procure poa

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

That definition presumes that there was a pre-existing and legally established state of agency to begin with.

The other half of it is that all the other party has to do is say, "No he did it all on his own," and you are hung out to dry.

Definitions from a dictionary are just that, and have no legal standing or force, and it is ill adivised to depend on them as opposed to what the actual state statutes say.

Estoppel handles that "defense" emboldened above and another dictionary entry, taken from Black's Fifth page 122 under Authority, supra, completes my rebuttal:

Originally Posted by Black's Fifth

Unlimited Authority. That possessed by an agent when he is left to pursue his own discretion.

Seeing things simply, "he did it all on his own" implies "he is left to pursue his own discretion" implies "he has unlimited authority".

[Notorial dissent]

You rebut nothing. You repeat the same errors.

A state of agency must exist to begin with and before the act, and even then if the act exceeds the authority granted it can be repudiated. If agency exists, the extent of it is spelled out in the creation. There must be an agency in fact, in your possession for you to be an agent, YOU cannot create one. Playing word games does not change the reality that you must be duly and legally appointed to the position.

The Dorean dimbos tried exactly this stunt, and are currently sitting in a Federal jail cell awaiting a much longer Federal prison sentence for that and other crimes. I fail to see the attraction here.

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

You rebut nothing. You repeat the same errors.

A state of agency must exist to begin with and before the act, and even then if the act exceeds the authority granted it can be repudiated. If agency exists, the extent of it is spelled out in the creation. There must be an agency in fact, in your possession for you to be an agent, YOU cannot create one. Playing word games does not change the reality that you must be duly and legally appointed to the position.

The Dorean dimbos tried exactly this stunt, and are currently sitting in a Federal jail cell awaiting a much longer Federal prison sentence for that and other crimes. I fail to see the attraction here.

In re to rebutting "nothing": I am supposing that you deem your writing equal with "nothing". Nothing is fairly easy to rebut.

In re "state of agency": If the principal is allowing the agent to exercise powers not granted to him, as according with the dictionary entry, the agent need not be a previous agent of said principal in order to act as agent for said principal. Look at the verb tenses in the dictionary entry for "Agency by estoppel." If previous state of agency must exist, it would have been duly noted. Take some of your precious time and read Mastery of the Universal Legal Technology in the downloads, as that written work may help with your english interpretation of what you read.

In re "this stunt": And where is this paper work showing "exactly this stunt"? I believe you were locating it and just never transmitted it for my examination.

If you can appoint someone to be a "Dorean dimbo", then you can appoint yourself to be a "Dorean dimbo".

If you cannot appoint yourself, or no man can appoint himself, to be anything, then there is not way to ever get a system of government running. Someway, somehow, someone must appoint himself to be the Alpha and Omega to begin it all. That Alpha and Omega creates beings that can appoint themselves to be monarchs, etc. Then some wiseguys get the idea to appoint themselves as signers of the Declaration of Independence: How dare they, right?

I'm glad you appointed yourself as agent for the making of responses, after all life is more fun that way.

[Notorial dissent]

You obviously did not read what I actually wrote, and you do not want to read what I wrote since it disagrees with what you want to believe.

The fact remains, that you cannot appoint yourself someone else's agent, and anything you do will be subject to repudiation, and is usually called fraud by assumption. no matter how you twist or torture the wording it still comes out to the same thing.

The Dorean dimbos are currently in jail for doing exactly what you are proposing, if you don't believe me read the amended indictment.

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

The fact remains, that you cannot appoint yourself someone else's agent, and anything you do will be subject to repudiation, and is usually called fraud by assumption. no matter how you twist or torture the wording it still comes out to the same thing.

Notorial dissent,

I enjoy the fact that you agree "Agency by estoppel" is factual. Estoppel can estop repudiation.

If one cannot appoint himself someone else's agent, then if a single man/woman, an orphan from birth, with no offspring, is murdered (without damage to any other body or property), then no one can pursue or prosecurte the murderer. How can "the state" or anyone else prosecute any such murder without appointing itself (or themselves) as agent on behalf of the victim?

Since, in general, no one will repudiate "the state" from acting as agent to prosecute the murderer then "the state" as agent on behalf of the victim is "valid". But who created "the state" anyway?

"the state" has only the power given by its creator. So if "the state" can appoint itself as agent, then likewise can any creator of "the state" appoint himself/herself as agent.

Your response to my question in bold letters should be enlightening.

[Notorial dissent]

Interesting, you now not only confuse apples and oranges, and have now added ***quats to the admixture.

"Agency by estoppel" is a legal concept that exists, ONLY, and I repeat, only if you take some action you would normally have no authority to do, and the principal upon learning of it does not repudiate it, it still does not grant you POA for any other action, it just means you got very lucky, and that the principal has accepted this single action as his own. You cannot generalize it to anything else, and it is a dangerous thing to do.

How can "the state" or anyone else prosecute any such murder without appointing itself (or themselves) as agent on behalf of the victim?

This above statement is nonsensical, there is no private right of revenge or prosecution. Your permission, approval, or agreement in this is neither required or needed. The State is not acting on your behalf, it is acting in it’s own interests. The State’s concern is not your death or revenge for same, but that the statute against murder was broken. That is what they are acting from. They are prosecuting someone for having committed murder, that it was your murder is irrelevant-except to you. You can not repudiate the State’s action since you have no say in them in this instance, whatsoever, since they are not acting for you in any capacity except in seeing that your murder is punished.

The second part of your question is that if you do not leave a will, the State, by action of law effectively becomes your heir. Look up intestate

The answer to the last part of your question is still NO, no you cannot!! Cute but no cookie. The laws governing agency are the ones you have to go by, and playing word games won’t change them. You cannot appoint youself as someone's POA.

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Interesting, you now not only confuse apples and oranges, and have now added ***quats to the admixture.

"Agency by estoppel" is a legal concept that exists, ONLY, and I repeat, only if you take some action you would normally have no authority to do, and the principal upon learning of it does not repudiate it, it still does not grant you POA for any other action, it just means you got very lucky, and that the principal has accepted this single action as his own. You cannot generalize it to anything else, and it is a dangerous thing to do.


This above statement is nonsensical, there is no private right of revenge or prosecution. Your permission, approval, or agreement in this is neither required or needed. The State is not acting on your behalf, it is acting in it’s own interests. The State’s concern is not your death or revenge for same, but that the statute against murder was broken. That is what they are acting from. They are prosecuting someone for having committed murder, that it was your murder is irrelevant-except to you. You can not repudiate the State’s action since you have no say in them in this instance, whatsoever, since they are not acting for you in any capacity except in seeing that your murder is punished.

The second part of your question is that if you do not leave a will, the State, by action of law effectively becomes your heir. Look up intestate

The answer to the last part of your question is still NO, no you cannot!! Cute but no cookie. The laws governing agency are the ones you have to go by, and playing word games won’t change them. You cannot appoint youself as someone's POA.

In re "...only if you take some action you would normally have no authority to do,..." You imply one action take at a time.

Question: How much time does the principal have to repudiate the acts of the agent-by-estoppel? I think the time limit is in the appointment of agent or poa.

Question: So if the one act were to be an appointment granting a general unlimited durable agency, for an unlimited number of acts, then you would agree that absent timely repudiation, the agent-by-estoppel can exercise more than one act, correct?

In re "...acting in it’s own interests...": Yes it would be in the best interests to make offers of contract (summons, warrants, etc.) in order to get valuable consideration. Anyone appointing himself/herself should act in his/her best interests. We agree again.

In re "...they are not acting for you... except...": We agree again. They are acting for the victim by appointing themselves to punish the wrongdoer.

In re "...effectively becomes your heir...": i.e. "appointing itself/themselves" [as your heir]. Sounds like more acquiescence and "Agency by estoppel". I appreciate the fact that you verify/validate my points.

[Notorial dissent]

Again, you argue apples and ***quats.

If you have been granted a POA then what you can and can’t do will be spelled out in it, and as long as you stay within those boundaries, there is no issue, if you stray then there is.

I imply ANY action taken that is not specifically allowed.

You have that backwards, there is no such animal as an “agent-by-estoppel”. If you take an action and upon discovery of it by the principal, whenever they find out about it, and the principal does not repudiate the act, then that act is considered an act of agency of estoppel, but it has no other connotation and grants no status. This is a very risky and dangerous manoeuver legally.

Question one: either there is a POA or there isn’t. The POA will spell out what powers are granted and how they are to be exercised, otherwise there is no authority. The POA, within limits, controls all.

Question two: NO and NO again. You cannot appoint yourself someone’s agent and/or assume a POA. Legally for most of the things a POA is needed/used for a [b]written[B/] signed, sealed, acknowledged, and published POA, if that does not exist then whatever actions you take will have no legal force or effect, and can be overcome by someone saying he had no authority to do that, and you can and will be held legally and personally liable for anything you did or any cost you incurred.

In re...1 utter nonsense, I said no such thing.

In re...2 more nonsense, there is no appointment or assumption, the State is carrying out it’s own laws.

In re...3 still more nonsense, agency implies you have any say in the matter, you don’t, you are not a part of that equation. It is simply the State carrying out it’s own laws in default of the individual acting.

[mikah2k]

Here is an interesting quote from a third party in another thread. I am particularly fascinated by the "DEED" entry of Bouvier's.

Originally Posted by Kgod999

a contract (deed if under seal) doesnt have to be signed. this is inline with common law and the statute of frauds. thats why the cracking the code books used self executing contracts wherein you were granted the authority to place the "signature" of the other party on a self executing contract which authenticated upon a certain default. the game is to get the other party to agree by default that you have power of attorney to sign and act upon his or her behalf. this is really good in constitutional situations. lets say you have a rogue judge or attorney. get his oath of office and contract him into obeying it. put in the contract that if he doesnt, he gives you power of attorney to enforce his oath by signing do***ents etc. etc. that enforce his oath. remember that the power resides in the people and they govern by our consent. put it all in there. how can he possibly argue with you without looking like a fool? this definition of a deed is from bouvier's: pay attention to this last line.

DEED, conveyancing, contracts. A writing or instrument, under seal, containing some contract or agreement, and which has been delivered by the parties. Co. Litt. 171; 2 Bl. Com. 295; Shep. Touch. 50. This applies to all instruments in writing, under seal, whether they relate to the conveyance of lands, or to any other matter; a bond, a single bill, an agreement in writing, or any other contract whatever, when reduced to writing, which writing is sealed and delivered, is as much a deed as any conveyance of land. 2 Serg. & Rawle, 504; 1 Mood. Cr, Cas. 57; 5 Dana, 365; 1 How. Miss. R. 154; 1 McMullan, 373. Signing is not necessary at common law to make a deed. 2 Ev. Poth. 165; 11 Co. Rep. 278 6 S. & R. 311.

[mystic one]

kgod just brought up this topic again..

Looks like he could learn from this argument between notorial and mikah