confused capacities & agreements

[HardyW]

First, almost every term you have quoted in the last two posts is used wrongly.

Second, what do you mean by this

without the Settled Land Act there could be no industrial revolution

The first Settled Land Act (in England I mean of course) was in 1870 or thereabouts - about 100 years after the industrial revolution. Whatever the Luddites were fighting about I don't think it was the difference between land held in fee simple and that held under settlement.

Third, you have never responded to several other Quatloos members who have told you that ownership as a tenant for life is very rare in modern times. Probably the most common circumstance that status arises would be when it is specified in a will: so if the deceased has written in their will that a property is to be inherited by one person (say the son/daughter) but only after another person (probably the widow) has had the benefit for the rest of their life. So the widow becomes a life tenant but has no fear of the settlor demanding possession because the settlor is dead.

Then fourth, you have a lot to say about lords of the manor and estates dating back as far as 1066. But since your main interest is Canada and BC in particular, how many manorial estates do you imagine there are in Canada? Especially the West?

[eric]

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.

You have got to be kidding me... This one only piqued my interest because Rustad was one of my customers (nice bunch of guys) and my family has been involved in the forestry business for about 200 years. You talk about the IRS for awhile, talk about Rustad and then somehow get into weird sh*t about land rights.

Here is a short summary of
the whole issue with Rustad, along with proper cites:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1 ... ultIndex=2
Rustad cuts particular sticks in the area of Cranbrook up to Prince Goerge and they're turned into utility poles at a plant near Galloway BC. A particular disease strikes the wood supply in BC and the government says you have to change which types of tree you cut down and we're going to modify your licences. Rustad appeals saying that Pine Bark Beetle isn't specifically mentioned in the legislation. They lose since the decision is that the government has the right to make decisions about cutting rights on other factors that are generally based on adequate wood supply, local employment, etc.

What this has to do about whatever point you are trying to prove completely baffles me.....

[parzival]

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.

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) ...yes.

the Roman church created uses as right in property (canon law)... yes, but statute of uses 1535 took those powers and gave them to govt,

the private sector created the second level of use (which is equity law),. no the SLA created the second level of trust by LOP,

and that everyday banking policies constitute admiralty law or the law of commerce?.. no, commerce is regulated by govt, based in the grant of statute of uses, Bill of rights 1688, settlements act 1700 & 1701, SLA, Settled "estates" act, LOP, and trustee act, in 1925 the common law consolidated the SLA, LOP and trustee act of 1925......

the government has the strict powers granted by the settlements, under a grant of law....

the citizen creates the second level of trust under government, where govt controls the use under the common law trust, and why they can only add to, or remove a law they create... and not take away from the foundation land law of the Bill of rights 1688...

Bill of Rights [1688]
1688 CHAPTER 2 1 Will and Mar Sess 2
An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.

X1Whereas the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the Estates of the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the Names and Stile of William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and Comons in the Words following viz

and freedom once granted can not be taken, must be accepted by an agreement...

[X5And in all and every such Case or Cases the People of these Realmes shall be and are hereby absolved of their Allegiance]

[HardyW]

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.

My understanding, based on the evidence of their writings, is that Dnatural agrees with most of those while Parzival does not.

Or if we hypothesize that they are the same person, then the doctrine of confused capacities comes into play.

In the capacity of Parzival, the original post accepted that the “sovereign citizen” is a pipe dream and that concept is wrong.

In the capacity of Dnatural, we have been presented with much adherence to the sovereign citizen philosophy which promotes many sovereign/freeman/OPCA concepts such as enslaving the masses through fear or that the live birth record acts as an indenture.

[parzival]

First, almost every term you have quoted in the last two posts is used wrongly.

Second, what do you mean by this

without the Settled Land Act there could be no industrial revolution

The first Settled Land Act (in England I mean of course) was in 1870 or thereabouts - about 100 years after the industrial revolution. Whatever the Luddites were fighting about I don't think it was the difference between land held in fee simple and that held under settlement.

Third, you have never responded to several other Quatloos members who have told you that ownership as a tenant for life is very rare in modern times. Probably the most common circumstance that status arises would be when it is specified in a will: so if the deceased has written in their will that a property is to be inherited by one person (say the son/daughter) but only after another person (probably the widow) has had the benefit for the rest of their life. So the widow becomes a life tenant but has no fear of the settlor demanding possession because the settlor is dead.

Then fourth, you have a lot to say about lords of the manor and estates dating back as far as 1066. But since your main interest is Canada and BC in particular, how many manorial estates do you imagine there are in Canada? Especially the West?

The first Settled Land Act (in England I mean of course) was in 1870 or thereabouts - about 100 years after the industrial revolution..... please review this post and the commentary http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 40#p278668, please do not ignore the footnoted book on Settled land act and what this act really is, and how it is completely different then settled "estates" and lop...

Whatever the Luddites were fighting about I don't think it was the difference between land held in fee simple and that held under settlement. correct they where going for control of territory now that the right to self govern under a municipal corp was created by statute W&M 5&6 shortly after bill of rights....

Third, you have never responded to several other Quatloos members who have told you that ownership as a tenant for life is very rare in modern times.
post your law of property act for your state... since all others have one as state life tenants, and only estate they can create is a fee-simple estate under a trust....(since in common law land law, possession as life tenant is only in fee and has no real right of ownership and possession as one right, due to law of agency...

Probably the most common circumstance that status arises would be when it is specified in a will: so if the deceased has written in their will that a property is to be inherited by one person (say the son/daughter) but only after another person (probably the widow) has had the benefit for the rest of their life. So the widow becomes a life tenant but has no fear of the settlor demanding possession because the settlor is dead.

sure if one can ignore common law is a land trust, and all land law is based on the English common law... sure then and only then can the system work in the way you claim it does...

again govt is not true owners, citizen is not true owner, monarchy is not true owner, so then who is, does power to these people acting as a function of government or monarchy get YOUR POWER from?

Then fourth, you have a lot to say about lords of the manor and estates dating back as far as 1066. But since your main interest is Canada and BC in particular, how many manorial estates do you imagine there are in Canada? Especially the West?

you confused the thing, with the capacity of the lord manors,

in feudal tenure, lord manors where in the position govt is now..
in the ancient the christian faith and the cestui que trust was created.... lord manors are the lawyers of the ancient times....
modern tenure is based on government and being a citizen of govt, yet before the constitution of govt, the individual was a monarchy subject....... so as you see the lawyers of each era are the ones that are building this second system of use under the statute of uses, then under municipal law, then the people accept the municipal law by residence, that then accepts the grant to govt and the common law, and why the monarchy is not needed, the laws are in place and succession of the lands and THRONE as trustee are settled...

the SLA, is how the individual joins the group of life tenants, and get is power of sale, rent and mortage and repair from the SLA, and nothing else....

all english law get is powers from the individual granting dominion in TRUST, or would be a tyranny....

so they corrected the tryanny in one swoop, yet no one took the freedoms, and chose what is now a temproary system till the people choose to leave and create a new outside of life tenant to a land trust.

[parzival]

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.

My understanding, based on the evidence of their writings, is that Dnatural agrees with most of those while Parzival does not.

Or if we hypothesize that they are the same person, then the doctrine of confused capacities comes into play.

In the capacity of Parzival, the original post accepted that the “sovereign citizen” is a pipe dream and that concept is wrong.

In the capacity of Dnatural, we have been presented with much adherence to the sovereign citizen philosophy which promotes many sovereign/freeman/OPCA concepts such as enslaving the masses through fear or that the live birth record acts as an indenture.

system of conveyances answers the question of what is the Birth Certificate created by govt and accepted by the individual, and also explains what the indenture is, that is not signed by the party named on it at the time of birth,...

both of these are part of estoppel by deed , and is explained in great detail by reading any system of conveyances treatise.

just to clear up the enslaving issue, everyone has a choice, if you accept something, what you accept can not be wrong to you, therefore not fraud or any other injury available unless strictly stated by statute....

everyone chooses their own system, the issue is this system seems to be older than roman law itself, (including Justinian and all the other), I have even read law books that say the rules to property law of English law originate from the time of ancient Egypt.

looking at the rules to repeal in a very strict manner, one can see how this is possible due to subject matter and what is not termed a subsequent conveyance....

so no the tyranny is a soft tyranny, it is a choice, seems no one looks to the history to see or find the choice, then make it out like there is none, when in fact there has always been a way to leave english law of life tenant, and the first was writen in statute west 1st writ of formedon....

[parzival]

on a side note,

thank you to the ones that are starting to discuss what is written, since I did not write it, just read it from the top scholars of time....

[parzival]

confused capacities is this,,,

freeman group think they can double dip, be in system but not have rules apply,

the system of equity has forgotten law.

there is a trust, just not to life tenants in acceptance...

there is no trust in Equity, Equity is the TRUST.

you can not be settlor and trustee of the same subject matter at the same time...

common law will always apply to all English colonies do to the Bill of rights 1688. and why treaty of paris is what it is, an over reaching treaty only in equity.

if you choose to leave it must be a permanent choice, and must show you will can handle your own trust(law and agreements and how they apply to others based on their agreements)

[parzival]

to remove the sweeping beliefs of all are trustee as soon as on stands as settlor..

this is WRONG...

trust law applies, only those in possession of your LAND TRUST ASSETS are trustee, NOT EVERYONE!!!

so as you can see life tenants are only life tenants till a settlor claims the things the life tenant itself is in possession of as the SLA states.....

so dont flip out,

[parzival]

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.

You have got to be kidding me... This one only piqued my interest because Rustad was one of my customers (nice bunch of guys) and my family has been involved in the forestry business for about 200 years. You talk about the IRS for awhile, talk about Rustad and then somehow get into weird sh*t about land rights.

Here is a short summary of
the whole issue with Rustad, along with proper cites:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1 ... ultIndex=2
Rustad cuts particular sticks in the area of Cranbrook up to Prince Goerge and they're turned into utility poles at a plant near Galloway BC. A particular disease strikes the wood supply in BC and the government says you have to change which types of tree you cut down and we're going to modify your licences. Rustad appeals saying that Pine Bark Beetle isn't specifically mentioned in the legislation. They lose since the decision is that the government has the right to make decisions about cutting rights on other factors that are generally based on adequate wood supply, local employment, etc.

What this has to do about whatever point you are trying to prove completely baffles me.....

lol

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

does that help.... since now we established govt gets its powers from somewhere, and not by govt... and can only do as the statute or act says, and MUST DO IT as stated.... hmmmmmmm

wonder where that is going...

what is the SLA.... subject matter folks, lets not forget it....

[parzival]

as for Dnantural

you guys play the oldest trick in the book, change of subject matter, and direction.

people need to realize when in court if you loose your subject matter, and go off on a tangent not part of the subject matter to the case you are vexatious, and gets tossed....

so dnatural has only fallen for a trick, and when he starts to only deal with the determining factors within the law that pertains to the one it applies to removes that issue, while proving the issue and also the intent of the other party in one swoop......

kinda like how the common law land tenure ensure absolute freedom of the individual of life liberty and land, where citizens get rights of life liberty and property.

[Dr. Caligari]

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,.....

Wrong Treaty of Paris, not the one we're discussing.

[Dnatural]

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.

The inference is this... the bases of US Independence and as such or for that matter and subsequent rules of law which followed therefrom, come from what subject matter. I really could care less who is on first, what's on second, as I am speaking to the whole game not just its players.

[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,.....

Wrong Treaty of Paris, not the one we're discussing.

a "treaty" can only happen between two nations or more...... what is law of nations... these are all municipal corporations created by the English law.....

[Pottapaug1938]

Dnatural wrote:

"The inference is this... the bases of US Independence and as such or for that matter and subsequent rules of law which followed therefrom, come from what subject matter."

That's easy. The basis for US independence is the Treaty of Paris:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783)

The rules of American law came from what subject matter? The Constitution; the statutes and treaties enacted under its authority; state constitutions and statutes; and whatever pre-1776 British common law, and subsequent common law created by American courts, which have not been modified or abolished by statute or by Constitutional amendment.

Easy, wasn't it?

[eric]

You have got to be kidding me... This one only piqued my interest because Rustad was one of my customers (nice bunch of guys) and my family has been involved in the forestry business for about 200 years. You talk about the IRS for awhile, talk about Rustad and then somehow get into weird sh*t about land rights.
\

lol

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

does that help.... since now we established govt gets its powers from somewhere, and not by govt... and can only do as the statute or act says, and MUST DO IT as stated.... hmmmmmmm

wonder where that is going...

what is the SLA.... subject matter folks, lets not forget it....

Ok, you treat as an important cite that a government ministry did not follow the exact letter of the law. That being said, everyone in Canada at least, knows that the assorted government ministries that deal with natural resources have wide ranging powers. Sometimes the exact legislation falls behind a particular situation. That being said, I still fail to see whatever point you are trying to make. The rights to cut down a particular breed of tree of a certain age and dimensions have nothing to do with what you are trying to prove. It's about the same as trying to prove that I have rights to harvest lettuce out of my own home garden should somehow mean that I have overweaning rights over my neighbour's property and how much income tax they pay. This is an absolute waste of time

[parzival]

Municipal Corporations Act 1882
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vi ... /section/7

7 Interpretation and construction.
(1)In this Act—. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1
“Municipal corporation” means the body corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants of a borough:
“Municipal Corporations Act, 1835,” means the recited Act of King William the Fourth, the date of the passing whereof is the ninth of September one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five:
“Municipal Corporations Acts” means this Act and any Act to be passed amending this Act:
F2. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3
“Corporate office” means the office of mayor, alderman, councillor, elective auditor, . . . F4
“Corporate land” means land belonging to or held in trust for a municipal corporation:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F5
“Trustees” means trustees, commissioners, or directors, or the persons charged with the execution of a trust or public duty, however designated:
“Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1
“Justice” means one of Her Majesty’s justices of the peace:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F6
F2. . .
F2. . .
(2)Words in this Act referring to a borough, municipal corporation, authority, officer, or office, shall be construed distributively as referring to each borough, corporation, authority, officer, or office to which or to whom the provision is applicable.

maybe the HUGE print will help

[parzival]

The
Florida
Municipal
Officials’
Manual

http://www.floridaleagueofcities.com/do ... 70d6ded5_0

A. THE ENGLISH BACKGROUND
The origins of American municipal government lie in English history. As England emerged from the
non-urbanized medieval period and began to develop urban centers, citizens with vested interests in
the development of their communities as trade centers sought authority from the Crown to exercise
some control over local aff airs. The king (or queen) would respond to these requests by granting “charters” to these groups, whereby they were empowered to promote local improvements and to regulate
certain aspects of community life. The charter was viewed as a grant only of those powers which were
specifi cally and explicitly granted therein; in other words, the grant of authority was narrowly defi ned
and strictly limited. Eventually, these chartered groups came to be recognized as “municipal corporations,” similar to private, commercial corporations, which also were authorized by the Crown. At fi rst,
such grants of authority were given only to narrowly defi ned groups, usually the leading businessmen
of the community. Over time, as democratic institutions developed, control of charters shifted from
such narrow groups to the general population of the community, complete with the democratic election of leaders to exercise the granted powers.
This pattern for the formation of English municipal governments was extended to the American
colonies. In America, municipal charters were granted by the Crown to a handful of urban centers. When
the Revolution transformed the colonies into states, the state governments assumed the role of the
Crown as the source of municipal- government authority; that is the state governments assumed the
role of granting municipal charters. From this practice evolved the traditional American legal principle
that a municipality is a creature of the state, may exist only with the consent of the state, derives its powers from the state, and enjoys only those powers w

In short, the Legislature was free to control municipal aff airs by means of local acts.

[parzival]

Dnatural wrote:

"The inference is this... the bases of US Independence and as such or for that matter and subsequent rules of law which followed therefrom, come from what subject matter."

That's easy. The basis for US independence is the Treaty of Paris:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1783)

The rules of American law came from what subject matter? The Constitution; the statutes and treaties enacted under its authority; state constitutions and statutes; and whatever pre-1776 British common law, and subsequent common law created by American courts, which have not been modified or abolished by statute or by Constitutional amendment.

Easy, wasn't it?

subject matter is not personal jurisdiction LMFAO!!!

The embattled life tenant of 1856, denied powers of sale or leasing by his unimaginative or spiteful settlor, would not have regarded the conferral of such powers by statute, and the removal of the need to seek a private Act of Parliament,47 as “emaciated” or “worthless” reforms. If they have become so – and they have – it is because the 1856 Act has been long since overtaken by events, which have made it redundant. For better or worse, I would merely assert again that it is still there, as part of the law of Manitoba,48 of Saskatchewan and of Alberta too.
But redundant it undoubtedly is. Until 1983 when, as explained below, all life tenants were made willy-nilly the beneficiaries (and usually also the trustees) of a legislatively imposed trust,49

the people move by the constitution, the land moves by GRANT OF LAW...... English common law of the land for all in common as life tenants under municipal law....

https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-101/

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1
Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
The objects of the laws of England are so very numerous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other; both of which are equally productive of confusion.

Now, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong; or, as Cicero,1 and after him our Bracton,2 has expressed it, sanctio justa, jubens honesta et prohibens contraria; it follows, that the primary and principal objects of the law are rights, and wrongs. In the prosecution therefore of these commentaries, I shall follow this very simple and obvious division; and shall in the first place consider the rights that are commanded, and secondly the wrongs that are forbidden by the laws of England.

Rights are however liable to another subdivision; being either, first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things. Wrongs also are a divisible into, first, private wrongs, which, being a infringement merely of particular rights, concern individuals only, and are called civil injuries; and secondly, public wrongs, which, being a breach of general and public rights, affect the whole community, and are called crimes and misdemeanors.

The objects of the laws of England falling into this fourfold division, the present commentaries will therefore consist of the four following parts: 1. The rights of persons; with the means whereby such rights may be either acquired or lost. 2. The rights of things; with the means also of acquiring and losing them. 3. Private wrongs, or civil injuries; with the means of redressing them by law. 4. Public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors; with the means of prevention and punishment.

We are now, first, to consider the rights of persons; with the means of acquiring and losing them.

Now the rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the municipal law are to two sorts; first, such as are due from every citizen, which are usually called civil duties; and, secondly, such as belong to him, which is the more popular acceptation of rights or jura. Both may indeed be comprised in this latter division; for as all social duties are of a relative nature, at the same duties are of a relative nature, at the same time that they are due from one man, or set of men, they must also be due to another. But I apprehend it will be more clear and easy, to consider many of them as duties required from, rather than as rights belonging to, particular persons. Thus, for instance, allegiance is usually, and therefore most easily, considered as the duty of the people, and protection as the duty of the magistrate; and yet they are, reciprocally, the rights as well as duties of each other. Allegiance is the right of the magistrate, and protection the right of the people.

Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposed of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.

The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons: relative, which are indigent to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. The first, that is, absolute rights, will be the subject of the present chapter.

By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it. But with regard to the absolute duties, which man is bound to perform considered as a mere individual, it is not to be expected that any human municipal laws should at all explain or enforce them. For the end and intent of such laws being only to regulate the behavior of mankind, as they are members of society, and stand in various relations to each other, they have consequently no business or concern with any but social or relative duties. Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like) they then become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them. Here the circumstance of publication is what alters the nature of the case. Public sobriety is a relative duty, and therefore enjoined by our laws: private sobriety is an absolute duty, which, whether it be performed or not, human tribunals can never know; and therefore they can never enforce it by any civil sanction. But, with respect to rights, the case is different. Human laws define and enforce as well those rights which belong to a man considered as an individual, as those which belong to him considered as related to others.

SUBJECT MATTER.... what restrict the person... what is law of agency..?

[Dnatural]

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.

My understanding, based on the evidence of their writings, is that Dnatural agrees with most of those while Parzival does not.

Or if we hypothesize that they are the same person, then the doctrine of confused capacities comes into play.

In the capacity of Parzival, the original post accepted that the “sovereign citizen” is a pipe dream and that concept is wrong.

In the capacity of Dnatural, we have been presented with much adherence to the sovereign citizen philosophy which promotes many sovereign/freeman/OPCA concepts such as enslaving the masses through fear or that the live birth record acts as an indenture.

So now assuming what I believe now. If it allows you to remain in your comfort zone... then so it is.

As for the connection with 'sovereign/freeman/OPCA' concepts of course there is going to be some overlap [and no the indenture is not an enslavement document] just the same as moral and ethics taught under the guise of 'Law Society' will overlap with the morals and ethics of the people. See it does not mean you share the same morals and ethics of real people it just sometimes appears that way while acting as a lawyer.