Redeem From Public To Private Venue

[adirolfnitsol]

And that was an excellent catch by you, salsero!

The key words here are Nature and Character. Florida Statute 697.02 tells us the nature (not the character).

For example, Keanu Reeves is the man ie. Nature/substance. A part he plays would be the character/form.

Want to really fry your brain? Pull up HUTCHENS v. MAXICENTERS, U.S.A 541 So. 2d 618

"Generally speaking, however, law courts have only the jurisdiction to render money judgments and common law writs of ejectment and replevin. All actions for more specific relief, such as, cases involving dissolutions of marriage, custody, guardianships, dissolutions of partnership, accounting, mortgage foreclosure, partition, subrogation, specific performance of contracts, the adjudication of equitable rights of beneficiaries under express trusts, the establishment of equitable liens, resulting trusts and constructive trusts, actions to reform, cancel or rescind instruments and agreements, actions for declaratory decrees, and actions for injunctions and to quiet title, are all causes of action which are peculiarly cognizable only in equity or chancery and are not within the jurisdiction of a court exercising only common law jurisdiction."

So, if the 'law courts' have only the jurisdiction to render money judgments and common law writs of ejectment and replevin, (I don't see foreclosure listed in there except under equity/chancery and how can fictions claim they gave equity when they didn't give equity) how can IT do a writ of ejectment when IT doesn't have the authority to hear a foreclosure, at law? Are these undocumented, unregistered judges, attorneys, employees actually using statutory equity? If so, how so? In other words, how does it go from point A to point C, where IT doesn't have the authority or power to even hear B, except under equity/chancery? These same numbered Circuit/District State courts deny there is any equity/chancery within these courts!

It was the above and the following that made my ears stand up in full attention to what Boris was saying:

Commissioner v. Estate of Field - 324 U.S. 113 (1945)
2. Since the corpus of the trust did not shed the possibility of reversion until the decedent's death, the value of the entire corpus on the date of death was taxable under § 302(c). P. 324 U. S. 116.

So what happens when the corpus of the trust sheds the possibility of reversion PRIOR TO the decedent's death? No taxation? No licensing? No federal withholding?

Yes, this was the point when I got very, very interested in what Boris was saying!