or be made to suffer by waiting for their rights. It was a response to the fact that King John was very corrupt and frequently demanded bribes from his subjects. The delay of justice is still a big problem in many places of the world today – making innocent people wait for years until a court hears their case, for example.

The first two, appearing in blue, are in effect only in England. Clause 1 would be barred, in the US, by the First Amendment to the Constitution; and Clause 13 applies only to English municipalities. The last two, appearing in red, have been superseded by the due process clauses in the Constitution, and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Magna Carta deserves an honored place in history; but that's all. It's a historical relic.

Source: https://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/m ... agna-carta

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Having looked at a few more of Percy's posts, I think I've worked out what the problem is.

He has a Borderline Personality Disorder... where that borderline is the boundary of the property marked out in red on a map held at the Land Registry. In layman's terms, he thinks he's a house

[wserra]

he thinks he's a house

And a Tudor, at that.

[wserra]

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.

You're right, I saw Van Pelt differently. He would claim actual, real-life wins for his garbage; when pressed for proof, he would claim that the "suitors" in question didn't give him permission to share their identities, or that we were such meanies that we would actually verify what he told us, or similar nonsense. To be sure, Percy disgorges authentic frontier gibberish, but he doesn't claim that his AFG has ever won anywhere. If he did, and then refused to say where, as far as I'm concerned he would suffer Van Pelt's fate.

I also agree with the points morrand made, except that I believe that verbatim repetition, after being warned, is grounds for moderation. Van Pelt would do that as well. It, like the other moderation grounds, amounts to abusing one's posting privileges.

[wserra]

what was the great revolution in 1600

The Thessaly rebellion. Bishop Dionysios was always one of my heroes.

and in 1800?

The Castle Hill convict rebellion. 'Strewth, mate.

[The Observer]

If I may: Van Pelt was also active in the mainline boards.

I fail to see why this is a significant difference. All of the forums get equal billing on the index page, it is not as if we have put Word Salad Bar into a nearly inaccessible area.

The "Word Salad Bar," being kicked off to the side under "Other Stuff," is a little different. The standard for honesty is not as rigorous. Witness any of the adventures of Deep Knight posted on the next board down.

I am not sure why you think the standard for honesty is dumbed down in the Word Salad Bar. And citing the Deep Knight posts that were obviously sarcastic/satirical in nature as somehow justification for that lesser standard doesn't seem to make the case, at least to me.

There is a reason for this board to be classified here and not with the regular topics. The only fair reason for shunting a thread to this board, and I assume that threads will always be moved here, not started here, is that they are manifestly beyond any hope of honest debate or scholarship.

If that is the case, then we should be willing to tolerate the nonsense posts and not try to debate or respond to it. Yet we see the exact opposite in terms of people doing that and when it fails to stop the poster, falling back to repetitive flailing at the posts and ultimately calls for moderation to one degree or another.

Once we have crossed that threshold, it doesn't seem quite right to then demand sober reasoning and copious citation of precedent. It doesn't mean they can't be requested. They ought to be, as a matter of good habit if nothing else. But I would not expect someone to be put on moderation simply for failing to prove points in a Word Salad thread.

We crossed that exact threshold with Van Pelt and the result was seeing that heading off the repetitive garbage he was posting was only going to work by putting his theories to the acid test; when he started lying and was proved lying, we were able to justify his removal from the board. We can put parzival to the test by simply asking the same essential question of whether they think these theories will work in modern courts or not, or if there are recent cases where they believe they did work. parzival will need to answer one way or another or evade the question. No matter the response, we at least can move the conversation on or lock it down instead of seeing the cycling of garbage and further pointless moderation resulting in parzival being eventually kicked out of frustration rather than for breaking any of our usual rules.

(If he starts to duplicate posts from here into other threads, however, then it'd be time to warm up the ban hammer.)

But that standard has already been tossed out. He is essentially being moderated by having repetitive posts within the topic being deleted. The frustration level has already been exceeded.

While he could eventually draw moderation or a ban for really bad behavior, as long as his sins are limited to bad scholarship and Gish galloping, and are kept in here where, apparently, they belong, let parzival have his say.

And as pointed out, it has been decided to not let him have his "say."

I presume, of course, that answering his points with appropriate snideness, sarcasm, and scimitar wit (for those who have studied the scimitar, or at least are drinking a Wit) will also be in-bounds, or else forget it.

Of course, but again it is not having the desired effect other than to start giving the impression to others that the only purpose of putting parzival into the proverbial cage and poking sticks at him. That seems to be at odds with your belief that this forum was established to simply isolate him away from the rest of the board. The number of pages in this topic are only going to drive up the search hits for this kind of stuff on Google.

To be sure, Percy disgorges authentic frontier gibberish, but he doesn't claim that his AFG has ever won anywhere.

Which is why I think the question should be put to him, which should at least be seen as a more practical attempt to resolve the impasse. Unless you are willing to tolerate another 30-40 pages of gibberish that goes nowhere and to keep deleting whatever gets repeated. You were concerned about me having to keep the long watch on Van Pelt and saw it as an onerous task; I am wondering why you don't see this as the same problem and not as a continual banging of your head against a rock.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I fail to see why this is a significant difference.

Whilst I agree with the general accountability you suggest, a thread being moved here is the equivalent of "This person is a ****ing idiot" so some latitude is forgivable!

[Dnatural]

I fail to see why this is a significant difference.

Whilst I agree with the general accountability you suggest, a thread being moved here is the equivalent of "This person is a ****ing idiot" so some latitude is forgivable!

They (Quatloos'ers) just cannot see that they can only fight over matters concerning concepts such as Santa Claus, in court, and so since this is fact then their conclusion is that reality has been repealed. .. haha. (only the troglodytes will not get this... SMFH).

[Dnatural]

Frederic William Maitland said, “equity without the law would be as a castle in the air, impossibility.”

This simple quote explains it all and is evident that today's lawyers firmly believe that the law has been repealed (should look up the word prescription) even though that equity, the jurisprudence without self evident truth, its jurisdiction is only over matters concerning concepts annexed to the law (land) itself, that b/c it blankets the courts today it is all that exists... 'The law has been repealed' they boldly exclaim... over & over... without any knowledge of what is law before equity.

Building their castles in the air - so to speak.

It is called 'Subject Matter'. Lawyers [it is true] can only argue the subject matter pertaining to the abstract.

It is also true that if a certain body of law has nothing to do with the subject matter in question then it has no jurisdiction.

10 million dollar question is.. . Can equity repeal the law when they are not the same subject matter? ... rhetorical.

Can the Law of Property (LOP) repeal anything in the Settled Land Act (SLA) when it is the SLA that gave the LOP its right to force and effect over equitable estates... not legal title?

Did the USA fight for independence from the law (result - unlawful trespass/treason, &c) or for the right to create a constitution over equitable interest, which is legal. (Hint: the USA fought a constitutional monarchy so a creature of equity).

Is the preemption naturally excluded from the courts today b/c they do not deal with the same subject matter? Is this a logical conclusion?

LOP s.185 Merger.

'There is no merger by operation of law only of any estate the beneficial interest in which would not be deemed to be merged or extinguished in equity.'

AND

LOP s. 186 Rights of pre-emption capable of release.

'All statutory and other rights of pre-emption affecting a legal estate shall be and be deemed always to have been capable of release, and unless released shall remain in force as equitable interests only.'

As you see lawyers can only deal with the subject matter 'equitable interests', the same as the Law of Property, those interest that have not been released evident by the fact that equity is the bases of their courts.

So once released (one's agreement to the equitable interest only, now split into legal and equitable titles to property via government agency) would one not be noticed under the rights of settlor under the SLA; once released. SLA is the preemption. Equity is the evidence of the exclusion.

Chambers can hear both law and equity BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME b/c it is commingling private & public. So what parzival was attempting to do is prove that the law is still active, BUT lawyers cannot access it, as they have no right to the law, only equity. I have, and I suspect parzival has, a right to the law, the preemption, the higher law based on self evident truths whereby lawyers can only deal in the legal quagmire, the cesspool of arguing issues that ONLY are concerned with limited liability actions... 'those that are annexed to the land but not the land itself'. ([in quotes] Coke, Blackstone, Maitland, Putney, et al., their description not mine).

They will ALWAYS be defeated in law b/c the law cannot hear them as equity cannot hear the law. It is this simple.

Trying my best to simplify this so that the Quatloss'ers castles that are floating in the air, supported by nothing except fiction, that there is - in truth not fictional fact - land below their clouds and as such it is going to be painful when it all comes crashing down.

[Pottapaug1938]

Frederic William Maitland said, “equity without the law would be as a castle in the air, impossibility.”

This simple quote explains it all and is evident that today's lawyers firmly believe that the law has been repealed (should look up the word prescription) even though that equity, the jurisprudence without self evident truth, its jurisdiction is only over matters concerning concepts annexed to the law (land) itself, that b/c it blankets the courts today it is all that exists... 'The law has been repealed' they boldly exclaim... over & over... without any knowledge of what is law before equity.

Building their castles in the air - so to speak.

It is called 'Subject Matter'. Lawyers [it is true] can only argue the subject matter pertaining to the abstract.

It is also true that if a certain body of law has nothing to do with the subject matter in question then it has no jurisdiction.

10 million dollar question is.. . Can equity repeal the law when they are not the same subject matter? ... rhetorical.

Can the Law of Property (LOP) repeal anything in the Settled Land Act (SLA) when it is the SLA that gave the LOP its right to force and effect over equitable estates... not legal title?

Did the USA fight for independence from the law (result - unlawful trespass/treason, &c) or for the right to create a constitution over equitable interest, which is legal. (Hint: the USA fought a constitutional monarchy so a creature of equity).

Is the preemption naturally excluded from the courts today b/c they do not deal with the same subject matter? Is this a logical conclusion?

LOP s.185 Merger.

'There is no merger by operation of law only of any estate the beneficial interest in which would not be deemed to be merged or extinguished in equity.'

AND

LOP s. 186 Rights of pre-emption capable of release.

'All statutory and other rights of pre-emption affecting a legal estate shall be and be deemed always to have been capable of release, and unless released shall remain in force as equitable interests only.'

As you see lawyers can only deal with the subject matter 'equitable interests', the same as the Law of Property, those interest that have not been released evident by the fact that equity is the bases of their courts.

So once released (one's agreement to the equitable interest only, now split into legal and equitable titles to property via government agency) would one not be noticed under the rights of settlor under the SLA; once released. SLA is the preemption. Equity is the evidence of the exclusion.

Chambers can here both law and equity BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME b/c it is commingling private & public. So what parzival was attempting to do is prove that the law is still active, BUT lawyers cannot access it, as they have no right to the law, only equity. I have, and I suspect parzival has, a right to the law, the preemption, the higher law based on self evident truths whereby lawyers can only deal in the legal quagmire, the cesspool of arguing issues that ONLY are concerned with limited liability actions... 'those that are annexed to the land but not the land itself'. ([in quotes] Coke, Blackstone, Maitland, Putney, et al., their description not mine).

They will ALWAYS be defeated in law b/c the law cannot hear them as equity cannot hear the law. It is this simple.

Trying my best to simplify this so that the Quatloss'ers castles that are floating in the air, supported by nothing except fiction, that there is - in truth not fictional fact - land below their clouds and as such it is going to be painful when it all comes crashing down.

More Dnatural horsedroppings; and no more accurate or literate than those of parzival. To give but one example:

"Did the USA fight for independence from the law (result - unlawful trespass/treason, &c) or for the right to create a constitution over equitable interest, which is legal. (Hint: the USA fought a constitutional monarchy so a creature of equity)."

We fought for the independence of our thirteen states; and then we created, first, the Articles of Confederation (1777) and then the Constitution (1787). Equity had (and has) nothing to do with it all. We did NOT "fight for independence from the law"; indeed, we STARTED with English common law, and then built upon it with our own common and statute law, and the Constitution.

[Pottapaug1938]

Chambers can here both law and equity BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME b/c it is commingling private & public. So what parzival was attempting to do is prove that the law is still active, BUT lawyers cannot access it, as they have no right to the law, only equity. I have, and I suspect parzival has, a right to the law, the preemption, the higher law based on self evident truths whereby lawyers can only deal in the legal quagmire, the cesspool of arguing issues that ONLY are concerned with limited liability actions... 'those that are annexed to the land but not the land itself'. ([in quotes] Coke, Blackstone, Maitland, Putney, et al., their description not mine).

Oh, yes they can. Law and equity have been merged in federal courts, and in 47 of our 50 states, for decades. If you bothered to consult legal authorities published in the 20th century, or later, you might learn that for yourself.

[Dnatural]

Chambers can here both law and equity BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME b/c it is commingling private & public. So what parzival was attempting to do is prove that the law is still active, BUT lawyers cannot access it, as they have no right to the law, only equity. I have, and I suspect parzival has, a right to the law, the preemption, the higher law based on self evident truths whereby lawyers can only deal in the legal quagmire, the cesspool of arguing issues that ONLY are concerned with limited liability actions... 'those that are annexed to the land but not the land itself'. ([in quotes] Coke, Blackstone, Maitland, Putney, et al., their description not mine).

Oh, yes they can. Law and equity have been merged in federal courts, and in 47 of our 50 states, for decades. If you bothered to consult legal authorities published in the 20th century, or later, you might learn that for yourself.

This is b/c you think the common law that merged with equity is the same common law which originated from AD 1066... they are not.

The common law is only a reference to the commonality of the law exercised at that time after there has been a jurisdiction change... (1215, 1535, 1688, 1925 &c) each of these years a new jurisdiction and new common law was established.

The common law expressed after the 1870's judicature acts were based on the second level of use to land (equity law) whereby the common law of today effects the 3rd level of use. Once the system collapses - designed to - then they will usher in the 4th level of use to land to which a lawyer, a few generations later, will vehemently suppose everything before the common law now practiced has been repealed.

So logically can any law be in effect if that the law before it is was nothing more than waiting to be repealed? If it can be repealed then is it not proof it is not law... self evident truth CANNOT be repealed? (rhetrical I hope) Let's just remove the persona and 'FFS' use logic.