The inherent relationship between sovereignty and the known equitable maxims.
What exactly is equity?
Equity, as an exclusive-jurisdiction of law, is a set of maxims (or established principles) that are meant to be relating to living men/women only. It takes into consideration the intents, morality and conscience of individuals with respect to a breach of trust and/or contract. These maxims are held in an exclusive-jurisdiction and is separate from other concurrent-jurisdictions of law such as legislative, admiralty, case law (which is colorable common law), all of which are meant to be relating to legal-entities, legal-persons, corporations and so on.
Similarly, the common Law Pure Trust (cLPT) foundation is also domiciled within its own exclusive-jurisdiction (similar to that of Express Trusts setup in equity-jurisdiction) and is not affected by any colourable jurisdictions of local law (statute, legislative, admiralty etc). However, the parties to a cLPT would also inherently (automatically and naturally) apply the maxims of equity where there is dispute over some trust property and/or breach of some contract. For instance, the equitable maxim of: ‘equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud’ can be upheld within the minds of the Antrustiones (trust officers and agents). That is to say, the trust officer will take the position of dishonour of a contract offer (with UCc 3-503) and reserve his/her birthright (with UCc 1-308), should there be some degree of unconscionable behaviour by one or more parties to the contract. In this context, the trust officer is exercising the equity maxim inherently (mentally), by virtue of his/her move toward a dishonour and reservation of birthright, with respect of the contract in breach.
Some of the popular Maxims of Equity are listed as follows:
01 Equity sees that as done what ought to be done
02 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
03 Equity delights in equality/Equality is equity
04 One who seeks equity must do equity
05 Equity aids the vigilant not the indolent
06 Equity imputes an intent to fulfil an obligation
07 Equity acts in personam and not in rem
08 Equity abhors a forfeiture
09 Equity does not require an idle gesture
10 He who comes into equity must come with clean hands
11 Equity delights to do justice and not by halves
12 Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits
13 Equity follows the law
14 Equity will not assist a volunteer
15 Where equities are equal, the law will prevail
16 Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail
17 Equity will not complete an imperfect gift
18 Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
19 Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee
20 Equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner of property.
As can be seen, these equitable maxims are largely inherent within us. They are based on our inner conscience, morality and standards of good judgement and fairness. Thusly, the maxims are invoked and activated based on the inner rationale and conscience of the individual parties to a trust, contract, agreement or other arrangements.
Another example of the point being made is with the equity maxim of: ‘equity acts in personam and not in rem’. This maxim must always be upheld within the minds of the Antrustiones (trust officers and agents). That is to say, the trust officer must always remember to act within his/her human capacity-(personam) and not as if presumed to be a legal or commercial entity-(rem).
Another way to view these maxims, in the context of a trust officer of the cLPT, is to replace the word equity with ‘sovereign(s)’, ‘the sovereign’ or ‘sovereignty’, wherever appropriate. E.g:
a) Sovereigns will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
b) The Sovereign acts in personam and not in rem
c) Sovereignty regards the beneficiary as the true owner of property.
Looking at the Maxims of Equity this way, puts responsibility squarely on the mind of the sovereign individual. The sovereign individual literally becomes the maxims; and he/she expresses the maxims in their day to day activities, and not solely where a problem arises that needs a remedy.
Fleshing it out:
a) The Sovereign will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
The ordained and certified sovereign must always be aware that statutes, legislations and acts of parliamentary bodies are literally based on several prime directives. One of these prime directives is within a commercial and monetary context. In other words; it is all about how much revenue can be generated, from a summoned ‘case’ at hand, for the benefit of the courts and the plaintiff/ claimant etc.
Take for example, an individual who is in breach of repayments on a loan-contract based upon the fact he/she had become very ill and was unable to work. The lender (bank) may literally disregard any presented proof of illness, based on some non-disclosed reasons. Then, the bank issues a standard default-notice and thereafter pursue a case against the individual for payment recovery. Usually this may be regarded as an open and shut case, if the individual accepts the lender’s case by operation of law. But on the contrary, the ordained or certified sovereign would exercise his/her birthright by dishonoring the lender’s claim (with UCc 3-503). This effectively means that the sovereign is putting all obligations of the loan-agreement on hold, until a conscionable consensus can be reached between both parties.
The fraud aspect of the loan-agreement is another subject-matter within itself to consider. It is the understanding of many individuals within the banking space, that loan-agreements are treated as promissory notes. These promissory notes are taken by the bank and put on ledger as an asset from which the loan-amount is literally created. Put another way, the promissory note is taken to be an asset within itself and thus it is converted and held as money on account. The bank then literally loans the money back to the individual. With this understanding (although very difficult to prove publicly), the sovereign my view the situation in a way as if to say: these processes were not disclosed on the loan-agreement, and thus presume that the bank acted fraudulently [non-disclosure is considered unconscionable in personam]. But on the side of the bank, the process would be deemed as: well within their banking laws and in accordance with their inner policies.
Either way, the account would now be labelled as ‘in dispute’ until a mutually benefiting arrangement can be made between the parties.
b) The Sovereign acts in personam and not in rem
The ordained and certified sovereign expresses him/herself through physical form, in personam, and by no other means man-made. Acting in personam relates to your personal character, your individuality (including mind). When you were born, your mother was obligated to register your birth with the State. Thus, a fictional legal entity was created in your name albeit all upper case. E.g: JOHN HENRY DOE. A certificate of live birth was issued. This is the creation of a legal-entity, which is fictional inasmuch that it is a lifeless dead-entity that only exists on paper. Claims made against individuals, whether at the county courts or magistrate courts, are made against this fictional legal-entity and not against the real living man/woman in personam. Claims made in personam are usually made at the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division; since this is where the judge (lord or master) is expected to deal with the matter in personam and not in rem. Likewise the mind of the sovereign individual man/woman always acts in personam, whilst reserving all his/her natural birthright (UCc 1-308).
There are several landmark cases in England where this equity maxim was exercised,. E.g: Westdeutsche Landesbank .v. Islington LBC 1996. In this House of Lords case, Lord Selbourne stated that: “The courts of equity in England are, and always have been, courts of conscience, operating in personam and not in rem…”
That is to say, the courts of equity will only act or make judgement considering the conscience of the individual defendant in relation to the particular case before it. This is the general rule of equity, as opposed to making judgement based upon some violated statute, legislation or contract, which would be to pass judgement in rem.
c) The Sovereign regards the beneficiary as the true owner of property
This maxim ought to be a self-evident truth. That is to say, the general provisions of a trust (whether implied, construed or expressed in an indenture) would always hold that the one who is enjoying all the rights, benefits and privileges of the trust property is not just the beneficiary, but also the true owner. In other words, the equitable title and interest of the trust property belongs to the beneficiary. The legal title of the trust, however, is held by the Trustee(s) who would have very specific duties in accordance with the trust indenture, for and on behalf of the beneficiary. Should there be some breach of trust on the conscience of the trustee(s), it is the beneficiary (the sovereign) who would have rights of enforcement against the trustee.
To conclude, the sovereign individual is one who is very much aware of their birthright as ordained upon him/her by the creator. It is the birthright of the sovereign to enjoy life, liberty and happiness including all natural-benefits without the intervention or disruption of legal-entities (who normally operate in rem, and not in personam).
At FRRf, we encourage that the readers study the 20 Maxims diligently and re-contextualize them into their own life experiences. Much information can be found online that explains the said maxims in more detail. See Wikipedia link below: