The public adhesion contract is a construed private trust

[§N9sh2bj]

In a private trust, not all parties need to be notified that a trust exists.

http://21silver.com/guests/alfred_adask ... stees.html

Read It!

you god-damn dirty apes.  :mrgreen:

[targa2]

I think that the use of adhesion contracts  as they are implemented by governments is very deceptive because we should be able to assume that something we created to act in our best inerest would not act deceptively.  However the notion that an implied contract between private parties is not really a contract because it does not meet the standards of what most people see as a " common law contract" is simply wrong.

Many commercial interactions are engaged in between people where there is no " meeting of the minds " perse, but there is still a need to have some sort of legal recource  between the parties should complications arrise.

 I will give a real life example.  

A local boat dealership that I have done some part time winter sales for got into a legal battle with a fellow who dropped off a boat to have them winterise it.  Apparently the guy didn't come in and do the proper paperwork and the boat just got left outside the gate.  At the end of the day the dealership typically pulls any boats outside the gate into their compound and secures them for the night.  Time went by and somehow this boat got overlooked.  The engine sustained damage from frezzing temperatures in mid- October and so the guy sued for a new engine.  The owner asked me what I thought the outcome of the case would be ,since he was told by the other sales reps that I knew my way around the law a bit.  When he told me how much work he had put into his defence I said " you are wasting your time....the judgement will be harsh and swift"....." you might as well save yourself a day in court and put a new motor in for the guy.  The owner was quite surprized at my answer since he was looking for moral support ,more so than legal advice, it seemed.    He inquired why I believed this to be the case.  I said that it comes down to a few legal Maxims  and an implied contract involved.   " He who derives the benefit ought also to to bear the burden " " I said ".  You derive a great benefit financially by selling him a new motor at retail while you pay wholesale." The State " issues you a business licence which entitles you to the benefit of access to wholesale suppliers of replacement parts which you sell to the end consumer, who is barred from access to these wholesale accessories by various laws and contract arrangements which you derive advantage from. You are also resonsible for the care of anything that you hold " in trust " for someone else.   The owner of the  boat " relies upon" you as an authority in your field of endevour.  Once you took his boat into your compound you had a trust arrangement with its owner.  You can say that it was his fault for not doing the proper paperwork ( your claim ) but the problem is that there is no real proof of this. The lack of evidence of paperwork is not as powerful , for legal evidence ,as the fact that his boat lies in your compound and in your care.  " specific evidence over-rules general evidence or hearsay " in the legal Maxim here.  You are dead in your responsibility here, and you have already lost this case.

I was right and to make matters worse the judge would not even listen to his defence.  And rightly so I say.  When are we going to start taking responsibility for our actions ?   The dealership should have better protocols for identifying anything they take into their compound as an assurance that they don't mishandle the items left in their care.  I said that in the future he should  never bring anything on his property that does not have proper paperwork to identify its origin.  I was , of course , not nearly this harsh with the owner as I sound here , but the fact remains that people will go a long way out of their way to shirk responsibility while wanting to derive advantage from their actions.  We all do it and it often constitutes a covert form of theft which violates the legal Maxim  " THOU SHALT NOT STEAL"......the most violated maxim of law in history in my humble opinion.

[§N9sh2bj]

that was a fantastic post targa2. thank you very humbly from the bottom of my heart that someone is interested in discussing a remedy instead of dismissing the entire field of law as 'owned by the jews'. They only want to make it seem that way. Ignorance does not make it true.

As there are many licensed [per your point] doctors, does not prevent one from doing healing privately while they only 'practice'.

Your point very accurately communicates a trust arrangement in the private in equity. The dealer (the trustee) did not need to be notified a trust was being created. (Private/in camera) equity sees through form to substance (leaving the boat). The intent of the grantor (the storage and conditioning), leaves the trustee only with duties (to take the boat in and store it) per the indenture (the instructions of the grantor). Now, although no one mentioned there was a trust, you've got intent, purpose, parties, res (the thing), and the transfer ( I think that's what the term is called nominally ).

Just looking around online, I found this reference:

Unlike a resulting trust, a constructive trust does not have the element of intent or an agreement, either oral or written, to create a trust relationship. Wadlington, 92 So.2d at 631. "The trust is 'constructed' by equity to prevent an unjust enrichment of one person at the expense of another as the result of fraud, undue influence, abuse of confidence or mistake in the transaction that originates the problem."

The constructive trust was created as there was a trustee, a grantor/beneficiary, the notice and statement of intent (he told the dealership) and the transfer (he left the boat, the substance), regardless of the 'mistake in the transaction', the forms. Equity intervened.


And another maxim:
The intent of the pleader is the sole factor in construing a pleading. The forms were inadmissible also because it wasn't an issue in the pleading, not something the grantor (boat owner) had an issue with.

[targa2]

The legal profession is certainly dominated by Jews but it could just as well be any other group.  I still find the whole numerical anomoly really intersting though.  As far as the Jews owning the law ....well...... the law belongs to anyone who is willing to learn about it

 Look at what John Quade said about hiring a lawyer.....that it makes you " non compus mentis "  ( not mentaly competant.  )   This is not a new idea.  If you look at the old Septuagint version of the Old Testament , in Proverbs 9. 10 it says  " knowledge of the law is the character of a SOUND MIND ".     Don't bother looking for it in the Masoretic bastardization called The King James version.......it aint the same baby !!!!

[Christopher Marlowe]

Many commercial interactions are engaged in between people where there is no " meeting of the minds " perse, but there is still a need to have some sort of legal recource between the parties should complications arrise.

See:

§ 2-207. Additional Terms in Acceptance or Confirmation.
(1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.
(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract.  Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless:
(a) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer;
(b) they materially alter it;  or
(c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received.
(3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract.  In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of this Act.

A local boat dealership that I have done some part time winter sales for got into a legal battle with a fellow who dropped off a boat to have them winterise it. Apparently the guy didn't come in and do the proper paperwork and the boat just got left outside the gate. At the end of the day the dealership typically pulls any boats outside the gate into their compound and secures them for the night. Time went by and somehow this boat got overlooked. The engine sustained damage from frezzing temperatures in mid- October and so the guy sued for a new engine.

Sounds like he became a bailee. He should have sued for storage space.

A bailment is formed by the delivery of personal property, without transfer of title, by a bailor to a bailee, usually under an agreement for a particular purpose, after which the property is returned or otherwise disposed of.
I. ELEMENTS OF A BAILMENT
A. PERSONAL PROPERTY
Only personal property (tangible or intangible) is bailable.
B. DELIVERY OF POSSESSION (WITHOUT TITLE)
A bailee must (1) be given exclusive possession and control of the property and (2) knowingly accept it. Delivery may be actual or constructive.....
III. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE BAILEE
A. RIGHTS OF THE BAILEE....
3. Right of Compensation
A bailee has a right to be compensated as agreed and to be reimbursed for costs and services in the keeping of the property. To enforce this right, a bailee can place a lien on the property.
4. Right to Limit Liability
Bailees can limit their liability as long as—
a. Limitations Are Called to the Attention of the Bailor
Fine print on the back of a ticket stub is not sufficient.
b. Limitations Are Not Against Public Policy
Exculpatory clauses are carefully scrutinized by the courts and, in bailments, often held to be illegal. If a bailee attempts to exclude liability for his or her own negligence, the clause is unenforceable.
B. DUTIES OF THE BAILEE
1. Duty of Care
Bailees must exercise care over the property in their possession or be liable in tort. The appropriate standard is—
a. Slight Care
         In bailments for the sole benefit of the bailor, the bailee is liable only for gross negligence.
b. Great Care
In bailments for the sole benefit of the bailee, the bailee is liable for even slight negligence.
c. Ordinary Care
In bailments for the mutual benefit of both parties, the bailee is liable for a failure to use reasonable care.....
4. Presumption of Negligence
When the bailee has the property and damage occurs that normally results only from someone's negligence, the bailee's negligence is presumed. The bailee must prove that he or she was not at fault.

----------------
As for the original article, I'm not one to critique someone for thinking outside the box, but there are several points of law here with which I would take issue.

This whole essay could be read as one long straw man: the author presents the case that the court uses Trust law in all these instances, and then proposes that people can wriggle free from the court by showing that Trust Law is inapplicable.  

While it is true that the court may proceed in equity sua sponte or through the pleadings, and thereby employ a constructive trust as a remedy, I think it is a mistake to assume Trust Law as governing every other facet of law. There are different branches of law for different types of conflicts. Trust Law concepts are used in equity sometimes because it will achieve a more just or a more beneficial remedy to the plaintiff. For example, in the CIA case cited above, it was noted that the CIA had two contracts with the defendant, yet they chose to proceed in equity. By proceeding in equity, the CIA could establish an equitable trust as the remedy.  If the CIA chose to proceed in contract law, they could have only sought damages. What were the CIA's damages? If they told you, they'd have to... aw forget it. By establishing an equitable trust the CIA could get the profits from the book.  Lawyers often fashion their complaint with an eye on the remedy their client desires. That's good lawyering.  

When a marriage is dissolved, the court is dividing a legal fiction of "community property" into which both parties voluntarily entered.  It doesn't make sense that a person would enter into that union with another, knowing that all the property earned from that point is earned by the community of their union.   He jumped through the hoops to establish a "community property" entity, but then later objects when the same legal system has to dissolve that entity?  To complain at about the court's jurisdiction at that point sounds hypocritical. Perhaps he should have been more careful about choosing the woman he married.  The problem in that instance is not the court, but rather the union.  The divorce cannot be blamed on the court. There were a lot of things that went wrong before that point.

The issue of "no fault" as I understand it, allows one party to break the marriage contract without cause, and then proceed to equitably divide the community property estate without suffering any detriment for having failed to uphold the contract. I could see this as being unfair to a man whose wife has just decided she didn't want to stay married. She would proceed to take half their stuff, and while the law may not create a presumption of custody in her favor, studies show that the overwhelming majority of cases result in wives taking sole custody.

A study by Joseph McNabb of Laboure College found that mothers obtained sole physical custody 83.2 percent of the time, fathers obtained sole custody 8.8 percent of the time, and joint custody was only awarded 8 percent of the time.
The Boston Globe; Don't leave fathers out of custody cases By Rinaldo Del Gallo III; March 11, 2008

The theory that "no fault" has been used to get around laws of equitable seems to make some sense in this instance, as the principle of "unclean hands" would not allow a guilty party to use the court to profit from her misdeeds.  

The proposed solution is still weak because the equitable principles of establishing a constructive trust are remedial. It does no good to argue that the party didn't establish a valid Trust. Of course not: its a legal fiction. The real solution does not lie at the court level because the legislature has created the "no fault" premise.

There seems to be a popular groundswell here, on DBS' site, and elsewhere, promoting that "Freeman on the Land" return to common law. I have no opinion as to the validity of that movement, but it seems to promote a belief that certain methods can be employed to question the jurisdiction of the court and avoid judgment. I don't think this is one of those situations.

[§N9sh2bj]

I'm going to heavily quote from your text chris as not to pick it apart but you bring up many good points.

First off, the text from alfred (21silver beneficiaries vs trustees) is only used here in a limited sense to illustrate the point that behind public 'contract law' there are trusts operating in the background, in the private. Posting it was to generate discussion. I don't want to get too distracted.

At-law is public, and equity is private. True equity, not post 1933 Equity which is really like this:
If you draw an upside down T and on the left side is the public and on the right side is the private, on the left side, the public is further divided into public and private. An example: there is an implied confidentiality agreement between a lawyer and client (public version of private), *not* the same as a non-disclosure agreement document (private). We got a sample of one from an attorney who is not a jerk, and guess what? It reads exactly like a trust indenture (a set of orders to the trustee).

So now I'm going to zero in on what you wrote:

§ 2-207.

I'm not interested in their statutes. Private pre-1933 equity trust trumps statutes every time where there is no at-law remedy, IF the real man invokes it. You can't use a lawyer, and the real man must be invoking substantive rights (which he must of course realize he has) and not what the public calls 'rights', which are really just (public) benefits.

Sounds like he became a bailee. He should have sued for storage space.

This is an at-law solution. He may have success doing it, but he'd have better results and far less paperwork in private-equity trust.

This whole essay could be read as one long straw man: the author presents the case that the court uses Trust law in all these instances, and then proposes that people can wriggle free from the court by showing that Trust Law is inapplicable.

If that's the case, it's not what I'm pointing out per my earlier, limited focus. So here I should mention because a link is posted does not mean I endorse every detail in it, or think it's correct. With your interpretation of al's article, I'd agree. Al's coming at it from a long history of at-law study, and sees this other way, and instead of embracing it is rejecting it - except, It's not that private trust in equity are inapplicable, it's instead that it is primary,and one goes into it, if one is the age of majority (not a ward, infant, insane, minor, etc), and approaches it as the grantor/settlor always. Like john said, you are the king.

[Christopher Marlowe]

At-law is public, and equity is private. True equity, not post 1933 Equity which is really like this:
If you draw an upside down T and on the left side is the public and on the right side is the private, on the left side, the public is further divided into public and private. An example: there is an implied confidentiality agreement between a lawyer and client (public version of private), *not* the same as a non-disclosure agreement document (private). We got a sample of one from an attorney who is not a jerk, and guess what? It reads exactly like a trust indenture (a set of orders to the trustee).

I'm not sure what to make of this. I understand that the equity courts in this country were merged with the law courts so that the judges of any court could act in both law and equity. The plaintiff will choose to act in either depending on the desired result.

From Wikipedia:
Law as opposed to equity
This connotation differentiates "common law" (or just "law") from "equity".[7][8] Before 1873, England had two parallel court systems: courts of "law" that could only award money damages and recognized only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" (courts of chancery) that could issue injunctive relief (that is, a court order to a party to do something, give something to someone, or stop doing something) and recognized trusts of property. This split propagated to many of the colonies, including the United States (see "Reception Statutes", below). For most purposes, most jurisdictions, including the U.S. federal system and most states, have merged the two courts.[11][12] Additionally, even before the separate courts were merged together, most courts were permitted to apply both law and equity, though under potentially different procedural law. Nonetheless, the historical distinction between "law" and "equity" remains important today when the case involves issues such as the following:
    * categorizing and prioritizing rights to property—for example, the same article of property often has a "legal title" and an "equitable title," and these two groups of ownership rights may be held by different people.
    * in the United States, determining whether the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial applies (a determination of a fact necessary to resolution of a "common law" claim)[13] or whether the issue will be decided by a judge (issues of what the law is, and all issues relating to equity).[cf. 7th Amendment: In Suits  at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.]
    * the standard of review and degree of deference given by an appellate tribunal to the decision of the lower tribunal under review (issues of law are reviewed de novo, that is, "as if new" from scratch by the appellate tribunal, while most issues of equity are reviewed for "abuse of discretion," that is, with great deference to the tribunal below).
   * the remedies available and rules of procedure to be applied.

So now I'm going to zero in on what you wrote:

§ 2-207.

I'm not interested in their statutes. Private pre-1933 equity trust trumps statutes every time where there is no at-law remedy, IF the real man invokes it. You can't use a lawyer, and the real man must be invoking substantive rights (which he must of course realize he has) and not what the public calls 'rights', which are really just (public) benefits.

I was just citing the point made by targa: Many commercial interactions are engaged in between people where there is no " meeting of the minds " perse, but there is still a need to have some sort of legal recource between the parties should complications arrise. UCC §2-207 is on point, I think. The UCC are the basis of many state statutes, but the code is based on case law. §2-207 arises from cases where companies recognize that they are performing business under some sort of contract, but the formation process, done via standard form contracts, leaves some question as to actual the terms of the contract.

I was just providing a citation.  I could just as well have cited a case: Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd.

I'm not sure how to deal with a discussion of law that does not use citations. Law is based on Reason and Authority; One method of showing authority is citation.    

Sounds like he became a bailee. He should have sued for storage space.

This is an at-law solution. He may have success doing it, but he'd have better results and far less paperwork in private-equity trust.

I am, once again, at a loss. What does "private equity trust" mean?  I was responding targa's story:

Apparently the guy didn't come in and do the proper paperwork and the boat just got left outside the gate. At the end of the day the dealership typically pulls any boats outside the gate into their compound and secures them for the night. Time went by and somehow this boat got overlooked. The engine sustained damage from frezzing temperatures in mid- October and so the guy sued for a new engine.

If you take a guy's boat and store it inside your compound, then the court is likely to rule that you are a bailee. As targa noted, the court found the business owner liable for damage to the boat. I reasoned that the court held him liable for negligent storage of the boat because he was a bailee. I said the the business owner should have sued for storage space because he earned it as a bailee, and that would have lessened the amount owed.

How would this be different under "private equity trust"?

except, It's not that private trust in equity are inapplicable, it's instead that it is primary,and one goes into it, if one is the age of majority (not a ward, infant, insane, minor, etc), and approaches it as the grantor/settlor always. Like john said, you are the king.

I don't understand any of this. Is there some sort of reference here?

[§N9sh2bj]

I'll PM you some books and what to look for in them.

Generally, for any other readers, it's pre-1933 books on trusts and references to general versus special.
References or references to general application, apply to statutory trusts or the 'at-law' public side, and
'special' refers to private trusts.

They don't spell it out for you any clearer than that.

You can find a lot of books on archive.org.

--
I am also a student, so I may not be explaining it as clearly as I can, forgive me for that. And it's also difficult for many people who have been poured into the mould of the adversarial public at-law side for a long time, and been brainwashed by the system to only see the world in the way that they have power, their (illuminist) attorneys-at-law.

We got a sample of one from an attorney who is not a jerk, and guess what? It reads exactly like a trust indenture (a set of orders to the trustee).

Redact that point completely chris, that was a slightly mistaken interpretation and may have no meaning what-so-ever. It was a miscommunication which does not illustrate the point. We, locally, were talking about trusts and specifically asked for a sample NDA from the attorney and he gave us a sample trust agreement for whatever reason. It was interesting to read, and essentially a private trust indenture can include penalties for disclosure by the trustee. So maybe the two could be combined.. thinking about it.