confused capacities & agreements

[Dnatural]

B/c of the logic and the proof shared the intelligent ones will not engage with Parzival, I inner-stand this, as it would direct attention to the knowing of the content and so evidence of their collusion to not deal with the trust, and next the contract/grant, under the guise of agency.

Parzival they respond continually to you and I with diatribe, and without the ability to witness that they are actually supporting what you & I are trying to convey. I am sure those that created this site are cringing with each response given by those so mindlessly interacting.

I hope you (Parzival) had fun playing with these Quatloos'ers and proved your point that extreme prejudice is rampant based upon undue influences quantified under a knee-jerk society; grappling with the contrived insecurities of those desperately trying to hold onto the snake oil sold to them...[my precious]... fed by their insatiable thirst to appease their unsatisfiable deeds.

Let them defend their narrative as that is all they have to look forward to each day... legal persons, moving their

parzival wrote: [a mess of legal word-salad gibberish]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

His delusions remind me of Van Pelt's assertion that the words "In God We Trust", on US currency, created some sort of resulting trust creating a right to redeem said currency in lawful money.

legal tokens around the monopoly board as prostitutes working for only promises, so as to acquire some semblance of a TV induced American dream, cleverly disguised as happiness... all-the-while repeating the evidence found in history of enslaving the masses through fear, thinking they are too smart to fall in that antiquated tar pit ever again.

(they were just not ever given the rules of the game which is the golden rule in order to control the games outcome).

When did you first think you were a house? Did someone lead you up the garden path? In a manor of speaking I think you need closure.

i did that last week with an old paper 10. Took it in to BoE, came out with a new plastic one, Magic, I tell you, Magic.

Misery keeps misery company whereby compassion just becomes its witness. I do not feel in the least sorry for their enslavement as I know, in the end, they will have to someday meet themselves and as such completely destroy who they thought they were... process of evolution towards consciousness (HINT: Spiral Dynamics. Their colour will be easily noticed)... they will be ready when the time is right and no sooner.

The fishing was good and it is no longer a sport when they bite on anything.

[Dnatural]

WATCH OUT FOR THE TAR PIT...

(Stolen, I admit)

Food for thought: Maxim of Law: Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist. Read the original definition of the legal term "fiction of law": FICTION OF LAW. The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing, a quality which is not natural to it, and establishes, consequently, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribe; or authorizes it differs from presumption, because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true. Dalloz, Dict. h. t. See 1 Toull. 171, n. 203; 2 Toull. 217, n. 203; 11 Toull. 11, n. 10, note 2; Ferguson, Moral Philosophy, part 5, c. 10, s. 3 Burgess on Insolvency, 139, 140; Report of the Revisers of the Civil Code of Pennsylvania, March 1, 1832, p. 8.

2. The law never feigns what is impossible fictum est id quod factum non est sed fieri potuit. Fiction is like art; it imitates nature, but never disfigures it it aids truth, but it ought never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but which is not, exists; but it will never feign that what was impossible, actually is. D'Aguesseau, Oeuvres, tome iv. page 427, 47e Plaidoyer.

3. Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors, who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it, under the pretence of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness, which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact, what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench. 4 Benth. Ev. 300.

4. It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. 10 Co. 42; 10 Price's R. 154; Cowp. 177. To prevent, their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require. 1 Lill. Ab. 610; Hawk. 320; Best on Pres. §20.

5. The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold, and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today, is considered as done, at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that, because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, and administrator stand by representation, in the place of the deceased are all fictions of law. "Our various introduction of John Doe and Richard Roe," says Mr. Evans, (Poth. on Ob. by Evans, vol. n. p. 43,) "our solemn process upon disseisin by Hugh Hunt; our casually losing and finding a ship (which never was in Europe) in the parish of St. Mary Le Bow, in the ward of Cheap; our trying the validity of a will by an imaginary, wager of five pounds; our imagining and compassing the king's death, by giving information which may defeat an attack upon an enewy's settlement in the antipodes our charge of picking a pocket, or forging a bill with force and arms; of neglecting to repair a bridge, against the peace of our lord the king, his crown and dignity are circumstances, which, looked at by themselves, would convey an impression of no very favorable nature, with respect to the wisdom of our jurisprudence." Vide 13 Vin. Ab. 209; Merl. Rep. h. t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.; and Rey, des Inst. de I'Angl. tome 2, p. 219, where he severely cesures these fictions as absurd and useless. (Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856)

[Pottapaug1938]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

[NYGman]

WATCH OUT FOR THE TAR PIT...

(Stolen, I admit)

Food for thought: Maxim of Law: Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

Forgetting the most important Maxim of Law, "Never Rely on a Maxim of Law, it's Maximum unReliable in Law." Following that Maxim, anyone quoting a Maxim as legal proof, theory, or anything more than a quirky saying, is to be ignored, as they are about as relevant as their Maxim, not at all.

[Dnatural]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

One trick pony

[Dnatural]

WATCH OUT FOR THE TAR PIT...

(Stolen, I admit)

Food for thought: Maxim of Law: Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

Forgetting the most important Maxim of Law, "Never Rely on a Maxim of Law, it's Maximum unReliable in Law." Following that Maxim, anyone quoting a Maxim as legal proof, theory, or anything more than a quirky saying, is to be ignored, as they are about as relevant as their Maxim, not at all.

Hahaha.... Love to see your source... OMG!!!.... either it was contrived by you, not inner-stood by you or it is again proof of equity. Self evident truths CANNOT be seen in equity as equity affects the fiction ONLY... what is it you are all failing to inner-stand?

26 [now 27] posts and I completely destroyed your fleet which by the way has had thousands, upon thousands of practice shots. The issues is you have no idea what the subject matter is... HINT: I do not fire from a ship so your return fire is hitting the illusion of a ship.

[obadiah]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

One trick pony

That works in the real world.

[NYGman]

WATCH OUT FOR THE TAR PIT...

(Stolen, I admit)

Food for thought: Maxim of Law: Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

Forgetting the most important Maxim of Law, "Never Rely on a Maxim of Law, it's Maximum unReliable in Law." Following that Maxim, anyone quoting a Maxim as legal proof, theory, or anything more than a quirky saying, is to be ignored, as they are about as relevant as their Maxim, not at all.

Hahaha.... Love to see your source... OMG!!!....

My law school professor circa 1994/5 but there are many of these maxims you speak without any attribution. Just because it is published lends it no more value then the one I quoted from my professor. This was in the context of prioritizing sources of law, for which maxims of law were not even in the chart. Consigned to the waste heap of irrelevance. So go ahead, continue to rely on maxims to form an argument. And we will continue to look to the current law, and legal sources which actually apply. Or actually not as the case may be, as your continued bravado and lack of understanding continues to convince you that you know it all and we are the stupid ones that can't see the wisdom of the logic you put before us. Believe me, we get it, but know it's all horse shit.

[parzival]

parzival wrote: [a mess of legal word-salad gibberish]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

what is the subject matter of Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984) ?

Glenn Crain appeals from the dismissal of his Tax Court petition challenging the constitutional authority of that body and defying the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy taxes on his income. Crain asserts that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state,"

and the main issue...

that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.

based on the same principles, yet within the municipal territory under a DIVISION OF POWERS under the common law rules of LAND...

Rustad Bros. & Co. v. British Columbia (Min. of Forests), 1988 CanLII 2972 (BC SC)
[22] There is a general principle that a statutory power may not be used for an improper purpose: see Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC),[1959] S.C.R. 121 at 156, 16 D.L.R. (2d) 689 [Que.], cited by the petitioner. To put it another way, a statutory power is conferred for the purpose of carrying out legislative purpose as that purpose is disclosed by the words of the statute. If the holder of the power exercises his power for some other purpose, he is subverting the legislature. When such an improper use of the power is shown on the evidence the court, by preventing the implementation of that improper purpose, is acting in support of the legislature which in British Columbia is the Queen and the Legislative Assembly.

again, you confusing the issue, OF LEAVING THE GROUP (SLA), with an EQUITABLE CONVEYANCE as LIFE TENANT within the jurisdiction (acceptance) of those state laws.....

the subject matter is completely ignored, and lawyers know better, this is beyond rediculous and is proving the intent of fraud based on THE WRONG JURISDICTION... but that is also ignored, since otherwise your crazy beliefs of authority and where it is derived from can not work.

doing nothing but showing how stupid some really are....

I am sure there is A CIVIL JUDGE HERE, why not get him to make a real determination ??? hmmmmm

or better yet apply to your state court and ask for yourself if English common law applies to the land law in an IMPLIED manner. and if laws of property created by govt can remove the common law, since the colonies can only add to it within the means and end it was written for within the common law

can you not find a law that is of the same subject matter?

why not post your state law of property

how about a video, from the USA, since they think they are different in some way

https://www.coursera.org/lecture/americ ... rt-1-Ndz3j

and the full 2 year property law course of the USA, by josh blackman...

the first lesson, Prop 1 - Class 1 From Nature to Commons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA3mpbs ... doImn3Ygrb

COMMONS LMFAO

Canadian Judicial Council - WHY IS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IMPORTANT TO YOU?
“Canadian democracy is founded upon the “Rule of Law.” The expression “law” means a set of rules that governs relationships of citizens with each other; regulates commerce and our lives within the community, and protects people from the unlawful acts of individuals or the state.
In Canada, two different legal regimes co-exist. They originate from the English common law and the French civil law traditions. All over Canada, law can be the product of legislation passed by parliament or provincial legislatures, which is referred to as “statutory law”. In public law and in Canada’s common law jurisdictions, law is also the product of decisions rendered by judges in the sense that the interpretation and application of legislation and legal concepts evolve over time as cases are decided, appealed, affirmed, overturned, modified, distinguished and refined. This source is referred to as “common law”.
The expression “Rule of Law” describes more generally a single, overarching rule that expresses an agreement – both as individuals and as a collective, a community – to be bound by and subject to the law.
That commitment carries an explicit understanding that such adherence applies to everyone, no matter what their lineage, heritage or station in life. It means no one is above the law: It means that kings and queens, prime ministers, army generals, presidents, business titans, and judges themselves, will all face the same laws as the poorest and least advantaged person in society; and It means that the law will be applied fairly and evenly to all persons, taking no account of hierarchies, privilege, power or wealth.
Representations of Justicia show the goddess as blindfolded, a metaphor conveying that in order for justice to be fair, it should be dispassionate and blind to matters of authority, power or prestige.
The belief in and an adherence to the Rule of Law is a cornerstone of Canada’s constitutional democracy. It is the tool by which a truly impartial and independent judiciary carries out its work. It is the fundamental idea that each judge has sworn, upon oath, to uphold. The Rule of Law distinguishes us from other countries where no such protections exist: where tyrants and their armies and their secret police hold citizens in terror; where wrongdoers are unaccountable; where complicity goes unpunished; where democracy is illusory; and where the rights of the few can be trampled by the power of the mob, or majority.”

what is the only thing in common?

life tenants under fee simple by municipal law.

governments can only add to the common law of the land tenure under life tenant.

government law only applies to its subjects within the state/prov or federal territory....

the common law applies to all colonies WITH THE USE OF THE COMMON LAW OF THE LAND, = the use of it under life tenants and fee simple estates, under English law.

[Pottapaug1938]

parzival wrote: [a mess of legal word-salad gibberish]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

what is the subject matter of Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984) ?

Glenn Crain appeals from the dismissal of his Tax Court petition challenging the constitutional authority of that body and defying the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy taxes on his income. Crain asserts that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state,"

and the main issue...

that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.

From there, you wander off, across the 49th parallel, into court cases having no applicability in the United States, because of your delusion that real property law has any meaning outside of that area of the law. The main issue was whether Crain's appeal was frivolous and designed only to delay his payment of taxes due from him.

The Crain court also said:

"We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always — or often — frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal."

If I were writing a review of your postings, or those of Dnatural, I could model my review on this paragraph.

[Pottapaug1938]

parzival wrote:

"...apply to your state court and ask for yourself if English common law applies to the land law in an IMPLIED manner. and if laws of property created by govt can remove the common law, since the colonies can only add to it within the means and end it was written for within the common law."

This only further illustrates your ignorance of American law. There is no such thing as "applying to a state court"; courts are there to adjudicate actual cases and controversies, and not to render legal advice. And, once again, legislatures, and Congress, can and have abolished provisions of the common law, through legislation or Constitutional amendment; and again, English common law, at least since 1783, has no validity within the US. We ceased to be colonies, at the latest, when the Treaty of Paris was signed.

[parzival]

parzival wrote: [a mess of legal word-salad gibberish]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

what is the subject matter of Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984) ?

Glenn Crain appeals from the dismissal of his Tax Court petition challenging the constitutional authority of that body and defying the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy taxes on his income. Crain asserts that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state,"

and the main issue...

that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.

From there, you wander off, across the 49th parallel, into court cases having no applicability in the United States, because of your delusion that real property law has any meaning outside of that area of the law. The main issue was whether Crain's appeal was frivolous and designed only to delay his payment of taxes due from him.

The Crain court also said:

"We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always — or often — frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal."

If I were writing a review of your postings, or those of Dnatural, I could model my review on this paragraph.

funny how you all put cart before the horse,

so by saying common law does not apply when it does, removes the law and jurisdiction by fraud on the court, Since your implying USA once again, and dodgeing the man question, (that none of you will answer ...does SLA apply in canada)

since if the act applies (Anywhere) then the act makes the issue not vexatious...

which leads me to the next issue,

govt get authority from you correct?

what did you give to grant that authority?

can you leave the GROUP, federal and state group?

if you can not leave, then is the law your claiming slavery and then of no force or effect?

since everyone must agree to join the group, where is this agreement if not in state or federal law?

[Dnatural]

Forgetting the most important Maxim of Law, "Never Rely on a Maxim of Law, it's Maximum unReliable in Law." Following that Maxim, anyone quoting a Maxim as legal proof, theory, or anything more than a quirky saying, is to be ignored, as they are about as relevant as their Maxim, not at all.

Hahaha.... Love to see your source... OMG!!!....

My law school professor circa 1994/5 but there are many of these maxims you speak without any attribution. Just because it is published lends it no more value then the one I quoted from my professor. This was in the context of prioritizing sources of law, for which maxims of law were not even in the chart. Consigned to the waste heap of irrelevance. So go ahead, continue to rely on maxims to form an argument. And we will continue to look to the current law, and legal sources which actually apply. Or actually not as the case may be, as your continued bravado and lack of understanding continues to convince you that you know it all and we are the stupid ones that can't see the wisdom of the logic you put before us. Believe me, we get it, but know it's all horse shit.

...and they manage to prove my point again... this is exactly what I thought a program would act like. Similar to a Christian saying you can only be saved through Jesus Christ and their validation is the bible... F#$K ME.

ONE MORE TIME... MAXIMS OF LAW CANNOT BE USED, SEEN, CONSIDERED, SMELLED, QUANTIFIED, ETC., ETC., B/C THEY ARE NOT HELD IN THE FICTION, I.E. EQUITY!!!!!!! Your professor is right. They do not teach law in school b/c they are not subject to.

Now... I know you are all sinking but to assist I will fire my last shot... (since you are not surrendering with common sense , logic).

What is the subject matter of the Declaration of Independence (1776 organization) What is it? Does it have anything to do at all with LAND?... no?... yet all law is based on land not people b/c it is constant. YOU do not discuss land issues because you cannot, you are not privy to the land as acting agents/citizens... HENCE why you can and will never possess allodium title to land acting as a legal person... it is impossible, like castles in the air.

Frederic William Maitland said, “equity without the law would be as a castle in the air, impossibility.” Please read for the very first time again.'

"But Dnatural they repealed the land... it has being repealed by a subsequent law and so it does not exist anymore in our law." That is partially correct my now aware friends YET they cannot repeal the law b/c any lawyer, citizen, government, life tenenat, trustee, etc., has to have subject matter jurisdiction... what is the subject matter of the Declaration of Independence, and its subsequent constitution, that is written under equity? That is what they can repeal and so draw one's attention away from the law.

Right now you are effectively saying there is no more land as you stand firmly upon something. Now can you repeal the land or act like it is not there by introducing titles to trade subjects of use, for a fee (service in feudal times are taxes today) to the land. Remove the land and you are building castles in the air... are you seeing it now? That is equity, that is the fiction in law. It removed the law (the land), so as to deal effectively with the concept annexed to the land, possession of the fee.

READ History. Read the scholars - these are not my interpretations or those tirelessly conveyed by Parzival - not the program you call a professor at law as he/she is just another program that is regurgitating the program so you can in turn regurgitate the program in order to receive a grade and keep the program going.

Enough of me being sarcastic [in a way]. I know how it initially feels when the belief is unvield to just be an old man behind the curtain. It is hard to take, to assimilate. Now you can discount what you want and go back to what you feel comfortable with... it is okay. You, in the end, have to do what you think is best for you. God bless (in the sense of consciousness and acceptance) and genuine wishes as you walk through the valley of [your own] shadows.

[parzival]

parzival wrote:

"...apply to your state court and ask for yourself if English common law applies to the land law in an IMPLIED manner. and if laws of property created by govt can remove the common law, since the colonies can only add to it within the means and end it was written for within the common law."

This only further illustrates your ignorance of American law. There is no such thing as "applying to a state court"; courts are there to adjudicate actual cases and controversies, and not to render legal advice. And, once again, legislatures, and Congress, can and have abolished provisions of the common law, through legislation or Constitutional amendment; and again, English common law, at least since 1783, has no validity within the US. We ceased to be colonies, at the latest, when the Treaty of Paris was signed.

really, post the treaty, who are the parties, what was agreed, and who all agreed to it......

once again, ignore the foundations to contracts and trusts, then try to claim a power or right not within it due to that ignorance.....

maybe we need to determine what is a contract and a trust, and how a court determines these matters, which are the same for the entire common law realms, yet slightly different based on how the state and federal govt in EQUITY are over reaching the COMMON LAW LAND TRUST BY A TRUST...

so once again,,

monarchy is trustee of lands since BEFORE 1066, this is a roman law attribute......... since 1688 a constitutional monarchy....get it a trust, common law went from a tyranny to a trust.... and all english subject transported the law with you when you went to these other territories and stole the lands by taking those lands into English law, then selling a trust for sale back to the original inhabitants and why they are now METIS subjects, "capacity" and have joined the common....

so please explain lands that have always been in trust, lands taken by not common law, but law of equity under a use for a fee, under a trust of land.....

with full notice of the trust....

so once again, if i grant land to a trustee, the trustee holds those lands as assumed owner, till the one granted takes it back....

the trustee (monarchy) creates a company to manage the lands in trust...
to be part of the land trust company you must be an "AGENCY" not agent, an agent is a strict function of government....

so how can you purchase an absolute right from a municipal corporation under common law grant of trust with full notice of the trust = Law of Property.... under life tenant... to the municipal corporation.....not settlor...

an express trust
is where the settlor takes the thing in trust from the trustee not as settlor but as an agent of the trustee, expresses the trust......

the basics to the system are completely ignored, and why you have these ill founded beliefs.

so once again, once the trust is CONSTITUTED (why govt have constitutions) and is only for the person, not the lands in trust...... for the legal estate, the subsequent conveyance, and expressess the trust..

now law of property turns the life tenant into a trustee and also dictates what one can do with PROPERTY within the common law and within the use.....

again common law is the land trust,
equity is the use for a fee under life tenants to manage and use the trust as BENEFICIARIES

the lop grants powers to give the assumption of ownership, yet under a trust of lands,,,,

ignoring the doctrine of estates in possession, remainder and reversion within common law is why you can not see what possession, remainders and executory devices are within equity... lol

mirrored yet a different subject matter and a different type of agency holds the thing in trust...

[parzival]

sad

The Treaty of Paris of 1898 (Filipino: Kasunduan sa Paris ng 1898; Spanish: Tratado de París (1898)) was a treaty signed by Spain and the United States on December 10, 1898, that ended the Spanish–American War. In the treaty, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba, and ceded Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the United States. The cession of the Philippines involved a compensation of $20 million from the United States to Spain.[1] The Treaty of Paris came into effect on April 11, 1899, when the documents of ratification were exchanged.[2]

wonder why everyone ignores history from 1535 to 1925, yet then goes and spouts this crap,.....

the world wars was the head lord manors prospecting for power in the new system under LOP and SLA,

without the Settled Land Act there could be no industrial revolution, along with a great revolution that led to a free for all, UNDER A SECONDARY USE, to over reach the common law land trust,,,,.....

when one pulls head out of ass and looks to what history in society and puts history of English land law beside it, you will shit your pants................

oh BTW, the lord manors of 1066 to 1535 are now the lawyers to LOP under the SLA......

pinning for powers and rights of real owner yet under a use for a fee as trustees.........

[Dnatural]

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. C.I.R., 737 F. 2d 1417 (1984)

One trick pony

That works in the real world.

I would have to agree.. in the real world this is correct. The world is equity so thus a fiction created in law

If your law is all under the protection of the Declaration of Independence WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER? I see no earth being protected here but a belief in a right to a belief which is of this world.

[NYGman]

What is the subject matter of the Declaration of Independence (1776 organization) What is it? Does it have anything to do at all with LAND?... no?...

Does it matter, no, why, because despite being our declaration of Independence, it is not law of the land. It is a nice document, but it predates our current constitution after the Articles of Incorporation didn't work out so well, after Independence, but that is a whole other story. So an outdated document and the laws that come up in the 1500's have no relevance in a discussion on the current state of the law.


Edit to add: you must be on some amazing LSD to see all you see, and make the connection you do. It's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, only with irrelevant and obsolete law.

[parzival]

One trick pony

That works in the real world.

I would have to agree.. in the real world this is correct. The world is equity so thus a fiction created in law

If your law is all under the protection of the Declaration of Independence WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER? I see no earth being protected here but a belief in a right to a belief which is of this world.

seems the subsequent conveyance under a trust that was initially volunteered to join the group is a few levels to deep to understand..

since by ignoring the trust, ignores the rules to it, until one uses the 3 certainties to these agreements in order to determine what is a trust vs a contract, and why a trust then a contract to govt by law, then the citizen as settlor constitutes the trust by accepting the subsequent conveyance by trust, due to the lop and life tenant to an estate of fee simple..

PROPERTY LAW ACT [RSBC 1996]
Certain interests prohibited or permitted
10 (1) An estate in fee simple must not be changed into a limited fee or fee tail, but the land, whatever form of words is used in an instrument, is and remains an estate in fee simple in the owner.
(2) A limitation which, before June 1, 1921, would have created an estate tail transfers the fee simple or the greatest estate that the transferor had in the land.
(3) This Act does not prevent the creation of a determinable fee simple or a fee simple defeasible by condition subsequent.
(4) A possibility of reverter or a right of entry for condition broken may be registered under the Land Title Act against the title to the land affected in the same manner as a charge.

what is creation of a determinable fee simple or a fee simple defeasible by condition subsequent?

LMFAO baby steps

[parzival]

What is the subject matter of the Declaration of Independence (1776 organization) What is it? Does it have anything to do at all with LAND?... no?...

Does it matter, no, why, because despite being our declaration of Independence, it is not law of the land. It is a nice document, but it predates our current constitution after the Articles of Incorporation didn't work out so well, after Independence, but that is a whole other story. So an outdated document and the laws that come up in the 1500's have no relevance in a discussion on the current state of the law.


Edit to add: you must be on some amazing LSD to see all you see, and make the connection you do. It's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, only with irrelevant and obsolete law.

subject matter is everything...

Powell v. Cockburn
Collection Supreme Court Judgments
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c
Where a foreign court is fraudulently led into believing the jurisdictional facts are such as to give it jurisdiction when they are not, this will be a ground for refusal of the domestic court to recognize the decree. Although not at issue here, for reasons of comity and practical difficulties the courts in the past have refused to inquire into fraud going to the merits. Even as to jurisdictional fraud there should be great reluctance to make such a finding. However, where, as here, the trial judge made a positive finding of jurisdictional fraud and there was evidence upon which he could make that finding, an appellate court should not interfere.

(Bonaparte v. Bonaparte[9]). If the foreign court is fraudulently misled into believing the jurisdictional facts are such as to give it jurisdiction, when in truth they are not, this will be a ground for refusal of the domestic court to recognize the decree. (Cheshire’s Private International Law (8th ed.) at p. 372.) The distinction so made has not been free of criticism. (See Dicey & Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 7th ed. (1958), at p. 306, but see also the 8th ed. (1967), at p. 318 and the 9th ed. (1973), at

[Page 229]
p. 326.) Notwithstanding the doubts expressed, there would seem to be authority supporting such a distinction. Thus in Shaw v. Gould[10], where a Scottish divorce was in question, Lord Westbury said, at p. 81:

The first essential for the validity of a foreign decree is, that it should be pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction between parties bona fide subject to that jurisprudence…

In Bonaparte v. Bonaparte (supra) a fraud was perpetrated on the Scottish court by allowing it to act on the assumption that the pursuer was domiciled in Scotland and that there had been no collusion. It was held that the Scottish Court was without jurisdiction to pronounce a decree in this collusive suit and the decree pronounced was held to be null and void. The issue was one of want of jurisdiction but it was treated as one of fraud on the Court. It should be noted that “jurisdiction” in Bonaparte v. Bonaparte was used in a private international law sense rather than in what might be termed a “domestic competence” sense, but I do not think that serves to make the case inapplicable

and about the state or prov and what English laws apply must look to the reception acts.....

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... 1#section1

Application of English law in British Columbia
2 Subject to section 3, the Civil and Criminal Laws of England, as they existed on November 19, 1858, so far as they are not from local circumstances inapplicable, are in force in British Columbia, but those laws must be held to be modified and altered by all legislation that has the force of law in British Columbia or in any former Colony comprised within its geographical limits.

Laws not in force in British Columbia
3 Section 28 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1828 and all sections of the Real Property Act, 1845 are not in force in British Columbia.

Equitable relief for plaintiff
4 If a plaintiff or petitioner claims to be entitled to an equitable estate or right or to relief on an equitable ground against a deed, instrument or contract, or against any right, title or claim asserted by a defendant or respondent in a cause or matter, or to relief founded on a legal right that, before April 29, 1879, could only have been given by the court as a court of equity, the court, either as a court of law or equity, and every judge of it, must give the plaintiff or petitioner the relief that ought to have been given by the court in a suit or proceeding in equity for the same or similar purpose properly commenced before April 29, 1879.

how many times can one prove this,, talk about trolls.....

[morrand]

Question for parzival/Dnatural.

Do you agree with the propositions that the monarchy held/holds land as the king's prerogative (which is common law, or law of the land), the Roman church created uses as right in property (canon law), the private sector created the second level of use (which is equity law), and that everyday banking policies constitute admiralty law or the law of commerce?

Your answer to this question will clarify much.