Law of Trusts

[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 . 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?

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.

[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.