‘No Due Process of Law’ (from the article /blog above ☝🏼
“Ultimately we need to challenge the Council’s and the lower Courts (Magistrate’s) in the higher Courts (Supreme Courts) for not following… ‘Due Process of Law’..!
‘Martin Geddes’… has written an excellent article, on how calling out… “the lack of due process”… can stop the council tax racket: https://newsletter.martingeddes.com/p/how-due-process-can-stop-the-council?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=2blmva&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=emai
“Ultimately we need to challenge the Council’s and the lower Courts (Magistrate’s) in the higher Courts (Supreme Courts) for not following… ‘Due Process of Law’..!
‘Martin Geddes’… has written an excellent article, on how calling out… “the lack of due process”… can stop the council tax racket: https://newsletter.martingeddes.com/p/how-due-process-can-stop-the-council?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=2blmva&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=emai
Martingeddes
How due process can stop the Council Tax racket
A summary of why Council Tax debt collection is unlawful, so demands reform
👍1
Observance of due Process of Law (1368).pdf
255.8 KB
‘Observance of Due Process of Law’ ~ Act 1368
“None shall be put to answer without due Process of Law”…
This Act currently sits on the Statute Books… and is current UK law and reads as follows:
“ITEM, At the Request of the Commons by their Petitions put forth in this Parliament, to eschew the Mischiefs and Damages done to divers of his Commons by false Accusers, which oftentimes have made their Accusations more for Revenge and singular Benefit, than for the Profit of the King, or of his People, which accused Persons, some have been taken, and sometimes caused to come before the King’s Council by Writ, and otherwise upon grievous Pain against the Law”
“It is assented and accorded, for the good Governance of the Commons, that…
“No Man be put to answer without Presentment before Justices, or Matter of Record, or by due Process and Writ original, according to the old Law of the Land”
“And if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be ‘void in the Law’; and holden for Error.”
“None shall be put to answer without due Process of Law”…
This Act currently sits on the Statute Books… and is current UK law and reads as follows:
“ITEM, At the Request of the Commons by their Petitions put forth in this Parliament, to eschew the Mischiefs and Damages done to divers of his Commons by false Accusers, which oftentimes have made their Accusations more for Revenge and singular Benefit, than for the Profit of the King, or of his People, which accused Persons, some have been taken, and sometimes caused to come before the King’s Council by Writ, and otherwise upon grievous Pain against the Law”
“It is assented and accorded, for the good Governance of the Commons, that…
“No Man be put to answer without Presentment before Justices, or Matter of Record, or by due Process and Writ original, according to the old Law of the Land”
“And if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be ‘void in the Law’; and holden for Error.”
❤1🙏1
Bill of Rights 1688.pdf
278.9 KB
Whereas: The ‘Bill of Rights Act’ 1689 clearly states:
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and null & void ‘ab initio’ ~ “from their inception, for cause”.
On 21st July 1993, Betty Boothroyd; the woman; acting in the capacity of; and doing business as; the ‘Speaker of The House of Commons’; issued a reminder to the Courts. And said:
"There has of course, been no amendment to ‘Bill of Rights’… the House is entitled to expect that the ‘Bill of Rights’ will be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts."
This states that conviction is necessary before a fine and/or penalty and/or forfeit can be imposed.
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and null & void ‘ab initio’ ~ “from their inception, for cause”.
On 21st July 1993, Betty Boothroyd; the woman; acting in the capacity of; and doing business as; the ‘Speaker of The House of Commons’; issued a reminder to the Courts. And said:
"There has of course, been no amendment to ‘Bill of Rights’… the House is entitled to expect that the ‘Bill of Rights’ will be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts."
This states that conviction is necessary before a fine and/or penalty and/or forfeit can be imposed.
The ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’; is an Act; Declaring the Rights & Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown; it is a "Constitutional Statue" and may not be repealed impliedly.
This was stated in the case ‘Thoburn v City of Sunderland’; the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment.
This was handed down in the ‘Divisional Court’ (18 February 2002) by ‘Lord Justice Laws’ and ‘Mr Justice Crane’; (i: will paraphrase, but have included a copy herein; of the judgment's relevant sections (62 & 63).
62) "We should recognise a hierarchy of ‘Acts of Parliament’: as it were "ordinary" Statutes and "Constitutional Statues".
The special status of "Constitutional Statues" follows the Special Status of ‘Constitutional Rights’.
Examples are the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1689’
63) "Ordinary Statutes may be impliedly repealed, Constitutional Statues may not… I am not aware that the ‘Road Traffic Act 1991’ makes express reference to repealing clause (39) & (40) of the ‘Magna Carta 1215’; and the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’, therefore; there can be; “no fine & or conviction” before a ‘Trial by Jury’ and is therefore imperative and absolutely necessary that; ‘Due Process of Law’ is followed and evidenced before a; “fine, penalty and/or forfeit and/or or conviction” can be imposed.”…
“It is therefore; important to consider the implications of any attempt to override and abrogate the provisions of the said; clauses (39) & (40) of the ‘Magna Carta 1215’; and the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’; and the ‘Constitutional’ considerations of doing so.”
“It will then be necessary to understand the ‘Constitutional’ considerations of ignoring the ‘Magna Carta 1215’ ~ the ‘Declaration of Rights 1688’ & the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’. And the criminal implications of liability and consequences of doing so.”
Maxims of Law
“The Common law is superior to and overarches statute law, in every case.” ~ “A statute should be harmonious with the Common Law.” ~ “Statutes are not law, and no Act, placed on the statute books as law is valid if it waives a fundamental right in order to comply with the demands of something called the state (or government).
And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding; that any evidence to the contrary exists;
This was stated in the case ‘Thoburn v City of Sunderland’; the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment.
This was handed down in the ‘Divisional Court’ (18 February 2002) by ‘Lord Justice Laws’ and ‘Mr Justice Crane’; (i: will paraphrase, but have included a copy herein; of the judgment's relevant sections (62 & 63).
62) "We should recognise a hierarchy of ‘Acts of Parliament’: as it were "ordinary" Statutes and "Constitutional Statues".
The special status of "Constitutional Statues" follows the Special Status of ‘Constitutional Rights’.
Examples are the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1689’
63) "Ordinary Statutes may be impliedly repealed, Constitutional Statues may not… I am not aware that the ‘Road Traffic Act 1991’ makes express reference to repealing clause (39) & (40) of the ‘Magna Carta 1215’; and the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’, therefore; there can be; “no fine & or conviction” before a ‘Trial by Jury’ and is therefore imperative and absolutely necessary that; ‘Due Process of Law’ is followed and evidenced before a; “fine, penalty and/or forfeit and/or or conviction” can be imposed.”…
“It is therefore; important to consider the implications of any attempt to override and abrogate the provisions of the said; clauses (39) & (40) of the ‘Magna Carta 1215’; and the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’; and the ‘Constitutional’ considerations of doing so.”
“It will then be necessary to understand the ‘Constitutional’ considerations of ignoring the ‘Magna Carta 1215’ ~ the ‘Declaration of Rights 1688’ & the ‘Bill of Rights Act 1688/9’. And the criminal implications of liability and consequences of doing so.”
Maxims of Law
“The Common law is superior to and overarches statute law, in every case.” ~ “A statute should be harmonious with the Common Law.” ~ “Statutes are not law, and no Act, placed on the statute books as law is valid if it waives a fundamental right in order to comply with the demands of something called the state (or government).
And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding; that any evidence to the contrary exists;
👍4🙏1
Legal or Lawful?
It is crucial to define the difference between ‘legal and lawful’…
The generic Constitution’s reference genuine common law.
The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal…
Is there a difference in the meanings..?
The following is quoted from: “A Dictionary of Law 1893”:
“Lawful”; In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.
“Lawful” properly implies a something conformable to; or enjoined by law.
“Legal”; a thing in the form or; after the manner of law or; binding by Law.
A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under the colour of law, is a “legal” process however defective.
“Legal” ~ Latin; ‘legalis’: Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of Law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper.
Implied or imputed in Law. Opposed to actual.
“Legal”; looks more to the letter [form/appearance].
Whereas; “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law.
“Legal”; is more appropriate for conformity, to positive Rules of Law;
“Lawful”; for accord with ethical principle.
“Legal”; imports rather, that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that the rules prescribed have been obeyed.
“Lawful”; that the right, is actful in substance, that moral equality is secured.
“Legal”; is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24.
“Legal”; matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules.
They are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express).
The ‘legal’ process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous post’s of ‘legal fictions’; being only the colour of law.
To be ‘legal’; a matter does not follow the law.
Instead, it conforms to, and follows the rules or form of law.
This may help you to understand why, the U.S. ~ ‘Federal & State Rules’ of Civil and Criminal Procedure’; are cited in every court petition, so as to conform to ‘legal requirements’ of the ‘specific juristic persons’ named, e.g.,
“STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.
Legal or Lawful?
It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful.
The generic Constitution’s reference genuine common law.
The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal…
Is there a difference in the meanings..?
The following is quoted from: “A Dictionary of Law 1893”:
Lawful; In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.
“Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law;
“Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by Law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under the colour of law, is a “legal” process however defective.
See legal. [Bold emphasis added]
“Legal” ~ Latin; ‘legalis’ Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of Law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in Law. Opposed to actual.
“Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law.
“Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law;
“Lawful” for accord with ethical principle.
“Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed;
“Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral equality is secured.
“Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24.
“Legal” matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules.
They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express).
A ‘legal’ process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous post’s of ‘legal fictions’ and being only the colour of law.
To be ‘legal’; a matter does not follow the law.
It is crucial to define the difference between ‘legal and lawful’…
The generic Constitution’s reference genuine common law.
The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal…
Is there a difference in the meanings..?
The following is quoted from: “A Dictionary of Law 1893”:
“Lawful”; In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.
“Lawful” properly implies a something conformable to; or enjoined by law.
“Legal”; a thing in the form or; after the manner of law or; binding by Law.
A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under the colour of law, is a “legal” process however defective.
“Legal” ~ Latin; ‘legalis’: Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of Law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper.
Implied or imputed in Law. Opposed to actual.
“Legal”; looks more to the letter [form/appearance].
Whereas; “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law.
“Legal”; is more appropriate for conformity, to positive Rules of Law;
“Lawful”; for accord with ethical principle.
“Legal”; imports rather, that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that the rules prescribed have been obeyed.
“Lawful”; that the right, is actful in substance, that moral equality is secured.
“Legal”; is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24.
“Legal”; matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules.
They are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express).
The ‘legal’ process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous post’s of ‘legal fictions’; being only the colour of law.
To be ‘legal’; a matter does not follow the law.
Instead, it conforms to, and follows the rules or form of law.
This may help you to understand why, the U.S. ~ ‘Federal & State Rules’ of Civil and Criminal Procedure’; are cited in every court petition, so as to conform to ‘legal requirements’ of the ‘specific juristic persons’ named, e.g.,
“STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.
Legal or Lawful?
It is crucial to define the difference between legal and lawful.
The generic Constitution’s reference genuine common law.
The present civil authorities and their courts use the word legal…
Is there a difference in the meanings..?
The following is quoted from: “A Dictionary of Law 1893”:
Lawful; In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.
“Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law;
“Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by Law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under the colour of law, is a “legal” process however defective.
See legal. [Bold emphasis added]
“Legal” ~ Latin; ‘legalis’ Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of Law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in Law. Opposed to actual.
“Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law.
“Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law;
“Lawful” for accord with ethical principle.
“Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed;
“Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral equality is secured.
“Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24.
“Legal” matters administrate, conform to, and follow rules.
They are equitable in nature and are implied (presumed) rather than actual (express).
A ‘legal’ process can be defective in law. This accords with the previous post’s of ‘legal fictions’ and being only the colour of law.
To be ‘legal’; a matter does not follow the law.
❤2👍2
Instead, it conforms to and follows the rules or form of law. This may help you to understand why the Federal and State Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure; are cited in every court petition so as to conform to ‘legal requirements’ of the ‘specific juristic persons’ named, e.g., “STATE OF GEORGIA” or the “U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” that rule the courts.
“Lawful”; matters are ethically enjoined in the ‘law of the land’ in other words; in the ‘law of the people’… and are actual… in nature, not implied..!
This is why, whatever or; whichever… “true law”… was upheld by the organic Constitutions of both the UK 🇬🇧 & the U.S.A. 🇺🇸 They are wilfully ignored and have little to no effect, bearing or authority, in the present day ‘legal administrative (Admiralty; Maritime; Commercial) corrupt courts’..!
It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today, to access, or even take cognisance, of true law, since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.
Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “colour of law,” a term which; Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:
“Colour of law”: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of ‘legal right’ ~ Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of; state law and made possible, only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “colour of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241. matters are ethically enjoined in the ‘law of the land’ in other words; the ‘law of the people’… and are actual in nature, not implied.
This is why, whatever or whichever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution, it has no bearing or authority in the present day ‘legal (corrupt) courts’.
It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today, to access, or even take cognisance, of true law, since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.
Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “colour of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:
“Colour of law”: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of ‘legal right’ ~ Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of; state law and made possible, only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “colour of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
“Lawful”; matters are ethically enjoined in the ‘law of the land’ in other words; in the ‘law of the people’… and are actual… in nature, not implied..!
This is why, whatever or; whichever… “true law”… was upheld by the organic Constitutions of both the UK 🇬🇧 & the U.S.A. 🇺🇸 They are wilfully ignored and have little to no effect, bearing or authority, in the present day ‘legal administrative (Admiralty; Maritime; Commercial) corrupt courts’..!
It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today, to access, or even take cognisance, of true law, since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.
Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “colour of law,” a term which; Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:
“Colour of law”: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of ‘legal right’ ~ Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of; state law and made possible, only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “colour of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241. matters are ethically enjoined in the ‘law of the land’ in other words; the ‘law of the people’… and are actual in nature, not implied.
This is why, whatever or whichever true law was upheld by the organic Constitution, it has no bearing or authority in the present day ‘legal (corrupt) courts’.
It is impossible for anyone in “authority” today, to access, or even take cognisance, of true law, since “authority” is the “law of necessity,” 12 USC 95.
Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “colour of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:
“Colour of law”: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of ‘legal right’ ~ Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of; state law and made possible, only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “colour of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
👍1
This is the most recent interview/talk, given by Romely Stewart of ‘Justinian Deception’ after talking a break and some down time… from all the years of hard work he and Rohan… have done to bring us all very insightful information…
Romely explains, through experience, trial and error, how he’s adapted his approach, when dealing with the corrupt ‘Admiralty and Maritime commercial Court’s in his hometown of Cairns; Queensland; Australia 🇦🇺 aka ‘Terra Australis’… due to the trials and tribulations he’s had to endure.
During a number of court appearances over the last few years. When addressing or being addressed by the courts and council’s, and in all his ‘Notice’s and paperwork.
Romely; has started dropping the use of; his [‘Last/Surname] Stewart; which the ‘Crown’ has copyrighted, by creating joinder, joining the [‘First/Given/Christian Name’] to the [‘Last/Surname’] to create a ‘legal fiction person name’ Trust Estate;
He’s also exchanged the use of terms ‘Beneficiary’… and adopted the term ‘Benefactor’… and seen what a remarkable difference both of these new adoptions is having, with a more tolerant and accommodating attitude, that the courts have now adopted towards him.
There’s so much more valuable information contained within the two parts of these videos to go into any long winded explanations here…
So it’s highly recommend you invest the time in expanding your knowledge and watch, listen, learn and absorb, the new and very valuable information contained within..!
https://youtu.be/PMl0Gbkfi0A?si=7nIfzMK6xO5K6P3y
Romely explains, through experience, trial and error, how he’s adapted his approach, when dealing with the corrupt ‘Admiralty and Maritime commercial Court’s in his hometown of Cairns; Queensland; Australia 🇦🇺 aka ‘Terra Australis’… due to the trials and tribulations he’s had to endure.
During a number of court appearances over the last few years. When addressing or being addressed by the courts and council’s, and in all his ‘Notice’s and paperwork.
Romely; has started dropping the use of; his [‘Last/Surname] Stewart; which the ‘Crown’ has copyrighted, by creating joinder, joining the [‘First/Given/Christian Name’] to the [‘Last/Surname’] to create a ‘legal fiction person name’ Trust Estate;
He’s also exchanged the use of terms ‘Beneficiary’… and adopted the term ‘Benefactor’… and seen what a remarkable difference both of these new adoptions is having, with a more tolerant and accommodating attitude, that the courts have now adopted towards him.
There’s so much more valuable information contained within the two parts of these videos to go into any long winded explanations here…
So it’s highly recommend you invest the time in expanding your knowledge and watch, listen, learn and absorb, the new and very valuable information contained within..!
https://youtu.be/PMl0Gbkfi0A?si=7nIfzMK6xO5K6P3y
YouTube
💥💥💥World Exclusive. 💥💥💥Romley Stewart of Justinian Deception is back. Pt 1 of his live presentation.
💥 Exclusive Interview: Unveiling the Extraordinary Journey of Rom, the Unyielding History Researcher and Common Law Expert!
💣 Prepare to have your mind blown as we dive deep into the remarkable story of Rom, the trailblazing history researcher and common…
💣 Prepare to have your mind blown as we dive deep into the remarkable story of Rom, the trailblazing history researcher and common…
👍1
The author ✍🏼 of this blog are very well researched…
And you’ll find a lot of great articles and solutions of how to deal with companies: council’s, utility companies. Gas, water, electricity etc…
Read this article to get an appreciation.
(Excerpt)
We often assume that a company claiming to be a supplier of electricity and/or gas is actually legally recognised and authorised as such.
But is your electricity supplier actually a legal supplier of electricity?
Schedule 6 of The Electricity Act 1989, gives ‘suppliers’ a lot of scary rights over the legal entity or person of “Mr E Smith”.
However, if we do our research we may find that our supplier isn’t a legal supplier after all… and they have been misleading us with false information.
https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2023/10/12/octopus-not-a-supplier-and-trading-insolvent
And you’ll find a lot of great articles and solutions of how to deal with companies: council’s, utility companies. Gas, water, electricity etc…
Read this article to get an appreciation.
(Excerpt)
We often assume that a company claiming to be a supplier of electricity and/or gas is actually legally recognised and authorised as such.
But is your electricity supplier actually a legal supplier of electricity?
Schedule 6 of The Electricity Act 1989, gives ‘suppliers’ a lot of scary rights over the legal entity or person of “Mr E Smith”.
However, if we do our research we may find that our supplier isn’t a legal supplier after all… and they have been misleading us with false information.
https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2023/10/12/octopus-not-a-supplier-and-trading-insolvent
Awakened England
Octopus – Not a Supplier and Trading Insolvent
The sale of our publicly owned Electricity Boards and Gas Boards in the early 1990s by the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to private, profit-making corporations, who are usually fore…
'actus servi in iis quibus opera ejus comminiter adhibita est actus domini habetur' means:
'the act of a servant, in those things in which he is usually employed, is considered the act of his master'.
This is a ‘legal maxim’ that expresses the principle of ‘Vicarious Liability’; which holds that, a master is responsible for the actions of his servant, and or agent, within the scope of his employment¹².
This maxim can be traced back to the Roman law, where it was applied to cases of delicts (or torts) at common law, committed by slaves or freedmen³.
(1) adhibita est, actus domini habetur - Academic Dictionaries and .... https://bing.com/search?q=actus+servi+in+iis+quibus+opera+ejus+comminiter+adhibita+est+actus+domini+habetur+meaning.
(2) Agency – Basilikos Nomos Institute. https://basilikosnomos.institute/resources/maxims-of-law/agency/.
(3) Definition of Actus Servi In Iis Quibus Opera Ejus Communiter Adhibita .... https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary/actus-servi-in-iis-quibus-opera-ejus-communiter-adhibita-est-actus-domini-habetur.
(4) Actus servi in iis quibus opera ejus communiter adhibita est, actus .... https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary-ballentines/actus-servi-in-iis-quibus-opera-ejus-communiter-adhibita-est-actus-domini-habetur.
'the act of a servant, in those things in which he is usually employed, is considered the act of his master'.
This is a ‘legal maxim’ that expresses the principle of ‘Vicarious Liability’; which holds that, a master is responsible for the actions of his servant, and or agent, within the scope of his employment¹².
This maxim can be traced back to the Roman law, where it was applied to cases of delicts (or torts) at common law, committed by slaves or freedmen³.
(1) adhibita est, actus domini habetur - Academic Dictionaries and .... https://bing.com/search?q=actus+servi+in+iis+quibus+opera+ejus+comminiter+adhibita+est+actus+domini+habetur+meaning.
(2) Agency – Basilikos Nomos Institute. https://basilikosnomos.institute/resources/maxims-of-law/agency/.
(3) Definition of Actus Servi In Iis Quibus Opera Ejus Communiter Adhibita .... https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary/actus-servi-in-iis-quibus-opera-ejus-communiter-adhibita-est-actus-domini-habetur.
(4) Actus servi in iis quibus opera ejus communiter adhibita est, actus .... https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary-ballentines/actus-servi-in-iis-quibus-opera-ejus-communiter-adhibita-est-actus-domini-habetur.
Bing
actus servi in iis quibus opera ejus comminiter adhibita est actus domini habetur meaning - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
The ‘Legal Maxim’ of: ‘Respondeat superior’ ~ ‘respondeat superior’..!
The Latin phrase that means "let the superior answer".
It is a legal doctrine that makes an employer or principal liable for the actions of their employee and or agent, if the employee or agent was acting within the scope of their employment or agency¹.
For example, if a delivery driver causes an accident while delivering a package for a company, the corporation; may be held responsible for the damages under ‘respondeat superior’...
This doctrine dates back to 17th century England, and is based on the principle that the superior party has control over or benefits from the actions of the inferior party².
‘Respondeat superior’… is one of the bases for:
‘Vicarious liability’; which is a broader concept that applies to various kinds of relationships³.
(1) Respondeat Superior - Definition, Examples, Cases - Legal Dictionary. https://legaldictionary.net/respondeat-superior/.
(2) https://bing.com/search?q=respondeat+superior+meaning.
(3) Respondeat Superior Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal. https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/respondeat%20superior.
(4) Respondeat Superior. https://www.britannica.com/topic/respondeat-superior.
(5) Respondeat Superior. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior.
(6) Respondeat Superior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior.
The Latin phrase that means "let the superior answer".
It is a legal doctrine that makes an employer or principal liable for the actions of their employee and or agent, if the employee or agent was acting within the scope of their employment or agency¹.
For example, if a delivery driver causes an accident while delivering a package for a company, the corporation; may be held responsible for the damages under ‘respondeat superior’...
This doctrine dates back to 17th century England, and is based on the principle that the superior party has control over or benefits from the actions of the inferior party².
‘Respondeat superior’… is one of the bases for:
‘Vicarious liability’; which is a broader concept that applies to various kinds of relationships³.
(1) Respondeat Superior - Definition, Examples, Cases - Legal Dictionary. https://legaldictionary.net/respondeat-superior/.
(2) https://bing.com/search?q=respondeat+superior+meaning.
(3) Respondeat Superior Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal. https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/respondeat%20superior.
(4) Respondeat Superior. https://www.britannica.com/topic/respondeat-superior.
(5) Respondeat Superior. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior.
(6) Respondeat Superior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior.
Legal Dictionary
Respondeat Superior - Definition, Examples, Cases
Respondeat Superior defined and explained with examples. An employer's responsibility for his employee's acts performed in the course of employment.
👍1
The rationale behind ‘respondeat superior’: is that the employer or the principal has control over or benefits from the actions of the employee or the agent, and therefore should bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.
It is also based on the idea that the employer or the principal, is in a better position to pay for the damages or to prevent the harm than the employee or the agent¹.
‘respondeat superior’: is a way of ensuring that victims of wrongful acts can obtain compensation from parties; who have more resources or insurance than the actual ‘wrongdoers’.
It is also a way of encouraging employers or principals to exercise due care and supervision over their employees or agents, and to adopt policies and practices that minimise the risk of harm².
‘respondeat superior’: is a legal doctrine, that underpins ‘vicarious liability’ in many cases, but it is not the only basis for ‘vicarious liability’.
There may be other factors that can establish ‘vicarious liability’; such as agency, partnership, or joint enterprise³.
(1) ‘‘respondeat superior’: - Definition, Examples, Cases - Legal Dictionary. https://legaldictionary.net/respondeat-superior/.
Understanding the theory of ‘respondeat superior’: liability. https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/understanding-the-theory-of-respondeat-superior-liability.
What elements must be present for ‘respondeat superior’ ? https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-elements-must-be-present-for-respondeat-superior.
‘respondeat superior’: ~ https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/respondeat-superior.
‘respondeat superior’: https://www.britannica.com/topic/respondeat-superior.
‘respondeat superior’: https://academic.oup.com/book/44146/chapter/372326106.
It is also based on the idea that the employer or the principal, is in a better position to pay for the damages or to prevent the harm than the employee or the agent¹.
‘respondeat superior’: is a way of ensuring that victims of wrongful acts can obtain compensation from parties; who have more resources or insurance than the actual ‘wrongdoers’.
It is also a way of encouraging employers or principals to exercise due care and supervision over their employees or agents, and to adopt policies and practices that minimise the risk of harm².
‘respondeat superior’: is a legal doctrine, that underpins ‘vicarious liability’ in many cases, but it is not the only basis for ‘vicarious liability’.
There may be other factors that can establish ‘vicarious liability’; such as agency, partnership, or joint enterprise³.
(1) ‘‘respondeat superior’: - Definition, Examples, Cases - Legal Dictionary. https://legaldictionary.net/respondeat-superior/.
Understanding the theory of ‘respondeat superior’: liability. https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/understanding-the-theory-of-respondeat-superior-liability.
What elements must be present for ‘respondeat superior’ ? https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-elements-must-be-present-for-respondeat-superior.
‘respondeat superior’: ~ https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/respondeat-superior.
‘respondeat superior’: https://www.britannica.com/topic/respondeat-superior.
‘respondeat superior’: https://academic.oup.com/book/44146/chapter/372326106.
Legal Dictionary
Respondeat Superior - Definition, Examples, Cases
Respondeat Superior defined and explained with examples. An employer's responsibility for his employee's acts performed in the course of employment.
👍1
‘Vicarious Liability’:
When an employer is held responsible for the actions of an employee and or agent; who causes harm to someone else while performing his or her job / duties.
For instance, if a delivery driver crashes into another car while delivering a package, the delivery company may be liable for the damages¹.
- When a parent is held responsible for the actions of a child who causes harm to someone else. For instance, if a child throws a rock at a neighbor's window and breaks it, the parent may be liable for the cost of repair².
- When a corporation is held responsible for the actions of its directors, officers or agents, who act on its behalf.
For instance, if a CEO makes a fraudulent statement that causes investors to lose money, the corporation may be liable for the losses³.
‘Vicarious liability’: is a legal concept that assigns liability to an individual or entity who did not actually cause the harm, but who has a specific superior legal relationship to the person who did cause the harm⁴.
It is based on the principle that the superior party has control over or benefits from the actions of the inferior party⁵.
‘Vicarious liability’: can help victims obtain compensation from parties who have more resources or insurance than the actual wrongdoers.
However, there may be defenses to ‘vicarious liability’; such as proving that the act was not within the scope of employment or duty, or that the act was intentional or malicious¹.
Vicarious Liability - Definition, Meaning, Examples, and Cases. https://legaldictionary.net/vicarious-liability/.
When an employer is held responsible for the actions of an employee and or agent; who causes harm to someone else while performing his or her job / duties.
For instance, if a delivery driver crashes into another car while delivering a package, the delivery company may be liable for the damages¹.
- When a parent is held responsible for the actions of a child who causes harm to someone else. For instance, if a child throws a rock at a neighbor's window and breaks it, the parent may be liable for the cost of repair².
- When a corporation is held responsible for the actions of its directors, officers or agents, who act on its behalf.
For instance, if a CEO makes a fraudulent statement that causes investors to lose money, the corporation may be liable for the losses³.
‘Vicarious liability’: is a legal concept that assigns liability to an individual or entity who did not actually cause the harm, but who has a specific superior legal relationship to the person who did cause the harm⁴.
It is based on the principle that the superior party has control over or benefits from the actions of the inferior party⁵.
‘Vicarious liability’: can help victims obtain compensation from parties who have more resources or insurance than the actual wrongdoers.
However, there may be defenses to ‘vicarious liability’; such as proving that the act was not within the scope of employment or duty, or that the act was intentional or malicious¹.
Vicarious Liability - Definition, Meaning, Examples, and Cases. https://legaldictionary.net/vicarious-liability/.
Legal Dictionary
Vicarious Liability - Definition, Meaning, Examples, and Cases
Vicarious liability defined and explained with examples. Vicarious liability is the assignment of liability to someone who did not directly cause the harm.
❤1🔥1
‘Vicarious Liability’ & the ‘Legal Maxim of ‘respondeat superior’..! What is the difference..?
‘Vicarious liability’; and the Latin Legal Maxim of Law; ‘respondeat superior’… are related legal concepts that involve holding one party liable for the actions of another party.
However, they are not exactly the same. Here is the difference:
- ‘Vicarious liability’: is a general term that refers to any situation where one party is held legally responsible for the wrongful acts of another party, based on their relationship or connection.
For example, a parent may be vicariously liable for the damages caused by their child, or, a corporation may be ‘vicariously liable’ for the fraud committed by its CEO.
- ‘Respondeat superior’: is a specific type of ‘vicarious liability’ that applies to the employer-employee / agent relationship. It is a Latin phrase that means "let the superior answer"..!
It means that an employer can be held liable for the negligence or misconduct of an employee and or agent, if the employee or agent was acting within the scope of their employment / contract.
For example, a delivery company may be liable for the injuries caused by its driver who crashes into another car while delivering a package.
The main difference between ‘vicarious liability’ and ‘respondeat superior’:
Is that ‘vicarious liability’ can apply to various kinds of relationships, whereas; ‘respondeat superior’ only applies to the employer-employee / agent relationship.
‘Respondeat superior’: is a doctrine that underpins ‘vicarious liability’ in many cases, but it is not the only basis for ‘vicarious liability’.
There may be other factors that can establish ‘vicarious liability’; such as agency, partnership, or joint enterprise.
‘Vicarious liability’; and the Latin Legal Maxim of Law; ‘respondeat superior’… are related legal concepts that involve holding one party liable for the actions of another party.
However, they are not exactly the same. Here is the difference:
- ‘Vicarious liability’: is a general term that refers to any situation where one party is held legally responsible for the wrongful acts of another party, based on their relationship or connection.
For example, a parent may be vicariously liable for the damages caused by their child, or, a corporation may be ‘vicariously liable’ for the fraud committed by its CEO.
- ‘Respondeat superior’: is a specific type of ‘vicarious liability’ that applies to the employer-employee / agent relationship. It is a Latin phrase that means "let the superior answer"..!
It means that an employer can be held liable for the negligence or misconduct of an employee and or agent, if the employee or agent was acting within the scope of their employment / contract.
For example, a delivery company may be liable for the injuries caused by its driver who crashes into another car while delivering a package.
The main difference between ‘vicarious liability’ and ‘respondeat superior’:
Is that ‘vicarious liability’ can apply to various kinds of relationships, whereas; ‘respondeat superior’ only applies to the employer-employee / agent relationship.
‘Respondeat superior’: is a doctrine that underpins ‘vicarious liability’ in many cases, but it is not the only basis for ‘vicarious liability’.
There may be other factors that can establish ‘vicarious liability’; such as agency, partnership, or joint enterprise.
🔥2
The Latin Legal Maxim of; "assignatus utitur jure autoris" means:
"an assignee is clothed with the rights of his/her principal" or "that which is assigned takes with it for its use the rights of the assignor".
It is a legal maxim that applies to the relationship between principals and agents.
It means that when a man or woman; assigns their rights to another man or woman; the assignee inherits not only the rights, but also the legal actions that can enforce those rights.
However, the value of the assigned rights cannot exceed the value of the original rights.
For example, if A assigns their right to receive £100 from B to C, then C can sue B for £100, but not more. This phrase is often used in contract law and bankruptcy law.
"assignatus utitur jure autoris" Law & Legal Definition. https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assignatus-utitur-jure-auctoris
"an assignee is clothed with the rights of his/her principal" or "that which is assigned takes with it for its use the rights of the assignor".
It is a legal maxim that applies to the relationship between principals and agents.
It means that when a man or woman; assigns their rights to another man or woman; the assignee inherits not only the rights, but also the legal actions that can enforce those rights.
However, the value of the assigned rights cannot exceed the value of the original rights.
For example, if A assigns their right to receive £100 from B to C, then C can sue B for £100, but not more. This phrase is often used in contract law and bankruptcy law.
"assignatus utitur jure autoris" Law & Legal Definition. https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assignatus-utitur-jure-auctoris
Uslegal
Assignatus Utitur Jure Auctoris Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Assignatus utitur jure auctoris is a legal maxim that is related to principals and agents. This means an assignee is clothed with the rights of his/her principal. An assignee when assigned with
🙏1
Legal Latin Phrases & Maxims.pdf
55.6 KB
“Legal Maxims”… & their Latin phrases in brief; a short and concise compilation…
🙏3
Legal Maxims in Law & Equity.pdf
7.1 MB
This book is a compilation in one work, of all known ‘Maxims’ of ‘Law & Commerce’ and their accompanying Latin phrases…
‘Maxims’ should always be written in lower case, no italics, to be grammatically correct.
The type and choice of ‘font’ when writing ✍🏼 a ‘Notice’ is optional.
However the font ‘Helvetica Neue’ with 1.2 line spacing, is an excellent choice and a good place to start, making your ‘Notice’ stand out and be💎 crystal clear…
‘Maxims’ are usually written in ‘Latin’ which as most will know is Roman in origin…
Therefore the choice of the font ‘Times New Roman’ is a good choice to write the ‘Maxim’s ONLY….
‘Times New Roman’ will appear a tad smaller, than ‘Helvetica Neue’; however it makes them more noticeable on the page.
The ‘Maxim’ in Latin should proceed the written English equivalent translation when writing ✍🏼 a ‘Notice’…
In addition by adding bold style to the first letter of the Maxim and encompassed in “quotation marks“ makes it stand out on the page… and draws the readers eye to the ‘Maxim’.
Here are some examples:
“actor qui contra regulam quid aduxit, non estaudiendus” ~ “No man can make a claim in the name of another”.
“actio ficta nomine ficti, est contumacia curiae” ~ “A claim made in the name of a fictitious plaintiff, is a contempt of court”.
“admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur.” ~ “A Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are determined by common law”
“Corporations being legal fictions, do not work loss or injury to any man; it is man, often in the name of a legal fiction, who works loss or injury to man”.
‘Maxims’ should always be written in lower case, no italics, to be grammatically correct.
The type and choice of ‘font’ when writing ✍🏼 a ‘Notice’ is optional.
However the font ‘Helvetica Neue’ with 1.2 line spacing, is an excellent choice and a good place to start, making your ‘Notice’ stand out and be
‘Maxims’ are usually written in ‘Latin’ which as most will know is Roman in origin…
Therefore the choice of the font ‘Times New Roman’ is a good choice to write the ‘Maxim’s ONLY….
‘Times New Roman’ will appear a tad smaller, than ‘Helvetica Neue’; however it makes them more noticeable on the page.
The ‘Maxim’ in Latin should proceed the written English equivalent translation when writing ✍🏼 a ‘Notice’…
In addition by adding bold style to the first letter of the Maxim and encompassed in “quotation marks“ makes it stand out on the page… and draws the readers eye to the ‘Maxim’.
Here are some examples:
“actor qui contra regulam quid aduxit, non estaudiendus” ~ “No man can make a claim in the name of another”.
“actio ficta nomine ficti, est contumacia curiae” ~ “A claim made in the name of a fictitious plaintiff, is a contempt of court”.
“admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur.” ~ “A Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are determined by common law”
“Corporations being legal fictions, do not work loss or injury to any man; it is man, often in the name of a legal fiction, who works loss or injury to man”.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍3🙏3
When writing ✍🏼‘Notice’s: 📝
Maxims of Law: The Maxim; “maxime ita dicta quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxim omnibus probetur” ~ “A maxim is so called because it’s dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved by all”.
It is prudent and astute of the Author of any ‘Notice’, to apply a liberal sprinkling throughout the ‘Notice’ being written with poignant ‘Legal Maxim’s relevant to the subject matter being dealt with…
The insertion and application of ‘Maxims’ from both ‘Law & Commerce’ demonstrates to the addressed party and whomever else, it may eventually concern…
That the Author is well researched and by adding the relevant ’Maxims’ adds a great deal of weight, credibility and veracity to your ‘Notice’… and subject matter..!
“It abides i: a man or woman; to have to comprehension how to use and apply their own ‘Legal Corrupt System’ against them; thereby enabling, we the “living men & women”; to hold these criminals feet to the flames..! 🦶🏻🔥
Maxims of Law: The Maxim; “maxime ita dicta quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxim omnibus probetur” ~ “A maxim is so called because it’s dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved by all”.
It is prudent and astute of the Author of any ‘Notice’, to apply a liberal sprinkling throughout the ‘Notice’ being written with poignant ‘Legal Maxim’s relevant to the subject matter being dealt with…
The insertion and application of ‘Maxims’ from both ‘Law & Commerce’ demonstrates to the addressed party and whomever else, it may eventually concern…
That the Author is well researched and by adding the relevant ’Maxims’ adds a great deal of weight, credibility and veracity to your ‘Notice’… and subject matter..!
“It abides i: a man or woman; to have to comprehension how to use and apply their own ‘Legal Corrupt System’ against them; thereby enabling, we the “living men & women”; to hold these criminals feet to the flames..! 🦶🏻🔥
❤3🔥2
Again… Awakened GB 🇬🇧 Hit’s Another Home Run with this Great Article…
If you haven’t sub’d to their regular e-news 🗞 letter 📝..?
Then hop on over and subscribe… and browse through their Article’s Archives…
You’ll find a wealth of great information on how to combat the; Council, Electricity;⚡️ Water 💦 and Gas… 💨
‘Corporate Pirates’..!🏴☠️
You won’t be disappointed..!!!
https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2023/10/27/postal-contract-law/
If you haven’t sub’d to their regular e-news 🗞 letter 📝..?
Then hop on over and subscribe… and browse through their Article’s Archives…
You’ll find a wealth of great information on how to combat the; Council, Electricity;
‘Corporate Pirates’..!
You won’t be disappointed..!!!
https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2023/10/27/postal-contract-law/
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Awakened-GB
Postal Contract Law
When an unlawful corporation sends out an offer to contract you are deemed to have accepted their claim if you do not rebut it within 72 hours; this is known as acceptance by non-rebuttal. The Bill…
👍3🔥3
‘Official Oppression’; the concealing facts by way of ‘Abrogation’ and non-disclosure of ‘Affidavits’ and supporting documentary evidence, which is an abuse of one’s power’ and ‘fraud’…
Constitutes ‘Official Misconduct’; ‘maladministration’; ‘malfeasance’; ‘nonfeasance; and ‘misfeasance’ in a ‘Public Office’…
“A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null”.
“in odium spolitoris” ~ "in hatred of a destroyer".
And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding that any evidence to the contrary exists and furthermore;
Case Law:
a) In Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868, the Court of Appeal held, that a public official who dishonestly abuses his position of trust, by failing to disclose information, that he is under a legal duty to disclose, is guilty of misconduct in public office, which is a common law offence…
The court said that; "the essence of the offence is breach of duty by the public officer, where the motive is irrelevant, provided that the act or omission was wilful and without reasonable excuse or justification" (para 61).
The court also said that; "the duty must be a duty of a public nature, and the act or omission must be calculated to injure the public interest, so as to call for condemnation and punishment" (para 62).*
b) In R v Bowden [1996] 1 WLR 98, the House of Lords affirmed that; a judge who deliberately conceals from the parties a personal interest in the outcome of a case is guilty of perverting the course of justice, which is also a common law offence.
The court said that; "a judge who has such an interest in the outcome of a case, as might reasonably be thought likely to influence his decision, ought not to sit on it. If he does so, knowing of his interest, he commits a grave breach of his judicial oath. If he conceals his interest from the parties he adds to his breach of duty an element of deception which makes his conduct criminal" (p. 105).*
c) In Attorney General v De Winton [1906] 2 Ch 106, the Court of Appeal held that; a public official who holds a public office in trust for the public, is bound by fiduciary obligations and must not use his office for private gain. The court said that; "a person who accepts an office under the Crown, whether it be judicial or ministerial, accepts it subject to this condition, that he will not make use of his office for his own private purposes. He holds it in trust for the public; and if he uses it for his own private purposes he is guilty of a breach of trust" (p. 113).*
(Author’s) comment:
Please note in paragraph c); the use of the term ‘Trust’.
IMHO… this denotes that the individual referenced is a ‘Trustee’… 🤔
Constitutes ‘Official Misconduct’; ‘maladministration’; ‘malfeasance’; ‘nonfeasance; and ‘misfeasance’ in a ‘Public Office’…
“A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null”.
“in odium spolitoris” ~ "in hatred of a destroyer".
And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding that any evidence to the contrary exists and furthermore;
Case Law:
a) In Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868, the Court of Appeal held, that a public official who dishonestly abuses his position of trust, by failing to disclose information, that he is under a legal duty to disclose, is guilty of misconduct in public office, which is a common law offence…
The court said that; "the essence of the offence is breach of duty by the public officer, where the motive is irrelevant, provided that the act or omission was wilful and without reasonable excuse or justification" (para 61).
The court also said that; "the duty must be a duty of a public nature, and the act or omission must be calculated to injure the public interest, so as to call for condemnation and punishment" (para 62).*
b) In R v Bowden [1996] 1 WLR 98, the House of Lords affirmed that; a judge who deliberately conceals from the parties a personal interest in the outcome of a case is guilty of perverting the course of justice, which is also a common law offence.
The court said that; "a judge who has such an interest in the outcome of a case, as might reasonably be thought likely to influence his decision, ought not to sit on it. If he does so, knowing of his interest, he commits a grave breach of his judicial oath. If he conceals his interest from the parties he adds to his breach of duty an element of deception which makes his conduct criminal" (p. 105).*
c) In Attorney General v De Winton [1906] 2 Ch 106, the Court of Appeal held that; a public official who holds a public office in trust for the public, is bound by fiduciary obligations and must not use his office for private gain. The court said that; "a person who accepts an office under the Crown, whether it be judicial or ministerial, accepts it subject to this condition, that he will not make use of his office for his own private purposes. He holds it in trust for the public; and if he uses it for his own private purposes he is guilty of a breach of trust" (p. 113).*
(Author’s) comment:
Please note in paragraph c); the use of the term ‘Trust’.
IMHO… this denotes that the individual referenced is a ‘Trustee’… 🤔
👍1