Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

derek moran
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

derek moran
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

iamsomedude
Administrator


therefore, when the birth record is AUTHETICATED what do you have?
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

derek moran
Canadian Business Law - emp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

Fathers son
Until modern statutory reforms in contract law, a seal was widely recognised by courts in common law jurisdictions as removing the need for consideration (value) in a contract. This reflects classical contract theory, in which consideration was viewed as a formal aspect of a contract, so that a seal could be considered an alternative form. A seal was not per se a type of consideration, but rather raised a presumption of consideration (courts have varied in their opinions of whether this presumption was rebuttable). See, e.g., Marine Contractors Co. Inc. v. Hurley, 365 Mass. 280, 285-86 (1974).

The rationale for this special treatment of sealed contracts can be understood in terms of the legal formalities that are associated with sealing a document with a wax seal. Firstly, the following of the legal formality of affixing a seal to a document was evidence of the existence of a contract. Secondly, the need to use a seal – widely known to have legal significance – served to impress upon the parties the significance of the agreement being made. This element of deliberation is important in the context of many legal theories for why donative promises are not generally enforceable in the same way as contracts: there is a concern that donative promises are sometimes made under pressure (for example, from family members) without adequate deliberation, which explains why a requirement for the legal formality of the seal might substitute for consideration to give enforceability to donative promises. Thirdly, the following of the legal formalities through the use of a seal demonstrated beyond doubt that a legal transaction was intended by the parties.[1]

In addition to these three abstract reasons, there may also have been a more practical reason, namely that the object used to imprint the wax, usually an engraved signet ring, identified its owner, thereby providing evidence that the owner of the seal was party to the contract.

Besides substituting for consideration, other consequences of the seal that, at least historically, have held include:[2]

even payment did not discharge a sealed contract, if the instrument itself was not physically destroyed.[3]
fraud was not permitted as a defence to a sealed contract
subsequent modifications to a sealed contract were not binding except where the modifications were also under seal.
a principal not designated as such in the contract (undisclosed principal) could not be connected to the contract if it was sealed.[4]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

derek moran
In reply to this post by derek moran

...thoughts on this Boris?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

derek moran
the birth certificate is a document UNDER SEAL

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

robbo
Hi! Fella!

Not sure what it is in America, but it is certainly NOT that in England.

There are so many myths about BC- I find that most of the stuff on these type of forums is nonsense and the same old bull shit gets banded about by dis-information agents ( I am not referring to you).

I found a conversation in Hansard-the public recordings of UK parliament ( 1962)and I discovered that there is a Birth of Entry that can be issued under Common law, but a kind of trick occurs through the legitimation act 1926 and births and deaths act 1953 whereby it gets issued under Statute Law. One cannot find the BC under Common Law only a lawyer can see the technical difference.

It is my belief from evidence off the Monarchist League website that only Elizabeth mary alexander ( so-called Queen ) has this kind of certificate as then she is under Common Law as it is described on website that her Nationality is England, NOT a language called English/ British. She is NOT under Statute Law and thus is NOT under Private International Law-which is woven into National Laws through UNIDROIT. She requires NO passport to travel the world. The Pope does.

She is settled and you and I have been transported and thus engaged in fictitious 'interstate'' ( state=status/ Estate) commerce.

Robbo




Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 25 May 2018 12:20 PM, derek moran [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <[hidden email]> wrote:

the birth certificate is a document UNDER SEAL





To start a new topic under UNDERGROUND CANTINA, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from UNDERGROUND CANTINA, click here.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

Deknees
So Robbo,

Nothing to see here then....go back to your TVs, right?
The fact that the queen is different, doesn't mean anything either?

What is your solution, Robbo?


Denise Elizabeth


On Fri, May 25, 2018, 4:10 AM robbo [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi! Fella!

Not sure what it is in America, but it is certainly NOT that in England.

There are so many myths about BC- I find that most of the stuff on these type of forums is nonsense and the same old bull shit gets banded about by dis-information agents ( I am not referring to you).

I found a conversation in Hansard-the public recordings of UK parliament ( 1962)and I discovered that there is a Birth of Entry that can be issued under Common law, but a kind of trick occurs through the legitimation act 1926 and births and deaths act 1953 whereby it gets issued under Statute Law. One cannot find the BC under Common Law only a lawyer can see the technical difference.

It is my belief from evidence off the Monarchist League website that only Elizabeth mary alexander ( so-called Queen ) has this kind of certificate as then she is under Common Law as it is described on website that her Nationality is England, NOT a language called English/ British. She is NOT under Statute Law and thus is NOT under Private International Law-which is woven into National Laws through UNIDROIT. She requires NO passport to travel the world. The Pope does.

She is settled and you and I have been transported and thus engaged in fictitious 'interstate'' ( state=status/ Estate) commerce.

Robbo




Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 25 May 2018 12:20 PM, derek moran [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <[hidden email]> wrote:

the birth certificate is a document UNDER SEAL





To start a new topic under UNDERGROUND CANTINA, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from UNDERGROUND CANTINA, click here.




To start a new topic under UNDERGROUND CANTINA, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from UNDERGROUND CANTINA, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seal/Specialty/own consideration, a promise IS trust property - Waters 'Law of Trusts in Canada' text

Jack Mehoff
In reply to this post by robbo
the BC is in reality a LEASE of the Usufructuary interest in a piece of land (inhabitant; living soul) pledged for the benefit of the public as surety for the national debtdebt. (Contract under seal) (refer to: http://iamsomedude.com/notice_contract.html)

If the nation is to belong to the people and the people to be Kings of their own Estates (interests), the people MUST learn that the Nation's Treasury is a "treasury common to all" and must be funded by the Kings so the EMPIRE/Nation can expand and survive. In essence, the BC is evidence of a "self-governing dominion held in trust" (State as usufruct and Inhabitant as Naked Owner thus BOTH person and nation stand secured) that the people have FAILED to claim by way of expression (what is expressed renders what is implied silent and, by the Universal divine law of "equal and opposite effect," whatever is NOT expressed grants whatever is implied with voice).

In the United States, it appears the Estate of the Decedent (NAME) is held in Trust with the State Department [31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(73)] and acts as a kind of lease. 

(refer to: http://iamsomedude.com/1856.html)
DOMINIUM, empire, domain. It is of three kinds: 1, Directum dominium, or usufructuary dominion; dominium utile, as between landlord and tenenant; or, 2. It is to full property, and simple property. The former is such as belongs to the cultivator of his own estate; the other is the property of a tenant. 3. Dominion acquired by the law of nations, and dominion acquired by municipal law. By the law of nations, property may be acquired by occupation, by accession, by commixtion, by use or the pernancy of the usufruct, and by tradition or delivery. (the usufruct was TAKEN at birth (purchased under UCC), thus the corresponding duties constitute a PUBLIC DEBT OBLIGATION)

Completing the delivery by way of EXPRESSING the Resulting Trust created from the Initial Registration of the Birth Event is akin to a suit of one's livery for right now, each person is both Settlor and Beneficiary of that resulting trust but since that Trust has not been expressed it is implied that the people REJECT as such, but since the State already incurred liabilities in reliance upon receiving the interest, the one withholding that interest is now the Responsible Party to settle all claims arising against the PROPERTY NAME because the usufruct is STILL held within that Estate.

Or people can keep searching for their enslavement; either way one will seek that for which one looks.


On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:10 AM, robbo [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi! Fella!

Not sure what it is in America, but it is certainly NOT that in England.

There are so many myths about BC- I find that most of the stuff on these type of forums is nonsense and the same old bull shit gets banded about by dis-information agents ( I am not referring to you).

I found a conversation in Hansard-the public recordings of UK parliament ( 1962)and I discovered that there is a Birth of Entry that can be issued under Common law, but a kind of trick occurs through the legitimation act 1926 and births and deaths act 1953 whereby it gets issued under Statute Law. One cannot find the BC under Common Law only a lawyer can see the technical difference.

It is my belief from evidence off the Monarchist League website that only Elizabeth mary alexander ( so-called Queen ) has this kind of certificate as then she is under Common Law as it is described on website that her Nationality is England, NOT a language called English/ British. She is NOT under Statute Law and thus is NOT under Private International Law-which is woven into National Laws through UNIDROIT. She requires NO passport to travel the world. The Pope does.

She is settled and you and I have been transported and thus engaged in fictitious 'interstate'' ( state=status/ Estate) commerce.

Robbo




Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 25 May 2018 12:20 PM, derek moran [via UNDERGROUND CANTINA] <[hidden email]> wrote:

the birth certificate is a document UNDER SEAL





To start a new topic under UNDERGROUND CANTINA, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from UNDERGROUND CANTINA, click here.




To start a new topic under UNDERGROUND CANTINA, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from UNDERGROUND CANTINA, click here.
NAML