Law of Trusts

[shikamaru]

My intent for this thread is usage as a learning tool as well as aid to others in understanding trusts at a deeper level: a provision for newbies and non-newbies alike if you will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law



In common law legal systems, a trust is a relationship whereby property (including real, tangible and intangible) is managed by one person (or persons, or organizations) for the benefit of another. A trust is created by a settlor (or feoffor to uses), who entrusts some or all of their property to people of their choice (the trustees or feoffee to uses). The trustees hold legal title to the trust property (or trust corpus), but they are obliged to hold the property for the benefit of one or more individuals or organizations (the beneficiary, cestui que use, or cestui que trust), usually specified by the settlor, who hold equitable title. The trustees owe a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries, who are the "beneficial" owners of the trust property.

The trust is governed by the terms of the trust document, which is usually written and occasionally set out in deed form. It is also governed by local law. The trustee is obliged to administer the trust in accordance with both the terms of the trust document and the governing law.

In the United States, the settlor is also called the trustor, grantor, donor or creator. In some other jurisdictions, the settlor may also be known as the founder.


History of Trusts



The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries.

At the time, land ownership in England was based on the feudal system. When a landowner left England to fight in the Crusades, he needed someone to run his estate in his absence, often to pay and receive feudal dues. To achieve this, he would convey ownership of his lands to an acquaintance, on the understanding that the ownership would be conveyed back on his return. However, Crusaders would often return to find the legal owners' refusal to hand over the property.

Unfortunately for the Crusader, English law did not recognize his claim. As far as the courts were concerned, the land belonged to the trustee, who was under no obligation to return it. The Crusader had no legal claim. The disgruntled Crusader would then petition the king, who would refer the matter to his Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor could do what was "just" and "equitable", and had the power to decide a case according to his conscience. At this time, the principle of equity was born.

The Lord Chancellor would consider it unjust that the legal owner could deny the claims of the Crusader (the "true" owner). Therefore, he would find in favor of the returning Crusader. Over time, it became known that the Lord Chancellor's court (the Court of Chancery) would continually recognize the claim of a returning Crusader. The legal owner would hold the land for the benefit of the original owner, and would be compelled to convey it back to him when requested. The Crusader was the "beneficiary" and the friend the "trustee". The term use of land was coined, and in time developed into what we now know as a trust.

Also, the Primogeniture system could be considered as a form of trust. In Primogeniture system, the first born male inherited all the property and "usually assumes the responsibility of trusteeship of the property and of adjudicating attendant disputes." [1]

Roman law recognized a similar concept which it referred to as the fideicommissum.[2]

The waqf is an equivalent institution in Islamic law.

"Antitrust law" emerged in the 19th century when industries created monopolistic trusts by entrusting their shares to a board of trustees in exchange for shares of equal value with dividend rights; these boards could then enforce a monopoly. However, trusts were used in this case because a corporation could not own other companies' stock[3]:447 and thereby become a holding company without a "special act of the legislature".[4] Holding companies were used after the restriction on owning other companies' shares was lifted.[3]:447


Creation and Formalities of Trusts



Creation

Trusts may be created by the expressed intentions of the settlor (express trusts) or they may be created by operation of law (resulting trusts).

Typically a trust is created by one of the following:

1. a written trust document created by the settlor and signed by both the settlor and the trustees (often referred to as an inter vivos or "living trust");
2. an oral declaration;[8]
3. the will of a decedent, usually called a testamentary trust; or
4. a court order (for example in family proceedings).

In some jurisdictions certain types of assets may not be the subject of a trust without a written document.[9]
[edit] Formalities

Generally, a trust requires three certainties, as determined in Knight v Knight:

1. Intention. There must be a clear intention to create a trust (Re Adams and the Kensington Vestry)
2. Subject Matter. The property subject to the trust must be clearly identified (Palmer v Simmonds). One may not, for example, settle "the majority of my estate", as the precise extent cannot be ascertained. Trust property may be any form of specific property, be it real or personal, tangible or intangible. It is often, for example, real estate, shares or cash.
3. Objects. The beneficiaries of the trust must be clearly identified, or at least be ascertainable (Re Hain's Settlement). In the case of discretionary trusts, where the trustees have power to decide who the beneficiaries will be, the settlor must have described a clear class of beneficiaries (McPhail v Doulton). Beneficiaries may include people not born at the date of the trust (for example, "my future grandchildren"). Alternatively, the object of a trust could be a charitable purpose rather than specific beneficiaries.


More to come. Any and all contributions welcome.

[shikamaru]

Cestui que trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestui_que

Fee or fief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiefdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfeoffment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feoffee

[shikamaru]

There is also the concept of a business trust:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Trust



An unincorporated business organization created by a legal document, a declaration of trust, and used in place of a corporation or partnership for the transaction of various kinds of business with limited liability.

The use of a business trust, also called a Massachusetts trust or a common-law trust, originated years ago to circumvent restrictions imposed upon corporate acquisition and development of real estate while achieving the limited liability aspect of a corporation. A business trust differs from a corporation in that it does not receive a charter from the state giving it legal recognition; it derives its status from the voluntary action of the individuals who form it. Its use has been expanded to include the purchase of Securities and commodities.

A business trust is similar to a traditional trust in that its trustees are given legal title to the trust property to administer it for the advantage of its beneficiaries who hold equitable title to it. A written declaration of trust specifying the terms of the trust, its duration, the powers and duties of the trustees, and the interests of the beneficiaries is essential for the creation of a business trust. The beneficiaries receive certificates of beneficial interest as evidence of their interest in the trust, which is freely transferable.

In some states, a business trust is subject to the laws of trusts while, in others, the laws of corporations or partnerships govern its existence. The laws of each state in which a business trust is involved in transactions must be consulted to ensure that the trust is treated as an entity whose members have limited liability. If the laws of a particular state consider a business trust to be a partnership, the beneficiaries may be fully liable for any judgments rendered against it. The trustees of a business trust are liable to third parties who deal with the trust unless there is a contract provision to the contrary, since they hold legal title to the trust property and may sue and be sued in actions involving the trust. They may, however, seek indemnity from the trust property and possibly from the beneficiaries.

The property of a business trust is managed and controlled by trustees who have a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries to act in their best interests. In many states, the participation of the beneficiaries in the management of the property destroys their limited liability, and the arrangement will usually be treated as a partnership.

Profits and losses resulting from the use and investment of the trust property are shared proportionally by the beneficiaries according to their interests in the trusts.

A business trust is considered a corporation for purposes of federal Income Tax and similarly under various state income tax laws.


There is also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint-stock_company

[shikamaru]

Roman law concept analogous to a trust: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideicommissum



The fideicommissum was one of the most popular legal institutions in Roman Law for several centuries. It translates from the Latin word fides (trust) and committere (to commit), meaning that something is committed to one's trust.

[shikamaru]

How could this one be forgotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_%28law%29



Use, as a term in real property law of common law countries, amounts to a recognition of the duty of a person, to whom property has been conveyed for certain purposes, to carry out those purposes.

Uses were equitable or beneficial interests in land. In early law a man could not dispose of his estate by will nor could religious houses acquire it. As a method of evading the common law arose the practice of making feoffments to the use of, or upon trust for, persons other than those to whom the seisin or legal possession was delivered, to which the equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor gave effect. To remedy the abuses which it was said were occasioned by this evasion of the law the Statute of Uses of 1536 was passed. However it failed to accomplish its purpose. Out of this failure of the Statute of Uses arose the modern law of trusts (see that article for further details).


Statute of Uses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Uses



The Statute of Uses (27 Hen.8 c.10) was an Act of the Parliament of England that restricted the application of uses in English property law. The Statute was originally conceived by Henry VIII of England as a way to rectify his financial problems by simplifying the law of uses, which moved land outside the royal tax revenue, traditionally gathered through seisin. His initial efforts, which removed uses almost completely, were stymied at the 1529 Parliament by members of the House of Commons, many of whom were landowners (who would lose money) and lawyers (who benefited in fees from the confusing law on uses). Academics disagree on how the Commons were brought around, but an eventual set of bills introduced in 1535 was passed by both the Lords and Commons.

The eventual bills invalidated all uses that did not impose an active duty on trustees, with the beneficiaries of the use being held as the legal owners of the land, meaning they had to pay tax. The Statute partially led to the Pilgrimage of Grace, and more importantly the development of trusts, but academics disagree as to its effectiveness. While most agree that it was important, with Eric Ives writing that "the effect which its provisions had upon the development of English land law was revolutionary",[1] some say that by allowing uses and devises in certain areas it not only failed to remove the fraudulent element from land law but actively encouraged it.

[Michael Joseph]

thank you for this work.

Real Property is a long way from Real Estate.


Evolution of the Trust (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?84-Trust-Law-in-repoducible-terms-Mathematics)

[motla68]

Who's Survey-Claim do you recognize as first in line in a lien upon it?

Who is your God?

[Michael Joseph]

Who's Survey-Claim do you recognize as first in line in a lien upon it?

Who is your God?

While this post goes right to the nature of Property - Right of Use; it is vague. If I exercise dominion over a horse and break the horse does that mean you get to ride it? You have no Right of Use. Yet the Horse belongs to God. Will you trespass upon my farm animal and USE it for yourself?

Look at the Scripture - it says do not remove the ancient landmark. Their lots were surveyed out and their lots were their inheritance. The land belongs to God - the Surveyed Lot belongs to Man.

[shikamaru]

thank you for this work.

Real Property is a long way from Real Estate.


Evolution of the Trust (http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?84-Trust-Law-in-repoducible-terms-Mathematics)

Real Estate with regard to a fee (or fief).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple



In English common law, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land. However, the Crown can grant ownership in an abstract entity—called an estate in land—which is what is owned, rather than the land it represents. The fee simple estate is also called "estate in fee simple" or "fee-simple title" and sometimes simply freehold in England and Wales. From the start of the Norman period, when feudalism was introduced to England, the tenant or "holder" of a fief could not alienate it from the possession of his overlord, that is to say sell it, but instead could separate off a parcel of the land and grant it as a subordinate fief to his own sub-tenant, a process known as sub-enfeoffing or "subinfeudation". The 1290 Statute of Quia Emptores abolished subinfeudation and instead allowed the sale of fee simple estates.[1]

The concept of a "fee" has its origins in feudalism. William Blackstone defined fee simple as the estate in land that a person has when the lands are given to him and his heirs absolutely, without any end or limit put to his estate. Land held in fee simple can be conveyed to whomsoever its owner pleases; it can be mortgaged or put up as security.[2] Owners of real property in fee simple title have the right to own the property during their lifetime and typically have a say in determining who gets to own the property after their death. In a sense, one might say fee simple owners "own" the property "forever"; however, only holders of an allodial title on land really do own the land forever, and land thus held is not subject to property tax.

Real property is a synonym for land law

Real property: an introductory explanation of the law relating to land
http://books.google.com/books?id=-W0aAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=real+property&hl=en&ei=Fk-PTbz_Coe_gQfq3YmwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Michael Joseph]

Exactly it is the Original Survey that conveyed the Original Property Rights into Trust. The Crown as Trustee and the Ownership is just really the Equitable Title upon the CQVT. The CQVT comes from within the Estate and therefore it can be said that there is fee simple within the Estate. But the Estate is held in Trust by the Trustee. Lets now go to LEGAL and LEGAL ESTATE:

LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

[i believe Motla68 is very interested in [de]finition #2.



3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

LEGAL ESTATE. One, the right to which may be enforced in a court of law. It is distinguished from an equitable estate, the rights to which can be established only in a court of equity. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1688.

[motla68]

While this post goes right to the nature of Property - Right of Use; it is vague. If I exercise dominion over a horse and break the horse does that mean you get to ride it? You have no Right of Use. Yet the Horse belongs to God. Will you trespass upon my farm animal and USE it for yourself?

Look at the Scripture - it says do not remove the ancient landmark. Their lots were surveyed out and their lots were their inheritance. The land belongs to God - the Surveyed Lot belongs to Man.

Sorry for the confusion, this was suppose to be a response to Post #5, not yours.

Any ways in reference to your response and Deuteronomy 28 mentioned before I notice in there where it mentions we go out and Posses the land, not own it. So then what is proof of possession without the use of persons to do it with, can this be done? How say ye the scripture?

[Michael Joseph]

If one is beneficiary of an Estate then why would one act for the Trustee - that is Trustee de son Tort. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee_de_son_tort)

TRUST, contracts, devises. An equitable right, title or interest in property, real or personal, distinct from its legal ownership; or it is a personal obligation for paying, delivering or performing anything, where the person trusting has no real. right or security, for by, that act he confides altogether to the faithfulness of those intrusted. This is its most general meaning, and includes deposits, bailments, and the like. In its more technical sense, it may be defined to be an obligation upon a person, arising out of a confidence reposed in him, to apply property faithfully, and according to such confidence. Willis on Trustees, 1; 4 Kent, Com. 295; 2 Fonb. Eq. 1; 1 Saund. Uses and Tr. 6; Coop. Eq. Pl. Introd. 27; 3 Bl. Com. 431.

2. Trusts were probably derived from the civil law. The fidei commissum, (q. v.) is not dissimilar to a trust.

3. Trusts are either express or implied. 1st. Express trusts are those which are created in express terms in the deed, writing or will. The terms to create an express trust will be sufficient, if it can be fairly collected upon the face of the instrument that a trust was intended. Express trusts are usually found in preliminary sealed agreements, such as marriage articles, or articles for the purchase of land; in formal conveyances, such as marriage settlements, terms for years, mortgages, assignments for the payment of debts, raising portions or other purposes; and in wills and testaments, when the bequests involve fiduciary interests for private benefit or public charity,, they may be created even by parol. 6 Watts & Serg. 97.

4. - 2d. Implied trusts are those which without being expressed, are deducible from the nature of the transaction, as matters of intent; or which are superinduced upon the transaction by operation of law, as matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties.

5. The most common form of an implied trust is where property or money is delivered by one person to another, to be by the latter delivered to a third person. These implied trusts greatly extend over the business and pursuits of men: a few examples will be given.

6. When land is purchased by one man in the name of another, and the former pays the consideration money, the land will in general be held by the grantee in Trust for the person who so paid the consideration money. Com. Dig. Chancery, 3 W 3; 2 Fonbl. Eq. book 2, c. 5, §1, note a. Story, Eq. Jur. §1201.

7. When real property is purchased out of partnership funds, and the title is taken in the name of one of the partners, he will hold it in trust for all the partners. 7 Ves. jr. 453; Montague on Partn. 97, n.; Colly. Partn. 68.

8. When a contract is made for the sale of land, in equity the vendor is immediately deemed a trustee for the vendee of the estate; and the vendee, a trustee for the vendor of the purchase money; and by this means there is an equitable conversion of the property. 1 Fonbl. Eq. book 1, ch. 6, §9, note t; Story, Eq. Jur. SSSS 789, 790, 1212. See Conversion. For the origin of trusts in the civil law, see 5 Toull. Dr. Civ. Fr. liv. 3, t. 2, c. 1, n. 18; 1 Brown's Civ. Law, 190. Vide Resulting Trusts. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

TRUSTEE, estates. A trustee is one to whom an estate has been conveyed in trust.

2. The trust estate is not subject to the specialty or judgment debts of the trustee, to the dower of his wife, or the curtesy of the hushand of a female trustee.

3. With respect to the duties of trustees, it is held, in conformity to the old law of uses, that pernancy of the profits, execution of estates, and defence of the land, are the three great properties of a trust, so that the courts of chancery will compel trustees, 1. To permit the cestui que trust to receive the rents and profits of the land. 2. To execute such conveyances, in accordance with the provisions of the trust, as the cestui que trust shall direct. 3. To defend the title of the land in any court of law or equity. Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4.

4. It has been judiciously remarked by Mr. Justice Story, 2 Eq. Jur. §1267, that in a great variety of cases, it is not easy to say what the duty of a trustee is; and that therefore, it often becomes indispensable for him, before he acts, to seek, the aid and direction of a court of equity. Fonbl. Eq. book 2, c. 7, §2, and note c. Vide Vin. Ab. tit. Trusts, O, P, Q, R, S, T; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

[shikamaru]

Exactly it is the Original Survey that conveyed the Original Property Rights into Trust. The Crown as Trustee and the Ownership is just really the Equitable Title upon the CQVT. The CQVT comes from within the Estate and therefore it can be said that there is fee simple within the Estate. But the Estate is held in Trust by the Trustee. Lets now go to LEGAL and LEGAL ESTATE:

LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

[i believe Motla68 is very interested in [de]finition #2.



3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

LEGAL ESTATE. One, the right to which may be enforced in a court of law. It is distinguished from an equitable estate, the rights to which can be established only in a court of equity. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1688.

CQVT??

If you will note from the wikipedia article concerning Statute of Uses, beneficiaries were made legal owners, thus subject to taxation (service).

It sounds to me that the survey is analogous to an assessment for taxation.

The legal relation with regard to feudal land law is lord and tenant.

[shikamaru]

Who's Survey-Claim do you recognize as first in line in a lien upon it?

Who is your God?

Is a survey a lien?
Is a survey a claim on land?
If you have any books or treatises on the subject of land surveys and liens, I shall be grateful.

[motla68]

2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

[i believe Motla68 is very interested in [de]finition #2.


You got it, I seek no commercial interests in a thing, let them have all that paper. Just acknowledge what they created for themselves and walk away from it, it then becomes for their benefit and not of my own. The equitable interest though is not by benefit, but of orders from a different " form " Genesis 1:26 - 28.

(part 1 of 2) http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6386001/

(pt. 2 of 2) - http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6389423/

[Michael Joseph]

Sorry for the confusion, this was suppose to be a response to Post #5, not yours.

Any ways in reference to your response and Deuteronomy 28 mentioned before I notice in there where it mentions we go out and Posses the land, not own it. So then what is proof of possession without the use of persons to do it with, can this be done? How say ye the scripture?


Motla68 now we are getting somewhere. Persons are the creations of Man and are therefore a STRANGER in Yisra'el. Usury can be charged upon a Stranger but not upon one in Yisra'el. Today the bloodline of Yisra'el while still important concerning duty - is overcome in Yehoshua - all the nations [peoples] can be grafted into the Tree - Commonwealth of Yisra'el.

Persons Possess based on Survey. The Survey is not the object or idea but a RE-presentation of the object. A map is not the land. Therefore, a Person is really just a vessel that holds Rights. And Property is a Right of Use. Therefore the Person is a commercial interest. And the Person then can become a party to a Trust. And men and women are removed from the Land - EXACTLY as Yehovah said he would do if Yisra'el abandoned the covenant.

The Persons are on the High Seas of Admiralty - operating in International Trust Law - UCC.

[Michael Joseph]

CQVT??

If you will note from the wikipedia article concerning Statute of Uses, beneficiaries were made legal owners, thus subject to taxation (service).

It sounds to me that the survey is analogous to an assessment for taxation.

The legal relation with regard to feudal land law is lord and tenant.

The Legal Owner is Beneficiary is Cestui Que Vie Trust. The taxation if Fealty to the Lord or more specifically the landlord.

The Survey is the basis of the Claim. First Survey then Claim. Then the Rights are Transferred into Trust based on the Survey. If you will notice on any Deed it clearly states the "Property" is within STATE OF [ ]; and COUNTY OF [ ]. Those are Surveys.

[Michael Joseph]

Is a survey a lien?
Is a survey a claim on land?
If you have any books or treatises on the subject of land surveys and liens, I shall be grateful.

dude you are debating with a former professional civil engineer. Of course I have books on Survey and Liens.

The Survey is the BASIS for the Claim on whatever Object or Idea = Form of Matter. 1st Survey, then Stake the Claim; wait for others to issue forth their disagreements so that you do not trespass - upon no disagreements or upon an agreement reached; then your claim is perfected upon the SURVEY. And now the Rights of that Claim can be put into Trust. This would be Real Property Rights put into Trust. From there the Use of those Rights can be distributed to the Cestui Que Trust according to the bylaws of the Original Trust Agreement.

[motla68]

The Legal Owner is Beneficiary is Cestui Que Vie Trust. The taxation if Fealty to the Lord or more specifically the landlord.

The Survey is the basis of the Claim. First Survey then Claim. Then the Rights are Transferred into Trust based on the Survey. If you will notice on any Deed it clearly states the "Property" is within STATE OF [ ]; and COUNTY OF [ ]. Those are Surveys.

In court they once offered up 2 surveys in which to identify who was making an appearance[from what venue] But since so many are now waking up and choosing the survey in which they have no legal control of so it is no longer offered. Any more you have to bring in your own survey in which cannot be taken away, it is of the Divinity.

[shikamaru]

dude you are debating with a former professional civil engineer. Of course I have books on Survey and Liens.

The Survey is the BASIS for the Claim on whatever Object or Idea = Form of Matter. 1st Survey, then Stake the Claim; wait for others to issue forth their disagreements so that you do not trespass - upon no disagreements or upon an agreement reached; then your claim is perfected upon the SURVEY. And now the Rights of that Claim can be put into Trust. This would be Real Property Rights put into Trust. From there the Use of those Rights can be distributed to the Cestui Que Trust according to the bylaws of the Original Trust Agreement.

The question was directed at motla68, but I do thank-you for the reply.
I would still be grateful for any books or treatises with regard to surveys, surveys as claims, and surveys as liens.

I can recall some books I read with regard to your statements from homesteading or claims on land by colonists in foreign lands ...

[Michael Joseph]

You got it, I seek no commercial interests in a thing, let them have all that paper. Just acknowledge what they created for themselves and walk away from it, it then becomes for their benefit and not of my own. The equitable interest though is not by benefit, but of orders from a different " form " Genesis 1:26 - 28.

(part 1 of 2) http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6386001/

(pt. 2 of 2) - http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6389423/

Yes Morpheus. Now let us go to CHARGE in regard to Trust Estate:

CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.


Who Owns the Estate. Back to LEGAL for a moment: on to definition #3

LEGAL

3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

Question: Who issues Charges? Is it not Officer? Is not Officer a Trustee for an Estate? Who is responsible for the discharge of the Charge?

Will you Trustee de son Tort? I hope not. This takes a tremendous amount of paperwork doesn't it Motla68? NOT!

shalom,
mj



P.S. be careful here - mankind was not made in the image of God. There is but One who was made in the Image of God and that was God with Us - Yehoshuah - Yehovah Saves. Man was made in his own image as he existed in the First Age.

[Michael Joseph]

The question was directed at motla68, but I do thank-you for the reply.
I would still be grateful for any books or treatises with regard to surveys, surveys as claims, and surveys as liens.

I can recall some books I read with regard to your statements from homesteading or claims on land by colonists in foreign lands ...

This thread is moving so rapidly....sorry for that. thank you for this thread. There is much to be gleaned here.

Regarding Survey - check out Sir Walter Raleigh. He was a Surveyor of a new land. New in regard to the Crown anyways.

Survey, then Claim, then Trust, then commercial districts, then shares to proprietory interests. Of course if you comprehend the Trust you will rapidly come to the Singularity - the First Trust Deed. Therefore there are Trusts within Trusts.

As Paul correctly wrote - there is always a higher Power.

[motla68]

Yes Morpheus. Now let us go to CHARGE in regard to Trust Estate:

CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.


Who Owns the Estate. Back to LEGAL for a moment: on to definition #3

LEGAL

3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

Question: Who issues Charges? Is it not Officer? Is not Officer a Trustee for an Estate? Who is responsible for the discharge of the Charge?

Will you Trustee de son Tort? I hope not. This takes a tremendous amount of paperwork doesn't it Motla68? NOT!

shalom,
mj



P.S. be careful here - mankind was not made in the image of God. There is but One who was made in the Image of God and that was God with Us - Yehoshuah - Yehovah Saves. Man was made in his own image as he existed in the First Age.

"Morpheus" --> [grin]

The obligation to this Contract is a manifestation in ones mind, for one we were too young to remember, two we were not there when this happened between agent and state.
All birth registration has always been done under "color" of law, they are just more blunt about it these days and people still do not get it. EBR - electronic birth registration
Check out the following link, just 3 simple paragraphs:
- In the first it shows of the use of EBR, application is not sent to the state.
- 2nd paragraph shows the hospital has a direct link to the state, is this not also trustee of the estate?
- 3rd paragraph, the only thing sent hard copy to the state and that is even done by fax is the log of the birth. "" Event Recorded/ Survey ""
Source: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Planning_eval/Vital_Statistics/EBR_main_page.html

Someone who you know that visits our group from time to time and has worked in the birthing centre of a hospital confirmed that once the information is transmitted to state then the applications are shredded.
I directly asked a DMV agent once where the slip of paper goes you sign after it is electronically transferred to the Drivers License and the agent replied " it is shredded ".
All this without having the original wet ink signature on them documents and especially these days a certified copy will never be found to meet the rules of evidence.


] Question: Who issues Charges? Is it not Officer? Is not Officer a Trustee for an Estate? Who is responsible for the discharge of the Charge?

Would you agree "discharge" a military term?
I have also seen linking information describing setoff which is pretty much an accounting term for the same.

Yes, A lot less paperwork for us! But I dream of the day when there is NO MO paperwork and everything is just settled without it, just pointing out what we need for daily necessity to keep giving back energy to society . If them Canadians have done it there should be no reason why we could not be able to do the same.

peace to you too brother.

[shikamaru]

I am convinced motla68 and Michael Joseph.

In England, all rights, privileges, and titles flowed from the King.
I imagine in the US, all flow from government.

The wikipedia article on the Crown as well as the treatise below helped me to make the jump over:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OZUGYacjZ3IC&pg=PA58&dq=the+ultimate+ownership+of+all+property+is+in+th e+State&hl=en&ei=sg6XTZzrIeaU0QH0qYmGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=the%20ultimate%20ownership%20of%20all%20property %20is%20in%20the%20State&f=false

[shikamaru]

USE (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/use).

The fact of being habitually employed in a certain manner. In real property law, a right held by an individual (called a cestui que use) to take the profits arising from a particular parcel of land that was owned and possessed by another individual.

For example, a seller of goods might make an Implied Warranty of fitness for a particular use, which signifies that an item or a product is fit to be used for a specific purpose, such as a tire meant for use in the snow.

The cestui que use received the benefits from the property even though title to such land was in another individual. This theory is no longer part of the U.S. legal system; however, the modern law of trusts evolved from the law relating to uses.

[motla68]

I am convinced motla68 and Michael Joseph.

In England, all rights, privileges, and titles flowed from the King.
I imagine in the US, all flow from government.

The wikipedia article on the Crown as well as the treatise below helped me to make the jump over:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OZUGYacjZ3IC&pg=PA58&dq=the+ultimate+ownership+of+all+property+is+in+th e+State&hl=en&ei=sg6XTZzrIeaU0QH0qYmGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=the%20ultimate%20ownership%20of%20all%20property %20is%20in%20the%20State&f=false

Woohoo, great scott, I think someone is getting it!

These are legal rights (social contract)/ color of law versus the abundance we have been given by creator before the foundation of this world was laid. Nice job grasshopper, your breaking away from the leash of tyranny already :-)

[motla68]

USE (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/use).

The fact of being habitually employed in a certain manner. In real property law, a right held by an individual (called a cestui que use) to take the profits arising from a particular parcel of land that was owned and possessed by another individual.

For example, a seller of goods might make an Implied Warranty of fitness for a particular use, which signifies that an item or a product is fit to be used for a specific purpose, such as a tire meant for use in the snow.

The cestui que use received the benefits from the property even though title to such land was in another individual. This theory is no longer part of the U.S. legal system; however, the modern law of trusts evolved from the law relating to uses.

Ditto, Great post!

[shikamaru]

Woohoo, great scott, I think someone is getting it!

These are legal rights (social contract)/ color of law versus the abundance we have been given by creator before the foundation of this world was laid. Nice job grasshopper, your breaking away from the leash of tyranny already :-)

It is shocking when it dawns upon you ....

[shikamaru]

Let me see if I get this ....

It could be an express trust or a trust implied in law, the ultimate arbiter is government if government feels the trustee is not fulfilling his duties, correct?

[motla68]

It is shocking when it dawns upon you ....

LOL, yeah I told you all what people have described and it is a slap in the face with a wet fish is it not?. :-D

[motla68]

Let me see if I get this ....

It could be an express trust or a trust implied in law, the ultimate arbiter is government if government feels the trustee is not fulfilling his duties, correct?

Give that man a beer on me! kudos It has nothing to do with us, but we consistently interfere in that relationship.

[shikamaru]

Is a trust an estate?

[motla68]

Is a trust an estate?

Usually not until trust has gone into Probate, but there may be other circumstance, not really an expert on trusts as of yet.
This is what we are attempting to do with CS is voluntarily probating the name in trust so the State can do it's job and take care of the accounting as stated in Article 55 of the rules of Warfare On Land at the Hague.
Article 55
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp#art55
Modified=705925685F6DCB01EEhttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp#art55 Modified=705925685F6DCB01EE

[motla68]

Usually not until trust has gone into Probate, but there may be other circumstance, not really an expert on trusts as of yet.
This is what we are attempting to do with CS is voluntarily probating the name in trust so the State can do it's job and take care of the accounting as stated in Article 55 of the rules of Warfare On Land at the Hague.
Article 55
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp#art55
Modified=705925685F6DCB01EEhttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp#art55 Modified=705925685F6DCB01EE

This can be a little hard to understand because of the different surveying overlays upon the land that MJ has mentioned on a few posts. These are the different governments with the same name. Republic and Democracy.

[David Merrill]

This can be a little hard to understand because of the different surveying overlays upon the land that MJ has mentioned on a few posts. These are the different governments with the same name. Republic and Democracy.


It is helpful to study thermodynamic systems so that you can define the parameters in trust law. Otherwise the definitions and titles become ephereal.

[shikamaru]

Usually not until trust has gone into Probate, but there may be other circumstance, not really an expert on trusts as of yet.
This is what we are attempting to do with CS is voluntarily probating the name in trust so the State can do it's job and take care of the accounting as stated in Article 55 of the rules of Warfare On Land at the Hague.
Article 55
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp#art55
Modified=705925685F6DCB01EEhttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp#art55 Modified=705925685F6DCB01EE

Alright ... allow me to qualify. You have given a valid sense of estate. Allow me to expand and broaden the term a bit ...



Estates and ownership interests defined

The law recognizes different sorts of interests, called estates, in real property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate). The type of estate is generally determined by the language of the deed, lease, bill of sale, will, land grant, etc., through which the estate was acquired. Estates are distinguished by the varying property rights that vest in each, and that determine the duration and transferability of the various estates. A party enjoying an estate is called a "tenant."




Common Law

In English common law, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land. However, the Crown can grant ownership in an abstract entity—called an estate in land—which is what is owned, rather than the land it represents. The fee simple estate is also called "estate in fee simple" or "fee-simple title" and sometimes simply freehold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freehold_estate) in England and Wales. From the start of the Norman period, when feudalism was introduced to England, the tenant or "holder" of a fief could not alienate it from the possession of his overlord, that is to say sell it, but instead could separate off a parcel of the land and grant it as a subordinate fief to his own sub-tenant, a process known as sub-enfeoffing or "subinfeudation". The 1290 Statute of Quia Emptores abolished subinfeudation and instead allowed the sale of fee simple estates.[1]


An estate is a placeholder, a representative.

[motla68]

It is helpful to study thermodynamic systems so that you can define the parameters in trust law. Otherwise the definitions and titles become ephereal.

yes it is ephereal for one reason not being of the original law known as Providence.

[motla68]

Alright ... allow me to qualify. You have given a valid sense of estate. Allow me to expand and broaden the term a bit ...

An estate is a placeholder, a representative.

You have made and excellent point here with the insertions, making further connection from this though once we return the name to the state voluntarily probate it then does all the holdings become estate? I am leaning towards the notion that "when the property is even registered in the state it is considered in Probate since most states are called Probate states?" If this is the case then since we have not done it yet and had planned to is return the BC name into the state so all accounting against it can be settled through the same type of probate.

[shikamaru]

You have made and excellent point here with the insertions, making further connection from this though once we return the name to the state voluntarily probate it then does all the holdings become estate? I am leaning towards the notion that "when the property is even registered in the state it is considered in Probate since most states are called Probate states?" If this is the case then since we have not done it yet and had planned to is return the BC name into the state so all accounting against it can be settled through the same type of probate.

Two things:

The concept of an estate existed in English Common Law with regard to land AND other forms of property such as an estate in land.

The sociological concept of an estate existed in England and France i.e. The Three Estates, Ancien Regime, etc.

Probate came into play during regulation of who would inherit land (heirs), how much, and by what means. Of course, the definitions and senses of the term estate have been modified, subverted, etc. over time.

[motla68]

Two things:

The concept of an estate existed in English Common Law with regard to land AND other forms of property such as an estate in land.

The sociological concept of an estate existed in England and France i.e. The Three Estates, Ancien Regime, etc.

Probate came into play during regulation of who would inherit land (heirs), how much, and by what means. Of course, the definitions and senses of the term estate have been modified, subverted, etc. over time.

This is why I would like to get a couple private trusts established in which the equity can be deposited, also making sure there is no liens beforehand though of course.
The receipts can be returned to treasury and everybody gets what they want.

[shikamaru]

A synonym for estate is interest:



Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856

INTEREST, estates. The right which a man has in a chattel real, and more particularly in a future term. It is a word of less efficacy and extent than estates, though, in legal understanding, an interest extends to estates, rights and titles which a man has in or out of lands, so that by a grant of his whole interest in land, a reversion as well as the fee simple shall pass. Co. Litt. 345.

INTEREST, contracts. The right of property which a man has in a thing, commonly called insurable interest. It is not easy to give all accurate definition of insurable interest. 1 Burr. 480; 1 Pet. R. 163; 12 Wend. 507 16 Wend. 385; 16 Pick. 397; 13 Mass. 61, 96; 3 Day, 108; 1 Wash. C. C. Rep. 409.

2. The policy of commerce and the various complicated. rights which different persons may have in the same thing, require that not only those who have an absolute property in ships and goods, but those also who have a qualified property therein, may be at liberty to insure them. For example, when a ship is mortgaged, after, the mortgage becomes absolute, the owner of the legal estate has an insurable interest, and the mortgagor, on account of his equity, has also an insurable interest. 2 T. R. 188 1 Burr. 489; 13 Mass. 96; 10 Pick. 40 and see 1 T. R. 745; Marsh. Ins. h. t.; 6 Meeson & Welshy, 224.

3. A man may not only insure his own life for the benefit of his heirs or creditors, and assign the benefit of this insurance to others having thus or otherwise an interest in his life, but be may insure the life of another in which he may be interested. Marsh. Ins. Index, h. t.; Park, Ins. Index, h. t.; 1 Bell's Com. 629, 5th ed.; 9 East, R. 72. Vide Insurance.

INTEREST, evidence. The benefit which a person has in the matter about to be decided and which is in issue between the parties. By the term benefit is here understood some pecuniary or other advantage, which if obtained, would increase the, witness estate, or some loss, which would decrease it.

2. It is a general rule that a party who has an interest in the cause cannot be a witness. It will be proper to consider this matter by taking a brief view of the thing or subject in dispute, which is the object of the interest; the quantity of interest; the quality of interest; when an interested witness can be examined; when the interest must exist; how an interested witness can be rendered competent.

3. - 1. To be disqualified on the ground of interest, the witness must gain or lose by the event of the cause, or the verdict must be lawful evidence for or against him in another suit, or the record must be an instrument of evidence for or against him. 3 John. Cas. 83; 1 Phil. Ev. 36; Stark. Ev. pt. 4, p. 744. But an interest in the question does not disqualify the witness. 1 Caines, 171; 4 John. 302; 5 John. 255; 1 Serg. & R. 82, 36; 6 Binn. 266; 1 H. & M. 165, 168.

4. - 2. The magnitude of the interest is altogether immaterial, even a liability for the most trifling costs will be sufficient. 5 T. R. 174; 2 Vern. 317; 2 Greenl. 194; 11 John. 57.

5. - 3. With regard to the quality, the interest must be legal, as contradistinguished from mere prejudice or bias, arising from relationship, friendship, or any of the numerous motives by which a witness may be supposed to be influenced. Leach, 154; 2 St. Tr. 334, 891; 2 Hawk. ch. 46, s. 25. It must be a present, certain, vested interest, and not uncertain and contingent. Dougl. 134; 2 P. Wms. 287; 3 S. & R. 132; 4 Binn. 83; 2 Yeates, 200; 5 John. 256; 7 Mass. 25. And it must have been acquired without fraud. 3 Camp. 380; l M. & S. 9; 1 T. R. 37.

6. - 4. To the general rule that interest renders a witness incompetent, there are some exceptions. First. Although the witness may have an interest, yet if his interest is equally strong on the other side, and no more, the witness is reduced to a state of neutrality by an equipoise of interest, and the objection to his testimony ceases. 7 T. R. 480, 481, n.; 1 Bibb, R. 298; 2 Mass. R. 108; 2 S. & R. 119; 6 Penn. St. Rep. 322.

7. Secondly. In some instances the law admits the testimony of one interested, from the extreme necessity of the case; upon this ground the servant of a tradesman is admitted to prove the delivery of goods and the payment of money, without any release from the master. 4 T. R. 490; 2 Litt. R. 27.

8. - 5. The interest, to render the witness disqualified, must exist at the time of his examination. A deposition made at a time when the witness had no interest, may be read in evidence, although he has afterwards acquired an interest. 1 Hoff. R. 21.

9. - 6. The objection to incompetency on the ground of interest may be removed by an extinguishment of that interest by means of a release, executed either by the witness, when he would receive an advantage by his testimony, or by those who have a claim upon him when his testimony would be evidence of his liability. The objection may also be removed by payment. Stark. Ev. pt. 4, p. 757. See Benth. Rationale of Jud. Ev. 628-692, where he combats the established doctrines of the law, as to the exclusion on the ground of interest; and Balance.

[shikamaru]

This is why I would like to get a couple private trusts established ....

Would not a private trust be solemnized in written form as well as conducted privately outside the sphere of the public?



in which the equity can be deposited, ....

When you say deposited, does this mean deposit as in an account or deposit as in vested into and robed upon a person?



also making sure there is no liens beforehand though of course.

A lien is a security interest. Liens cannot be issued upon a given res (thing) unless registered.

Registration grants interest (estate) in the res (thing).



The receipts can be returned to treasury and everybody gets what they want.

The receipts are returned to the Treasury for accounting, correct?
Also, what accounts would the Treasury balance?
This sounds very similar to what I hear from Vic Beck.

[motla68]

A synonym for estate is interest:

This is of my latest goals is to become more knowledgeable about trust law and equity. Still learning some of the ropes in that aspect. Thank you

[motla68]

My answers will be in bold within your quote.


Would not a private trust be solemnized in written form as well as conducted privately outside the sphere of the public?

Yes, this is why they call it a private trust.

When you say deposited, does this mean deposit as in an account or deposit as in vested into and robed upon a person?

Deposited into a secure location within my camp/sanctuary, most likely the one called a filing cabinet.

A lien is a security interest. Liens cannot be issued upon a given res (thing) unless registered.

Registration grants interest (estate) in the res (thing).

They can also get liens against them if any estate property is entered into the monetary system, wise to have 2, one for the private and the other for the public, One has no connection to the other, other then hiring out persons to do specific jobs. And I know what your next question will be on this so just going to answer it anyway before you ask, equity trust cannot enter into a monetary system it would be a mistake, they can however be paid in goods and services. I would prefer it this way, but we all have that monetary addiction right now.



The receipts are returned to the Treasury for accounting, correct?
Yes
Also, what accounts would the Treasury balance?
The bond which created the energy so the Bureau of Engraving can print money for the Federal Reserve System.
We are getting away from paper though and everything is going electronic, keep the money in the treasury and these bonds do not have to be cut that need to be settled later that were used to print the money.
This sounds very similar to what I hear from Vic Beck.
Yes, I imagine it would, because a lot of information that we got was from the private canadian group that Vic Beck got booted out of I have been told.
Also every now an then Vic contacts me privately to ask how we did this and how we did that because I comment on his blog posts, not too often though. I do not ask him about getting booted out, he had probably been through enough embarrassment already.

[Michael Joseph]

Is a trust an estate?

The Estate is what is being Held in Trust. So one could say the Estate = Trust Corpus. The Trustee STANDS for the Estate and the Beneficiary receives the benefit of the Estate held in Trust by the Trustee.

[shikamaru]

If you are going to study trusts, you will want to also study tenures, uses, and feudal land law.

If you are going to study equity, you will want to also study English Common Law as well as the Law of Remedies.
Equity is a remedial form of law as well as a branch of the law of remedies as far as divisions and taxonomy goes.

Studying trusts also involve rights, titles, and property both real and personal.

C.C. Langdell has an awesome book on Equity jurisdiction titled A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction (http://books.google.com/books?id=IbsBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=brief+survey+of+equity&hl=en&ei=SuiYTZ7pDKPi0gHymqmADA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false).

[shikamaru]

They can also get liens against them if any estate property is entered into the monetary system, wise to have 2, one for the private and the other for the public, One has no connection to the other, other then hiring out persons to do specific jobs. And I know what your next question will be on this so just going to answer it anyway before you ask, equity trust cannot enter into a monetary system it would be a mistake, they can however be paid in goods and services. I would prefer it this way, but we all have that monetary addiction right now.


This is quite similar to my public/private model :).

[shikamaru]

The Trustee STANDS for the Estate and the Beneficiary receives the benefit of the Estate held in Trust by the Trustee.

Perhaps this is from where having "standing in court" descends?

Perhaps also this would be an excellent time to bring up the concept of wardship?

[Michael Joseph]

If you are going to study trusts, you will want to also study tenures, uses, and feudal land law.

If you are going to study equity, you will want to also study English Common Law as well as the Law of Remedies.
Equity is a remedial form of law as well as a branch of the law of remedies as far as divisions and taxonomy goes.

Studying trusts also involve rights, titles, and property both real and personal.

C.C. Langdell has an awesome book on Equity jurisdiction titled A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction (http://books.google.com/books?id=IbsBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=brief+survey+of+equity&hl=en&ei=SuiYTZ7pDKPi0gHymqmADA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false).

this is an interesting read

222

be careful when you read. In fact the Equitable Title can be transferred in fee simple Forever without ever touching the Legal Title. Ever look at a GENERAL WARRANTY DEED? Maybe you should.

[Michael Joseph]

Perhaps this is from where having "standing in court" descends?

Perhaps also this would be an excellent time to bring up the concept of wardship?

ah yes. This is the root. I have pointed many a reader to the definition of LEGAL.

You make another excellent point. One who would usurp the Trustee is totally incompetent. Trustee de son Tort.

[Michael Joseph]

If you are going to study trusts, you will want to also study tenures, uses, and feudal land law.

If you are going to study equity, you will want to also study English Common Law as well as the Law of Remedies.
Equity is a remedial form of law as well as a branch of the law of remedies as far as divisions and taxonomy goes.

Studying trusts also involve rights, titles, and property both real and personal.

C.C. Langdell has an awesome book on Equity jurisdiction titled A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction (http://books.google.com/books?id=IbsBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=brief+survey+of+equity&hl=en&ei=SuiYTZ7pDKPi0gHymqmADA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Property is the Right of Use. What has to be comprehended is the basis for the Survey and the later Claim that is the formation and the basis for that Property. Property as defined within What Construct? Because if there is a Right of Use - who was the Grantor? And now the question begging to be answered: Is the Original Grantor [O.G.] still alive? If dead, then Testamentary Trust and the Grant cannot be undone.

The Right comes out of the Real Estate if Cestui Que in Nature or Real Property if at the point of the original conveyance or grant. The Settlor had to be with the Ability to transfer the Rights = Property into Trust; therefore the Settlor settled the Real Property.

Real being a derivative of Royal. We just cannot seem to get away from 1st Samuel 8, can we?

The Divine Rights of Kings? But then we are gonna have to settle this affair with the Popes and King John.

Where dear reader is the ORIGINAL TRUST DEED? The Act specifically is what we are after that conveyed all Real Property into Trust?

[motla68]

This is quite similar to my public/private model :).

Care to expand upon that thought?

[motla68]

Property is the Right of Use. What has to be comprehended is the basis for the Survey and the later Claim that is the formation and the basis for that Property. Property as defined within What Construct? Because if there is a Right of Use - who was the Grantor? And now the question begging to be answered: Is the Original Grantor [O.G.] still alive? If dead, then Testamentary Trust and the Grant cannot be undone.

The Right comes out of the Real Estate if Cestui Que in Nature or Real Property if at the point of the original conveyance or grant. The Settlor had to be with the Ability to transfer the Rights = Property into Trust; therefore the Settlor settled the Real Property.

Real being a derivative of Royal. We just cannot seem to get away from 1st Samuel 8, can we?

The Divine Rights of Kings? But then we are gonna have to settle this affair with the Popes and King John.

Where dear reader is the ORIGINAL TRUST DEED? The Act specifically is what we are after that conveyed all Real Property into Trust?

It has been told to me by someone who has acquired purchase from a grantee of a king, one only need to find a surviving family member who holds the original grant, contract sale with gold or silver bullion unmarked by any other sovereign. Remove from registration, bye bye property taxes. <-- this is NOT, I repeat NOT a Coresource Method for anyone who might assume it.

[shikamaru]

Care to expand upon that thought?

I got the idea from the Greeks, Romans, as well as kings, popes, emperors, and princes.

In Greece, engaging in commerce by citizens was greatly frowned upon and even outlawed at one point.
In Rome, a citizen engaging in commerce was frowned upon.
Royalty and nobility do not engage in specific professions or work.

In England, the purse of the royal house and the nation was one with the royal household taking precedence. In time, this purse became two with the King having his own personal assets (private) along with the nation having its own (public).

The public private model is binary with a public side and private side with strict demarcation between the two in addition to well defined interfaces between the two. The private side focuses on Common Law while the public side focuses on Lex Mercatoria.

The public side is for engaging in public commerce while the private side focuses on approximating absolute ownership.

To give an example, most people own some form of stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. In my public/private model, a person would never hold these commercial papers in their own name. These would be held in a corporation. Let the corporation own it while also paying the taxes. You receive income from the corporation. The private side wealth is measured in gold, silver, food, fuel, and other stuff. The private side person has no registered property, no liens, no insurance, no ID, etc.

Public side has assets. Private side has property. Public side is engaged "at arm's length" by an individual.
The public side through a corporation or trust is the interface for the individual acting in the capacity of an officer of that corporation or trust.

[shikamaru]

It has been told to me by someone who has acquired purchase from a grantee of a king, one only need to find a surviving family member who holds the original grant, contract sale with gold or silver bullion unmarked by any other sovereign. Remove from registration, bye bye property taxes. <-- this is NOT, I repeat NOT a Coresource Method for anyone who might assume it.


I would have to say this is incorrect. Here in the States, one has to acquire the land patent as well as all deeds between your deed and the first title deed (land patent). This chain of title is the abstract of title.

You should get a real rise out of all parties involved upon NOTICING them of your acquisition of the FEDERAL land patent with a complete titles abstract :). I would also grab copies of all treaties having bearing on your patent in addition to the statutes and acts having bearing on the patent as well.

One should purchase the land in gold and silver coin also indicating their intent to pay for the land at law in the sales agreement. Do not register. Do not sign an affidavit of residence either. Do not finance with a mortgage. Do not insure.

If registered, registration should be able to be removed once you pay off the portion of bonds written against your home in addition to the discharge and removal of all liens on the property. Once all is discharged, remove from registration. Uncle Gus (Errant Sovereign's Handbook) recommends to have an agent of the State grant you a quick claim deed to the property with regard to their interest in it.

I would de-register from voting as well. If one is a voter, their property is collateral for the bonds and issues voted upon. Be a general elector rather than a qualified elector.

Property registered is listed as public rather than private. You could go through the process of having the record altered to show that it is private property.

[motla68]

I got the idea from the Greeks, Romans, as well as kings, popes, emperors, and princes.

In Greece, engaging in commerce by citizens was greatly frowned upon and even outlawed at one point.
In Rome, a citizen engaging in commerce was frowned upon.
Royalty and nobility do not engage in specific professions or work.

In England, the purse of the royal house and the nation was one with the royal household taking precedence. In time, this purse became two with the King having his own personal assets (private) along with the nation having its own (public).

The public private model is binary with a public side and private side with strict demarcation between the two in addition to well defined interfaces between the two. The private side focuses on Common Law while the public side focuses on Lex Mercatoria.

The public side is for engaging in public commerce while the private side focuses on approximating absolute ownership.

To give an example, most people own some form of stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. In my public/private model, a person would never hold these commercial papers in their own name. These would be held in a corporation. Let the corporation own it while also paying the taxes. You receive income from the corporation. The private side wealth is measured in gold, silver, food, fuel, and other stuff. The private side person has no registered property, no liens, no insurance, no ID, etc.

Public side has assets. Private side has property. Public side is engaged "at arm's length" by an individual.
The public side through a corporation or trust is the interface for the individual acting in the capacity of an officer of that corporation or trust.

A big thank you! Just wanted to show everyone that I am not the only one who thinks this way. Your input has been of value to me.

[motla68]

I would have to say this is incorrect. Here in the States, one has to acquire the land patent as well as all deeds between your deed and the first title deed (land patent). This chain of title is the abstract of title.

You should get a real rise out of all parties involved upon NOTICING them of your acquisition of the FEDERAL land patent with a complete titles abstract :). I would also grab copies of all treaties having bearing on your patent in addition to the statutes and acts having bearing on the patent as well.

One should purchase the land in gold and silver coin also indicating their intent to pay for the land at law in the sales agreement. Do not register. Do not sign an affidavit of residence either. Do not finance with a mortgage. Do not insure.

If registered, registration should be able to be removed once you pay off the portion of bonds written against your home in addition to the discharge and removal of all liens on the property. Once all is discharged, remove from registration. Uncle Gus (Errant Sovereign's Handbook) recommends to have an agent of the State grant you a quick claim deed to the property with regard to their interest in it.

I would de-register from voting as well. If one is a voter, their property is collateral for the bonds and issues voted upon. Be a general elector rather than a qualified elector.

Property registered is listed as public rather than private. You could go through the process of having the record altered to show that it is private property.

I am not doubting that your knowledge may work for you here, but I have a friend who has done this and explained it to me. He has not paid property taxes on the land in over 4 years. The county overlaying survey has been booted off the land.
He has another piece of land though that he has inquired interest to learn the Coresource Method and get it to work that way too on next years tax bill for that other land.

[Frederick Burrell]

Quoting Motla

"He has another piece of land though that he has inquired interest to learn the Coresource Method and get it to work that way too on next years tax bill for that other land."

Can you explain the coresource method.

This is part of the problem. You speak about Coresource methods, but give no info on what they are. If there is a charge that you are seeking for this info., what is it. Just the basis would be fine for now.

[motla68]

Quoting Motla

"He has another piece of land though that he has inquired interest to learn the Coresource Method and get it to work that way too on next years tax bill for that other land."

Can you explain the coresource method.

This is part of the problem. You speak about Coresource methods, but give no info on what they are. If there is a charge that you are seeking for this info., what is it. Just the basis would be fine for now.

First see the attachment #1, I am NOT boasting this as silver bullet methodology or putting this up as a tag for success, but if he were to do it, this is similar to what would be done.

The land is registered in the county, the counties here are chartered by the state, this state is a probate state so property is held in a chartered trust, now here is a clip from Senate Resolution #62 , Doc. 43
232

Next, what is the state responsible for doing? see the following:

Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899
Treaty Series 403
Article 55
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.

Usufruct/usufructuary just simple means another trust. Next we will find out what particular thing they do to administrate the Usufruct:

Liber Code of 1863 , General Order 100 / Abraham Lincoln
38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

You might ask "what is the basis of how we linked these together?"
1. Thomas Jefferson was said to been quoted: " the earth is held in usufruct for the living ".
Could Jefferson and others have predicted one day there would be a world government in place?
Lets see the next evidence to what they might have predicted:

The "Lieber Instructions" represent the first attempt to codify the laws of war. They were prepared during the American Civil War by Francis Lieber, then a professor of Columbia College in New York, revised by a board of officers and promulgated by President Lincoln. Although they were binding only on the forces of the United States, they correspond to a great extend to the laws and customs of war existing at that time. The "Lieber Instructions" strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907.

Date of adoption 24.04.1863
Number of articles 157
Authentic text English
Source D.Schindler and J.Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nihjoff Publisher, 1988, pp.3-23.

source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc4372741256739003e6372/a25aa5871a04919bc12563cd002d65c5?OpenDocument

All of this work was not figured out by me and i do not boast to be a know it all, this linkage was put together by a group of men who participated in a study group together for which I was grateful to be a part of. The beginning ideas before finding the Thomas Jefferson quote came from the private group in Canada, not important to know the details of that for this post. So this study group we decided that an American Version had to be nailed down and the first find was what Jefferson quoted. For my part sometimes I read things and later recall certain things in my mind and do not always remember where I picked it up from, so sometimes I would just put the idea out there and then they would go find it, they did not question whether it was true or not.
A lot of that had to do probably me being the first to make something work, BUT I did not want it to be all about me, we are all on this planet together and need to find some way to get along so people must have some pride in their own work to make all this stick in their minds as well otherwise why are we here, even on this forum if we cannot learn as some of the hardcore researchers have what is the point?

related questions?

[David Merrill]

What is in the envelope?



http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=233&d=1301926039





P.S. The main reason I ask is because Colorado, nor any other properly ratified state (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImZTEyZGFhN2UtNzAxMi00MTU3LTlmY 2ItNTI3ZWVhOTZhZmNh&hl=en) is an occupying force. [At least outside the scope of the Fed Act and the pending, actually immanent Bankers' Holiday (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000095----000-.html) - "Government Shutdown" coming Friday the 8th. Page 1 (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412.jpg), Page 2 (http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_PL94-412_stipulation.jpg) - "Stipulations".]

[shikamaru]

I am not doubting that your knowledge may work for you here, but I have a friend who has done this and explained it to me. He has not paid property taxes on the land in over 4 years. The county overlaying survey has been booted off the land.
He has another piece of land though that he has inquired interest to learn the Coresource Method and get it to work that way too on next years tax bill for that other land.

Good deal :)

I got the information and mechanics, but have yet to implement. On that point, you have the leg up.

I look forward to my adventure with the State. I should make a lot of happy during its course :D.

[Frederick Burrell]

First see the attachment #1, I am NOT boasting this as silver bullet methodology or putting this up as a tag for success, but if he were to do it, this is similar to what would be done.

The land is registered in the county, the counties here are chartered by the state, this state is a probate state so property is held in a chartered trust, now here is a clip from Senate Resolution #62 , Doc. 43
232

Next, what is the state responsible for doing? see the following:

Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899
Treaty Series 403
Article 55
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property, forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect the capital of these properties, and administer it according to the rules of usufruct.

Usufruct/usufructuary just simple means another trust. Next we will find out what particular thing they do to administrate the Usufruct:

Liber Code of 1863 , General Order 100 / Abraham Lincoln
38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

You might ask "what is the basis of how we linked these together?"
1. Thomas Jefferson was said to been quoted: " the earth is held in usufruct for the living ".
Could Jefferson and others have predicted one day there would be a world government in place?
Lets see the next evidence to what they might have predicted:

The "Lieber Instructions" represent the first attempt to codify the laws of war. They were prepared during the American Civil War by Francis Lieber, then a professor of Columbia College in New York, revised by a board of officers and promulgated by President Lincoln. Although they were binding only on the forces of the United States, they correspond to a great extend to the laws and customs of war existing at that time. The "Lieber Instructions" strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907.

Date of adoption 24.04.1863
Number of articles 157
Authentic text English
Source D.Schindler and J.Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nihjoff Publisher, 1988, pp.3-23.

source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/73cb71d18dc4372741256739003e6372/a25aa5871a04919bc12563cd002d65c5?OpenDocument

All of this work was not figured out by me and i do not boast to be a know it all, this linkage was put together by a group of men who participated in a study group together for which I was grateful to be a part of. The beginning ideas before finding the Thomas Jefferson quote came from the private group in Canada, not important to know the details of that for this post. So this study group we decided that an American Version had to be nailed down and the first find was what Jefferson quoted. For my part sometimes I read things and later recall certain things in my mind and do not always remember where I picked it up from, so sometimes I would just put the idea out there and then they would go find it, they did not question whether it was true or not.
A lot of that had to do probably me being the first to make something work, BUT I did not want it to be all about me, we are all on this planet together and need to find some way to get along so people must have some pride in their own work to make all this stick in their minds as well otherwise why are we here, even on this forum if we cannot learn as some of the hardcore researchers have what is the point?

related questions?

Thank you for taking the time to post this. So I take it coresource in light of what you posted would be approaching the occupation and one of redeeming your property from with in the trust to be seen as and known as a peaceful inhabitant rather than a enemy combatant?

[shikamaru]

Could trust also refer to the relation between parties with regard to such virtues as:

faith
fidelity
fealty
allegiance

???

[Michael Joseph]

more on Uses, Trust and Equity

Indermaur 1902, 1890 and 1886 1902 (http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924084263353#page/n5/mode/2up)


1902 pdf link: (http://ia600406.us.archive.org/7/items/cu31924084263353/cu31924084263353.pdf)


Principles of Equity (http://books.google.com/books?id=mz5OAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+manual+of+the+principles+of+equity,+John+Inde rmaur&source=bl&ots=ZekAAgPsq1&sig=bFIoKwCob3VCHjDaVI6EtmuX8xk&hl=en&ei=ecSaTYTUPMqTtweMt7W-Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false 1890 pdf)

Page 20 of the PDF has the definition of a trust defined in a double sense. (http://www.archive.org/stream/principlesofequi00inde#page/n3/mode/2u)

[shikamaru]

This thread is moving rapidly.
I think it would be a great benefit to all if we clearly define the terms as well as if they descend from Roman Civil or English Common Law.
Both forms of law use similar terms, but the terms possess different meanings and scope.
Use in common law is very much different from use in civil law.

Book: A Manual of Roman Law (http://books.google.com/books?id=qE3iAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+manual+on+roman+law&hl=en&ei=sJipTdegFIPfgQeVluDzBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Daniel Chamier 1893



Pg.77 -78

CHAPTER IX.
THE LAW OF THINGS.
RIGHTS IN REM.

1. Unlimited: Dominium. - A right in rem is a right which a person may have to and over and to the enjoyment of a particular thing as against the world. It is usefully contrasted with a right in personam, which is a right against a particular person for a definite performance or forebearance. And a right in rem could be so extensive as to amount to a complete ownership over a thing - which was called Dominium; or it could be limited - when it was called a servitus.

2. Limited: Servitudes. - A right in rem could be limited so that the person entitled was restricted in his enjoyment of it. These fragments of ownership were called servitudes; ....

We are drawing from the pools of English Common Law and Roman Civil Law, in my opinion.

[David Merrill]

Look at the territorial laws (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImNmM0YmFlMTktMTJkZS00OWZjLTk5O GItNTJjYTFmMDhlNTkx&hl=en) where I stand - here on Colorado (last page).


http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/630/indexterritoryofcolorad.jpg

[Michael Joseph]

Trusts are at International Law. If you want to create an International Trust = New State, then you can by exercising your right of Self Determination. Or you can create a domestic trust whereby it shall be a Person Domestic to another Trust. Or said another way, another trust shall adjudicate it and/or exercise control over the newly created Trust. To say that Trusts are subject to some law form over another depends on the Settlor and it depends on the Grantor. As the Rights of Use held in trust are subject to the Rights of Use that the Grantor was able to transfer.

[shikamaru]

Using a birth certificate as example:

Would the:

Settlor be the parents?
Trustee be you?
Beneficiary would be government?

Would a birth certificate be a franchise? The grantor is obviously government with the recipient as grantee.

[Anthony Joseph]

If the birth certificate is, in essence, proof of the formation/registration of a trust "vessel" (CQVT), then the questions are:

By what right and assumption did the STATE-creating entity decide to form this "vessel"?

For what specific purpose was this formation/registration created?

For whom was it created?

[Richard Earl]

Well, I know in Canada the mother "voluntarily?" completes a statement of live birth which is then mailed or sent to whatever vital statistics office and the "account" is created and a certificate (receipt) is sent back. The act of the mother creates the trust vessel -- maybe she is the grantor?

[Anthony Joseph]

Well, I know in Canada the mother "voluntarily?" completes a statement of live birth which is then mailed or sent to whatever vital statistics office and the "account" is created and a certificate (receipt) is sent back. The act of the mother creates the trust vessel -- maybe she is the grantor?

Yes, "voluntarily?". Think of the emotional stress and physical strain of the mother at the time; that is when the vultures of the STATE come in for their prey. Both mother and father are unsuspecting, unwitting and uninformed as to the mechanism that has just usurped the innocent nativity of their newly born baby. And, if the mother or father should question in any way whether or not to do this "normal" act of giving information, then the coercion, bully tactics and fear mongering ensue.

Yep, sounds like a knowing and willing agreement between two parties to me.

[Richard Earl]

Interesting, I was talking to my mother on MSN when I read this so I asked her. :)


Richard Earl says
did you fill out the statement of live birth while still at the hospital?
Raymonde says
yes I did
Raymonde says
for all 3 of you's
Richard Earl says
was it required before we could leave?
Raymonde says
nope...had papers given to me by hospital and filled it out and mailed it...had the time

In my situation, I believe her to be simply conditioned. I have yet to find anyone that has declined or questioned the statement of live birth.

[shikamaru]

Well, I know in Canada the mother "voluntarily?" completes a statement of live birth which is then mailed or sent to whatever vital statistics office and the "account" is created and a certificate (receipt) is sent back. The act of the mother creates the trust vessel -- maybe she is the grantor?

The mother filled an application to petition (beg, pray) the State for a birth certificate.
The grantor is the State.
The mother, in this case, is the settlor.

Now that I think upon it more, the State is the trustee.
You use the certificate to establish that you are a beneficiary for other services such as Social Security, driver's license, etc.

Except in this case, the beneficiary pays for the the maintenance of services provided by the trustee.

Government officials supposedly occupy offices of trust rather than of profit through their oath of office to their respective Constitutions.

Offices of trust is trusteeship.

[Michael Joseph]

Using a birth certificate as example:

Would the:

Settlor be the parents?
Trustee be you?
Beneficiary would be government?

Would a birth certificate be a franchise? The grantor is obviously government with the recipient as grantee.

No.

The Settlor is the STATE by way of the Estate. Cestui Que Trust.
Mom and Dad did use Cestui Que Vie Trust to witness on behalf of the STATE? Isn't that right?


The Trustee is Military and Civil Government.
The Beneficiary is Cestui Que Trust.

And you remain without as Usufruct.

-----------------------

Consider have you ever filled out an IRS form for a new EIN. Notice that the Grantor must also have either an EIN or a SSN. Why? Because the new creation is ALSO cestui que in nature and like must beget like. Or said another way - Unequal things should not Mix.

Disparata non debent jungi


------------------------------


Now what Motla68 was trying desperately to tell you folks is that the Military and the Civil Government are in fact Trustees holding the Rights of Use in Trust - specifically in the CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST. Why because men and women are to damn stupid to run their own affairs. I know, I make friends, who cares. If that stung well then perhaps that is for you. When a man[kind] becomes competent in his affairs, then he can step up, as Trustee, for his Estate. The Military as Trustee can now SEE the man as Trustee because like things match up. Other wise get used to 12(b)6.

Now if you comprehend trust law the Charge is issued against the Estate. But dear Reader what is being held in Estate? Rights of Use in the CESTUI QUE TRUST. That is why the Birth Cert. is also included or a copy anyways back to the Trustee because unless you commit a sin in Trustee de son Tort, the Trustee must discharge the Charge on HIS estate. And the Trustee holds the CQVT in estate.

Are the lights coming on yet? I hope so.

Can a man without the Trust remove the CQVT? NO. It does not belong to the man without the Trust. What you gonna now tell the Trustee what to do? Not to smart. Unless you to are Trustee or even higher than trustee - co-Signatory as Settlor, then you got no business Administrating the trust affairs.

[David Merrill]

No.

The Settlor is the STATE by way of the Estate. Cestui Que Trust.
Mom and Dad did use Cestui Que Vie Trust to witness on behalf of the STATE? Isn't that right?


The Trustee is Military and Civil Government.
The Beneficiary is Cestui Que Trust.

And you remain without as Usufruct.

-----------------------

Consider have you ever filled out an IRS form for a new EIN. Notice that the Grantor must also have either an EIN or a SSN. Why? Because the new creation is ALSO cestui que in nature and like must beget like. Or said another way - Unequal things should not Mix.

Disparata non debent jungi


------------------------------


Now what Motla68 was trying desperately to tell you folks is that the Military and the Civil Government are in fact Trustees holding the Rights of Use in Trust - specifically in the CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST. Why because men and women are to damn stupid to run their own affairs. I know, I make friends, who cares. If that stung well then perhaps that is for you. When a man[kind] becomes competent in his affairs, then he can step up, as Trustee, for his Estate. The Military as Trustee can now SEE the man as Trustee because like things match up. Other wise get used to 12(b)6.

Now if you comprehend trust law the Charge is issued against the Estate. But dear Reader what is being held in Estate? Rights of Use in the CESTUI QUE TRUST. That is why the Birth Cert. is also included or a copy anyways back to the Trustee because unless you commit a sin in Trustee de son Tort, the Trustee must discharge the Charge on HIS estate. And the Trustee holds the CQVT in estate.

Are the lights coming on yet? I hope so.

Can a man without the Trust remove the CQVT? NO. It does not belong to the man without the Trust. What you gonna now tell the Trustee what to do? Not to smart. Unless you to are Trustee or even higher than trustee - co-Signatory as Settlor, then you got no business Administrating the trust affairs.


Ergo, my excitement as Friday night marked the end of the Third Jubilee. And the filing was put off for three days too. Thirty days from friday night we have the scheduled Default and now it looks like there is no choice - raising the Debt Ceiling will do nothing to save confidence and security building measures in the US Dollar. - Presuming this report (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-14/news/29417583_1_economies-food-security-local-currencies) is correct.

I know how difficult it must get to see the beauty in the timing here - so just bear with me and accept that the timeline is correct. You can see that for yourself as fact that April 15th 1861 was exactly 150 years ago. I am not telling you exactly what it means because I don't know. The things you speak of though MJ about the trust structure being military - that began 150 years ago to the day Friday. I believe we are going to be watching some major restructuring next month.

I also believe that with Government stepping down as the responsible party - default - that those endorsing the national debt through endorsement will be left holding the bag.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Michael Joseph]

And this really gets me excited - as a watchman watches.

The Fig Tree "chute" was planted on midnight 14 May 1948 the day that Israel declared independence. That means May 15th or on Pentecost!

This Month and Year the Fig Tree was planted in Jerusalem and Judah and Others who claim to be of Judah returned in mass.

--------------------------------

573 BC Nisan 10, plus 1260 + 1260 years = AD 1948 Pentecost [have you read Ezekiel lately?]

May 14, 1948 (Midnight, Iyar 6) = May 15, 1948

Can you count = 2520 - Who can see = MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN [how about the book of Daniel?]

--------------------------------

Any biblical scholar worth his salt can tell you of the five month period - the season of the locusts - May thru September. [How about the Book of Joel and Revelation Ch 9 and Genesis Ch 7:24]

Now this really gets me going. As Manasseh knows not who he is and for that matter why he is so blessed.

And I find it very interesting that as of May 15th Geitner says "I shall be forced to pursue extraordinary measures" - 30 days from Apr 15th. And on the next day is May 16th - Default. Or, will there be forgiveness? A global restructuring of money systems? We shall see.

Problem is a Trust needs someone to lean on it - I mean what is a trust if no one trusts in it?

Regarding restructuring of Property - I have no doubt.

shalom,
mj

[David Merrill]

Yep MJ! If only you would tell me then we would both know.

[Richard Earl]

Very interesting. Upon further examination of my birth certificate, my mother's signature is in a box titled: Signature of Informant

She acted as a witness for the STATE.


on the topic of our current financial situation... a couple of definitions of jubilee:

1. The Jubilee (Hebrew Yovel יובל) year is the year at the end of seven cycles of Sabbatical years (Hebrew Shmita), and according to Biblical regulations had a special impact on the ownership and management of land in the territory of the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah; there is some debate whether it was the 49th year (the last year of seven sabbatical cycles, referred to as the Sabbath's Sabbath), or whether it was the following 50th year.

2. The concept of the Jubilee is a special year of remission of sins and universal pardon. In the Biblical book of Leviticus, a Jubilee year is mentioned to occur every fifty years, in which slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven and the mercies of God would be particularly manifest.

what happened on April 15th, 1861? I'm not sure if I should be happy or afraid. :)

I did find this little article - http://www.illinoiscivilwar.org/proclamation1.html

[David Merrill]

Thank you for that link! I will grab the Proclamation next time I am in the federal repository - the original from the Congressional Record. But your like provided me the Word doc attached.

This link (http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6479/conventionextraordinary.jpg) is the Convention of July 4, called for under the extraordinary occasion declared by Abe LINCOLN.

[Michael Joseph]

Very interesting. Upon further examination of my birth certificate, my mother's signature is in a box titled: Signature of Informant

She acted as a witness for the STATE.


on the topic of our current financial situation... a couple of definitions of jubilee:

1. The Jubilee (Hebrew Yovel יובל) year is the year at the end of seven cycles of Sabbatical years (Hebrew Shmita), and according to Biblical regulations had a special impact on the ownership and management of land in the territory of the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah; there is some debate whether it was the 49th year (the last year of seven sabbatical cycles, referred to as the Sabbath's Sabbath), or whether it was the following 50th year.

2. The concept of the Jubilee is a special year of remission of sins and universal pardon. In the Biblical book of Leviticus, a Jubilee year is mentioned to occur every fifty years, in which slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven and the mercies of God would be particularly manifest.

what happened on April 15th, 1861? I'm not sure if I should be happy or afraid. :)

I did find this little article - http://www.illinoiscivilwar.org/proclamation1.html

but she, Mother, signed in capacity of LEGAL M NAME. Mother is really just WITNESS. but if you go to Mother as Settlor, Mother signed in capacity as Cestui Que Trust - Legal Name. Therefore the new Cestui Que Vie Trust was created from within the Estate.

[Richard Earl]

sounds like a soup sandwich. :)

I understand what you are saying, however.

[Michael Joseph]

sounds like a soup sandwich. :)

I understand what you are saying, however.

Exactly what it is Senate Resolution #62 needs not be Public Law because if you comprehend Trust Law you know that NOTHING ever leaves the State.

By the way what is in the State? Property, yes? What is Property? Rights of Use!

First came Statutes of Uses; then came Trust Law placing the Use into Trust.

[David Merrill]

Yep MJ! If only you would tell me then we would both know.


I was talking about accurate predictions about the near future. One think interesting!

On the last page title Other Assets, 2nd paragraph footnote 17. That implies it’s already in progress. (http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/FINAL%20Letter%2004-04-2011%20Reid%20Debt%20Limit.pdf) That spells A-China-Ca to me. If China already owns 1/4 of the national debt and the government defaults, they will be able to collect these mortgage-backed bonds for free basically. This is how they will house the influx of Chinese (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImOTNiMDkxNzMtMGNlMC00NmYzLWE4N DctYTNkZDY0MjA4NDk4&hl=en). There are already more Chinese speaking fluent English than there are Americans in America.

[Michael Joseph]

I was talking about accurate predictions about the near future. One think interesting!

On the last page title Other Assets, 2nd paragraph footnote 17. That implies it’s already in progress. (http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/FINAL%20Letter%2004-04-2011%20Reid%20Debt%20Limit.pdf) That spells A-China-Ca to me. If China already owns 1/4 of the national debt and the government defaults, they will be able to collect these mortgage-backed bonds for free basically. This is how they will house the influx of Chinese (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1EaV_bU7VImOTNiMDkxNzMtMGNlMC00NmYzLWE4N DctYTNkZDY0MjA4NDk4&hl=en). There are already more Chinese speaking fluent English than there are Americans in America.

Ever Read Isaiah 3? There is your accurate prediction. Instead of well set hair - BALDNESS.

[Richard Earl]

I'm also a bit concerned about the damage done to the island Japan sits on. Don't they own a significant number of the UST debt? Seems they may need some place to live soon if they can't get it together.

[Richard Earl]

Could it be said that Britain spun off both United States and Canada (among other holdings) into their own trusts (CQVT)? Perhaps the Peace of Paris (1783) and the Treaty of Paris establishes a CQVT?

David, in your redeeming lawful money video you mention 5 countries involved in SDRs?

[Michael Joseph]

Could it be said that Britain spun off both United States and Canada (among other holdings) into their own trusts (CQVT)? Perhaps the Peace of Paris (1783) and the Treaty of Paris establishes a CQVT?

David, in your redeeming lawful money video you mention 5 countries involved in SDRs?

Britain and Commercial interests - Hudson Bay Company and East Indies Trading Company did exactly that. If you will check out the Flags of these companies you will notice the Red and White is for the Commercial interests and the Blue is for the King's Interest.

As for North Carolina see the attachment.

351

Flags of East India Company (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-eic.html)


-----------------------------

But then 55+/- decided to exercise the then known "Right of Exile" in order for them to "assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate but equal Station" - this be called STANDING. All others still under Kings subjection. The U.S. was granted Domestic Sovereignty but the King of England kept International Sovereignty.

And, the U.S. being an Independent Trust over the Territory. And the States agreeing to waive their Independence becoming Dependents under the U.S. Trust. See Padelford Fay and Co. vs. The Mayors of the city of Savannah. Or you can just see the following link.

353

352

[Axe]

Persons are the creations of Man and are therefore a STRANGER in Yisra'el. Usury can be charged upon a Stranger but not upon one in Yisra'el. Today the bloodline of Yisra'el while still important concerning duty - is overcome in Yehoshua - all the nations [peoples] can be grafted into the Tree - Commonwealth of Yisra'el.

Persons Possess based on Survey. The Survey is not the object or idea but a RE-presentation of the object. A map is not the land. Therefore, a Person is really just a vessel that holds Rights. And Property is a Right of Use. Therefore the Person is a commercial interest. And the Person then can become a party to a Trust. And men and women are removed from the Land - EXACTLY as Yehovah said he would do if Yisra'el abandoned the covenant.

The Persons are on the High Seas of Admiralty - operating in International Trust Law - UCC.

wow. MJ, I just got that. That finally put that piece together for me. Profound.

I mean, I knew because it has been discussed here and elsewhere for a long time, but
I had no idea it may be tired to Scripture that way.

That's certainly one way to interpret that. Chilling indeed.

Thank you!

[Axe]

I am convinced motla68 and Michael Joseph.

In England, all rights, privileges, and titles flowed from the King.
I imagine in the US, all flow from government.

The wikipedia article on the Crown as well as the treatise below helped me to make the jump over:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OZUGYacjZ3IC&pg=PA58&dq=the+ultimate+ownership+of+all+property+is+in+th e+State&hl=en&ei=sg6XTZzrIeaU0QH0qYmGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=the%20ultimate%20ownership%20of%20all%20property %20is%20in%20the%20State&f=false

Are we talking about the

"Crown" = Monarchy, or
"Crown" = City of London

David did a thread or 2 on this in the other forum.

[Axe]

Sorry, I was going through the thread for the first time, commenting as I went.

Didn't mean to detract from the way this thread has obviously evolved.

Ergo, my posts seem a little "detached" from what you guys are talking about now.

Now I'm all caught up.

I want to get his straight though.

LEGAL NAME = Trustee – someone who administers financial assets on behalf of another.
True Name = Beneficiary/cestui que trust
Government = Settlor

Do I have that right?

[David Merrill]

Getting in my two cents edgewise - it gets a bit subjective about parameters. The simplest that I can portray that is:


http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8452/mortgageonpeople.jpg


http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/514/mortgageofpeople.jpg

This is described once again, by endorsement in the new trust - held in trust.


http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4556/governmentbondslarge.jpg

That describes the parameters of Schedule A - Assets. Therefore the proposal that nothing ever leaves the state is a bonding (http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6872/nameinagent.jpg) into the monetizing of sin in Israel, so to speak.


http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/2146/monetizingsin.jpg

If you have signed your signature bond by endorsement, that would make a lot of sense since the bankers are banking on that signature bond, that you are held to it. That is the contractual nexus for considering your estate within the state as a chattel mortgage (http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2981/chattelmortgages.pdf). Being that I brought up Israel; "so to speak" we should consider it a tenet of Jewish Law that one cannot keep a man's blankets collateral past sunset - he needs them to sleep. One cannot even charge him interest on a loan, strictly speaking, unless he is outside the Camp, so to speak.

Save yourself some time with that Chattel Mortgages article and look for the word "recordation". That is typically the county clerk and recorder where you will find the Deeds of Trust and Warranty Deeds attached to certain property. Again the man or woman's signature bond is published agreeing effectively that, I will allow that my blankets can be held for collateral past sunset. - And so it will be. Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and 23:20 do not apply to the Noachide - the foreigner and the stranger.

I am simply describing the parameters of trust. If you endorse elastic currency then you endorse false balances. You become an abomination to the LORD by your hand and therefore fall into the parameters of FDR's Trust formed in 1933. Scream and shout about it, if you signed up for it your signature stands describing where you really stand on the issue. The constitutions honor as sacred the obligations of contract.

There are many mental models that can function but the one that will settle the matter is the one that is agreed upon by all parties, or adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction if there is a disagreement. Or maybe even settled by Trial by Fire.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[shikamaru]

Are we talking about the

"Crown" = Monarchy, or
"Crown" = City of London

David did a thread or 2 on this in the other forum.

Crown as in monarchy.

[shikamaru]

Sorry, I was going through the thread for the first time, commenting as I went.

Didn't mean to detract from the way this thread has obviously evolved.

Ergo, my posts seem a little "detached" from what you guys are talking about now.

Now I'm all caught up.

I want to get his straight though.

LEGAL NAME = Trustee – someone who administers financial assets on behalf of another.
True Name = Beneficiary/cestui que trust
Government = Settlor

Do I have that right?

No need to apologize. Ask away!!
That's why I created this thread: to aide in inquiry as well as build a basis.

Trustee = Administrator
Settlor = Creator of the trust
Beneficiary = the person or entities that receive benefits from the trust and are the true owners of the trust in equity.

To use a historical example, the King of England would have his sheriff collect dues from his subjects. The trust in this instance is:

Trustee= King/Sheriff
Settlor = King
Beneficiary = Subjects (in actuality, the true beneficiaries are the King, clergy, and nobility, but that is another story for another day ....)

The King created the system (supposedly for the benefit of his subjects) for their protection.
There is also a principal-agent relationship occurring here between the King and his man (Sheriff).

Both the King and the Sheriff derive compensation for administering the trust (in addition to the King's Courts regulating the rights and duties of all parties involved).


As another example, we have drivers licenses. The parties are:

Settlor = "the People"
Trustee = government
Beneficiary = "the general Public"

The trustee derives compensation from the arrangement. Persons are the subjects of licensing and licensing acts and statutes for the benefit of the general Public.

If there is anything I am missing or should be added, feel free!

[shikamaru]

English Trust Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_trusts_law)



English trusts law is the original and foundational law of trusts in the world, and a unique contribution of English law to the legal system. Trusts are part of the law of property, and arise where one person (a "settlor") gives assets (e.g. some land) to another person (a "trustee") to keep safe or to manage on behalf of another person (a "beneficiary").

The law of trusts developed in the Middle Ages from the time of the crusades under the jurisdiction of the King of England. The "common law" regarded property as an indivisible entity, as it had been done through Roman law and the continental version of civil law. Where it seemed "inequitable" (i.e. unfair) to let someone with legal title hold onto it, the King's representative, the Lord Chancellor who established the Courts of Chancery, had the discretion to declare that the real owner "in equity" (i.e. in all fairness) was another person.


Wills are a class of trusts.

TrustGuy, an old friend of ours was really big on trusts.

Charitable Uses Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_Uses_Act_1601)



The Charitable Uses Act of 1601 (also known as "the Elizabeth Statute") is an Act (43 Eliz I, c.4) of the Parliament of England dealing with the definition of a charity. It was repealed by section 13(1) of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1888 (c.42) (but see section 13(2) of that Act).


Charitable Trusts in English Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_trusts_in_English_law)



Charitable trusts in English law are a form of express trust dedicated to charitable goals. There are a variety of advantages to charitable trust status, including exception from most forms of tax and freedom for the trustees not found in other types of English trust. To be a valid charitable trust, the organisation must demonstrate both a charitable purpose and a public benefit. Applicable charitable purposes are normally divided into four categories; trusts for the relief of poverty, trusts for the promotion of education, trusts for the promotion of religion and all other types of trust recognised by the law, which includes trusts for the benefit of animals and a locality. There is also a requirement that the trust's purposes benefit the public (or some section of the public), and not simply a group of private individuals.

Such trusts will be invalid in several circumstances; charitable trusts are not allowed to be run for profit, nor can they have purposes that are not charitable (unless these are ancillary to the charitable purpose). In addition, it is considered unacceptable for charitable trusts to campaign for political or legal change, although discussing political issues in a neutral manner is acceptable. Charitable trusts, as with other trusts, are administered by trustees, but there is no relationship between the trustees and the beneficiaries. This results in two things; firstly, the trustees of a charitable trust are far freer to act than other trustees and secondly, beneficiaries cannot bring a court case against the trustees. Rather, the beneficiaries are represented by the Attorney General for England and Wales as a parens patriae, who appears on the part of The Crown.


How about them apples :)??

[shikamaru]

English Trust Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_trusts_law)



Content

Duties of trustees include:

1. a duty to consider the proper investment of the trust assets
2. a duty to prepare annual accounts except where the assets are held in specie
3. a duty to keep adult beneficiaries informed at least annually

Trustees must be unanimous in their decisions and are personally responsible to the beneficiaries for those decisions. In the event of dispute can apply to the Court of Chancery for directions as to the correct course of action.

Administration

* Appointment and removal of trustees
* Delegation
* Variation of the trust deed
* Power of maintenance
* Power of advancement

Duty of loyalty
See also: Fiduciary

Duty of care
See also: Duty of care

Breach and remedies
Breach of trust
See also: Liability of Trustees inter se in English law

Tracing
See also: Tracing in English law

Beneficiaries who feel the trustees are not (properly) fulfilling their obligations have the right to take the trustees to the Court of Chancery for a declaration concerning the proper actions of the trustees.


Constructive trusts
Main article: Constructive trusts in English law

Resulting trusts
See also: English unjust enrichment law and Resulting trusts in English law, and Resulting trust

Theory
Main article: Theory of trusts

* Unjust enrichment and restitution
* Consent and autonomy
* Law of obligations and property

[shikamaru]

Fudiciary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary)



A fiduciary duty (from Latin fiduciarius, meaning "(holding) in trust"; from fides, meaning "faith", and fiducia, meaning "trust") is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties, most commonly a fiduciary and a principal. One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, holds a fiduciary relation or acts in a fiduciary capacity to another, such as one whose funds are entrusted to it for investment. In a fiduciary relation one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably reposes confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires one to act at all times for the sole benefit and interests of another, with loyalty to those interests.
“ A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.[1] ”

A fiduciary duty[2] is the highest standard of care at either equity or law. A fiduciary (abbreviation fid) is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal"): he must not put his personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from his position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.

In English common law the fiduciary relation is arguably the most important concept within the portion of the legal system known as equity. In the United Kingdom, the Judicature Acts merged the courts of equity (historically based in England's Court of Chancery) with the courts of common law, and as a result the concept of fiduciary duty also became usable in common law courts.

When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where his fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from his fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest. It has been said that fiduciaries must conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd"[3] and that "[t]he distinguishing or overriding duty of a fiduciary is the obligation of undivided loyalty."[4]

....

Duty in different jurisdictions

Different jurisdictions regard fiduciary duties in different lights. Canadian law, for example, has developed a more expansive view of fiduciary obligation, more so than American law[citation needed], while Australian law and British law have developed more conservative approaches than either the USA or Canada. The law expressed here follows the general body of elementary fiduciary law found in most common law jurisdictions; for in-depth analysis of particular jurisdictional idiosyncrasies please consult primary authorities within the relevant jurisdiction. This is especially true in the area of Labor and Employment law. In Canada a fiduciary has obligations to the employer even after the employment relationship is terminated, whereas in the U.S. the employment and fiduciary relationships terminate together.

In SEC v. Chenery Corporation 318 U.S. 80 (1943), Frankfurter J said,
“ To say that a man is a fiduciary only begins the analysis; it gives direction to further inquiry. To whom is he a fiduciary? What obligations does he owe as a fiduciary? In what respect has he failed to discharge these obligations? And what are the consequences of his deviation from his duty? ”
[edit] Relationships

The most common circumstance where a fiduciary duty will arise is between a trustee, whether real or juristic, and a beneficiary. The trustee to whom property is legally committed is the legal—i.e., common law—owner of all such property. The beneficiary, at law, has no legal title to the trust; however, the trustee is bound by equity to suppress his own interests and administer the property only for the benefit of the beneficiary. In this way, the beneficiary obtains the use of property without being its technical owner.

Others, such as corporate directors, may be held to a fiduciary duty similar in some respects to that of a trustee. This happens when, for example, the directors of a bank are trustees for the depositors, the directors of a corporation are trustees for the stockholders or a guardian is trustee of his ward's property. A person in a sensitive position sometimes protects himself from possible conflict of interest charges by setting up a blind trust, placing his financial affairs in the hands of a fiduciary and giving up all right to know about or intervene in their handling.

The fiduciary functions of trusts and agencies are commonly performed by a trust company, such as a commercial bank, organized for that purpose. In the United States, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury, is the primary regulator of the fiduciary activities of federal savings associations.

When a court desires to hold the offending party to a transaction responsible so as to prevent unjust enrichment, the judge can declare that a fiduciary relation exists between the parties, as though the offender were in fact a trustee for the partner.

Relationships which routinely attract by law a fiduciary duty between certain classes of persons include these:

* Trustee/beneficiary: Keech v Sandford[5]
* Conservators and legal guardians / wards
* Agents, brokers and factors / principals: McKenzie v McDonald[6]
* Buyer agent (real estate broker) / buyer client
* Confidential advisor including financial adviser and investment advisor / advisee or client
* Lawyer/client: Sims v Craig Bell & Bond[7]
* Executors and administrators / legatees and heirs
* Corporate partners, joint venturers, directors and officers / company and stockholders: Guth v. Loft Inc., In Plus Group Ltd v. Pyke, Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise, Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver
* Board of directors / company: Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc, Woolworths Ltd v Kelly[8]
* Partner/partner: Chan v Zacharia,[9] Fraser Edmiston Pty Ltd v AGT (Qld) Pty Ltd,[10] Meinhard v Salmon
* Stockbroker/client: Hodgkinson v Simms[11]
* Senior employee / company: Green & Clara Pty Ltd v Bestobell Industries Pty Ltd[12]
* Retirement plan administrators (including 401(k) plans) / retirees and workers: Vivien v. Worldcom
* Promoters / stock subscribers
* Liquidator/company: Re Pantmaenog[13]
* Mutual savings banks and investment corporations / their depositors and investors
* Receivers, trustees in bankruptcy and assignees in insolvency / creditors
* Governments / indigenous peoples: R. v. Sparrow, Seminole Nation v. United States
* Doctor/patient (Canada[14]: McInerney v. MacDonald,[15] Norberg v Wynrib)
* Guardian/ward: Paramasivam v Flynn[16]
* Teacher/student: Glover v Porter-Gaud[17]
* Priest / parishioner seeking counseling: Doe v Evans, 814 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2002)


Continued on next thread ....

[shikamaru]

Continued ...




Roman and civil law recognized a type of contract called fiducia (also contractus fiduciae or fiduciary contract), involving essentially a sale to a person coupled with an agreement that the purchaser should sell the property back upon the fulfillment of certain conditions.[18] Such contracts were used in the emancipation of children, in connection with testamentary gifts and in pledges. Under Roman law a woman could arrange a fictitious sale called a fiduciary coemption in order to change her guardian or gain legal capacity to make a will.[19]

In Roman Dutch law, a fiduciary heir may receive property subject to passing it to another on fulfillment of certain conditions; the gift is called a fideicommissum. The fiduciary of a fideicommissum is a fideicommissioner and one that receives property from a fiduciary heir is a fideicommissary heir.[20]

Fiduciary principles may be applied in a variety of legal contexts.[21]
[edit] Possible relationships

Joint ventures, as opposed to business partnerships, are not presumed to carry a fiduciary duty; however, this is a matter of degree.[22] If a joint venture is conducted at commercial arm's length and both parties are on an equal footing then the courts will be reluctant to find a fiduciary duty, but if the joint venture is carried out more in the manner of a partnership then fiduciary relationships can and often will arise. Arklow vs. MacLean Privy Council 1999

Husbands and wives are not presumed to be in a fiduciary relationship; however, this may be easily established. Similarly, ordinary commercial transactions in themselves are not presumed to but can give rise to fiduciary duties, should the appropriate circumstances arise. These are usually circumstances where the contract specifies a degree of trust and loyalty or it can be inferred by the court.[23]

Generally, the employment relationship is not regarded as fiduciary, but may be so if "within a particular contractual relationship there are specific contractual obligations which the employee has undertaken which have placed him in a situation where equity imposes these rigorous duties in addition to the contractual obligations. Although terminologies like duty of good faith, or loyalty, or the mutual duty of trust and confidence are frequently used to describe employment relationships, such concepts usually denote situations where "a party merely has to take into consideration the interests of another, but does not have to act in the interests of that other". If fiduciary relationships are to arise between employers and employees, it is necessary to ascertain that the employee has placed himself in a position where he must act solely in the interests of his employer.[24] In the Canadian case of Canadian Aero Service ltd v O'Malley,[25] it was held that a senior employee is much more likely to be found to owe fiduciary duties towards his employer.

A protector of a trust may owe fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries, although there is no case law establishing this to be the case.[26]
[edit] Example

For example, two members of a band currently under contract with one another (or with some other tangible, existing relationship that creates a legal duty), X and Y, record songs together. Let us imagine it is a serious, successful band and that a court would declare that the two members are equal partners in a business. One day, X takes some demos made cooperatively by the duo to a recording label, where an executive expresses interest. X pretends it is all his work and receives an exclusive contract and $50,000. Y is unaware of the encounter until reading it in the paper the next week.

This situation represents a conflict of interest and duty. Both X and Y hold fiduciary duties to each other, which means they must subdue their own interests in favor of the duo's collective interest. By signing an individual contract and taking all the money, X has put personal interest above the fiduciary duty. Therefore, a court will find that X has breached his fiduciary duty. The judicial remedy here will be that X holds both the contract and the money in a constructive trust for the duo. Note, X will not be punished or totally denied of the benefit; both X and Y will receive a half share in the contract and the money.
[edit] Elements of duty

A fiduciary, such as the administrator, executor or guardian of an estate, may be legally required to file with a probate court or judge a surety bond, called a fiduciary bond or probate bond, to guarantee faithful performance of his duties.[27] One of those duties may be to prepare, generally under oath, an inventory of the tangible or intangible property of the estate, describing the items or classes of property and usually placing a valuation on them.[28]

A bank or other fiduciary having legal title to a mortgage may sell fractional shares to investors, thereby creating a participating mortgage.
[edit] Accountability

A fiduciary will be liable to account if proven to have acquired a profit, benefit or gain from the relationship by one of three means:[2]

* In circumstances of conflict of duty and interest
* In circumstances of conflict of duty to one person and duty to another person
* By taking advantage of the fiduciary position.

Therefore, it is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where his fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and not to profit from his fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest.
[edit] Conflict of duties

A fiduciary's duty must not conflict with another fiduciary duty.[29]Stewart v Layton (1992) 111 ALR 687 Conflicts between one fiduciary duty and another fiduciary duty arise most often when a lawyer or an agent, such as a real estate agent, represent more than one client, and the interests of those clients conflict. This would occur when a lawyer attempts to represent both the plaintiff and the defendant in the same matter, for example. The rule comes from the logical conclusion that a fiduciary cannot make the principal's interests a top priority if he has two principals and their interests are diametrically opposed; he must balance the interests, which is not acceptable to equity. Therefore, the conflict of duty and duty rule is really an extension of the conflict of interest and duty rules.
[edit] No-profit rule

A fiduciary must not profit from the fiduciary position.[3] This includes any benefits or profits which, although unrelated to the fiduciary position, came about because of an opportunity that the fiduciary position afforded. It is unnecessary that the principal would have been unable to make the profit; if the fiduciary makes a profit, by virtue of his role as fiduciary for the principal, then the fiduciary must report the profit to the principal. If the principal consents then the fiduciary may keep the benefit. If this requirement is not met then the property is deemed by the court to be held by the fiduciary on constructive trust for the principal.

Secret commissions, or bribes, also come under the no profit rule. The bribe shall be held in constructive trust for the principal. The person who made the bribe cannot recover it, since he has committed a crime. Similarly, the fiduciary, who received the bribe, has committed a crime. Fiduciary duties are an aspect of equity and, in accordance with the equitable principles, or maxims, equity serves those with clean hands. Therefore, the bribe is held on constructive trust for the principal, the only innocent party.

Bribes were initially considered not to be held on constructive trust, but were considered to be held as a debt by the fiduciary to the principal.[30] This approach has been overruled; the bribe is now classified as a constructive trust.[31] The change is due to pragmatic reasons, especially in regard to a bankrupt fiduciary. If a fiduciary takes a bribe and that bribe is considered a debt then if the fiduciary goes bankrupt the debt will be left in his pool of assets to be paid to creditors and the principal may miss out on recovery because other creditors were more secured. If the bribe is treated as held on a constructive trust then it will remain in the possession of the fiduciary, despite bankruptcy, until such time as the principal recovers it.


Continued on subsequent post ....

[shikamaru]

Continued ....



[edit] Breaches of duty and remedies

Conduct by a fiduciary may be deemed constructive fraud when it is based on acts, omissions or concealments considered fraudulent and that gives one an advantage against the other because such conduct—though not actually fraudulent, dishonest or deceitful—demands redress for reasons of public policy.[32] Breach of fiduciary duty may occur in insider trading, when an insider or a related party makes trades in a corporation's securities based on material non-public information obtained during the performance of the insider's duties at the corporation. Breach of fiduciary duty by a lawyer with regard to a client, if negligent, may be a form of legal malpractice; if intentional, it may be remedied in equity. Clark v Rowe, 428 Mass. 339, 345 (1998) (dicta).

Where a principal can establish both a fiduciary duty and a breach of that duty, through violation of the above rules, the court will find that the benefit gained by the fiduciary should be returned to the principal because it would be unconscionable to allow the fiduciary to retain the benefit by employing his strict common law legal rights. This will be the case, unless the fiduciary can show there was full disclosure of the conflict of interest or profit and that the principal fully accepted and freely consented to the fiduciary's course of action.

Remedies will differ according to the type of damage or benefit. They are usually distinguished between proprietary remedies, dealing with property, and personal remedies, dealing with pecuniary (monetary) compensation.
[edit] Constructive trusts

Where the unconscionable gain by the fiduciary is in an easily identifiable form, such as the recording contract discussed above, the usual remedy will be the already discussed constructive trust.[33]

Constructive trusts pop up in many aspects of equity, not just in a remedial sense,[34] but, in this sense, what is meant by a constructive trust is that the court has created and imposed a duty on the fiduciary to hold the money in safekeeping until it can be rightfully transferred to the principal.
[edit] Account of profits

An account of profits is another potential remedy.[35] It is usually used where the breach of duty was ongoing or when the gain is hard to identify. The idea of an account of profits is that the fiduciary profited unconscionably by virtue of the fiduciary position, so any profit made should be transferred to the principal. It may sound like a constructive trust at first, but it is not.

An account for profits is the appropriate remedy when, for example, a senior employee has taken advantage of his fiduciary position by conducting his own company on the side and has run up quite a lot of profits over a period of time, profits which he wouldn't have been able to make without his fiduciary position in the original company. The calculation of profits in this sense can be extremely difficult, because profit due to fiduciary position must be separated from profit due to the fiduciary's own effort and ingenuity.
[edit] Compensatory damages

Compensatory damages are also available.[36] Accounts of profits can be hard remedies to establish, therefore, a plaintiff will often seek compensation (damages) instead. Courts of equity initially had no power to award compensatory damages, which traditionally were a remedy at common law, but legislation and case law has changed the situation so compensatory damages may now be awarded for a purely equitable action.


David, Michael Joseph, Anthony Joseph, Trustguy .... thank-you, thank-you, thank-you ....
I can now connect more dots as to what you guys are saying.

This morning has been particularly fruitful rooting and hogging :D.

[David Merrill]

Speaking for anybody else who falls asleep reading trust law, could you please try to share your revelation?

[shikamaru]

Speaking for anybody else who falls asleep reading trust law, could you please try to share your revelation?

(1) A fiduciary is an agent of the principal who has duty and obligation to the principal. A fiduciary must be loyal to the principal. The principal has trust, faith in the fiduciary.

(2) The fiduciary has legal title to property under common law. A trustee is a fiduciary. The beneficiary has no legal title to the property. The beneficiary obtains the use of the property.

(3) Courts of equity and common law were merged by way of the Judicature Acts in England. As a result, the concept of fiduciary duty became usable in common law courts. This could be one of the real reasons why equity and law were merged.

(4) Fiduciary duty imposes a higher duty of care and stricter standard than does comparable tortious duty of care at common law.

(5) If operating in an office of trust, a bond as well as an oath may be required.

(6) Fiduciary duties may be imposed by the courts by way of constructive trust.

As an aside, I am thinking a license may be fiduciary relationship. The government acts as principal with the driver as fiduciary.

[shikamaru]

Trustguy was the first person to stick in my head that the US Constitution is a trust.
I have heard this concept echo by a few others with the Paddleford case in support thereto.

The offices of trust will require oaths and maybe even performance bonds.

[Michael Joseph]

Speaking for anybody else who falls asleep reading trust law, could you please try to share your revelation?

you know not to usurp this thread but i just took a good look at your avatar and it reminds me a lot of the Torroid that Randy Powell forms with Vortex Math. The fire in the belly of the two headed eagle is approximately right where the Vortex would go into itself and come out the other side.

Vortex Math (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pvuTZ5u6Kg)

Think about the US Treasury being placed into Trust by the Principal - Lincoln - and the Trustee is US Military. This was done at the time of the Republics; I believe that in reality the US Military is holding the Property Rights of the Republics - stop to think of the value stored - 2011- 1863 +/- @ a minimal interest rate is staggering!

The trust being Lieber Code

424

[David Merrill]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8330/capitalintegration.jpg


I load it Centered on my Desktop.

[motla68]

No need to apologize. Ask away!!
That's why I created this thread: to aide in inquiry as well as build a basis.

Trustee = Administrator
Settlor = Creator of the trust
Beneficiary = the person or entities that receive benefits from the trust and are the true owners of the trust in equity.

To use a historical example, the King of England would have his sheriff collect dues from his subjects. The trust in this instance is:

Trustee= King/Sheriff
Settlor = King
Beneficiary = Subjects (in actuality, the true beneficiaries are the King, clergy, and nobility, but that is another story for another day ....)

The King created the system (supposedly for the benefit of his subjects) for their protection.
There is also a principal-agent relationship occurring here between the King and his man (Sheriff).

Both the King and the Sheriff derive compensation for administering the trust (in addition to the King's Courts regulating the rights and duties of all parties involved).


As another example, we have drivers licenses. The parties are:

Settlor = "the People"
Trustee = government
Beneficiary = "the general Public"

The trustee derives compensation from the arrangement. Persons are the subjects of licensing and licensing acts and statutes for the benefit of the general Public.

If there is anything I am missing or should be added, feel free!

I got a question to propose to you from your analogy here, A Retired cabinet maker, lets call him man#1 gives you a gift man#2, half of his warehouse of wood, but you do not have the machines to make cabinets, another man comes along, man#3 and says he needs wood to make cabinets for his home, you could also use a couple cabinets so you strike a deal of consideration, you man#2 will "give" him wood if he man#3 makes you 2 cabinets out of the wood, the other man#3 agrees and a couple months later comes back with 2 cabinets. Who plaid what role position in this trust?
[ handshake with 2 or more witnesses - both agreed no paper was needed ]

It is my conscience that certain roles can be switched by re-negotiating how instruments are presented, not necessarily by face value. All Instruments are negotiable unless on it's face it says non-negotiable.

[motla68]

you know not to usurp this thread but i just took a good look at your avatar and it reminds me a lot of the Torroid that Randy Powell forms with Vortex Math. The fire in the belly of the two headed eagle is approximately right where the Vortex would go into itself and come out the other side.

Vortex Math (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pvuTZ5u6Kg)



Is God photon?

[Michael Joseph]

Is God photon?

Light in and of itself is just light - Yehovah is Much, Much more than light. God is Spirit.

[David Merrill]

Is God photon?

The photon, in my experience is standing still. Observing it through material eyes makes it seem to travel at 186,000 MPS.

[stoneFree]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8330/capitalintegration.jpg

I load it Centered on my Desktop.
Oh, it's a Maria Theresa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa_thaler) thaler! I wondered what that was. Can I inquire of it's origin?

[shikamaru]

I got a question to propose to you from your analogy here, A Retired cabinet maker, lets call him man#1 gives you a gift man#2, half of his warehouse of wood, but you do not have the machines to make cabinets, another man comes along, man#3 and says he needs wood to make cabinets for his home, you could also use a couple cabinets so you strike a deal of consideration, you man#2 will "give" him wood if he man#3 makes you 2 cabinets out of the wood, the other man#3 agrees and a couple months later comes back with 2 cabinets. Who plaid what role position in this trust?
[ handshake with 2 or more witnesses - both agreed no paper was needed ]

It is my conscience that certain roles can be switched by re-negotiating how instruments are presented, not necessarily by face value. All Instruments are negotiable unless on it's face it says non-negotiable.

In my opinion, it isn't a trust. The gifting transfers title and terminates all interests that man #1 had in the wood.

[David Merrill]

Oh, it's a Maria Theresa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa_thaler) thaler! I wondered what that was. Can I inquire of it's origin?


Coin Shop. Hapsburg Dynasty - that's what it means to me. The pentagram-cut sherry topaz is unique cut by a fellow down the road who owns the mine up on the Tarryall. Shining a laser through it:



http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Pentagramsig.jpg

[shikamaru]

Michael Joesph ....

... I hope you consider writing a treatise on Trusts.

You present the information in a very high level manner which can be very difficult to grasp with much of the substance lost.
I have to go back and do my research until I can see EXACTLY what you are talking about.
I fear that I may lose access to your writings. Write a treatise .... pleeease? :D
Or at the very least, create a thread with your writings on trusts.
You may have to atomize good portions of it in order to bring the reader up to speed on the concepts.

[motla68]

Michael Joesph ....

... I hope you consider writing a treatise on Trusts.

You present the information in a very high level manner which can be very difficult to grasp with much of the substance lost.
I have to go back and do my research until I can see EXACTLY what you are talking about.
I fear that I may lose access to your writings. Write a treatise .... pleeease? :D
Or at the very least, create a thread with your writings on trusts.
You may have to atomize good portions of it in order to bring the reader up to speed on the concepts.

If you go back through all his posts, that is all he been talking about lately. Put it all in a word document and verify it all, this will help you connect the dots to where you can basically write up your own treatise on it for yourself, that is where the real learning comes in.

[shikamaru]

If you go back through all his posts, that is all he been talking about lately. Put it all in a word document and verify it all, this will help you connect the dots to where you can basically write up your own treatise on it for yourself, that is where the real learning comes in.

I have enough treatises to write :).
If Mr. Joseph were to aggregate his writings, I would be greatly appreciative.
Or .... he could give me a word map and books he would consider pertinent to understand trusts that way he sees them. I can take it from there.

[David Merrill]

Soon we will have a Downloads section. Recently MJ shared some antiquainted treatises. A lot of reading but something about MJ's writing I have noticed. I do not understand it well until I try writing about it; then it almost always snaps into place.

He speaks of his trust being in Yehoshuah and that persistently translates to original estate. We don't own anything but it appeals to the highest Grantor/Creator.


Possibly I can prompt him to open up about - Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/rr/microform/relmicro.html). Plug in - Incun. 1454.B5




Microfilm of the Library of Congress copy of the Gutenberg Bible purchased from Dr. Otto Vollbehr in 1930, one of three surviving perfect copies on vellum. Call number of original: Incun. 1454.B5. Microfilm. : Washington, D.C. : Library of Congress Photoduplication Service, 1952. 3 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.

[shikamaru]

Soon we will have a Downloads section. Recently MJ shared some antiquainted treatises. A lot of reading but something about MJ's writing I have noticed. I do not understand it well until I try writing about it; then it almost always snaps into place.

He speaks of his trust being in Yehoshuah and that persistently translates to original estate. We don't own anything but it appeals to the highest Grantor/Creator.

I, primarily and generally, associate trusts with property whether tangible or intangible.
I would classify trusts as a branch of the law of property personally.
Trusts originate out of English Common Law. It has spread and been adopted into Roman Civil Law.

[stoneFree]

Coin Shop. Hapsburg Dynasty - that's what it means to me. The pentagram-cut sherry topaz is unique cut by a fellow down the road who owns the mine up on the Tarryall. Shining a laser through it:


http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Pentagramsig.jpgThat's neat. And whenever you wear it you'll always have some real money. With Gresham's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law) in effect we rarely see good money anymore.

[shikamaru]

Law of Trusts reboot :)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law



For instance, whereas neither the common law nor civil law systems allow people to split the ownership from the control of one piece of property, equity allows this through an arrangement known as a 'trust'. 'Trustees' control property, whereas the 'beneficial' (or 'equitable') ownership of trust property is held by people known as 'beneficiaries'. Trustees owe duties to their beneficiaries to take good care of the entrusted property.


Do note from the above: NEITHER Common Law nor Civil Law sysem allow people to split the ownership from the control of a given piece of property.
Equity, from the aforementioned, deeply concerns itself with trusts.



Of course, Lord King LC was worried that trustees might exploit opportunities to use trust property for themselves instead of looking after it. Business speculators using trusts had just recently caused a stock market crash. Strict duties for trustees made their way into company law and were applied to directors and chief executive officers. Another example of a trustee's duty might be to invest property wisely or sell it.[52] This is especially the case for pension funds, the most important form of trust, where investors are trustees for people's savings until retirement. But trusts can also be set up for charitable purposes, famous examples being the British Museum or the Rockefeller Foundation.




Company law sprang from the law of trusts, on the principle of separating ownership of property and control.[54] The law of the modern company began with the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856, passed in the United Kingdom, which provided investors with a simple registration procedure to gain limited liability under the separate legal personality of the corporation.


Reboot review:

Legal title is vested in one party. Equitable title in another.
Legal title has ownership and control. Equitable title has right to PROFITS and BENEFITS deriving from the property.
This is the quintessential property of a USE.
On top of this, trustee is a fiduciary and agent of the beneficiary, the principal. This is the legal relationship.

[motla68]

Yes, what side of the fence do you want to be on? One can either accept the beneficial liabilities of an Estate held in trust being held by another or they can go create one, name beneficiaries and be the one in control. Separate from the Estate side of things most other instruments are constructive trusts, some can be negotiated unless upon the face of the instrument it says " non-negotiable ", example a Drivers License, negotiations can be done right then an there on the side of the road, there is nothing on that instrument that says " non-negotiable ".

UCC

§ 3-201. NEGOTIATION.

(a) "Negotiation" means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.

§ 3-202. NEGOTIATION SUBJECT TO RESCISSION.

(a) Negotiation is effective even if obtained (i) from an infant, a corporation exceeding its powers, or a person without capacity, (ii) by fraud, duress, or mistake, or (iii) in breach of duty or as part of an illegal transaction.

[shikamaru]

Yes, what side of the fence do you want to be on? One can either accept the beneficial liabilities of an Estate held in trust being held by another or they can go create one, name beneficiaries and be the one in control. Separate from the Estate side of things most other instruments are constructive trusts, some can be negotiated unless upon the face of the instrument it says " non-negotiable ", example a Drivers License, negotiations can be done right then an there on the side of the road, there is nothing on that instrument that says " non-negotiable ".

UCC

§ 3-201. NEGOTIATION.

(a) "Negotiation" means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.

§ 3-202. NEGOTIATION SUBJECT TO RESCISSION.

(a) Negotiation is effective even if obtained (i) from an infant, a corporation exceeding its powers, or a person without capacity, (ii) by fraud, duress, or mistake, or (iii) in breach of duty or as part of an illegal transaction.

I, personally, desire to move towards perfects rights i.e. the rights and duties are vested in one person rather than imperfect rights and trusts.

All things have their purpose and place though.

[motla68]

Rights are benefits, if equity follows the law then liability will follow from what rights you are claiming. Just be careful where you claim your rights come from.

Maxims of Equity

Contents

1 Equity regards done what ought to be done
2 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
3 Equity delights in equality
4 One who seeks equity must do equity
5 Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights
6 Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation
7 Equity acts in personam.
8 Equity abhors a forfeiture
9 Equity does not require an idle gesture
10 One who comes into equity must come with clean hands
11 Equity delights to do justice and not by halves
12 Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits
* 13 Equity follows the law *
14 Equity will not aid a volunteer
15 Where equities are equal, the law will prevail
16 Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
17 Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
18 Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
19 Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee

[shikamaru]

Rights are benefits, ....

This is an interesting proposition. The term "right" has a multitude of definitions and meanings depending on context.



if equity follows the law then liability will follow from what rights you are claiming. Just be careful where you claim your rights come from.


Equity comes to us from the Law or Remedies. It is/was a remedial branch of law.

Equity concerns itself with imperfect rights.

Perfect rights are outside the realm of equity. The holder of a perfect has both the benefit and the burden. No other parties are involved.
There is no obligation to enforce when one person is holder of both the right with its corresponding duty.

[motla68]

Sorry, I cannot find exact definition for this procedural status, can you extrapolate? My conscience tells me if you have perfect right then you do not have a duty, you have a right of choice to perform or not perform without that attachment. If I am mistaken here where does the authority to enforce a duty come from?

[shikamaru]

Sorry, I cannot find exact definition for this procedural status, can you extrapolate? My conscience tells me if you have perfect right then you do not have a duty, you have a right of choice to perform or not perform without that attachment. If I am mistaken here where does the authority to enforce a duty come from?

The duty is always there, however it is vested in the individual who has the benefit, not someone else.

Example:

Assume I have a computer. That computer is absolutely mine. I have the benefit of the usage of the computer as well as its burdens i.e. administration, installation, and maintenance of the machine.

The authority to enforce a duty comes from the power of the government.

Equity considers done what ought to be done (maxim).

[motla68]

How is it the government has authority to enforce a duty upon you if it is absolutely yours? If this is sought then it is not a perfect right according to your own words.

Now your going back to equity which you said was imperfect rights.

Quoted: " Equity concerns itself with imperfect rights. "

Which is it?

I am not trying to be an ass or be sarcastic here, but better me to be asking these questions rather then a opposing district attorney or anyone else who has a claim to what your holding. If you have absoluteness then you should be able to take that computer out to the dessert with a shotgun and tear it up.

[shikamaru]

How is it the government has authority to enforce a duty upon you if it is absolutely yours?

They can't.


If this is sought then it is not a perfect right according to your own words.

That is correct. If one is seeking remedy from a court, they are seeking to impose a duty on another person i.e an obligation. This obligation is composed of both the right and its correlative duty.



Now your going back to equity which you said was imperfect rights.

Quoted: " Equity concerns itself with imperfect rights. "

Which is it?

Equity concerns itself with imperfect and relative rights.

A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction by C. C. Langdell.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/ccl/equi_juris.htm

The book above is one the absolute best I have read in explaining the nature of equity jurisdiction.
Trusts are squarely an object within the realm of equity jurisdiction.

In addition to the above, you should learn the history and politics surrounding equity and equity courts.

Equity trumps law is relatively recent custom given some ruling by Francis Bacon, an enemy of Edward Coke (pronounced Cook) who just happened to be a common law jurist :D. James I is going to go along with Bacon for he is not pleased with Coke either :).

We may need to back track through our conversation in order to clear up this confusion.

[shikamaru]

Here is a thread I started on the High Court of Chancery (Equity)

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?97-High-Court-of-Chancery

[motla68]

Yes, there is confusion here. I thought we closed the door on equity since it was imperfect rights. I simply asked you to explain a "perfect right", which then you threw the word duty into the explanation, I then asked you where the authority for this duty was coming from and that is when you brought the equity language back into it.

Now lets just stick with the original question to explain a "perfect right" and to just let you know if you throw the word " duty" in again I am going to call you out on it.
In my mind anyway "perfect" has no other outside liens or duties attached to it.

Please continue?

[shikamaru]

Yes, there is confusion here. I thought we closed the door on equity since it was imperfect rights. I simply asked you to explain a "perfect right", which then you threw the word duty into the explanation, I then asked you where the authority for this duty was coming from and that is when you brought the equity language back into it.

A perfect right is where a person has both the right and duty vested in them.
The authority for this duty is the laws of nature and God.



Now lets just stick with the original question to explain a "perfect right" and to just let you know if you throw the word " duty" in again I am going to call you out on it.
In my mind anyway "perfect" has no other outside liens or duties attached to it.

Please continue?

Duty is not limited to outside liens or duties.
If you are out in the jungle, you have a duty of care not to be stupid and violate the laws of nature or fail to heed warning signs.

Just because this duty is not being enforced by some man-made authority doesn't mean said duty is absent.

The penalty for violating duties under the laws of nature tend to be much more severe for their transgression.

[David Merrill]

Closed the door on equity?


http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8909/coloradolawbooks1935one.jpg


I doubt the notion has much practical application.

Your response though, it reminds me of a fellow who showed the jury, during voir dire a photo of a bloody aborted fetus - in a traffic prosecution! He then cited Roe v. Wade and basically built the record convicting the State of murder...

The trial fell apart but not before the judge lectured about the advantages of statutory as opposed to common law. - As the jury might well have hung the defendant over a traffic violation under the crudeness of pure common law.



Regards,

David Merrill.



http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6720/tonvwheaton1827jpg.jpg

[motla68]

Shikamaru,

Yes, this is the distinction I was trying to make clear, where duty is vested.
Earlier in this thread you quoted:
" The authority to enforce a duty comes from the power of the government."

In this last thread you made a dual argument which opposes one another.
The first part is correct where you quoted:
" A perfect right is where a person has both the right and duty vested in them. "
This part proves the distinction I was making of perfection has no outside vestment.
Here is where the double minded confusion comes in, you then quoted:
" The authority for this duty is the laws of nature and God. "

What we claim has attachments to us, are you saying your God and that your perfect?
I would hope your not this conceited.

My conscience is that we are not perfect, we make mistakes often so thus we can never claim perfection, only creator of the universe can make that claim.
Land is equity, we came from the dust, it is our imperfections which make each one of us unique. So now what is your law? that would be natural law correct?
IF your law is natural law when you use a law created by another entity it then comes to you as a benefit accepted as value. We our are own worst enemy,
think about it before replying again.
.................................................. .........................

David,

Your way off base here, we are not talking civil statutory construction. This is about common law in the private I am speaking of. When someone cannot settle a matter privately then that is when they bring it to a public court as mediator, I know you do not believe in private law so this might not be a conversation for you to get into the middle of.

[David Merrill]

Agreed;


But you can have private law by agreement. It is just not reproducible. - Likely why you will not show us any examples of how it works.

[shikamaru]

Shikamaru,

Yes, this is the distinction I was trying to make clear, where duty is vested.
Earlier in this thread you quoted:
" The authority to enforce a duty comes from the power of the government."

IF one exists in a civil society with its law courts AND
IF there is a duty owed you by someone else, you take your claim to that court in order to use the force of law to enforce your claim.
I hope that clears up the confusion concerning the statement above.



What we claim has attachments to us, are you saying your God and that your perfect?
I'm going to recommend to you that you make greater use of inquiry. Clear up your confusion before moving forward.



I would hope your not this conceited.
I'm hoping you address and clear up your confusion first.



So now what is your law? that would be natural law correct?

I'm not claiming any law personally. Simply relaying from all that I have studied.



IF your law is natural law when you use a law created by another entity it then comes to you as a benefit accepted as value.

There is some value to this statement.



We our are own worst enemy,
think about it before replying again.

More inquiry, less snark. Thanks.

[shikamaru]

What is implied in the law of trusts particularly with regard to the relationship between the trustee and the beneficiary is the Law of Agency.

This is hidden.

The law of agency involves two parties only: the principal and the agent. The agent is also the fiduciary.

Overlaying the above functionaries with the parties to a trust, the principal is the beneficiary and the trustee the agent (fiduciary).

[shikamaru]

Bailment is another fiduciary relationship worthy of note.

[David Merrill]

Bailment is another fiduciary relationship worthy of note.


Bail (http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9781/baildefinitions.jpg).

[shikamaru]

Bail (http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/9781/baildefinitions.jpg).

Think about it with banks ....

You as depositor (bailor) give your property to the bank (bailee) for safe storage and keeping.

The only difference in this relationship between a traditional bailment relationship is that the legal title of the notes transfers to the bank leaving you with an equitable right to retrieve FRNs from your account with the bank.

An account is a chose in action. A chose in action is the right to sue for recovery of a debt. Chose is French meaning "thing". An action is a legal suit.

[shikamaru]

I believe it helps to study Land Law and property law first before studying trusts.

Also, keep jural relationships with their respective parties in mind.

A study of the Law of Agency will aide in the study of trusts.

[Chex]

Where dear reader is the ORIGINAL TRUST DEED? The Act specifically is what we are after that conveyed all Real Property into Trust?

Found one: http://www.harwoodandrews.com.au/resources.ashx/presentations/24/File/694A54A972EA58C45CB125B0010E07D5/TIA_Vol_42(1)_July_2007.pdf

[Michael Joseph]

Egypt was promised by God that they would always be a base nation, a small nation and never a superpower, but that they would always would exist as a nation. Therefore today they are the oldest continuous government that is in existence.

[yebliker]

Hello all-
It has always struck me that "real" is close to "regal", and look what I found on wikipedia:

"Real
Etymology 2

From Spanish real ?(“royal”), from Latin r?g?lis ?(“regal, royal”)."

So real estate is royal property, the king's or queen's property.

Then there is the description of real property as "immovable"... I think that is because the title never moves "out of state". Meaning they don't let go of it, and we only have right to use it.

Beneficial interest in a trust is considered personal property... so it seems there would be no interest in real estate by the beneficiaries.

Does this ring true to you?

Thanks--

Y
commonlawman.wordpress.com