Courts of Law & Courts of Equity

[Farmer]

This is a continuation from another post, buy I feel it deserves its own thread. I think this explains a lot about what is going on in courts and why some people continue to not get anywhere.

All Rights Flow From Title

Last week, I began to explore the consequences of loaning currency into circulation. I argued that:

1) Because our modern “Federal Reserve Notes” (FRNs) are loaned into circulation, the lender (the Federal Reserve System) retains legal title (right of actual ownership, control and disposal) to the green pieces of paper in your wallet;
2) You have only equitable title (right of use) to those green pieces of paper; and, therefore,
3) Because you hold only equitable title to “your” FRNs in your wallet, you can only use those FRNs to acquire equitable title to the property you purchase.

As a result, your home is not your “castle,” and you are a virtual sharecropper rather than a free man. This week, I’ll expand on that argument and its legal consequences. Remember that old "parts is parts" line from the commercial for fast food, chicken nuggets? Today, when asked about our judicial system, most Americans would similarly suppose "courts is courts". But just as some chicken nuggets might be made from chicken “parts” that you might not want to eat, some courts might not be the kind of courts you really want to appear in. In America, “courts” are not just “courts. In fact, there several kinds of courts, among which are courts of law and courts of equity. Virtually everyone supposes that when we "go to court," we go to a "court of law". While that might still be true in criminal cases—in civil and penal cases, it's not so. Instead, although few Americans have heard of “courts of equity,” that's the kind of court that hears virtually all of our modern cases. Our access to one court or the other depends on the kind of title we hold (if any) to whatever property is at issue in the court case. Those with legal title can access a court of law. Those with equitable title can only access a court of equity. Our modern "money" plays a crucial role in determining what kind of title we have to property and thus whether our cases concerning that property are heard at law or in equity. The distinction is largely unrecognized but extraordinarily important. The nature of your money can determine your rights.

• According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary (A.D. 1856) it is a maxim of law that all rights flow from title.

That is, your right to drive your car rather than my car flows from your title to "your" car. Your right to live in your home rather than live in mine flows from your title to "your" home. But if you have no title, you might still have a vague "interest" in a particular car, home or property—but you'd have no right to that car, home or property. Courts of law have but one purpose: To determine legal rights. Nothing else. But all rights flow from title, and all legal rights therefore flow from legal title. Thus, to invoke a court of law, at least one of the parties must have legal title to whatever property is in question. If neither party has legal title, then neither party can claim legal rights. If there’s no valid claim of legal right, then neither party has standing to invoke a court of law (whose only job is to determine legal rights). In courts of law, everyone—including the judge—is bound by the law. There, obedience to the law is not optional or "discretionary”—it is mandatory for all. No wiggle room. As a result, determinations by a court of law can sometimes be harsh. For example, if a cruel person held legal title to particular property, he could exploit that title to drive an impoverished mother and her children from that property. Courts of law could be merciless against anyone lacking legal title. Once one party proved that he had legal title, his right to control a particular property however he liked was virtually unlimited. No matter what sort of villain he might be, if he had legal title, everyone (including the judge) was bound to respect his exclusive right to control that property.

• In part because of the occasionally harsh decisions in courts of law—but more so because most people lacked legal title to property—courts of equity were created. These courts were designed to settle disputes between individuals squabbling over property for which neither litigant held legal title and thus neither litigant had a legal right. For example, suppose you and your neighbor rented homes, side-by-side. Neither of you actually owned legal title to your home, but each renter had an equitable right to use his particular home. Suppose you two squabbled over who had right to harvest the apples on a tree growing at the boundary between your rented homes. Since neither renter had legal title or legal right to either piece of land, neither renter has legal right to all the apples. Therefore your case couldn't be heard in a court of law. However, in the interest of reducing social discord, the same judge who couldn't hear your case at law will instead hear your case in equity. In a court of equity, the judge is not bound by law but instead, rules strictly according to his own conscience. In the case of the disputed apples, the judge will probably decide that regardless of the location of the apple tree's trunk, each litigant will be entitled to harvest whatever apples are growing on his side of the property line. Sounds fair, right? And that's the object of equity: to achieve fairness, justice between litigants who have an equitable interest in a particular property, but no legal title or legal right. But note that while the “honorable” old judge may reach a fair decision in the court of equity, he's not obligated to do so. If the judge in equity doesn't like the color or your skin, your gender, or your politics, he can—in his "discretion"—rule against you. If the judge has been having sex with your neighbor, he can rule against you. So long as he is bound only by his own conscience (not by law) and no one knows what his conscience says but him, a judge in equity is empowered to rule virtually any way he wants. In equity, we have “rule by man” (a judge) rather than rule by law. The litigants on the other hand (lacking legal title and legal rights) are fundamentally helpless, entirely dependent on the judge's alleged "conscience" and are essentially reduced to the status of beggars. ("Please, please, Mr. Judge, gimme some apples!") Although courts of equity were ostensibly created to foster justice among those impoverished persons who had no legal title or legal rights to a particular property, those courts constitute an open invitation to judicial tyranny. Anyone who's been around the courts for long has heard of horror stories in which judges reached decisions that were grossly unfair, unjust, biased or seemingly insane. Such decisions seem inexplicable to anyone who presumes the cases were heard in courts of law. However, if the case was heard in equity (and most are), the bizarre decisions were entirely lawful since, in equity, the law no longer controls. In courts of equity, you can present law, case law, regulations, and such. The lawyers do it all the time. And the kindly judge will politely listen and pretend all that research into “law” makes a difference. He may even rule in accord with the relevant "law". But in the end, he's not bound by any of that "law". His only criteria for deciding the case will be his own alleged "conscience". If he wants to rule in accord with the law, he can. If he wants to ignore the law, he can do that, too. His power to decide any way he wants is virtually absolute. And you can bet that corruption has closely followed that absolute power.

• Implication: Without legal title, you have no standing to invoke a court of law. Without legal title to the property in question, you have no access to a court of law. Without legal title, you have one form of relief only: to throw yourself on the "mercy" (alleged conscience) of the court of equity and hope for the best. Without legal title, you are necessarily subject to judicial tyranny.

• Now consider this: There are three forms of title. There's some variation in the names, but essentially they are: legal title (the right of ownership, control and disposal of property); equitable title (the right to use the property); and, perfect or complete title (which contains both legal and equitable combined). The difference between the three titles can be illustrated by considering a man who has "perfect" or "complete" title to a house. He owns the house (has legal title to control it to the exclusion of all others) and he lives in the house (has equitable title to use the house). But he could divide the perfect title to the home into its legal and equitable sub-titles. He could keep ownership (legal title) for himself, and rent the house (provide equitable title, right of use) to someone else. As with “parts are parts,” and “courts are courts,” the idea that all “titles are title” is mistaken. Not all titles are "created equal". You can do some things with legal title that you can't do with an equitable title. You can do some things with the equitable title that you can't do with only the legal title. More importantly, contrary to what most people suppose, not all titles are "legal titles" (titles of true ownership and control). Some are merely equitable titles, which convey an equitable interest in a particular property, but no legal rights. As a result, it's possible to have a "title" to piece of property (your car, for example) and assume it's the "legal" or "perfect" title when, in fact, it's really just an "equitable" title. So if you had only an equitable title to "your" car, you not only wouldn't truly own the car, you'd be subject to whatever rules were made for the car by the true owner (the entity that held legal title). If the owner said you must have a driver’s license, registration and insurance before you could use "his" car, you'd have no legal basis to argue against the owner's rules. You could raise the Constitution or even the Magna Charta, but so long as you had only equitable title to the vehicle, you'd be absolutely subject to whatever rules were made by the person or entity that held legal title to the car. More, anytime you went to court over an issue involving "your" car—because you didn't have legal title—your case would be heard in equity (or perhaps administration) where the judge could rule anyway he liked. And if the judge happened to work for the same entity (say, the state) that owned legal title to "your" car, you can bet that the judge's "conscience" would compel him to rule against you and in favor of his boss (the state) virtually every time. Could that happen? It does happen. Virtually every time. The reason the state can order you to have license, registration and insurance to drive your car is because it's not really "your" car. You only have equitable title a right of use, much like a renter. The state owns legal title to virtually all cars and can thus compel all drivers to obey the state-owner's rules. Without legal title, you have no legal rights relative to the car, and virtually no defense against any decision reached by a judge in equity based strictly on his "conscience". The same scenario applies to any property—even your children— if you don't have legal title. No legal title. No legal rights. No standing in law. No access to courts of law. Those four phrases are synonymous. To say any one is to imply the other three. Which brings us back (finally) to the nature of money and the fact that our currency (FRNs) are loaned into circulation. Because the legal title to the loaned FRNs remains with the original lender (Federal Reserve System), those who make purchases with FRNs can acquire equitable—but not legal—title to property. Thus, by means of using FRNs to make purchases, we may be unwittingly stripping ourselves of legal title and our standing at law relative to property purchased. Federal Reserve Notes can be extremely hazardous to your political health. By means of using FRNs, you can be reduced from the status of a free man to that of a sharecropper. There is more to money than counting.

• Do you begin to see why legal title is so important? If so, you should begin to see why eliminating our current, debt-based “legal tender” (FRNs) and returning to an asset-based (gold & silver) money is so important—not merely to your prosperity, but to your liberty. The nature of your money is more important than its magnitude. The nature of your will ultimately determine your prosperity and even your liberty. These conclusions were supported by the Hon. Howard Buffet, US Congressman from Nebraska who said in part in his A.D. 1948 “Is Time Propitious?” speech that: “Most opponents of free coinage of gold admit that that restoration is essential, but claim the time is not propitious. Some argue that there would be a scramble for gold and our enormous gold reserves would soon be exhausted. Actually this argument simply points up the case. If there is so little confidence in our currency that restoration of gold coin would cause our gold stocks to disappear, then we must act promptly. . . . “Our finances will never be brought into order until Congress is compelled to do so. Making our money redeemable in gold will create this compulsion. “The paper money disease has been a pleasant habit thus far and will not be dropped voluntarily any more than a dope user will without a struggle give up narcotics. . . . Because of our economic strength the paper money disease here may take many years to run its course. “When that day arrives, our political rulers will probably find that foreign war and ruthless regimentation is the cunning alternative to domestic strife. That was the way out for the paper-money economy of Hitler and others. . . . I warn you that politicians of both parties will oppose the restoration of gold, although they may outwardly seemingly favor it. . . . But, unless you are willing to surrender your children and your country to galloping inflation, war and slavery, then this cause demands your support. For if human liberty is to survive in America, we must win the battle to restore honest money. “There is no more important challenge facing us than this issue—the restoration of your freedom to secure gold in exchange for the fruits of your labor.

[pitano1]

hi farmer.
good post,highlighting our slave status as`a person` in great detail.

so...no legal title,..no access to a fair trial.

no anything realy...life is but a dream `eh`...till you wake up.

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

For your consideration:

Maxims of Equity

Equity regarding what ought to be done
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
Equity delights in equality
One who seeks equity must do equity
Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights
Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation
Equity acts in personam
Equity abhors a forfeiture
Equity does not require an idle gesture
One who comes into equity must come with clean hands
Equity delights to do justice and not by halves
Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits
Equity follows the law
Equity will not aid a volunteer
Between equal equities the law will prevail
Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee

Without limitation, the maxims in italics would seem to contradict large parts of the theory presented in the essay.

Namaste

[retlaw]

§ 333. Mutilation of national bank obligations

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.



Law and Equity Act (canada)

If rules of equity and law conflict, equity prevails
44  Generally in all matters not particularly mentioned in this Act in which there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity prevail.



upon researching the word "right",
one is lead to think that the way her majesty presents that word that it is a noun,

but

if you look at "in right" it becomes an adverb,

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

RIGHT, adv.

6.It is prefixed to titles; as in right honorable; right reverend.

the word takes on a different mean from noun to adverb,

some other interesting definitions,

2.In this latter sense alone, will this word be here considered. Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty. 1 Toull. n. 96.

11.Rights are also divided into legal and equitable. The former are those where the party has the legal title to a thing, and in that case, his remedy for an infringement of it, is by an action in a court of law. Although the person holding the legal title may have no actual interest, but hold only as trustee, the suit must be in his name, and not in general, in that of the cestui que trust. 1 East, 497 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20. The latter, or equitable rights, are those which may be enforced in a court of equity by the cestui que trust. See, generally, Bouv. Ins t. Index, h. t. Remedy.

is this not the answer for why "summoned to appear in the name of her majesty" is printed on warrants?

this is what the word "in" says,

Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition
IN AUTRE DROIT. In another's right. An executor, administrator or trustee, is said to have the property confided to him in such character, in autre droit.

[holy vehm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)