2011-08-15 Equity - 1 Public and Private Fundamentals (Christian Walters) Lecture by @quant4zelle on 3Speak
Learn how studying equity and its application can give you a working model of operating in the world in a way that's fair, just, and right. --- ▶ Watch on 3speak.tv
Tags: #equity #trusts #christianity
Equity, Public versus Private Fundamentals 1. A lecture by Christian Walters. August 15, 2011. The take notice of acknowledgement with agreement that this show under documents is private not to be construed or lied upon as being legal advice for an individual legal situation or employed for making a legal decision or performing a legal procedure is not a substitute for legal advice and or guidance by a license attorney. This private show and her documents are for academic and informational purposes only to be used at your own risk without liability to Christian Walters. By accessing and reviewing this show or using the documents therein, you understand with agreement that with all rights reserved without prejudice, Christian Walters, it's not an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Florida, or any other state, and has not given legal advice or accepted fees for legal advice, provided no assistance by none of state parties and preparation or use of hearing reference, and has no interest in any use reference therein, and there's not a party to this or any action arising from, and is only acting as authorized capacity as liaisons and communications between the parties. By reading out and using this information, you acknowledge and agree that you were not inclined to Christian Walters. These documents or show recordings are incomplete and voids without this notice agreement being attached to hand by reference in a breach of this agreement. Upon breach of this agreement, the breaching of this agreement against a $1 million dollar's discretion. I'd like to welcome everyone to this edition of money banking and trust by moving titles in commerce. I'm your host, Christian Walters. Welcome to this August 15th, 2012 edition, and welcome to NTT as New Trust Technology. We've been going over the Institutes of American Law book by Buvier, John Buvier. The quote that I really like to quote is what equity is. And this is out of Section 3724, Paragraph 4, where John states that law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything, even without law. and those who perceive what is just and what is unjust only through the eyes of law, never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity. Law may be looked upon in some manner as an assistance for those who have a weak perception of right and wrong in the same way that optical glasses are useful for those who are short-sighted or whose visual organs are deficient. Equity is true and genuine meaning is the soul and spirit of the law. Positive law is construed and rational law is made by it. John Bouvier, Institutes of American Law, 1882, Volume 2, Section 3724, Paragraph 4. Now, that man obviously knew what equity was all about. So in summary, that quote, the law is nothing without equity. That being the law, being the civil, or the statutes and codes, and the common law, equity is everything, even without law. What's that tell you? That equity is a law into itself, if you want to say so. It's the creator of the law. It's the principles which the laws were based. So equity doesn't need law because it is the source of the law, although equity has nothing to do with law. So talk about the perception of what is just and what is unjust, well, that's your discernment that you gain and have through equity, through equity eyes. You gain that perception. The law may be looked upon some matters as an assistance for those who have weak perception are right and wrong. In other words, they're lacking the discernment because they don't know and understand what equity is. Equity is the optical glasses correcting your vision of what's right and wrong, and without it, you're going to view the laws totally different. You're going to see the laws as being harsh, overburdensome, treasonous, rebellious, everything else that people complain about what they think the system is all composed of, but in their short-sightedness, they need to correct their vision because they're totally off base and wrong. The only thing in the system that needs fixed is you. Your perception of what's right and wrong is totally wacko. Equity is the true and genuine meaning is the soul and spirit of the law. It's the source, it's the creator of the law. And it comes from the God-conscious mind. Everybody wants what's fair, right, and just. Well, that's righteousness. That's the God-conscious mind. That's equity. Positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it. Rational law or civil law or common law. This is the law that's written on your heart, not the Ten Commandments. It's the knowledge of equity which you suppress in your depravity. Definition of what private is. This should correct everybody's attitude or mind, thinking that what they're doing is totally private with all your redemption methods and your set-offs and your discharges and your creations of your lien, thinking that you are operating in the private, and the set-off is in the private. That's all BS, folks. There is nothing private about that. totally 100% public. And you don't have a license to operate that way in the public. They haven't granted you one. You're trying to shove what you call a private method down their throat. And what you're doing is a public method in a public forum, and they got total control over you, and you wonder why it doesn't work. So how do I get in the private? Well, let's define what private really is. So you got your ears on? Private is any relation that you imply or express, which is your intent as a special one. The next question is, when did you ever express your intent to form any relation as a special one? And the answer to that is never, because you never did anything specially. So all your relations... than are all public. Even the ones that you think are private. Because nothing was done specifically to create a special relation. You have to step outside the box, do something special to create a private room. Nobody does that. When did you do something specially to set up your set-off for your lien? as a discharge or whatever you want to call it. Never. There's only one way to set up something special. That's through a private trust. And it's not contract. Contracts at law. That law is D.C. Debt or creditor. inherently reside in its own exclusive head in equity. That's the only place that's private equity. That's the only place where you have your substantive rights, and that's the only place your substantive rights are upheld or enforced. That is the redress for your grievance, but you don't know it exists. Today it's like the merged rules of the system, like looking at a five-gallon bucket. You got Atlaw poured in there, and you've got equity poured in there. But all you see is the outside bucket, and you think that bucket contains both of them all mixed up. If you look at the outside of the bucket, you see one bucket containing... Equity merged with at-law. No, it's not. If you'd look inside the bucket, you'd see there's a slot down the middle. Equity's poured on the right side, and at -laws poured in on the left side, and the two are totally segregated and never commingle. There's still two separate jurisdictions. Though the laws look like they've been merged, but there really haven't. of court or Florida rules of civil procedure. You can turn to any one of your states, look in your judicial rules of your court, and I'll bet you, I'll bet you, you can turn to the very first rule, and in every state, it's going to read the same thing similarly. This is rule 1.010, the very first rule. It's entitled to scope and title of the rules. The very first one. It says these rules apply to all actions of civil nature and all special statutory proceedings. Special proceedings. In the circuit courts and the county courts, except those which Florida probate rules and blah, blah, blah, or skip some stuff. Next sentence. The form, content, procedure, and time for pleading in all special statutory proceedings shall be prescribed by the statutes governing the proceeding unless, unless these rules specifically provide to the contrary. Pay attention to this next sentence. These rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. These rules shall be construed to secure the just speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. Now, under the author's comments, 1967. Explaining this rule. It says that this rule 1.101 is almost identical to formal rule A, and now abolishes the distinction between law and equity. paragraph. Talking about the criminal procedures were adopted by the Supreme Court of March 67, effective June 1st, 1968. By being applicable to all suits of civil nature, the circuit rules covered not only law and equity, skipping some, dot, dot, dot, but also special statutory proceedings. And proceedings under the various extraordinary risk. skipping two additional paragraphs. It says, our rules completely abolish the distinction between law inequity, as does Federal Rule 2, which provides that there shall be one form of action to be known as civil action. See Rule 1.040. The direction for that the rules, quote, shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, unquote, has two courses. Bingo. the bucket on the outside with its merged rules, but inside there are two courses. Two courses, one segregated from the other, one at law, and the other, equity. So they've abolished the distinction that looks like they're separate, because they look like they're merged on the outside, but on the inside, there's been no change. There's still two courses, still two jurisdictions. Go read the Maxi Center case. The Supreme Court, or no, District Court of Appeals. decision. Fairly recent. Like, 1996? Now, explain what these two courses are, what is this just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action now. It is first, a direction that if the rule needs interpretation, and it does, the state Stated objective is the guide, the guide. The direction recognizes that procedural law, or in other words, at law, is not an end in itself. So the at-law is not the at -law is not the end. takes it to the end. It is only the means to the end. And that end is the proper administration of the substantive law, or the law of substance. That's equity, folks. The procedural law or the at-law, is supposed to take you to the administration of the real, which is the substantive or equity, but nobody brings it forward. Procedural law fulfills its purpose if the substantive law is thereby administered. When did you ever get it administered? Never, because you never asked for it. You thought the rules were merged, and the only source was to take it in the procedural form up to where you should have switched it to the equity and taken it home for the win, and you never did. That's in the first rule. The very first rule, you'd never see that unless you'd studied equity and read the rule with equity eyes on. You don't know how many times I've read that and glossed over that because I never knew what equity was all about and couldn't see it, couldn't recognize it. There it is, staring you in the face, and you can't say that they didn't tell you. In the very first one in Chapter 2, 2.01. states that you have equity available to you. It doesn't say equity per se at all, but it says that you have those, what England had at 1776, and what did England have at 1776? Equity. It says that is in full force and effect in America today. Can't take it away from you, just like the Declaration of Independence says, you've got unalienable rights that cannot be taken away from you. You just have been... put to sleep, never knowing that you even had them in the beginning. Everybody knows they want something that's fair, just, and right, but they just don't know what it is. They don't know what their rights are, and they don't know how to enforce it. But there really is two separate jurisdiction, and always will be. They're not taking your substantive rights away from you. You are. You never claim them. You waive them. You come in with an at-law case due to the signing of your contract, which is all debt-acreditor. If you don't like being in court on the at-law side, don't do debt-acreditor. Or you better know how to invoke the other side, which is really an executory contract, two of them, and executor contracts are... really two trusts. They're not contracts. Contracts in tort at law. These are not contracts. These are executory contracts are in equity. They're two trusts. You fail to bring the consideration for the first trust, which is your so-called D .C. contract that they're using to foreclose on you. The consideration for that one is the second one in equity. Merge the two together, you got zero. You got termination of whatever they're asking for. It's better have the purpose of the second trust not being, say, for the receiving of the house. No, it better be for the extinguishment of the debt. Because if it's just for the house, you got the house, and that one's executed and that trust is terminated. If there is another purpose, then the trust isn't terminated, and that purpose needs to be the extinguishment of the debt. If that one's for the extinguishment of the debt, when you merge that with the first, they've terminated. If the defendant, who is being forfeited and foreclosed on with penalties. What is being extracted from him is going to the plaintiff. On the so-called D.C. side, on a contract secured by a mortgage, that defendant is also the beneficiary on the other side. On the other side is the beneficiary, he's the sole owner of the trust. Whatever is taken from the so-called defendant that the plaintiff gives, the plaintiff is the trustee on the second trust, and that trustee owes a duty to the beneficiary because it's the set of key. The set of key or the beneficiary is the owner of the trust. He gets all the assets. He's the one who has the right to take from the trustee. And if the trustee is the plaintiff on the other side, then what he's extracting from the defendant goes right back through the trustee, back to the beneficiary, and he gets the very thing that's being extracted from him. The whole point is moot. It's a wash. The one cancels the other out. If you don't understand that, you're stuck in la-la land. Equity abhors forfeitures and penalties. What's the at-law side doing all the time? Extracting forfeitures and penalties. Equity abhors forfeitures and penalties. Equity ignores fictions fictions. It's the only place that the real substance can be seen as the real man and woman. It's all about rights. I got the right to the ownership of the thing. It has no value of, say, $50,000. Its value is, it's mine. Now, John Bouvier's book, 4094. Let's get a couple pages done on this. Page 584 in the book or 594 in the PDF, Section 4094. As to the origin of bills, it will not be required in the work of this kind to go into long details of their history. If you want history, go to Spence. Read Spence's book up. It explains the history of equity really great. Balmary says, I don't need to talk about history. Spence did a great job on that. I'm going to talk about something else. So is Bouvier. And the work for this kind, to go into a long details of their history, it will perhaps be sufficient to state that they have, by degrees, been reduced to a perfect system, though at first they were extremely simple, being a mere petition to the king, which was referred to him as his chancellor. And of course, this time, this petition was addressed to the chancellor himself, and afterward to assume the irregular and uniform frame. It was stated in the cause of the complaint that this was followed by prayer to the court to grant suitable relief. Okay, one word about prayer. I'm not afraid to ask for a prayer at the end, because I'm not praying to the court. I'm praying to the God-conscious mind. The king at that time, when this was all put down writing, was to represent the consciousness of God in heaven. He was supposed to represent what was fair, just, and right. So I'm not praying to a man, I'm not praying to a court system, I'm praying to the God-conscious mind. So this was followed by a prayer to the court to grant suitable relief. Like every other thing human, by degrees, the bill was improved so that we now find it, to what we now find it. Bill's in equity were doubtless barred from the civil and canon law, and later was in respect copied from the former. Now, I want to go back to that and say, okay, it didn't come. It may have copied some things from it, but where did it all come from? Where was its source? It goes right back to the source, which is the God conscious mind again. God has always known about equity. Always has known. Equity is his nature. Man came along and finally recognized what it was. And maybe the Romans recognized it, or maybe it's in civil and maybe in canon law, ecclesiastes, or whatever, but they're not the first source of it. They're just the recognition of what God knew all along. It's been there since time began. It's nothing new. It's new to us, because we never knew about it. So it's analogous to the civil or canon law, ecclesiastics, or the Roman civil law, but it's not because its source is really from the creator, God himself. The bills and equity doubtless barred from the civil and canon law, and latter was, in many respects, copied from the former. The early English chancelers were generally ecclesiastics, accustomed to the jurisprudence of those two systems, and naturally introduced into English law many of the principles and maxims, which they had learned, which are founded for most part in common sense and sound reason. Now, where did they get that from? They got that from studying the Bible, because the Bible is sold. It's replete of examples of equity in there, if you had the eyes to see it. One of the prime examples is the adulterous woman. If you got legal spectacles on, you'll say, okay, that happened was he released her because there were no showing of the witnesses, and they couldn't proceed with the case, and therefore, okay, there was no case, so that she had... had to be released. No, she knew being God of her sin. In fact, he talked to her about it. Him being a perfect God, he should have stoned her, right then and there. But he didn't. Why not? Because he wasn't operating by law, because the letter of the law kills you. He was applying grace. which is the flip-side coin, on the other side, is equity. Grace proceeds out of equity, and equity is the God-conscious will. It is the mind of God. He wants to administer everything fair, just, and right. And Solomon would be a prime example of that. So it's not just the Plesiastes, they read it from their Bibles. They took the examples of the adulterous woman and many others, because they could see the equity in the Bible, not the law. There's not a preacher on the face of the earth today that is preaching equity from the Bible. They're all preaching at law. They're giving you the interpretation of the Bible from the at-law perspective. None of them can see from the other side, which is equity, because they give you the... at-law interpretation of the adulterous woman, and not the equitable one. You need a different perspective. Romans 122 says, you need a paradigm shift. You need to shift your mind from at -law to equity. Now, to understand the will of God, the conscious mind of God, we've come up with these so-called pithy statements. They're called the Principia. What they are is a brief summary of what the equitable example was, say, the adulterous woman. And they've come up with what they call maxims to help you understand what is really all about equity. What is fair, what is right, what is just. And this whole system of equity, jurisprudence, its principle that it operates on are the maxims. Like a train track. The train runs freely…