Equity requires the liberal arts and sciences known as the Trivium and Quadrivium. It's Natural law but it doesn't have anything to do with abstract objects known as corporate bodies as its obfuscation and a dimwit.
In Australia, common law and equity were combined in the current courts. In the State judicial acts, (some states it's known as the Supreme Court act) it says where there is a controversy between the common law and equity, the rules of equity shall prevail. There is a bloke named Mark Pytellek who uses the rules of equity in the court for his cases. He'll ask "what's my equitable remedy?" and if the judge claims there's no equity in that court, then he will say "That may or may not be true sir, however I'll reserve my rights to the rules of equity and I'll invoke it. Thanks". If he knows the prosecutor has 0 evidence against him, then he will say he's happy to pay the fine 4-fold, but if the prosecutor can't provide evidence then he must pay him 4-fold. It's still an honour/dishonour system, and as a debtor (unless you don't consent to the Trust surety) we must pay. Saying no is belligerent and dishonourable. If we can't pay, we must ask for our equitable remedy.
IF one does not know and understand the origin of the Maxim's of Equity, then how is one going to ever properly use and apply the Maxim's of Equity? You're understanding of, "Equity follows the law," completely exposes that you have no such foundation, which is why you completely misunderstand its practical application. If you actually did know, you would be competent enough to wield its power, righteously. • What does one know and understand about the origin of the Maxim's of Equity? • From whence do the Maxim's of Equity come? • In other words, what is the SOURCE for the Maxim's of Equity?! • You said, "...canons of Equity," yes? • Do you have any idea what that Canon is? "He who seeks equity must do equity," is extended to, "Claimants?" You really do not know and understand what Equity is all about. Just by suggesting that in some way equity involves a claimant(s) you have once again demonstrated that your lack of understanding its origin and history opens the door wide to the folly of commingling two completely different venue. It is also most interesting how to sped through two of thee most important Equity Maxim's... "Equity will not aid a volunteer," and the version of the one following, which is misquoted is... "Equity will not complete an imperfect gift." The importance of these two Equity Maxim's along with the Maxim's of Law, "God, not man, makes the Heir," and, "That which is expressed extinguishes that which is implied," literally when put into action, correctly, outlines the road map for one to exit being under the rule and law of administration of bankruptcy. That, by the way, is the God-ordained duty of your corporation-government. Governments of this world, ALL OF THEM are ordained to administrate the prodigal sons until they either, "...make their call and election sure," or fail to do so. The connection for how to use these maxim's, and a couple of others properly, correctly and most importantly PEACEFULLY is not for expounding upon in this very PUBLIC VENUE. That is only a conversation that can be done, "Privately." By the way, are you aware that there are over 70 Maxim's of Equity? One might want to seek out the rest of them. It might give one clues as to its history and origin.
![POLYCAT - ข้อความรูปยิ้ม [Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lBhIgPGCgbI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Equity Short: Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17](/img/n.gif)
A Master in the self making sense of explanation through simplicity my friend without knowing... Is Blessing in Disguise
thanku so much.it is helpful.
plz elaborate maxim no 9
Fruitful comment
Can you possibly speak _any_ slower?? Are you hourly??
Equity requires the liberal arts and sciences known as the Trivium and Quadrivium. It's Natural law but it doesn't have anything to do with abstract objects known as corporate bodies as its obfuscation and a dimwit.
In Australia, common law and equity were combined in the current courts. In the State judicial acts, (some states it's known as the Supreme Court act) it says where there is a controversy between the common law and equity, the rules of equity shall prevail. There is a bloke named Mark Pytellek who uses the rules of equity in the court for his cases. He'll ask "what's my equitable remedy?" and if the judge claims there's no equity in that court, then he will say "That may or may not be true sir, however I'll reserve my rights to the rules of equity and I'll invoke it. Thanks". If he knows the prosecutor has 0 evidence against him, then he will say he's happy to pay the fine 4-fold, but if the prosecutor can't provide evidence then he must pay him 4-fold. It's still an honour/dishonour system, and as a debtor (unless you don't consent to the Trust surety) we must pay. Saying no is belligerent and dishonourable. If we can't pay, we must ask for our equitable remedy.
IF one does not know and understand the origin of the Maxim's of Equity, then how is one going to ever properly use and apply the Maxim's of Equity?
You're understanding of, "Equity follows the law," completely exposes that you have no such foundation, which is why you completely misunderstand its practical application.
If you actually did know, you would be competent enough to wield its power, righteously.
• What does one know and understand about the origin of the Maxim's of Equity?
• From whence do the Maxim's of Equity come?
• In other words, what is the SOURCE for the Maxim's of Equity?!
• You said, "...canons of Equity," yes?
• Do you have any idea what that Canon is?
"He who seeks equity must do equity," is extended to, "Claimants?" You really do not know and understand what Equity is all about. Just by suggesting that in some way equity involves a claimant(s) you have once again demonstrated that your lack of understanding its origin and history opens the door wide to the folly of commingling two completely different venue.
It is also most interesting how to sped through two of thee most important Equity Maxim's...
"Equity will not aid a volunteer," and the version of the one following, which is misquoted is...
"Equity will not complete an imperfect gift."
The importance of these two Equity Maxim's along with the Maxim's of Law,
"God, not man, makes the Heir," and, "That which is expressed extinguishes that which is implied," literally when put into action, correctly, outlines the road map for one to exit being under the rule and law of administration of bankruptcy. That, by the way, is the God-ordained duty of your corporation-government. Governments of this world, ALL OF THEM are ordained to administrate the prodigal sons until they either, "...make their call and election sure," or fail to do so. The connection for how to use these maxim's, and a couple of others properly, correctly and most importantly PEACEFULLY is not for expounding upon in this very PUBLIC VENUE. That is only a conversation that can be done, "Privately."
By the way, are you aware that there are over 70 Maxim's of Equity?
One might want to seek out the rest of them. It might give one clues as to its history and origin.
How can one be so ______ as you are and not have the ______ to point the rest of ignorologists in the enlightened direction? Just wondering.
What is the trust that the narrator refers to?
@racer exile my thoughts exactly! I've tried searching for them on duckgo but found very little so far.
Any pointers where I could learn more abou this? :)
⚡️🔥🔥🔥