confused capacities & agreements

[parzival]

since the last post leads us to the next issue lets look at that in the common law form...

Of Corporations
WE have hitherto considered persons in their natural capacities, and have treated of their rights and duties. But, as all personal rights die with the person; and, as the necessary forms of investing a series of individuals, one after another, with the same identical rights, would be very inconvenient, if not impracticable; it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public to have any particular rights kept on foot and continued, to constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality.

THESE artificial persons are called bodies politic, bodies corporate, (corpora corporata) or corporations: of which there is a great variety subsisting, for the advancement of religion, of learning, and of commerce; in order to preserve entire and for ever those rights and immunities, which, if they were granted only to those individuals of which the body corporate is composed, would upon their death be utterly lost and extinct. To show the advantages of these incorporations, let us consider the case of a college in either of our universities, founded ad studendum et orandum [for study and prayer], for the encouragement and support of religion and learning. If this was a mere voluntary assembly, the individuals which compose it might indeed read, pray, study, and perform scholastic exercises together, so long as they could agree to do so: but they could neither frame, nor receive, any laws or rules of their conduct; none at least, which would have any binding force, for want of a coercive power to create a sufficient obligation. Neither could they be capable so retaining any privileges or immunities: for, if such privileges be attacked, which of all this unconnected assembly has the right, or ability, to defend them? And, when they are dispersed by death or otherwise, how shall they transfer these advantages to another set of students, equally unconnected as themselves? So also, with regard to holding estates of other property, if land be granted for the purposes of religion or learning to twenty individuals not incorporated, there is no legal way of continuing the property to any other persons for the same purposes, but by endless conveyances from one to the other, as often as the hands are changed. But, when they are consolidated and united into a corporation, they and their successors are then considered as one person in law: as one person, they have one will, which is collected from the sense of the majority of the individuals: this one will may establish rules and orders for the regulation of the whole, which are a sort of municipal laws of this little republic; or rules and statutes may be prescribed to it at its creation, which are then in the place of natural laws: the privileges and immunities, the estates and possessions, of the corporation, when once vested in them, will be for ever vested, without any new conveyance to new successions; for all the individual members that have existed from the foundation to he present time, or that shall ever hereafter exist, are but one person in law, a person that never dies: in like manner as the river Thames is still the same river, though the parts which compose it are changing every instant.

everyone really needs to stop getting so pissy, this is history, and if everyone looked to that time, even just 1535 to today, would see the English law is not bad, it is a choice, yet if you dont want to be subject to it, it must be removed, or will always continue under what i see as a temporary system till enough pull head out of ass and do something real....

this is not to stir up people or anything of the sort. yet it seems by the history and me discussing it in such a manner is making me the one that made you all subject out of an ignorance that is hundreds of year old, if not thousands, yet due to history and power and slavery this natural effect took time, and the natural effect to move past it will also take time...

I do not expect many to except or even discuss this issue in a manner they feel is not attacking them, yet it is the LAW you are subject to....

the next issue will be a repeat obviously yet we are slowly moving through the entire history in a very brutal and destructive manner, when it is history we can not change it, but can only change tomorrow....

when one takes the time to look at the history to all the laws that now make up each countries law will find every single system is based on a monarchy or supreme leader over many not elected. and the people only have what ever is granted by the supreme leader.... this has not changed, yet one aspect has.... and is the point...

EVERYONE IS NOW FREE........................

YOUR SUBJECT BY YOUR OWN IGNORANCE OF HISTORY AND WHO YOU ARE...

I do not care what someone chooses, society or self determination (in the strictest manner) yet, my honest and moral position is EVERYONE deserves the full story to make that choice themselves...

and most important,

IT STOPS THIS FORCED SLAVERY BY THINKING THERE IS NO WAY OUT OF MUNICIPAL LAW AND GOVT RULE WHEN YOU ARE GOVT...................... UNDER A TRUST CREATED BY OPERATION OF LAW, ASSURING YOUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT NO ONE WITHIN THIS SYSTEM CAN TAKE....

this assures freedom for me and other that choose self determination is a strict manner, and also your freedom to choose in the future if you ever want to leave.....

so ya why everyone is flipping out I have no idea, there is no injury unless you let your cheese slide of your cracker by being ignorant to our vicious history...

[parzival]

ok how about this one....

mike and shane want to get into an agreement on land, they both agree on the rules of dominion and that an agreement must be in place to have authority over another based on residing within that dominion(territory)

Mike grants lands to shane with only 4 requirements,

1. can have the land back at anytime.
2. anything made from the lands with in trust, is shared equally with all of shanes other customers, and if mike takes back the land, only at that time will shane be required to pay 2% of all the transactions based on the natural resources that come from the lands he takes back when he leaves.
3.the land is granted as undivided share, meaning the one leaving carves out what they want from the whole group grant...
4. the land trust agreement can only be constituted by taking the lands in trust as trustee, and bound by the use, same as all in the group and equal within your own law of the land.

shane now has to many customers and needs to make a land trust company to manage the estates in trust and regulate the use as agreed by all members..

Just a note from someone who knows more about this type of deal than you do - it's called contract farming. How the scenario would actually work out:
1. Mike is land rich and cash poor.
2. Shane is in the opposite situation and is looking for land to farm.
3. They sober up the next morning after a night of drinking at the Lazy Ace where they signed the deal and both look for ways to get out of a deal that has no advantages for either of them. Yes this would be the view out my window if the Lazy Ace wasn't blocking my sight lines:
https://www.alamy.com/canola-field-in-b ... 91237.html

you do realize you took a common law subject matter, and turned it into mike and shane are subject of a territory already,...

[Pottapaug1938]

Parzival -- you are wasting your time when you are trying to convince us that the law of real property applies to every fact of our lives, or that ancient English laws always are relevant to modern American life. They just aren't. No amount of word salad, no marginally relevant videos -- which given your past track record, you would misunderstand, in any event, and no mélange of UK, Canadian and American law will change that.

Plain and simple -- neither you nor Dnatural have any clue as to what the law is. Do yourselves a favor, and save your breath.

why this topic and site is a fraud, since you been shown that common law of england applies unless strictly removed by STATUTE.................

And YOU have repeatedly been shown that the common law of England, PRIOR TO 1776, has often been modified by the US Constitution, by statute, or by subsequent DOMESTIC common law. The common law of England, after 1776, HAS NO APPLICATION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

[eric]

you do realize you took a common law subject matter, and turned it into mike and shane are subject of a territory already,...

So we have some mystical realm where no laws apply except your definition of common law - something you failed to mention in your post. I give up, Narnia is nothing more than a good children's story.

[parzival]

why the moores failed.... and still fail today....

If the cestui here acquired an equitable reversion, his life estate could not merge therein in violation of the statute, so far as to give him an alienable equitable fee. See Moore's Estate, supra.

his life estate "Moore's Estate" what is an estate, and why the F**** create another estate under a subsequent estate in trust and think you can merge them?

haha ooops

[parzival]

Parzival -- you are wasting your time when you are trying to convince us that the law of real property applies to every fact of our lives, or that ancient English laws always are relevant to modern American life. They just aren't. No amount of word salad, no marginally relevant videos -- which given your past track record, you would misunderstand, in any event, and no mélange of UK, Canadian and American law will change that.

Plain and simple -- neither you nor Dnatural have any clue as to what the law is. Do yourselves a favor, and save your breath.

why this topic and site is a fraud, since you been shown that common law of england applies unless strictly removed by STATUTE.................

And YOU have repeatedly been shown that the common law of England, PRIOR TO 1776, has often been modified by the US Constitution, by statute, or by subsequent DOMESTIC common law. The common law of England, after 1776, HAS NO APPLICATION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

only a post away from ignore....

KISS... go through the 200 posts and you will find many sources proving the same, your reversing the rule....

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

A reception statute is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent by which the new nation adopts, or receives, the English common law before its independence to the extent not explicitly rejected by the legislative body or constitution of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, as well as the precedents originating from it, as the default law because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state.

All US states have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion, but there is a special case of partial reception for Louisiana.[1]

[parzival]

you do realize you took a common law subject matter, and turned it into mike and shane are subject of a territory already,...

So we have some mystical realm where no laws apply except your definition of common law - something you failed to mention in your post. I give up, Narnia is nothing more than a good children's story.

failed to apply the rules of jurisdiction for the USA and all other COUNTRIES IN COMMON

why is the residence and domicile so important?

snap pout of it already....

mike and shane are not subects of a territory and the English law has NO JURISDICTION, NOT THE USA.... there is no agreement between these 2 nations of there own...... yet your law says your bound to your law in reference to ANYONE else....

wow what a difference is subject matter and personal JURISDICTIONS.............

[parzival]

lets look further to jurisdiction of the COMMON LAW...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... 81/part/II
9 Enforcement in the United Kingdom of judgments obtained in superior courts in other British dominions.
(1)Where a judgment has been obtained in a superior court in any part of His Majesty’s dominions outside the United Kingdom to which this Part of this Act extends, the judgment creditor may apply to the High Court in England or [F1Northern Ireland] or to the Court of Session in Scotland, at any time within twelve months after the date of the judgment, or such longer period as may be allowed by the court, to have the judgment registered in the court, and on any such application the court may, if in all the circumstances of the case they think it just and convenient that the judgment should be enforced in the United Kingdom, and subject to the provisions of this section, order the judgment to be registered accordingly.
10 Issue of certificates of judgments obtained in the United Kingdom.
(1)Where—
(a)a judgment has been obtained in the High Court in England or Northern Ireland, or in the Court of Session in Scotland, against any person; and
(b)the judgment creditor wishes to secure the enforcement of the judgment in a part of Her Majesty’s dominions outside the United Kingdom to which this Part of this Act extends,the court shall, on an application made by the judgment creditor, issue to him a certified copy of the judgment.
(2)The reference in the preceding subsection to Her Majesty’s dominions shall be construed as if that subsection had come into force in its present form at the commencement of this Act.]
13 Power to apply Part II. of Act to territories under His Majesty’s protection.
His Majesty may by Order in Council declare that this Part of this Act shall apply to any territory which is under His Majesty’s protection, or in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by the Government of any part of His Majesty’s dominions, as if that territory were part of His Majesty’s dominions, and on the making of any such Order this Part of this Act shall, subject to the provisions of the Order, have effect accordingly.
14 Extent of Part II. of Act.
(1)Where His Majesty is satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made by the legislature of any part of His Majesty’s dominions outside the United Kingdom for the enforcement within that part of His dominions of judgments obtained in the High Court in England, the Court of Session in Scotland, and the [F8High Court in Northern Ireland], His Majesty may by Order in Council declare that this Part of this Act shall extend to that part of His dominions, and on any such Order being made this Part of this Act shall extend accordingly.
(2)An Order in Council under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order.
[F9(3)Her Majesty may by Order in Council under this section consolidate any Orders in Council under this section which are in force when the consolidating Order is made.]

[parzival]

it seems the reversing of the rule to how common law DOES NOT APPLY is false, and that the colony must strictly restrict the act and section etc, yet can not repeal the land tenure rules, by being a subsequent conveyance under a trust created by operation of law... by law of dimicile and municipal law, and when of age choose to accept the subsequent conveyance...

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... g/96253_01

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.

by inverting the rule allows the crazy assumptions of these groups,

[Burnaby49]

its seems the topic is over, . . . .

I, for one, certainly hope so.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

once again the issue is municipal law,,,, that deals with the rights to english common law of the land...

Oh lordy. I thought we had progress with him thinking he was a banana, but he's gone right back to thinking he's a house.

[Chaos]

its seems the topic is over, . . . .

I, for one, certainly hope so.

well, it was on the very first post really.

[morrand]

lol wrong subject matter, LAND is the subject matter jurisdiction...... and the subject matter, and the personal jurisdiction is by where you reside... in a municipal territory under English law of property, = estates in reversion remainder and reversion in common law, not remainder, reversion and executory devices lol.... life liberty and land, vs life liberty and property of a municipal subject... as LIFE TENANT ......

It would do me a great service if you would post this sort of thing in Swedish. It still wouldn't make sense, but as I cannot read Swedish, at least I wouldn't get my eyes all crossed up trying to make sense out of it.

the remitter was removed by the moderator so need to repost it....

No, you do not. It suffices to give a citation to Blackstone's Commentaries, ideally with a link (at least on first appearance). (I'd also ask for pin-cites, but somehow I expect that posting a wall of text does more to advance your argument, primarily by baffling the opposition.) It does not help your case, of course: the example given in Blackstone relies on a chain of land transfers of more or less legitimacy, but which are all functionally obsolete. And if you read further, Blackstone goes on to say:

[T]here shall be no remitter to a right, for which the party has no remedy by action: as if the issue in trial be barred by the fine or warranty of his ancestor, and the freehold is afterwards cast upon him; he shall not be remitted to his estate tail: for the operation of the remitter is exactly the same, after the union of the two rights, as that of a real action would have been before it. As therefore the issue in [sic] could not by any action have recovered his ancient estate, he shall not recover it by remitter.

So I have to ask: could you obtain the relief you claim through remitter by some action besides remitter? If so, what? If not, then I think Blackstone's shot you in the foot.

anyone that tries to say USA does not follow municipal law gets an immediate ignore...... this page along destroys the beliefs by fact of law....

That is, frankly, a load of bullshit. As is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the thing, the word "municipal" appears once on the page, and that in the section heading. Hardly damning evidence of anything relevant to your point.

But, hey, it's an article in a law review, so it must be the law, right? So what if I mention certain commentators who consider Blackstone's Commentaries to be "a work that almost no one reads today and that is widely believed to rest on a silly, ponderous, formal, conceptual, outdated, deductive, mechanistic, naive and hopelessly unrealistic jurisprudence"? (1) I mean, that's from an article in a law review, which (by your manifest standards) is the law, which pretty much kills the relevance of your Blackstone quotes, doesn't it?

I also do not believe for an instant that you will put anyone on "ignore" as long as you can get some kind of a response out of them.

(1) Alschuler, Albert W. "Rediscovering Blackstone." 145 U. Penn. L. Rev. No. 1 (Nov. 1996), p. 2, https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/v ... law_review

[eric]

Is it over yet? Can we get back to more important discussions relevant to everyday life, such as:
1. The paucity of drinkable IPA's in small town BC interior;
2. Whether or not I am in possession of the family saurkraut gene; (don't ask)
3. A true, non Yuppie recipe, for Yuccaflux, and should you use cheap vodka or Everclear.
Saurkraut was today's endeavors, the Yuccaflux is tomorrow.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'd rather discuss who put the bomp in the bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp.

[Pottapaug1938]

lol wrong subject matter, LAND is the subject matter jurisdiction...... and the subject matter, and the personal jurisdiction is by where you reside... in a municipal territory under English law of property, = estates in reversion remainder and reversion in common law, not remainder, reversion and executory devices lol.... life liberty and land, vs life liberty and property of a municipal subject... as LIFE TENANT ......

It would do me a great service if you would post this sort of thing in Swedish. It still wouldn't make sense, but as I cannot read Swedish, at least I wouldn't get my eyes all crossed up trying to make sense out of it.

Lol fel sak ämne, LAND är ämnet jurisdiktion ...... och ämnet, och den personliga jurisdiktion är där du är bosatt ... i ett kommunalt territorium enligt engelsk äganderätt, = fastigheter i återstående återställande och återföring i gemenskapsrätten, inte resten, omvändning och verkställande anordningar lol .... livsfrihet och mark, mot livsfrihet och egendom hos ett kommunalt ämne ... som LIFE TENANT ..

[Dr. Caligari]

there is no agreement between these 2 nations of there own...... yet your law says your bound to your law

You might have more credibility if you knew the difference between "their" and "there" and between "your" and "you're."

Actually, you wouldn't, so don't bother.

[rogfulton]

I'd rather discuss who put the bomp in the bomp-ba-bomp-ba-bomp.

Or the dong in the rama-lama-ding-dong.

[Arthur Rubin]

once again the issue is municipal law,,,, that deals with the rights to english common law of the land...

so once again no municipal law in USA, so lets start there, to prove reception of the ENGLISH COMMON LAW and how constitutions and treaties are a subsequent conveyance to the common law....

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.20.180

Judges' oath of office, official bonds.
Every judge of such municipal court,

P. assumes that municipal courts discuss or are under municipal law. This is false.

California used to have municipal courts and Superior courts, the difference being that municipal courts and court districts were located in a municipality (city). In 1993, or thereabouts, all trial courts were changed to be Superior courts.

[Pottapaug1938]

once again the issue is municipal law,,,, that deals with the rights to english common law of the land...

so once again no municipal law in USA, so lets start there, to prove reception of the ENGLISH COMMON LAW and how constitutions and treaties are a subsequent conveyance to the common law....

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.20.180

Judges' oath of office, official bonds.
Every judge of such municipal court,

P. assumes that municipal courts discuss or are under municipal law. This is false.

California used to have municipal courts and Superior courts, the difference being that municipal courts and court districts were located in a municipality (city). In 1993, or thereabouts, all trial courts were changed to be Superior courts.

Massachusetts used to be the same way; but even the still-existing Boston Municipal Court is now, officially, a department of the Trial Court of Massachusetts.