User talk:MarcFitzBall

Welcome!

Hi MarcFitzBall! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Law of Property Act 1925

Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Law of Property Act 1925, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Needs detailed sourcing please, for example "the fundamental device", "the only way", "do not have to accept". Also typo "by put by" makes the meaning unclear. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael thank you for your help. I notice that you were a patent attorney. I landed my first patent last September it took 5 years as I drafted it about a month before omnibus claims were abolished and also I had to defend the description against about fifty prior arts ..And also I would like to have a go at the statute of Merton 20 Hen 3 ch.X where attorney are appointed to go in suit and start from there in to "things" like patent attorney mostly because I am mentioned in 20 Hen 3 ch.XI as "English" law. and illegitimate is not in the Latin of the vulgate Bible

fundamental device

trust for sale is used 73 times in the original draft LPA and after TOLATA 1996 abolished it only left in 16 times and half of those in the margins. It is defined in LPA 1925 s. 205 General definitions.xxix a definition amended after 71 years by its repeal in 1996/7. There is a mention of it as the nadir of English law in https://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Product/Trusts-Law/Drafting-Trusts-and-Will-Trusts/Hardback/43131218#okay-to-continue which has an extract floating on the web from which I got nadir from http://www.kessler.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Kessler_Drafting_Trusts_and_Will_Trusts.pdf although I don't know if kessiers definition is still in the latest Edition because of the effect of TOLATA 1995 came in the year after that 1995 extract so ref. the 1995 edition

My inclination is to cite trust for sale to its definition in the act as section 205 or is it that it is the use of "fundamental device" that needs attention so should I draft along the lines of "Trust of sale, LPA 1925 s.205(XXIX),the nadir of English law..citation? And put drafting trust and wills in the references where there is another sweetandmaxwell.

I note in the wiki page references [2] Law of Property Act 1925 s 209(2) s. that 209(2) which originally says 2)This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-six., has been removed on the gov page by Statute Law Revision Act 1950 (14 Geo. 6 c. 6) and that it links to [2] Commencement in the thingy box. Sorry I have not the terminology yet and then the gov page link goes off into this multiverse https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/14/6 What I think I am trying to say is that TforS was the fundamental device in 1925 but I wonder if there is a another term presumably legal, that is used? Trust for sale was written on deeds for property sales by joint tenants up until 1996

Would you have any thoughts on the fundamental device citation before I have a go at the other points raised? Gratefully appreciated. Marc MarcFitzBall (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marc, thanks for replying. Having looked in detail at this edit and some of your others, I think you are trying to do something which is incompatible with Wikipedia's policies. Many of your edits go far beyond what is stated in the sources, and introduce your own interpretation of aspects of English law. Even if I were to agree with your interpretations (and I fear that I very often do not), you are introducing original research, which is absolutely not permitted.

In the discussion above, for example, your reference to something being a "fundamental device" appears to go beyond what sources say - although I am unable to check as my computer warns that the pdf you linked to is an unsafe file. In any event, the number of times a particular phrase appears in primary legislation cannot be interpreted in the absence of any reliable secondary source as an indication of its legal importance.

I'm afraid I'll have to revert some of your earlier edits. I'll send you a specific message for each one, explaining why, and if you disagree with any of them the usual process would be to open a discussion on the corresponding talk page - see the procedure at WP:BRD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael Thank you for your reply and direction to original research from a patent attorney to an inventor! I must admit that my patent has gone to my head and I can't help think that I do look at everything in a novel way although I did not invent the phrase and I have applied it to a legal device which was only a thing when it was written on a deed and has now been abolished by democracy. If it would hel Could I change fundamental device to something like "was" the nadir of English law and cite Kessler? This is what was published in 1995 "The trust for sale represents the Nadia of English law." The nadir of English law was abolished in 1996 a year latter.

s and contact sweetandmaxwell.co.uk or Kessler and check the reference but is seems that for now we could reference the 2nd Edition of Drafting Trusts and Will Trusts James Kessler (1995) 31.124.221.34 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were to establish a specific source for "nadir of English law", that out-of-context comment doesn't fit into the article at that point. The fact that something may be citable, and even may be true, doesn't necessarily mean it should be added to the encyclopedia. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it depend who is saying it? I am defined in the statute of Merton ch. 9. Do you understand what that means for English law against your claim that you are an attorney? I would say that your language is Englandick and I put the k in deliberately as an original invention. MarcFitzBall (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't understand where you are going with this. ~~ MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal if you look at the translation of ch.9 it has the barons claiming that bastardy is a term in the law of the realm but the Latin says Leges Anglie. Why would somebody translate that as law of the Realm to put it in a book called statutes of the realm? The other issue is is bastardi an Anglie word? You have it that William 1 is a bastard but I have never found it as a contemporary word used on him there is this wiki page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bastard#:~:text=However%20chronology%20makes%20this%20difficult,the%2013c.%2C%20making%20it%20too

and then there is the argument in ch. 9 saying that it is not a word in the bible(my interpretation) and then there is Wycliffe use of it once in his translation of ""spurious " for Goliath 1 Samuel 17:23 which I presume was from the Latin. Tyndall then drop it and we are moved by the Toudors in to bastardy being associated in the poor law with whoresons and making fathers pay fines to the parish and do contrition for adulatory or fornication MarcFitzBall (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney at law

No source for "first mentioned" or for the English translation which appears to be WP:OR. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Statute of Merton 1235/36 ch.X

Pvisum [insup'] qd quitt lið homo qui sectam debet ad Com Trithing, Hundf, & Wapentacâ, vt ad cuř dñi sui liße possit facere attorñ suū ad sectas illas p eo faciend. It translated in the Statutes of the Realm as

X. IT is Provided and granted, that every Freeman, which Attornies in oweth Suit to the County, Trything, Hundred, and County Courts. Wapentake, or to the Court of his Lord, may freely make his Attorney to do those Suits for him.

I have tried to get at the original without success but is it that the patent attorney page need updating? MarcFitzBall (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the article for you, using a corrected version of the corrupted OCR that you've pasted above. Don't think we need to quote the whole phrase in Latin as well. I've omitted "first mentioned", as we don't have a source for that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Michael there is hope for me yet. I pasted the Latin OCR out of https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000017915496&seq=182 as a buyer beware as I do not agree with many of the translations as I haven't as yet got close to the original. The other day I got a booklet of the Merton priory trust but it's 16 th century copy; I don't like lib homo translated as one word prefer free man because I suggest Freeman is consensus. Where did you get the translation from. You have to watch out for married peoples interpretations. Is a Freeman married? The statute of Merton starts off with dowers which interpret as spousal pensions and then it is wards and getting married in time everything is married or special bastardy, my statusless mind it is all started in clause 54 in the Magna Carta... MarcFitzBall (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The translation was published in Statutes of the Realm. If you click on the little [1] above the quote, that will show you the reference. Then, click on the blue link which will take you straight to the page the translation comes from. The Latin is nearby, as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could an image of the Latin be put above the translation? MarcFitzBall (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It technically could be, but I don't think it's warranted in that article. The Latin word, its meaning and context in English are given, and that's what an English-language reader is likely to need. As this is an English encyclopdia, editors tend to frown on big chunks of non-English text. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is two words in that Latin used in the Statue of the Realm and I don't agree that its meaning is understood. One thing that I don't understand about Freeman is how could you tell that's is what they are by looking at them? What would make more sense to me is that they were called Freeholders as used in the Bill of Rights The original should be in the court rolls and I cannot find it through British history on line. I have got a cropped image of the Stat Realm but as you have seen I am very clunky on using images. MarcFitzBall (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stack v Dowden

Unclear what is meant by "Stack and Dowdens' agreement as a receipt to sell 114 Chatsworth Road, signed 2005, two years before the House of Lords, all married people, claimed to have the authority in 2007 to judge an order to sell over families' land with no marital status when the abolition of the Doctrine of Conversion had been abolished in 1996." MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stack and dowdens' family are defined under the legitimacy Act 1976 s.2 Legitimation by subsequent marriage [F1or civil partnership] of [F2mother and father]. How can you have laws that define a relationship for life and then have a House of Lords going around saying the relationship is over, sell the families house in 2007 when stack and Dowden by their signatures have already consented to and sold the house two years earlier without a trust for sale. The legitimacy law can only have been invented by married people and is a punishment put on to the children. The example of stack and Dowden is that the law is sentencing those children to remain illegitimate for the rest of their lives. Have you a religious status because all the Judges in this case were married, Hale twice. That is a status. There is a third way which is to have no status and the people with no status are the parents mentioned in the statute of Merton ch.p9 in which the clergy point out to Hen 3 that all children are legitimate for succession and the barons disagree and invent something called Leges Anglie and that is written down and in the very next chapter we have the replacement in all the courts in the land where real men used to accuse each other in person and apparently only wives could accuse people of murdering their husbands presumably because in the anarchy.there were a lot of hen 1 illegitimates around complicating the succession. Unfortunately englandick history like all the histories of the world made marriage the basis of social control, Bible, twelve tables, Magna Carta clause 54 and then people like Wycliffe, Stow, you and me translated them with our status hence just before Adam bit off the fruit of knowledge vir was translated as husband so hence in the book of common prayer 192- the solemnisation vows say man and wife and why in German Mann means husband depending on context.

what happened in this case is that dowdens solicitors had control of the conveyance they had been given that in the family court where illegitimate families should not be and presumably encouraged Dowden to go for more than fifty fifty, Hale then twisted TOLATA 14 to make it look like stack and Dowden were joint tenants or not so she could get them past the "a "person" can apply and then got them passed 14 (3)you can not add or take away trustees and the confused 14(2)(a) and (b) by declaring the function of a beneficiary [93] MarcFitzBall (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marital status

Edits have alraedy been reverted by Jlwoodwa who was unable to understand them. I can't either. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage is not a thing anymore and nor was it ever.. It is data and it is a data set that cannot be agreed to by people like me who have no marital or religious status There used to be a time when people would sneak into churches and alter the registry. In those olden times marriage was a thing as in recorded in a registry, Elizabeth Pierrepont, Duchess of Kingston-upon-Hull but people like me as defined in ch9 of the statute of Merton as Leges Anglie and then attorneys were invented to translate my words into Norman French along with beaupleaders. MarcFitzBall (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perjury Act 1911

Nobody signs a contract "to be governed by Parliament and democracy". That makes no legal sense. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The perjury act is an act of parliament which claims it is a democratic institution. The marriage ceremony starts with a notification of where you live. I have never been through it but you sign a council form and provide evidence of utility bills id etc. that's all contained in the Perjury Act 1911 s.3 your signing up to a full mixture of penal servitude to a £100 fine and if you take marriage law back to the clandestine marriage act 1753 you are condoning/relying on hanging and colonisation of America and the Australia. MarcFitzBall (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consent of the governed

English common law says no such thing. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Law does not say things Michael. I think that I have tried to point out that common law and English law are not the same by inference from the statute of Merton ch9 and 10. I am presuming that your parents were married and that you yourselves are also married. Do you not think that is clouding your judgments? MarcFitzBall (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Law Act 1977

You have entirely misunderstood section 2. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As what have I entirely misunderstood section 2? MarcFitzBall (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sexual Offences Act 2003, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Unsourced, and incorrectly implies that married couples have some exemption from the offences mentioned in the preceding sentence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would a citation be the act its self. The problem that I am have in is that I am using an iPad and my fingers are too clumsy and then there is my eyesight which is about shot. MarcFitzBall (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where could it be put without it implying what's been put before? MarcFitzBall (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A statute can act as a source, yes, but the citation must be specific and quote the section number. Your sentence doesn't fit at all unless somebody (not me) is prepared to expand the article very significantly to cover the provisions that were adopted from the old Sexual Offences Act 1956. Without a discussion of those, your sentence sits on the page with no possible reference to anything else. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Patent. This is your last warning. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own private legal theories that are unknown to any competent lawyer. I have made significant efforts to help you, but you appear intent on making edits that simply publicise your personal and entirely unsupported world-view. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]