This phrase takes on a greater meaning and light with regard to trusts now, doesn't it?
Legal owner is liable for service to lords.
Quote is courtesy of Nelson Rockefeller.
Printable View
This phrase takes on a greater meaning and light with regard to trusts now, doesn't it?
Legal owner is liable for service to lords.
Quote is courtesy of Nelson Rockefeller.
LORD. In England, this is a title of honor.
Titles are either Legal or Equitable. I can tell you the title of Lord is not the Legal Title. The Legal Title is in the Crown. Therefore the Equitable Title is in the [land] lord = cestui que trust.
As I say - Trusts within Trust.
Therefore the Use is conveyed into Trust....on and on it goes....Each transfer is subject to the original transfer and no greater rights can be obtained than that of the original transfer.
Example. CQVT takes Property by Warrantee Deed as Grantee. Then, in agreement with the Garn St. Germain Act of 1982 - at least WITHIN the United States - the Equitable Title upon CQVT = Registered Owner can be transferred into Trust - as long as the Beneficiary remains the CQVT. One point of clarification - the Beneficiary has to be CQVT if there are liens [outstanding bank loans] - Else if the banker finds out the interests have changed - they have the Rights as codified in the Deed of Trust to exercise the Due on Sale Clause - call the entire loan due in 30 days.
Therefore if the CQVT, originally as Grantee receives the Use in Trust [Equitable Title] - by Deed subject to liens and easements, restrictiions, tenaments, heredaments, etc....- and then later CQVT, as Grantor conveys the Use into another Trust [say a Land Trust] the new Trust has its Trustee and Beneficiary; yet the Property has never left the original Construct - just changed names.
Is this Legal - absolutely. Now is LEGAL NAME is associated with accident - Property Rights in Legal Name have been transferred into Trust - What to Lien asks the Attorney? I'm gonna need you to pay me up front. The trust is a great protector of Rights of Use.
I was thinking along the lines where the ownership is with some person, but the control lays with government.
I don't understand your language.
Government is State = Person = Trustee;
Registered Owner = Beneficiary = Cestui Que Trust [creation of State].
Are you saying create a new Independent State? The Right of Self Determination?
You are reading more into my post than what was written.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
Using a car as example, a person "owns" the car, but government controls the car i.e. how fast you can drive, buckle your seatbelt, if it can go on the road or not, etc.
The responsibility for upkeep, maintenance is on the owner in addition to fees (taxes).
Now that I rethink your post, the ownership of the car coupled with the control of the car by a different party sounds like a partnership ....
Yes. You see it now. Senate Resolution #62. Nothing ever leaves the State. The State as Trustee and State Creation CQVT as Beneficiary.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
President proclaims a State of the Union, the USA as stated in international law - the Republic (north carolina: the state, california: the state, all states being one state. Then there is the Incorporated side of each state i.e. State of Florida, State of California, these our the statutory constructs that are applicable to the state employees/statutory employees.
Just as there is a Corporate Trust United States (Cesti que) running the treasury of the Republic there is for each state the same. Performance of a military who concurred it originally intended to protect it from banks. But as belligerents we keep bringing them banks back into it with the choices we make.
Were You a Statutory Employee? ( See page 20 )
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf
If not then why are you still filing for the name or acting as trustee for it?
Were You a Statutory Employee? ( See page 20 )
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf
I haven't seen one of those since 1995. Why would I want to use one of those. Just call me a drop out. frederick burrell
As you can see it is not always a bad thing to be incompetent of the law. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick Burrell
My apologies. I didn't read enough of (and into) post #2 of yours :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Joseph
Now I see it ....
In effect, we have a re-conveyance to tenants, but their interest never exceeds the scope of the original equitable grant to the first lord.
More than likely, it will never come close ....
Well if all a tenant can have is some minor interest in property, why take the liabilities?