Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Possession Nine Tenths of the Law?

  1. #1

    Possession Nine Tenths of the Law?

    Wikipedia: Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

    Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]

    I post this thread to maybe start a discussion about this, as I have some questions....

    These titles are not Mine, I did not create them nor force myself to have them, however since I possess them I am entitled by documentation to operate in the US, so i possess them...

    With that said, and with considering such definition of statement, 1. Is the 1% equity? And 9% legal or vise versa? 2. How should one possess without ownership?

  2. #2
    Ownership and possession are not the same thing. Ownership does not necessarily imply exclusivity either. Greek has words for exclusive right of possession or right of enjoyment of a thing. In English one might need to put "exclusive" in front of ownership. Ownership of a thing that is personified is suretyship (and from experience things are almost always personified--from mailboxes to motor vehicles). However, to get to a deeper comprehension I would point to the concept of trusts and divided title. There are said to be two types of title in a trust or divided title situation: legal title and equitable title. Title is not divided in instances where allodial title is held because both legal title and equitable title vest in one and the same.

    In the EU and US it could be said that police are trained to presume that everyone has divided title and/or that property and possessions belong to the state (ala communism). A comprehension of property law tends to expose communism as not being one of many alternatives to 'state governance' but is instead to be a method of divesting a society of its assets, property, possessions etc. and transferring them to another society. Is that not something one does to ones enemies?

    The articles below are provided for entertainment and/or insight. Trusts are not necessarily bad. All of these jurisprudential constructs can be used in a good way despite the fact that strangers among us have attempted to make evil them.

    Related:
    Last edited by allodial; 10-11-16 at 04:06 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Thomas View Post
    Wikipedia: Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not. The expression is also stated as "possession is nine points of the law", which is credited as derived from the Scottish expression "possession is eleven points in the law, and they say there are but twelve."[1]

    Although the principle is an oversimplification, it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not."[2]

    I post this thread to maybe start a discussion about this, as I have some questions....

    These titles are not Mine, I did not create them nor force myself to have them, however since I possess them I am entitled by documentation to operate in the US, so i possess them...

    With that said, and with considering such definition of statement, 1. Is the 1% equity? And 9% legal or vise versa? 2. How should one possess without ownership?
    Upper Tier

    Survey - first
    Claim - second
    Rights are obtained thru the Claim.

    Superior Trustee

    Those Rights are Placed into Trust and the Trustees own the Legal Title for the benefit of some class.
    Ownership of the Rights rests in the Superior Trustee

    ------

    Tangent: Rights of Use is a term which means Property. A collection of property is called an Estate.

    ------

    Inferior Trustee

    Rights of Use OF the Rights held by the Superior Trustee are held by the Inferior Trustee.
    Really one may say said Rights of Use are possessed of said Inferior Trustee - called a Terre Tenant.


    So we see that the Inferior Trustee possesses the Rights of Use or Property and you could say said Trustee holds the Rights of Use for the benefit of himself and his heirs and/or assigns. As we can see it is Impossible for the Inferior Trustee to sell, assign, convey, bargain or grant the original Right as said Inferior Trustee does not hold the Legal Title.

    In fact, we can see that the Inferior Trustee is in himself a part of a larger trust structure called Society in a Public Trust. As such, we can see that the Inferior Trustee holds the Rights of Use [property] for the benefit of himself and his heirs and/or assigns but also Society as well. For man is not an island unto himself. It is not good for the man to be alone.

    So it can be said that the one who holds the capacity of Inferior Trustee also holds the Equitable Title [for himself and his heirs and/or assigns - a class]
    and it can be said that he has the beneficial interest in the Rights of Use of the Superior Right.

    Therefore Ownership must be framed properly for at the Superior Right level the Trustee Owns the Right for the benefit a class of beneficiaries. And we can see at the Inferior Trustee level Property is Owned for the benefit a class of beneficiaries.

    The distinction is between Ownership of the Right and Ownership of Property. Therefore in the Superior Trustee is vested Ownership of the Right and in the Inferior Trustee is vested Ownership of the "Right of Use of the Right" which is a way of saying property derived of the Right.

    FOR EXAMPLE: If the Right obtained in Claim is in Land, then a Right of Use of the Land might be Residential, Commercial, Agricultural, Religious, etc., etc.

    The Inferior Trustee would then own a Residential Estate. If you look at your Trust Indenture typically called a Warranty Deed we see a Grantor and a Grantee. As such we find the Estate is sold and not the Right in Land. And we see the Land is leased which in times past was called a "quit rent". This is commonly today called a property tax. See now? The terre-trustee is paying for the ability to make a Use of the Property. Which is another way of saying the terre-trustee is using the Right of Use of Land. Whereby in the foregoing example, the Right of Use is Residential.

    Residential Estates are bought and sold all the time, and ownership of said estate is NOT ownership in the Land. The terre-trustee is allowed to use the estate and to provide maintenance for the estate and for that consideration is allowed to take profits and avails from the sale or rent of the estate.

    Nevertheless, the estate being in Residential in no way allows the user to alienate the Rights in Land. So it can be said that one has an allodial estate in fee simple. But it cannot be said that one has allodial Rights unless one is holding the Rights of the original Claim. In medieval times the ones who held the Rights in Land were often clothed in Royalty - as Earls, Dukes, Barons, Lords, etc, etc.

    If one considers carefully how the plantation called the Carolinas was originally setup - we see Earl Granville and Lord Carteret clothed in Rights. See attached.

    So to your question, and according to your analogy, the 10 percent which is the Ownership of the Right is in the Superior Trustee, the 90 percent which is in the Inferior Trustee is in the Rights of Use of said Right. We can see an Inferior Trust for we can see that Rights of Use is property and property begs an Estate.

    Tangent: It is wonderful and frightful to see so many people awakening out of their sleep. I say frightful because one of the first emotions one goes thru when one realizes the methods of control is anger. Also, there are many who don't comprehend the subtle nature of the trust and estate and as such, in desiring to own everything, have they not considered their latter end? How will they keep from gun fights in the streets? Greed blinds the eye to the possibility of society.

    I was speaking with a friend yesterday and we were discussing some of the early settlements in Pennsylvania. Families settled in the valleys and worked together to form society. These families were close-knit and as such, they all were invested in the success of the whole. As such, they worked together to help each other for if too many failed, then they would all fail. That society is built upon the foundation of the family and more specifically the male and the female working the field together. Creation requires a male and a female. And as we look around who cannot see the efforts to destroy family? In this fragmentation of society, we can see that no longer are societies close-knit and personal. Rather societies are run by impersonal departments / officers of which said society turns a blind eye until problems come a-knocking at the individuals door.

    I went off on this seemingly unconnected tangent to develop the idea that in Society sometimes Rights are surrendered to a higher power so that peace may be obtained. What I mean is that while many today are awakening to anger and greed as we see this manifest in the onslaught of folks who are desirous to own everything not subject to anyone or anybody, I don't think these have truly considered their latter end. Do they really desire to return to shooting each other in the streets? Not to propagate fear, but I have traveled extensively in the world and I have seen places in the world where the ignorant rule due to their strength and ability to use violence. Heck, just take a walk down to your closest public school and observe.

    I suppose we are indeed looking for middle ground. And I think the State is a beautiful creation and can operate wonderfully if we can work to consider each other first. Isn't that the "golden rule"? Do unto others, as we would have done to ourselves?

    Basically, I think that Love might be the first step but latter in maturation, we can see Love married to Faith. For we now see the Man and Woman married [Leadership and Citizen] in Holy Matrimony Under God. I will grant it seems impossible but then again, someone has to sound the trumpet. Can it be possible that we might come to Unity in terms of a plurality in Church. I think the cultures and societies formed around the world are beautiful and I would hate to see them destroyed by some political goal based on monetary gain for Oneism. Maybe it is an impossible dream, I admit I do not see the end in sight - but I can see that many are working on a counterfeit means to obtain said dream. And I think the first weapon of choice will be the economy which attacks the flesh and thus what seemingly is what man desires most in the world.

    Who is this usurper entered into the Love Feast of Man and Wife [Leadership and Citizen]? The bank? How did the bank enter - save thru lust? What was the "fruit" save born upon the sexual waters of desire?

    Is not selfishness a horrible stink?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 10-12-16 at 02:11 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    Lawful Money Trust Website

    Divine Mind Community Call - Sundays 8pm EST

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  4. #4
    You both are awesome and of course appreciate one's knowledge...I have about enough for two weeks to really break this all down...

    Allodial, amazing articles...gentlemen is a good author... I also like how he compares, I too was lead down the wrong path of principal s if you will referring to "patriot law" it helps me I guess organize my brain studies to an order...I guess there is some truth to a lie huh?

    Michael Joseph,
    You are another 'heck of an author' with this one I won't have to reread 20 times ha ha...thank you, once I'm back at my computer I will check the attachment.

    I also want to respond with some thoughts of what I've read however not able to divert distractions right now.

    Have the best of day gentlemen.

  5. #5
    I see something useful right off the bat:

    Upper Tier

    Survey - first
    Claim - second
    Rights are obtained thru the Claim.

    The Certificate of Baptism worked in Admiralty to execute the restructure of the bankruptcy (31-Day Government Shutdown - late '95) because bottomry is the basis behind "legalizing" Federal Reserve notes. All the dross (from fractionalizing) is insurance that as long as nobody redeems that particular note, it will retain value. So you can safely pass it on. That is FDIC.

    This is why I say the FRN's are stock in the Fed. If you demand redemption you get US notes, in the same form. This can only go on so long.

    Cybercurrency is making a run for it. Jaro (Sovereign Warriors) said his MLM product doubled but you can still get in... (What??) He wants your purchase before he cashes out. Then I saw an ad for gold, capitalizing on China buying into the SDR basket. Same thing! The gold bugs are selling like crazy because only those with real gold will be left with it. Try getting honor on a promise (contract) for gold after the run...
    Now China gets 20% of the IMF Trust Fund for much less, just before gold goes back into the System at $42.22/fine troy ounce.

    Point being that today is Judgment Day. Have you made your claim?

  6. #6
    At this point I figure the Old School Corporates figure they have built up enough crowd (enough victims plus enough noise to get away with it) to to take advantage of the liquidity afforded by having so many people in: i.e. time for them to bleed the machine a little. Like I said, IMHO the cybercurrency or cybercurrency systems to really pay attention to outside of the herd mind complex is: XRP/Ripple.

    It could be that if the Cain-Edom-Canaanite types hate the original jurisdiction, they will prefer currencies that have nothing to do with gold coin or silver coin which would be a motive for taking gold and silver out of circulation.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  7. #7
    Bill of Rights 1st 10 Amendments reveals 9 of them are not about possession? But at law, the person who is not in possession of the items is the one who has to prove his right to them. If he can't then the possessor remains in possession.If u have purchased gold at $1200.00 FRn a ounce whats legal the paperwork or its certificate or the ounce.u cant influence the gold just its paperwork they will prefer currencies that have nothing to do with gold coin or silver coin.

  8. #8
    I understand.

    Soooo...100 cents of a public trust is 1.00 credit voucher for beneficiaries accessing public funds?

    In return, competently bonding such received equity for 1.00 to the trust for beneficiaries would be 100 certificates from said issuer and one holding such with New inherited bonded title sent by a competent trustee and the certificate is both legal and equitable lawful title and full Administration of Estate in the beauty form of lawful money...in my meaning is all the Equity held by such 'entity' when administered that 1.00 lawful money Trump's all equity of private credit...

  9. #9
    The question begs an answer whose law is fact whose law is fiction?

    The united states code or the internal revenue code.

    IMHO The internal revenue code accounts for the serial number on the federal reserve note
    "And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"

  10. #10
    Or...what is the difference between LEGAL tender and LAWFUL money? One would answer maybe Good Faith Doctrine?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •