confused capacities & agreements

[Burnaby49]

How can you derail gibberish? Nobody has a clue what Dnatural and Parzival are on about so, after being diverted from religion, the thread may have eventually ended up discussing British Columbia small brewery IPA's in the natural course of events.

[parzival]

the point is property is in trust under equity, means municipal law is based on the common law land tenure that is a trust since 1688,

all countries by reception incorporate the Enlgish land law

USA and all states are created by municipalities..... get it... law of agency...

yet ignorance is the issue as posted

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 60#p278948

and here

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 60#p278951

and all the other posts are written by your own scholars,

thank you for proving my point, what else is left to discuss?

NOTHING there is no discussion it is FACT OF LAW.... and only your sad replies is all that shields you..... so only those that can read see past your bullshit....

from your own municipal territory of florida

The Law of Property Act, 1925, Section 1, made the basic move to
implement this policy. Legal estates were restricted to two, the fee
simple absolute in possession and the term of years absolute." Lesser
legal interests such as easements and rent charges for value were restricted to five,'2 while all other interests in land were declared to be
equitable." Thereafter consequential directions were given concerning
the vesting and devolution of the legal estate in land, of which I wish to
mention those relating to settlements, concurrent ownership, title on
death and mortgages.
Settlements. An initial problem of terminology must be cleared out
of the way. In England "the word 'settlement' is used in a general sense
for all kinds of arrangements whereby property is given to particular
persons in succession."' 4 The word "arrangement" includes dispositions by deed and will alike, and is wide enough to cover, for example,
the creation of a determinable fee followed by a possibility of reverter as
well as a life interest with remainders over." The word "trust" in England is almost an alternative, for since 1925 all settlements in this sense
must be created by way of trust, 6 but the bare or simple trust (where A
holds the legal estate on trust for B absolutely) does not constitute a
settlement. In the United States, I understand, neither word is entirely
appropriate; settlement is not generally used, and future interests can be
created other than by way of trust. In this article I propose to use "settlement" in the general English sense explained above.

American law. It seems that in the United States overreaching dispositions may occur in three ways.2
" First, the trust instrument mayauthorize or direct a sale.
Secondly, American courts have inherent jurisdiction to direct dispositions of land subject to future interests or
trusts where adherence to the terms of the instrument would, through change of circumstances or for other reasons, be unfair or defeat the original purpose.

Further, some states, including Indiana,2" have by
statute enlarged this jurisdiction based on reasonable necessity by permitting the court to authorize dispositions which are advantageous to the beneficiaries.

A sale of land subject to concurrent interests may be
ordered in a partition action if that is the only practicable way of dealing with the property. In all these cases beneficial interests are overreached and continue in the money produced by the disposition.
Comment. As regards the English system of overreaching, Professor Lawson has said in his invaluable Hamlyn lectures on "The Rational
Strength of English Law": "I regard this wholesale combination of a
rigorous regime for the land itself with an astonishingly free regime for
the endowments to which it may be devoted as one of the most brilliant
feats of the English mind. . . . Moreover, this is one point at which
English law is ahead of all the other common law systems .... " including that of the United States.
Now you may reply, with some force, that Indiana and many other
States could achieve this feat of ratiocination by a stroke of the pen permitting trustees to sell out of court, and that being "ahead" depends upon
where one wants to go

ya ok no words of trust

The Municipal Affairs Administration Act MANITOBA
Definitions
1 In this Act,
"minister" means the member of the Executive Council charged by the Lieutenant Governor in Council with the administration of this Act; (« ministre »)
"municipality" means any locality the inhabitants of which are incorporated and continued under the authority of The Municipal Act, The Local Government Districts Act or any other Act of the Legislature and includes a rural municipality, an incorporated city, town or village, and a local government district.
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/m230e.php

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.

to argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead

its your law, ignore it if you like, be lawless and breach your group agreements, someone one day will correct them.....

[parzival]

sure ignore the foundation to equity and yes there is no trust,...

Municipality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipality

A municipality is usually a single administrative division having corporate status and powers of self-government or jurisdiction as granted by national and regional laws to which it is subordinate. It is to be distinguished (usually) from the county, which may encompass rural territory or numerous small communities such as towns, villages and hamlets.

The term municipality may also mean the governing or ruling body of a given municipality.[1] A municipality is a general-purpose administrative subdivision, as opposed to a special-purpose district.

The term is derived from French municipalité and Latin municipalis.[2] The English word municipality derives from the Latin social contract municipium (derived from a word meaning "duty holders"), referring to the Latin communities that supplied Rome with troops in exchange for their own incorporation into the Roman state (granting Roman citizenship to the inhabitants) while permitting the communities to retain their own local governments (a limited autonomy).

A municipality can be any political jurisdiction from a sovereign state, such as the Principality of Monaco, to a small village, such as West Hampton Dunes, New York.

The territory over which a municipality has jurisdiction may encompass

click the link look at Municipalities by country

BTW political does not include the land, it is an incorporeal hereditament

[HardyW]

the point is property is in trust under equity, means municipal law is based on the common law land tenure that is a trust since 1688,
Nothing you have quoted confirms this. It is your own invention, or that of Dnatural or successors.ca

all countries by reception incorporate the Enlgish land law
Possibly correct if you make the change to past tense. All countries that were colonies were deemed to have incorporated, or received, the corpus of English law,at a certain date in their path to independence, and from then on were free to change it. You have already quoted a statement to this effect.

USA and all states are created by municipalities..... get it... law of agency...
As the Wiki quote you gave above confirms, the opposite is the case. Municipalities are created by the sovereign state.

yet ignorance is the issue as posted
yes plenty of that has been posted by you and Dnatural.

from your own municipal territory of florida

The Law of Property Act, 1925, Section 1, made the basic move to
implement this policy. Legal estates were restricted to two, the fee
simple absolute in possession and the term of years absolute." Lesser
legal interests such as easements and rent charges for value were restricted to five,'2 while all other interests in land were declared to be equitable."
< ... large snip here ...>

The important point here is that the whole quote is in the past tense. It is a document of history not current law

ya ok no words of trust
so you accept this review of 1925 Act does not mention trust yet you continue to mention trust all the time.

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

<not sure why you posted this as it simply proves the point made to you.>

to argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead
thank you for the rebuke. It is not done in the expectation that you will see the light but perhaps there is a small chance.

its your law, ignore it if you like, be lawless and breach your group agreements, someone one day will correct them.....
last thing for you to do, provide any current legislation or current description of law from anywhere in the English world that refers to these mythical agreements.

[parzival]

maybe now this will make sense

Subject Matter – Land held under a use is in trust for the benefit of the settlor to the settled land who has right to absolute ownership & possession outside of the uses and trust system of equity, and can not be forced to accept a subsequent right under the Law of Property or Statute of Use with intent to defraud.

A Readable Edition of Coke Upon Littleton
pdf page 53 “A lawful or pure inheritance] Here it is well put in the disjunctive lawful or pure, for every fee-simple is not lawful. A disseisor, abator,intruder, usurper, &c. Have a fee-simple, has it either by purchase or descent. If by wrong, then either by disseisin, intrusion,abatement,usurpation, &c. “
Pg 511 pdf “But since Littleton wrote, all uses are transferred by act of parliament into possession, so that the case which littleton here puts is thereby altered. Yet it is necessary to be known what the common law was before the making of the statute, [otherwise the application of the statute could not be discovered]”
“nota. A use is a trust or confidence reposed in some other, which is not out of the land, but as a thing collateral thereto and annexed in privity to the estate of the land, and to the person touching the land,”

Those operating as a function of government and citizens of BC have accepted the subsequent conveyance, therefore is not fraud to those that choose it, due to the rules of absolute freedoms now recognized.
Those subject to the municipal law have accepted the land trust and choose life tenant rights and duties, and is a waiver of the prior right in trust as settlor.

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
BOOK 3, CHAPTER 2
Of Redress by the Mere Operation of Law
“IF the subsequent estate, or right of possession, be gained by a man’s own act or consent, as by immediate purchase being of full age, he shall not be remitted. For the taking such subsequent estate was his own folly, and shall be looked upon as a waiver of his prior right.”
SLA s. 16, 106 & 109.

A Treatise on the Construction of the Statutes, 13 Eliz. C. 5, and 27 Eliz by William Roberts states the voluntary conveyance is not fraud, yet c.5 hinges on the choice of if one accepts the statute of use conveyance or not, this corrected the land theft of 1066, and the choice to be part of the territory.
Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571 (13 Eliz., c. 5.)

A Treatise on the Construction of the Statutes, 13 Eliz. C. 5, and 27 Eliz by William Roberts 1845 , pg 613 -614
https://archive.org/details/atreatiseon ... og/page/n9
“From what has been produced in the early part of this treatise the reader may think it pretty manifest that courts of law and equity have generally agreed in holding the voluntariness of a conveyance, exclusive of the operation of this fifth section of the act. Strong presumptive evidence at least of the fraudulent intent within the meaning of the 27 Eliz., though he be disinclined to a full acquiescence in the opinion of a great judge, (a) who has said that every voluntary conveyance,|| followed by a subsequent conveyance for valuable consideration, though there be no fraud in that voluntary conveyance, yet, according to the determinations, such mere voluntary conveyance is void at law, by the subsequent purchase for valuable consideration.”

Law of Property 1925 wrote this same voidable conveyance as a voidable dispostion, due to being the subsequent conveyance, where s.173(2) also addresses the issue of choice in the way of intent to defraud a subsequent purchaser, this is a safeguard to assure those within equity can not circumvent the absolute rights of the individual and the choice to join a system based on trusts of land by way of proclaimed constitutions.

LOP - Part IX Voidable Dispositions s.173 & s.174
173 Voluntary disposition of land how far voidable as against purchasers.
(1)Every voluntary disposition of land made with intent to defraud a subsequent purchaser is voidable at the instance of that purchaser.
(2)For the purposes of this section, no voluntary disposition, whenever made, shall be deemed to have been made with intent to defraud by reason only that a subsequent conveyance for valuable consideration was made, if such subsequent conveyance was made after the twenty-eighth day of June, eighteen hundred and ninety-three.
174 Acquisitions of reversions at an under value.
(1)No acquisition made in good faith, without fraud or unfair dealing, of any reversionary interest in real or personal property, for money or money’s worth, shall be liable to be opened or set aside merely on the ground of under value.In this subsection “reversionary interest” includes an expectancy or possibility.
(2)This section does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to set aside or modify unconscionable bargains.

[Pottapaug1938]

maybe now this will make sense

No.

Subject Matter – Land held under a use is in trust for the benefit of the settlor to the settled land who has right to absolute ownership & possession outside of the uses and trust system of equity, and can not be forced to accept a subsequent right under the Law of Property or Statute of Use with intent to defraud.

A Readable Edition of Coke Upon Littleton
pdf page 53 “A lawful or pure inheritance] Here it is well put in the disjunctive lawful or pure, for every fee-simple is not lawful. A disseisor, abator,intruder, usurper, &c. Have a fee-simple, has it either by purchase or descent. If by wrong, then either by disseisin, intrusion,abatement,usurpation, &c. “
Pg 511 pdf “But since Littleton wrote, all uses are transferred by act of parliament into possession, so that the case which littleton here puts is thereby altered. Yet it is necessary to be known what the common law was before the making of the statute, [otherwise the application of the statute could not be discovered]”
“nota. A use is a trust or confidence reposed in some other, which is not out of the land, but as a thing collateral thereto and annexed in privity to the estate of the land, and to the person touching the land,”

Those operating as a function of government and citizens of BC have accepted the subsequent conveyance, therefore is not fraud to those that choose it, due to the rules of absolute freedoms now recognized.
Those subject to the municipal law have accepted the land trust and choose life tenant rights and duties, and is a waiver of the prior right in trust as settlor.

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
BOOK 3, CHAPTER 2
Of Redress by the Mere Operation of Law
“IF the subsequent estate, or right of possession, be gained by a man’s own act or consent, as by immediate purchase being of full age, he shall not be remitted. For the taking such subsequent estate was his own folly, and shall be looked upon as a waiver of his prior right.”
SLA s. 16, 106 & 109.

A Treatise on the Construction of the Statutes, 13 Eliz. C. 5, and 27 Eliz by William Roberts states the voluntary conveyance is not fraud, yet c.5 hinges on the choice of if one accepts the statute of use conveyance or not, this corrected the land theft of 1066, and the choice to be part of the territory.
Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571 (13 Eliz., c. 5.)

A Treatise on the Construction of the Statutes, 13 Eliz. C. 5, and 27 Eliz by William Roberts 1845 , pg 613 -614
https://archive.org/details/atreatiseon ... og/page/n9
“From what has been produced in the early part of this treatise the reader may think it pretty manifest that courts of law and equity have generally agreed in holding the voluntariness of a conveyance, exclusive of the operation of this fifth section of the act. Strong presumptive evidence at least of the fraudulent intent within the meaning of the 27 Eliz., though he be disinclined to a full acquiescence in the opinion of a great judge, (a) who has said that every voluntary conveyance,|| followed by a subsequent conveyance for valuable consideration, though there be no fraud in that voluntary conveyance, yet, according to the determinations, such mere voluntary conveyance is void at law, by the subsequent purchase for valuable consideration.”

Law of Property 1925 wrote this same voidable conveyance as a voidable dispostion, due to being the subsequent conveyance, where s.173(2) also addresses the issue of choice in the way of intent to defraud a subsequent purchaser, this is a safeguard to assure those within equity can not circumvent the absolute rights of the individual and the choice to join a system based on trusts of land by way of proclaimed constitutions.

LOP - Part IX Voidable Dispositions s.173 & s.174
173 Voluntary disposition of land how far voidable as against purchasers.
(1)Every voluntary disposition of land made with intent to defraud a subsequent purchaser is voidable at the instance of that purchaser.
(2)For the purposes of this section, no voluntary disposition, whenever made, shall be deemed to have been made with intent to defraud by reason only that a subsequent conveyance for valuable consideration was made, if such subsequent conveyance was made after the twenty-eighth day of June, eighteen hundred and ninety-three.
174 Acquisitions of reversions at an under value.
(1)No acquisition made in good faith, without fraud or unfair dealing, of any reversionary interest in real or personal property, for money or money’s worth, shall be liable to be opened or set aside merely on the ground of under value.In this subsection “reversionary interest” includes an expectancy or possibility.
(2)This section does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to set aside or modify unconscionable bargains.

[parzival]

the point is property is in trust under equity, means municipal law is based on the common law land tenure that is a trust since 1688,
Nothing you have quoted confirms this. It is your own invention, or that of Dnatural or successors.ca

American law. It seems that in the United States overreaching dispositions may occur in three ways.2
" First, the trust instrument mayauthorize or direct a sale.
Secondly, American courts have inherent jurisdiction to direct dispositions of land subject to future interests or
trusts where adherence to the terms of the instrument would, through change of circumstances or for other reasons, be unfair or defeat the original purpose.

Further, some states, including Indiana,2" have by
statute enlarged this jurisdiction based on reasonable necessity by permitting the court to authorize dispositions which are advantageous to the beneficiaries.

all countries by reception incorporate the Enlgish land law
Possibly correct if you make the change to past tense. All countries that were colonies were deemed to have incorporated, or received, the corpus of English law,at a certain date in their path to independence, and from then on were free to change it. You have already quoted a statement to this effect.

same answer as above.....

USA and all states are created by municipalities..... get it... law of agency...
As the Wiki quote you gave above confirms, the opposite is the case. Municipalities are created by the sovereign state.

sure ignore the rules to law of agency, it is posted by USA top scholars and is a treatise, explains from the past to the current, yet ignore that also....

yet ignorance is the issue as posted
yes plenty of that has been posted by you and Dnatural.

from your own municipal territory of florida

The Law of Property Act, 1925, Section 1, made the basic move to
implement this policy. Legal estates were restricted to two, the fee
simple absolute in possession and the term of years absolute." Lesser
legal interests such as easements and rent charges for value were restricted to five,'2 while all other interests in land were declared to be equitable."
< ... large snip here ...>

The important point here is that the whole quote is in the past tense. It is a document of history not current law

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Ge ... /section/2(1)A conveyance to a purchaser of a legal estate in land shall overreach any equitable interest or power affecting that estate, whether or not he has notice thereof, if—
(i)the conveyance is made under the powers conferred by the M1Settled Land Act, 1925, or any additional powers conferred by a settlement, and the equitable interest or power is capable of being overreached thereby, and the statutory requirements respecting the payment of capital money arising under the settlement are complied with;

ya ok no words of trust
so you accept this review of 1925 Act does not mention trust yet you continue to mention trust all the time.

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

<not sure why you posted this as it simply proves the point made to you.>

means the body corporate constituted by the incorporation of the inhabitants of a borough:

means any locality the inhabitants of which are incorporated and continued under the authority of The Municipal Act,

to argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead
thank you for the rebuke. It is not done in the expectation that you will see the light but perhaps there is a small chance.

ignorance is bliss in equity

its your law, ignore it if you like, be lawless and breach your group agreements, someone one day will correct them.....
last thing for you to do, provide any current legislation or current description of law from anywhere in the English world that refers to these mythical agreements.

if you dont read the law how can you understand it.... and must look to the whole law, not just equity...

why is it law AND equity?

once again

[parzival]

entertaining how lawyers can not understand personal, subject matter, and subject matter jurisdiction, then combine and mix and match, sounds kinda like the freeloaders.. yet this us under the statute of use and a secondary conveyance

[HardyW]

In that last post, that starts "maybe now this will make sense":

Everything you placed in quotes you have shown us before.

Everything outside the quote boxes is nonsense and bears no relation to the quoted material.

All the quoted material is old law, you have apparently not even looked at BC Property Law Act which is where you should be looking.

Or as Pottapaug more succinctly put it,

No.

[Pottapaug1938]

entertaining how lawyers can not understand personal, subject matter, and subject matter jurisdiction, then combine and mix and match, sounds kinda like the freeloaders.. yet this us under the statute of use and a secondary conveyance

No.

[parzival]

In that last post, that starts "maybe now this will make sense":

Everything you placed in quotes you have shown us before.

Everything outside the quote boxes is nonsense and bears no relation to the quoted material.

All the quoted material is old law, you have apparently not even looked at BC Property Law Act which is where you should be looking.

Or as Pottapaug more succinctly put it,

No.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 60#p278948

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 60#p278951

you dont read, you choose the words and ignore what you dont like....

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 60#p278953

could not resist, lol

more from Indiana law journal,
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ ... te] AND
American law. It seems that in the United States overreaching dispositions may occur in three ways.2
" First, the trust instrument may
authorize or direct a sale.
Secondly, American courts have inherent
jurisdiction to direct dispositions of land subject to future interests or
trusts where adherence to the terms of the instrument would, through
change of circumstances or for other reasons, be unfair or defeat the
original purpose.

Further, some states, including Indiana,2" have by
statute enlarged this jurisdiction based on reasonable necessity by permitting the court to authorize dispositions which are advantageous to the
beneficiaries.

A sale of land subject to concurrent interests may be
ordered in a partition action if that is the only practicable way of dealing with the property. In all these cases beneficial interests are overreached and continue in the money produced by the disposition.
Comment. As regards the English system of overreaching, Professor Lawson has said in his invaluable Hamlyn lectures on "The Rational
Strength of English Law": "I regard this wholesale combination of a
rigorous regime for the land itself with an astonishingly free regime for
the endowments to which it may be devoted as one of the most brilliant
feats of the English mind. . . . Moreover, this is one point at which
English law is ahead of all the other common law systems .... " including that of the United States.
Now you may reply, with some force, that Indiana and many other
States could achieve this feat of ratiocination by a stroke of the pen permitting trustees to sell out of court, and that being "ahead" depends upon
where one wants to go. N

ya ok, just have to look, now i am here to teach the lawyers.... really.....

[parzival]

seems the first post has been deleted, WONDER WHY!!!!

bitch to your moderators for deleting new content with real facts to hide the use under municipal law....

so ya the moderation and ignorance here is so thick its not even worth the discussion.....

to be expected...

[morrand]

Nothing you have quoted confirms this. It is your own invention, or that of Dnatural or successors.ca

You rotten swine! You stole my reveal! Oh well, it was a bit of a crap reveal anyway, especially because I mentioned it over in the grown-ups section of the board.

For those of you still attempting to follow along, it may hurt less if you go to successors.ca and read the "The Secret" series there. (That's "The Secret," not the similarly-named "The Secret," which probably doesn't have anything to do with this, or maybe it does.)

I wish that I could say that it meets the demand for Mutt and Jeff

to sum up their contentions in a few concise and literate paragraphs.

They are not few, concise, or literate, but they are at least paragraphs, they are somewhat linear, and, thank Bomb, they do not involve endless walls of cut-and-pasted text.

You will need to click "Previous" to go to the next post in that series. That somehow fits.

[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]

keep dodging the fact that municipal law governs the actions of those within English law, as life tenants.

the municipal law get the land use from the COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND.....

the PEOPLE express the land trust by joining and accepting the municipal government....

so once again a trust by common law, then a grant of law to municipalities, the the people PURCHASE RIGHT by estates and property within the LOP act, and constitutes the first trust by an EXPRESS TRUST...

anyone that looks to the law will see common law was only granted to govt.
lop is only a grant to citizens under municipal rule from the common law.... in trust...

2 different issues, one is personal and acceptance of life tenant,
the other is lands, the estates created IN TRUST, and is NOT PART OF THE LAND, but annexed to it as a use for a fee....

the subsequent conveyance is only fraud if you are not in acceptance....

this is pretty simple, yet ignore the law and grants and who the grants are too, and sure, then and only then was all law granted to the people, but only as government subjects

the change is municipal law.... under the common law... which is a land tenure....

[Pottapaug1938]

seems the first post has been deleted, WONDER WHY!!!!

bitch to your moderators for deleting new content with real facts to hide the use under municipal law....

so ya the moderation and ignorance here is so thick its not even worth the discussion.....

to be expected...

No.

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

No.

[Pottapaug1938]

keep dodging the fact that municipal law governs the actions of those within English law, as life tenants.

the municipal law get the land use from the COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND.....

the PEOPLE express the land trust by joining and accepting the municipal government....

so once again a trust by common law, then a grant of law to municipalities, the the people PURCHASE RIGHT by estates and property within the LOP act, and constitutes the first trust by an EXPRESS TRUST...

anyone that looks to the law will see common law was only granted to govt.
lop is only a grant to citizens under municipal rule from the common law.... in trust...

2 different issues, one is personal and acceptance of life tenant,
the other is lands, the estates created IN TRUST, and is NOT PART OF THE LAND, but annexed to it as a use for a fee....

the subsequent conveyance is only fraud if you are not in acceptance....

this is pretty simple, yet ignore the law and grants and who the grants are too, and sure, then and only then was all law granted to the people, but only as government subjects

the change is municipal law.... under the common law... which is a land tenure....

No.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

We (Parzival & I) see this... pushing the red button, the red button, the red button equaling banana, banana, banana arriving at jackpot and arguing who got the best banana (equity) whereas we are discussing what created the red button as the subject matter which is the law.

We have progress. They now both think they are bananas.

[Pottapaug1938]

We (Parzival & I) see this... pushing the red button, the red button, the red button equaling banana, banana, banana arriving at jackpot and arguing who got the best banana (equity) whereas we are discussing what created the red button as the subject matter which is the law.

We have progress. They now both think they are bananas.

Boring bananas, at that. Their posts are nothing but endless regurgitations of the same pointless message. They are like the pencil which I just put inside my desk -- it has no point.