Mortgages and Notes

palani · #41 06/01/10, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

Nope, I think my understanding of your integrity is quite sufficient and I'm glad I haven't had the misfortune of doing business with you. Good day!

My guess would be that we are doubly so blessed.

Forerunner · #42 06/01/10, 01:25 PM

What people fail to acknowledge is the true nature of the "federal reserve note".

It is a promise to pay--nothing more. It is NOT payment.

Furthermore, it is a promise to pay, issued at interest, issued by liars who will not back that note with substance of any kind.

Congress made it "illegal" for US citizens to use real money for the very fact that real property could be bought and owned if they did.....
We can assure ourselves in naive self-righteousness that we are doing the "right" thing by "paying" with a promissory note backed by nothing but nothing. The "liars" even publish their intent and rules of the game, but still people fail to see.

Willow Girl did make one valid and noteworthy point.... the people, by and large, want the paper, and not the gold. Therein is our only--and weak-- salvation.

If you really want to be honorable, carry the paper and some real metal money.
Give the proprietor a choice. That would be honest, upright, forthcoming.....
To take advantage of the ignorant by offering them legal tender in payment of a debt is not honorable and never will be.

Palani.... you did err in your reference to having nothing more than an equitable title. Equitable title is what has been lost. Having equitable title is having true title to the land.
Legal title is what has replaced it, and legal title is what can be taxed, regulated and taken away on arbitrary whim. Legal title, on anything, is all that is allowed a slave.

America has, by the consent of most, become the largest slave-owning plantation on the planet. Enjoy the chains while they aren't yet too uncomfortable.

palani · #43 06/01/10, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forerunner

Palani.... you did err in your reference to having nothing more than an equitable title. Equitable title is what has been lost. Having equitable title is having true title to the land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bouviers 1856 Law Dictionary

LEGAL. That which is according to law. It is used in opposition to equitable, as the legal estate is, in the trustee, the equitable estate in the cestui que trust. Vide Powell on Mortg. Index, h. t.

2. The party who has the legal title, has alone the right to seek a remedy for a wrong to his estate, in a court of law, though he may have no beneficial interest in it. The equitable owner, is he who has not the legal estate, but is entitled to the beneficial interest.

3. The person who holds the legal estate for the benefit of another, is called a trustee; he who has the beneficiary interest and does not hold the legal title, is called the beneficiary, or more technically, the cestui que trust.

4. When the trustee has a claim, he must enforce his right in a court of equity, for he cannot sue any one at law, in his own name; 1 East, 497; 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20; still less can he in such court sue his own trustee. 1 East, 497.

If there is a trust then equity created it while Law (and its' little orphan "legal") deal with contracts. Law deals with substance. Law has been at odds with equity for at least 400-500 years. Think of Law as patriarchal and equity as matriarchal. When dealing with Law there will be two or more judges sitting on the bench, one being of the quorum (more learned). With courts of equity you get one black robbed drag queen chancellor sitting 4 feet above the floor issuing ultimatums.

Trusts are how the government works its' scams and trusts fall under equity. You want to keep your distance from equity. It is a slippery slope.

Forerunner · #44 06/01/10, 09:40 PM

The riddle can be somewhat further revealed in line 2 of your Bouviers reference.

The distinction is clearly made between he who has legal title and yet no beneficial interest..... and he who is the equitable owner enjoying the beneficial interest.
The question people need to be asking themselves is, who is the equitable owner ?
Agreed, equity for equity sake IS a slippery slope, but equitable title is allodial title.
The equitable owner is the one to whom the tax is ultimately paid.
I'd still like to know who that guy is.
I know this much.....it ain't the county, state or fed......

bowdonkey · #45 06/02/10, 06:14 AM

I asked a wealthy friend about this. I don't have a clue about what you all are talking about. I don't understand what he said either. But palini is right, I guess! You really don't own anything.

palani · #46 06/02/10, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forerunner

The riddle can be somewhat further revealed in line 2 of your Bouviers reference.

The distinction is clearly made between he who has legal title and yet no beneficial interest..... and he who is the equitable owner enjoying the beneficial interest.
The question people need to be asking themselves is, who is the equitable owner ?
Agreed, equity for equity sake IS a slippery slope, but equitable title is allodial title.
The equitable owner is the one to whom the tax is ultimately paid.
I'd still like to know who that guy is.
I know this much.....it ain't the county, state or fed......

The subject of whether it is Law or whether it is Equity has intentionally been made murky. If you find yourself in a court of Law you ought not present principles understood better by a court of Equity. The opposite statement is also true. In either type of court adherence to principles they don't understand generally is going to result in psych evaluation and chemical treatment.

An answer closer to the truth is that the title that is best depends upon whose court you have chosen to allow jurisdiction.

Title is a piece of paper while ownership is much more expensive. "Buying the farm" as expressed in the Marines has an entirely differing meaning than the same statement issued by an Amishman. One is the owner while the other holds mere title.

palani · #47 06/02/10, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowdonkey

I asked a wealthy friend about this. I don't have a clue about what you all are talking about. I don't understand what he said either.

Was it something like "Control everything, own nothing?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowdonkey

But palini is right, I guess! You really don't own anything.

I don't follow my own advice. I carry a $5 gold piece to ward off magistrates who might othewise choose to call me a vagrant and I hold $21 in silver coin to show I am not insolvent. I consider these things my line in the sand. The state cannot claim absolute ownership over ALL things when there are these exceptions.

By the way, coins are alloidal in nature. They are also called "portable earth". Whoever possesses them is the owner. The only way they might be distinguished is by the container they are carried in. There is no title associated with them.