Dnatural wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:44 pm
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This simple quote explains it all and is evident that today's lawyers firmly believe that the law has been repealed (should look up the word prescription) even though that equity, the jurisprudence without self evident truth, its jurisdiction is only over matters concerning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 'The law has been repealed' they boldly exclaim...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.