confused capacities & agreements

[Pottapaug1938]

Parzival's screeds remind me of the old joke from Vermont, where a late arrival at Town Meeting sits next to his good friend, while an orator is up at the podium, clearly in the middle of a long and passionate speech.

"How long has he been speaking," asked the new arrival.

"Fifteen minutes, at least," said the friend.

"What point is he trying to make," says the new arrival to his friend.

"He hasn't told us, yet," was the reply.

[parzival]

Powell v. Cockburn
Collection Supreme Court Judgments
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do

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

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

[Page 229]

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

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

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

the settlor is not bound to law of domicile, IS BOUND TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW................... different capacity (personal) and different property (subject matter)....
so dodging the PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SETTLOR....... is fraud on the court !!!

what about law of domicile or private international law not applying anymore

funny how everything the LAWYERS state, is actually wrong when compared to eh jurisdiction and subject matter of the settlor to the lands gifted in trusts to be part of the group, that chose land and dominion as its basis for jurisdiction and acceptance....
I am enjoying this, since everything you fraudsters post, is in essence walking yourself ass first into your own deception that is ignored to keep authority over those that join the English law of trustee to lands.... yet only when compared to a settlor, all life tenants are equal within the law of property yet not equal within the land settlement, and the choice to join the group....
keep posting, and ill keep posting the Case law and jurisprudence to show it is a lie from the settlors point of view, yet legal from the life tenant that has agreed to such a crazy system of law and equity based in a lands settlement....

[parzival]

Commentaries on the law of agency as a branch of commercial and maritime jurisprudence, with occasional illustrations from the civil and foreign law

https://archive.org/details/commentariesonl00benngoog
Object of the author in his Commentaries.
It is a general maxim, that whatever a man sui Juris may do of himself, he may
do by another. And cor relatively what is done by another is to be deemed done
by the party himself.

Agent and agency defined.
Agency in the Roman law.

let us proceed to the consideration of the law of agency, a subject intimately connected with all these branches, and in no small degree necessary to a full and exact exposition of the doctrines applicable to them. Prom this we shall be led, by a very easy and natural transition, to the law of partnership. And these being discussed, the path to others will lie open before us, unobstructed by any collateral inquiries, which may embarrass our progress

It is obvious to remark, that a large proportion of the business of human life must necessarily be carried on by persons, not acting in their own right, o^r from their own intrinsic authority, over the subject-matter, but acting under an authority derived from others, who, by the principles of natural and civil law, are exclusively invested with the full and complete original dominion, authority, and right over such subject-matter. By the general theory of our municipal jurisprudence, and probably by that of all civilized nations, professing to be governed by a regular system of laws, every person is invested with a general authority to dispose of his own property, to enter into contracts and engagements, and to perform acts, whicli respect his personal rights, interests, duties, and obligations, except in cases where some positive or known disability is imposed upon him by the laws of the country,in which he resides, and to which he owes allegiance.

Every person not under such a disability, is treated as being sui juris, and capable, not only of acting personally in all such matters by his own proper act, but of accomplishing the same object through the instrumentality of others, to whom he may choose to delegate, either generally, or specially, his own authority for such a purpose

PDF Page 43:
In general, it may be said, that every person
sui juris, is capable of becoming both a principal and an agent,
unless there exists some disability or prohibition by the municipal
law, which is to regulate his rights and duties.

PDF Page 44:
If, therefore, an infant should make a letter of attorney to another, to take livery of lands on a feoffment to him, it will be good ; for it will be intended to be for his benefit. But if an infant should make a feoffment, and execute a letter of attorney to another, to make livery in his name to the feoffee, it will be void [or' at least voidable] ; for such feoffment and livery will be intended to be to his prejudice.

PDF Page 53:
And this is upon the same enlarged principle, which governs in the civil law ; that the act is not to be treated as void between the agent and his substitute, unless, indeed, the principal should interfere and prohibit the substitute from acting.

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,

What is DISSEISOR?
One who puts another out of the possession of his lands wrongfully

What is DISSEISIN?
Dispossession; a deprivation of possession; a privation of seisin; ausurpation of the right of seisin and possession, and an exercise of such powers andprivileges of ownership as to keep out or displace him to whom these rightfully belong.3 Washb. Real Prop. 125; Probst v. Trustees, 129 U. S. 182, 9 Sup. Ct. 263, 32 L. Ed.642; Bond v. O’Gara, 177 Mass. 139, 58 N. E. 275, 83 Am. St. Rep. 265; Moody v.Fleming, 4 Ga. 115, 48 Am. Dec. 210; Clapp v. Bromagbam, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 553; Washburnv. Cutter, 17 Minn. 368 (Gil. 335).It is a wrongful putting out of him that is seised of the freehold, not, as inabatement or intrusion, a wrongful entry, where the possession was vacant, but anattack upon him who Is in actual possession, and turning him out. It is an ouster from afreehold in deed, as abatement and intrusion are ousters in law. 3 Steph. Comm. 386

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,

PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY. BOOK THE FIRST. OF REAL PROPERTY.
https://archive.org/details/principleslawre00blacgoog
OF REAL PROPERTY; and first, of CORPOREAL [ 16 ]
HEREDITAMENTS. Pg 31

The objects of dominion or property are things, as contradistinguished from persons : and things are by the law of. England distributed into two kinds; things real, and personal. things personal. Things real are such as are permanent, fixed, and immoveable, which cannot be carried out of their place ; as lands and tenements : things personal are goods, money, and all other moveables; which may attend the owner's person wherever he thinks proper to go.

In treating of things real, the subject of the present work, let us consider, first, their several sorts or kinds ; secondly, the tenures by which they may be holden ; thirdly, the estates which may be had in them ; and, fourthly, the title to them, and the manner of acquiring and losing it.

First, with regard to their several sorts or kinds, things Things real real are usually said to consist in lands, tenements, or hereditaments. Land comprehends all things of a permanent, substantial nature ; being a word of a very extensive signification, as will presently appear more at large. Tenement is a word of still greater extent, and though in its vulgar acceptation is only applied to houses and other buildings, yet in its original, proper, and legal sense, it [ 17 ] signifies every thing that may be holden,provided it be of a permanent nature ; whether it be of a substantial and sensible^ or of an unsubstantial ideal kind. Thus liberum tenementum, franktenement, or freehold, is applicable not only to lands and other solid objects, but also to offices, rents, commons, and the like;^ and, as lands and houses are tenements, so is an advowson a tenement ; and a franchise, an office, a right of common, a peerage, or other property of the like unsubstantial kind, are, all of them, legally speaking, tenements. But an hereditament, says Sir Edward Coke, is by much the largest and most comprehensive expression : for it includes not only lands and tenements, but whatsoever may be inherited, be it corporeal, or incorporeal, real, personal, or mixed. Thus an heir-loom, or implement of furniture which by custom descends to the heir together with an house, is neither land, nor tenement, but a mere moveable : yet, being in- heritable, is comprised under the general word hereditament: and so a condition, the benefit of which may descend to a man from his ancestor, is also an hereditament.

Hereditaments then, to use the largest expression, are of two kinds, corporeal and incorporeal. Corporeal consist of such as affect the senses ; such as may be seen and handled by the body : incorporeal are not the object of sensation, can neither be seen nor handled, are creatures of the mind, and exist only in contemplation.

Corporeal hereditaments consist wholly of substantial permanent objects ; all which may be comprehended consist. under the general denomination of land only. For landy says Sir Edward Coke, comprehendeth in its legal signification any ground, soil, or earth whatsoever ; as arable, meadows, pastures, woods, moors, waters, marshes, furzes, and heath. It legally includeth also all castles, houses, and other buildings : for they consist, saith he, of two things ; Land ; its land, which is the foundation, and structure thereupon : SO that, if I convey the land or ground, the structure or building passeth therewith. It is observable that water is here mentioned as a species of land,

OF INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS
An incorporeal hereditament is a Right issuing: out of a thing Corporate (whether real or personal) or concerning, or annexed to, or exercisible within, the same.^ It is not the thing corporate itself, which may consist in lands, houses, jewels, or the like ; but something collateral thereto, as a rent issuing out of those lands or houses, or an office relating to those jewels.

Incorporeal hereditaments are principally of ten sorts ; Of ten sorts, advowsons, tithes, commons, ways, offices, dignities, franchises, corodies or pensions, annuities, and rents

OF THE TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY in general.
https://ia801406.us.archive.org/2/items ... f#page=155

The foregoing books having been principally employed in defining the nature of things real, in describing the tenures by which they may be holden, and in distinguishing the several kinds oi estate or interest that may be had therein; I come now to consider, lastly, the title to things real, with the manner of acquiring and losing it.

A title is thus defined by Sir Edward Coke,* titulus est Dettnition of jmta causa possidendi id quod nostrum est; or, it is the * means whereby the owner of lands hath the just possession of his property.

There are several stages or degrees requisite to form a
complete title to lands and tenements. We will consider
them in a progressive order.

The lowest and most imperfect degree of title consists in the mere naked possession, or actual occupation of the estate; without any apparent right, or any shadow or pretence of right, to hold and continue such possession. This may happen, when one man invades the possession of another, and by force or surprise turns him out of the occupation of his lands; which is termed a disseisin, being a deprivation of the actual seisin.

The next step to a good and perfect title is the right of possession, which may reside in one man, while the actual possession is not in himself but in another. For if a man be disseised, or otherwise kept out of possession, by any of the means before-mentioned, though the actual possession be lost, yet he has still remaining in him the right of possession ; and may exert it whenever he think proper, by entering upon the disseisor, and turning him out of that occupancy which he has so illegally gained. But this right of possession is of two sorts : an apparent right of possession, which may be defeated by proving a better; and an actual right of possession, which will stand the test against all opponents.

sadly mistaken on what real property is within law of property and what land is within Settled Land Act....

also mistaken on who life tenants are and what rights and what estates they hold.

sadly mistaken on the rules of domicile and private international law.

ignore the foundation to land law, and the law of prescriptions and reception, and how reception ratifies the acceptance within English law.

sadly mistaken on everything....

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.”
LOP - Part IX Voidable Dispositions s.173 & s.174 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Ge ... 20/part/IX
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.

and just because i can

In The Matter of John Horvath, 2000 BCSC 117,
it is now settled that where the settlor invokes the aid of the court to set aside a voluntary settlement the onus of showing mistake, fraud or undue influence is upon him, except:
(1) where the provisions of the settlement are so absurd and improvident as to raise a presumption that no sane person would have agreed to them knowingly, and
(2) where the beneficiary occupied at the date of the settlement a fiduciary position towards the settlor, in which case there is a strong prima facie presumption of undue influence.
The absence of a power of revocation will not operate to transfer the onus of proof from the settlor to the beneficiary.
On the other hand, where the beneficiaries (Life Tenant) set up the deed against the settlor the onus is on them to show that he thoroughly understood it.

oops forgot the first 3 sections of law of property 1925

LOP - s.1,s.2, s.3
1 Legal estates and equitable interests.
(1)The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are—
(a)An estate in fee simple absolute in possession;
(b)A term of years absolute.
(10)The repeal of the Statute of Uses (as amended) does not affect the operation thereof in regard to dealings taking effect before the commencement of this Act.
2 Conveyances overreaching certain equitable interests and powers.
(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;
[F2(1A)An equitable interest in land subject to a trust of land which remains in, or is to revert to, the settlor shall (subject to any contrary intention) be overreached by the conveyance if it would be so overreached were it an interest under the trust.]
3 Manner of giving effect to equitable interests and powers.
(1)All equitable interests and powers in or over land shall be enforceable against the estate owner of the legal estate affected in manner following (that is to say):—
(a)Where the legal estate affected is settled land, the tenant for life or statutory owner shall be bound to give effect to the equitable interests and powers in manner provided by the M1Settled Land Act, 1925;
F1(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c)[F2In any other case], the estate owner shall be bound to give effect to the equitable interests and powers affecting his estate of which he has notice according to their respective priorities. This provision does not affect the priority or powers of a legal mortgagee, or the powers of personal representatives for purposes of administration.
F1(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3)Where, by reason . . . F3of an equitable right of entry taking effect, or for any other reason, a person becomes entitled to require a legal estate to be vested in him, then and in any such case the estate owner whose estate is affected shall be bound to convey or create such legal estate as the case may require.
(4)If any question arises whether any and what legal estate ought to be transferred or created as aforesaid, any person interested may apply to the court for directions in the manner provided by this Act.
(5)If the F4. . . estate owners refuse or neglect for one month after demand to transfer or create any such legal estate, or if by reason of their being out of the United Kingdom or being unable to be found, or by reason of the dissolution of a corporation, or for any other reason, the court is satisfied that the transaction cannot otherwise be effected, or cannot be effected without undue delay or expense, the court may, on the application of any person interested, make a vesting order transferring or creating a legal estate in the manner provided by this Act.

and for those that understand the rules to common law when the subject matter is property...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... n4QV2NLN6E

SLA 1925 s.1 s.2 and s.3 establishes the 3 certainties to a trust that is created by operation of law, therefore the redress is by mere operation of law.

1 What constitutes a settlement.
(1)Any deed, will, agreement for a settlement or other agreement, Act of Parliament, or other instrument, or any number of instruments, whether made or passed before or after, or partly before and partly after, the commencement of this Act, under or by virtue of which instrument or instruments any land, after the commencement of this Act, stands for the time being—
(i)limited in trust for any persons by way of succession; or
(ii)limited in trust for any person in possession—
2 What is settled land.
Land which is or is deemed to be the subject of a settlement is for the purposes of this Act settled land, and is in relation to the settlement referred to in this Act as the settled land.
3 Duration of settlements.
Land [F1which has been subject to a settlement which is a settlement for the purposes of this Act] shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to remain and be settled land, and the settlement shall be deemed to be a subsisting settlement for the purposes of this Act so long as—
(a)any limitation, charge, or power of charging under the settlement subsists, or is capable of being exercised; or
(b)the person who, if of full age, would be entitled as beneficial owner to have that land vested in him for a legal estate is an infant.

[parzival]

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
BOOK 3, CHAPTER 2
Of Redress by the Mere Operation of Law
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-302/

THE remedies for private wrongs, which are effected by the mere operation of law, will fall within a very narrow compass: there being only two instances of this sort that at present occur to my recollection; the one that of retainer, where a creditor is made executor or administrator to his debtor; the other, in the case of what the law calls a remitter.

II. REMITTER is where he, who has the true property or jus proprietatis in lands but is out of possession thereof and has no right to enter without recovering possession in an action, has afterwards the freehold cast upon him by some subsequent, and of course defective, title: in this case he is remitted, or sent back, by operation of law, to his ancient and more certain title.4 The right of entry, which he has gained by a bad title, shall be ipso facto [for that reason] annexed to his own inherent good one; and his defeasible estate shall be utterly defeated and annulled, by the instantaneous act of law, without his participation or consent.5 As if A disseizes B; that is, turns him out of possession, and dies leaving a son C; hereby the estate descends to C the son of A, and B is barred from entering thereon till he proves his right in an action: now, if afterwards C the heir of the disseizor makes a lease for life to D, with remainder to B the disseizee for life, and D dies; hereby the remainder accrues to B, the disseizee: who thus gaining a new freehold by virtue of the remainder, which is a bad title, is by act of law remitted, or in of his former and surer estate.6 For he has hereby gained a new right of possession, to which the law immediately annexes his ancient right of propriety.

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.[/b]7 Therefore it is to be observed, that to every remitter there are regularly these incidents; an ancient right, and a new defeasible estate of freehold, uniting in one and the same person; which defeasible estate must be cast upon the tenant, not gained by his own act or folly. The reason given by Littleton,8 why this remedy, which operates silently and by the mere act of law, was allowed, is somewhat similar to that given in the preceding article; because otherwise he who has right would be deprived of all remedy. For as he himself is the person in possession of the freehold, there is no other person against whom he can bring an action, to establish his prior right. And for this cause the law does adjudge him in by remitter; that is, in such plight as if he had lawfully recovered the same land by suit. For, as lord Bacon observes,9 the benignity of the law is such, as when, to preserve the principles and grounds of law, it deprives a man of his remedy without his own fault, it will rather put him in a better degree and condition than in a worse. Nam quod remedio destituitur, ipsa re valet, si culpa absit. [What is without remedy, is thereby strengthened, if free from fault.] But there shall be no remitter to a right, for which the party has no remedy by action:10 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:11 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 could not by any action have recovered his ancient estate, he shall not recover it by remitter.

AND thus much for these extrajudicial remedies, as well for real as personal injuries, which are furnished by the law, where the parties are so peculiarly circumstanced, as not to be able to apply for redress in the usual and ordinary methods to the courts of public justice.

[parzival]

sovereign citizen the confused capacity

To start off a little about me: I am a new member that has studied the history of roman, justinian ,English law, including the creation of the modern system of equity including the prescriptions of common law and equity (pre 1535), the creation of international law and the law of nations and municipal law, I have studied the top scholars for many years my library is in excess of 1000 books from: Coke, Littleton, Bracton, Mansfield, Blackstone, Holdsworth,Story etc..


To many are playing in this grey area of the group agreement without defining what the true intent of the individual is.
Do to the severity of this issue and the effects as well as the terms of use that I have agreed to I (being with right of private territory within private international law(private domicile)) will only discuss this matter in a general history aspect dealing with the freedom issue that can and does show the history of capacity and privity to the different jurisdictions, and in my opinion is the only issue required to discuss to put this issue of sovereign citizen into perspective due to the history of freedom within English law and equity and the trust within it.

Majority are only ignorant of the laws of common law and equity due to not understanding the very basics to interactions between men/women, this is also partially because the law of repeals in regards to the issue and capacity attached to that issue that only can be seen when looking at the whole history to the modern land tenure (3 levels) being English law and equity.

Without correcting the beliefs of the majority within the international law scheme will in my opinion cause the people to revolt due to not understanding, we can see this in many videos at law schools and universities where the law students themselves are fed up with the secrets and scream F*** THE LAW,
This is crazy since law is our own agreements, as individuals choose the capacity by the agreements that are unknown to the majority, and is the cause to this effect and the reason for this post.
Most seem not to be able to find the agreement that makes them subject due to the 3 levels of jurisdictions to the use, and being subject not to the monarchy but as subjects of a municipal corporation in a form of AGENCY BY RATIFICATION.
https://uslawessentials.com/20141216wha ... ification/

[wserra]

What is DISSEISOR?]

De t'ing you use to cut de paper.

What is DISSEISIN?

Usually centimeters.

[Pottapaug1938]

What is DISSEISOR?]

De t'ing you use to cut de paper.

What is DISSEISIN?

Usually centimeters.

Disseisin is summer. In a few weeks, dat will change, and we'll have a new seisin. Datseisin is called "fall", or "autumn".

[AnOwlCalledSage]

On the plus side, he/she (the ramblings have the hallmarks of the obsessive male psyche, but I don't wish to be presumptive) is wasting more of their own time than mine. It's why I have a mouse with a scroll wheel.

[Famspear]

What is DISSEISOR?

Disseisor is the guy dat's de emperor right now. De udder seisor will be de guy dat's de seisor later on, when dis guy ain't in power no more.

Now that I've figured it out, I guess I don't need my copy of Bergin and Haskell's, Preface to Estates in Land and Future Interests from law school any more.

[AndyK]

Is it all possible that Percy is not aware that there might have been some changes to various laws in England, Canada, and the United States since the publication of the various (unattributed and lacking proper citation) materials upon which he relies?

It is seriously annoying to have to follow his links just to find that he is relying on material published in 1837 -- even before the American War Between The States.

Admittedly, earlier law does provide a conceptual foundation for today's laws, BUT any discussion (or attempt thereof) regarding law MUST be based solely on what exists today. Commentary on historical law and events may be interesting, but is -- for the most part -- irrelevant and potentially misleading.

That said, and sadly aware that he will never clean up his act, Percy has earned the extremely rare position as a member of my Ignore List.

[Burnaby49]

The only time I did that was with some real asshole (I forget his name) who was constantly ranting obscenities and who's sole purpose here seemed to be to shit on everyone. He was swept away in the great purge of 2012.

[parzival]

Is it all possible that Percy is not aware that there might have been some changes to various laws in England, Canada, and the United States since the publication of the various (unattributed and lacking proper citation) materials upon which he relies?

It is seriously annoying to have to follow his links just to find that he is relying on material published in 1837 -- even before the American War Between The States.

Admittedly, earlier law does provide a conceptual foundation for today's laws, BUT any discussion (or attempt thereof) regarding law MUST be based solely on what exists today. Commentary on historical law and events may be interesting, but is -- for the most part -- irrelevant and potentially misleading.

That said, and sadly aware that he will never clean up his act, Percy has earned the extremely rare position as a member of my Ignore List.

as pointed out with the law of "agency" and what sui juris is in a FULL CAPACITY, lets look at what is being ignored, specifically municipal law , and what subjects are bound to municipal law...

PDF Page 43:
In general, it may be said, that every person
sui juris, is capable of becoming both a principal and an agent,
unless there exists some disability or prohibition by the municipal
law, which is to regulate his rights and duties.

now lets look to case law!

McLeod Lake Indian Band Trust Agreement (Re), 2010 BCSC 1158

[8] At common law, the beneficiaries of a trust may vary the terms of the trust if they are sui juris (having full capacity) and are the only persons entitled to the trust property: Saunders v. Vautier (1841), Cr. & P. 240, 41 E.R. 482. However, that is not permitted where the beneficiaries include unborn persons, minors or adults lacking capacity.

as we can see only those with FULL CAPACITY.....

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

now the next issues subject matter....

Mercer v. Attorney General for Ontario, 1881 CanLII 6 (SCC)
The sovereign chosen by society holds the land in trust for the people, as a fidei commissum.
1881 SCC 6, 5 SCR 538 -Mercer v. Attorney General for Ontario
(701-2)…It was admitted by the learned counsel who represented the provinces in the argument before us, that this was true with respect to all matters of legislation, but it was contented that when the Act (Const. 1867) deals with “property” the rule was inverted and that the provinces take “all property” not by the Act in precise terms given to the Dominion.
The sole foundation for this contention appears to me to be based upon an assumption which in my judgment is altogether ERRONEOUS, namely, that the BNA Act, transfers as it were the legal estate in the Crown property from the Crown and vests it in the Dominion and the provinces respectively as corporations capable of holding property, real and personal, to them, their successors and assigns for ever, BUT THE ACT CONTEMPLATES NO SUCH THING;

how can a CROWN CORPORATION have rights only a life tenant can have, by a trust....and under a trust of land, where a crown corp gets its powers from the monarchy (common law)...

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission)
This difference flows from the nature of corporate existence. While individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities.

and

Rochon (Litigation Guardian) v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1060 (CanLII)

[29] Upon the request of the Court, counsel looked further into the legislative history of the Crown Proceeding Act, specifically, the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia which preceded that legislation. In its Report on Civil Rights: Part 1 – Legal Position of the Crown, (1972), the Law Reform Commission reviewed the common law of Crown immunity, analyzed various options, and made a number of recommendations.
(30) With respect to the identity of the Crown, the Commission wrote at page 9:
The word “Crown” may be confusing to some. In law, the Crown is a term of art, the meaning of which bears little resemblance to the chattel that sits in the Tower of London to be gazed at by sightseers. The “Crown” is a description for Her Majesty Elizabeth II in her legal personage as Sovereign.
The expression describes “…corporate legal entity to which the law ascribes the legal rights and obligations of the various semi-sovereign units of government created by the BNA Act” It is necessary to speak of the Crown in the right of “the particular unit of government”. Therefore, the for our purposes is Her Majesty in the right of BC,…

and lets get to the powers and what the CIVIL courts duty is....

National Corn Growers Assn. v. Canada (Import tribunal) SCC
see Craig, "Dicey: Unitary, Self-Correcting Democracy and Public Law" (1990), 106 L.Q.R. 105. Mr. Craig observes at p. 113:
It is apparent that the execution of the legislative will may require the grant of power to a Minister or administrative agency. Herein lies the modern conceptual justification for non-constitutional review. It was designed to ensure that the sovereign will of Parliament was not transgressed by those to whom such grants of power were made. If authority had been delegated to a Minister to perform certain tasks upon certain conditions, the courts' function was, in the event of challenge, to check that only those tasks were performed and only where the conditions were present. If there were defects on either level, the challenged decision would be declared null. For the courts not to have intervened would have been to accord a "legislative" power to the Minister or agency by allowing them authority in areas not specified by the real legislature, Parliament. The less well-known face of sovereignty, that of parliamentary monopoly, thus demanded an institution to police the boundaries which Parliament had stipulated. It was this frontier which the courts patrolled through non-constitutional review.
As guardians of the rule of law it was incumbent on the courts to ensure that any person or body relying on power delegated by the legislature abide by the terms and conditions on which that power was granted. Thus, ministers, agencies and administrative tribunals would have to be able to justify their actions by pointing to specific legislative authority in the same way that any citizen would have to be prepared to show that his or her acts were lawful.

and....

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.

once again, municipal corporations where created by statute W&M 5&6, the property law everyone uses is based on the English LAND TENURE in FEE SIMPLE, by LIFE TENANTS....who are not owners...... and accept a subsequent conveyance....

this is your acceptance to joining the group of LIFE TENANTS UNDER ENGLISH LAW OF PROPERTY..........

once again, SUBJECT MATTER AND CAPACITY ARE DIFFERENT,

and why the common law LAND SETTLEMENT is IMPLIED,,,,

R. v. C. (W. J.), 2008 MBCA 11 (CanLII)
How does repealing a statute affect another statute that incorporates it by reference?
28 Generally speaking, when legislation is repealed, it ceases to be law. As described by Professor Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 4th ed. (Markham: Butterworths Canada Ltd., 2002) (at p. 527):
Repeal is the key terminal event in the operation of legislation. When a repeal takes effect, the repealed legislation ceases to be law and ceases to be binding or to produce legal effects. … It also means that everything dependent on the repealed legislation for its existence or efficacy ceases to exist or to produce effects.)

29 This rule can be displaced by statute and, indeed, several survival clauses were built into the federal Interpretation Act. One of these clauses, s. 44(h) of the Interpretation Act, provides some assistance in addressing the issue at hand. It reads as follows:
Where an enactment, in this section called the “former enactment”, is repealed and another enactment, in this section called the “new enactment”, is substituted therefor,
(h) any reference in an unrepealed enactment to the former enactment shall, with respect to a subsequent transaction, matter or thing, be read and construed as a reference to the provisions of the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter as the former enactment, but where there are no provisions in the new enactment relating to the same subject-matter, the former enactment shall be read as unrepealed in so far as is necessary to maintain or give effect to the unrepealed enactment.[emphasis added]

and why law of property and those in possession with only a right of possession must do as THE SETTLEMENT they agreed to..... LAW OF SETTLEMENTS... what is the SETTLED LAND ACT..... WHAT IS THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT....

put the 3 certainties test to any of it and all of the english law from 1535 to date, follow the grants, and you will see all those countries bound to INTERNATIONAL LAW is an ENGLISH COLONY by reception....

[parzival]

What is DISSEISOR?

Disseisor is the guy dat's de emperor right now. De udder seisor will be de guy dat's de seisor later on, when dis guy ain't in power no more.

Now that I've figured it out, I guess I don't need my copy of Bergin and Haskell's, Preface to Estates in Land and Future Interests from law school any more.

the issue is subject matter, and being in law you should understand that the courts can not ignore it...

so what is the difference?
law of property, if follow the repeal(reforms) to bc, that is land(settled estates) act, now trust and variations act , all created from the law of property, yet for the colony,, not the common law.....

LOP - s.1,s.2, s.3
1 Legal estates and equitable interests.
(1)The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are—
(a)An estate in fee simple absolute in possession;
(b)A term of years absolute.

and settled land act that created law of property,

1 What constitutes a settlement.
(1)Any deed, will, agreement for a settlement or other agreement, Act of Parliament, or other instrument, or any number of instruments, whether made or passed before or after, or partly before and partly after, the commencement of this Act, under or by virtue of which instrument or instruments any land, after the commencement of this Act, stands for the time being—
(i)limited in trust for any persons by way of succession; or
(ii)limited in trust for any person in possession—

so what is the subject matter of the settlor under SLA?
what is the subject matter of the life tenant under LOP?
baby steps we will get to the personal and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction in order....

that depends on if you accept law of property or not.....

(i)limited in trust for any persons by way of succession; or
(ii)limited in trust for any person in possession—

notice the "OR"

1 Legal estates and equitable interests.
(1)The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are—
(a)An estate in fee simple absolute in possession;

not absolute ownership, absolute possession.....

UNTIL????

Re Alfrey Investments Ltd. and Shefsky Developments Ltd. et al., 1974 CanLII 709 (ON SC)
Extinguishment of Owner's Title.**** A person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner, and exercising possibly the ordinary rights of ownership****, has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of The Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title. The Statute of Limitations is a law of extinctive, not of acquisitive prescription. It operates to bar the owner out of possession, not to confer title on the trespasser or disseisor in possession.

[parzival]

the next area is prescriptions,

Re Alfrey Investments Ltd. and Shefsky Developments Ltd. et al., 1974 CanLII 709 (ON SC)
Extinguishment of Owner's Title.**** A person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner, and exercising possibly the ordinary rights of ownership****, has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of The Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title. The Statute of Limitations is a law of extinctive, not of acquisitive prescription. It operates to bar the owner out of possession, not to confer title on the trespasser or disseisor in possession.

if you choose to read them

Jones on Prescription: A Practical Treatise on the Real Property Limitation Act of Revised https://archive.org/details/jonesonpres ... g/page/n28


Acquisitive Prescription. Its Existing World-Wide Uniformity https://archive.org/details/jstor-783887/page/n1

Prescription Other Than in Fee https://archive.org/details/jstor-1323435/page/n1

[parzival]

forgotten statutes, forgotten history, forgotten common law for equity,


WHY IS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IMPORTANT TO YOU?

https://www.bccourts.ca/documents/Why_i ... to_You.pdf

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

What are the origins of judicial independence?
Canada’s political organization is based on the British parliamentary system [What is the “separation of powers?”]. Canada is
a federal system of parliamentary democracy. Canada’s system of government holds that the law is the supreme authority
[What is the “Rule of Law?”]. Canada is also a constitutional monarchy: its executive authority is vested formally in the Queen
of Great Britain through the Constitution Act, 1867. The country has a multi-party parliamentary system in which many of its
legislative practices derive from the unwritten conventions of and precedents set by Great Britain's Westminster Parliament
[Parliamentary Institutions]. The origins of judicial independence must, therefore, be traced back to the history of Great
Britain.
More than 300 years ago, a case arose in England that changed the course of history, especially the role of the judiciary in
democratic countries. The abbreviated and best-known name for the case is the Knowles’ Trial. In 1692, Chief Justice Holt
and Justice Eyre were summoned before a committee of the English House of Lords to explain their reasons for the decision
they had rendered. They attended but refused to speak of the reasons for their decision. The response of Chief Justice Holt
is reported in part as follows: “I never heard of any such thing demanded of any judge as to give reasons for his judgment. I
did think myself not obliged by law to give that answer.”
The judges’ refusal 300 years ago to give evidence was hardly some academic assertion of abstract privileges or immunities.
It was a clear refusal to submit to a parliamentary inquiry into a judicial decision that did not meet with the parliamentarians’
approval. This happened in an era when Kings, barons and attorneys general were imprisoned in the Tower of London or
beheaded for “crimes” arguably less “treasonous.” Those two judges recognized that their independence and the future
independence of all judges would cease to exist if they could be called upon to explain their deliberations to a statesanctioned
inquisitorial tribunal.
The courage of the judges in the Knowles’ Trial led to the Act of Settlement, 1701. By that British statute, the independence of
judges to do their job, immune from pressure or outside influence, was enshrined in the law. Up to that point, their selection
and tenure depended on the King’s pleasure. Beginning with the Act of Settlement, 1701, judges’ salaries and security of
office were guaranteed by law subject only to the

[wserra]

I just deleted two verbose Percy posts (Is there another kind?) which were nothing more than reposts of previous verbose Percy posts.

Someone suggested moderating Percy, and I said that he had done nothing to deserve it. More of this stuff will change that conclusion.

[parzival]

I just deleted two verbose Percy posts (Is there another kind?) which were nothing more than reposts of previous verbose Percy posts.

Someone suggested moderating Percy, and I said that he had done nothing to deserve it. More of this stuff will change that conclusion.

it seems ignorance of where the law of property you so claim is an absolute right of OWNERSHIP against all th world, when you get that title from a municipal corporation that has grown into a state and country, that also does not have the right of ownership...

I find it funny how you delete the last post , that was all from wiki, and was a comment from a previous, since you ALL ARE DODGING THE FACTS, history of YOUR LAW OF USES AND TRUSTS IF PROPERTY LAW UNDER ENGLISH LAW AS LIFE TENANTS,,,

then your ignorance is making those that dont want this fraudulent system, a forced system, not because of the court, because of the crap you spout that is only have the story and only a fraction of the history to the law your spouting,

OH BTW, I do not accept the subsequent conveyance, so does that not make your action based on fraud?

dont forget quatloos terms of service, dont breach your own laws.......

[parzival]

I just deleted two verbose Percy posts (Is there another kind?) which were nothing more than reposts of previous verbose Percy posts.

Someone suggested moderating Percy, and I said that he had done nothing to deserve it. More of this stuff will change that conclusion.

how is it not against the terms of use of your site, to delete my posts that have nothing negative and are facts, yet do nothing about your members flat out attacking for a simple discussion on confused capacities to confused agreements.

it seems that there is actual intent to defraud based on the foundation rules to the law of property you all spout, and why this website is here, yet wont regulate yourselves in the same manner....

[Burnaby49]

I just deleted two verbose Percy posts (Is there another kind?) which were nothing more than reposts of previous verbose Percy posts.

Someone suggested moderating Percy, and I said that he had done nothing to deserve it. More of this stuff will change that conclusion.

Apparently you can't stop him, he doesn't accept your right to do so.

OH BTW, I do not accept the subsequent conveyance, so does that not make your action based on fraud?

dont forget quatloos terms of service, dont breach your own laws.......

[parzival]

entertaining how you all are so defensive, all over the place, to try to make what is law for you, not law....