SECTION l

INTRODUCTION

This workbook is for those individuals that are serious about their
declaration : "I Wants To Own My Land" is by no means a complete work
on the Allodial Land issue. Many people and sources contributed to the
creation and to all of them and from whatever source, I am grateful.
This book, by its collection and information presented to the reader,
is intended to introduce you to the subject. To bring you up to date
with an understanding and knowledge of the Allodial Land issue. You
will learn not only what it is but that it is an integral part of our
American Land/Law system. We hope this book sparks the desire for the
reader to go forward with an inquisitive mind and the necessary
belligerent attitude. . .  to confront those whom by deceit, have
stolen your land . . . Yours and your grandchildren's inheritance!

You will need to read more, research more, document more, and of
course, share your results with others. There are many Cites
throughout the workbook...and that is what this is...a Workbook. Take
it and research the cites...learn them and...USE THEM!

However, you will have to get angry - at your public servants, demand
by what authority they do these things. Not until 51% of your
Community, moves upon the County Courthouse to demand answers and to
void this unlawful Taxation not much will happen But it Only takes one
to start!  GO GET 'EM!

WHAT IS A LAND PATENT?

Essentially, a Land Patent is the first conveyance of title ownership
to land which the U.S. Government grants a Citizen who applies for
one.  One of the earliest laws for granting Land Patents was passed by
Congress on April 24, 1820, Among other things, Congress set up
Government Land officers, now known as the Bureau of Land Management.
Land was usually sold in parcels of 180 acres for $1.25 per acre. The
law in 1820 prohibited the borrowing or use of "credit"' for the
purchase of government land. In the debates in Congress prior to
passage of this act, Senator King of New York said in March 1830 ...
"it was calculated to plant in the new country a population of
independent unembarrassed freeholder...that it would place, in every
man, the Power to Purchase a freehold the price of which could be
cleared in 3 years... that it would cut up speculation and
monopoly...that it would prevent the accumulation of alarming debt,
which experience proved never would and never could be paid"!!!
(emphasis added) Later on , in 1862, a Homestead Act stated in
Section 4: "That no lands acquired under the provisions of this act
Shall in any event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or
debts contracted prior to the issuing of the patent therefor".

It can be clearly seen that the intent of these early lawmakers was
for the people of this country to be FREEMEN AND FREEHOLDERS of their
land, and not ever be subject to have it taken from them by any
government, feudal authority or banker or any other party who might
have a claim against the person who owned the land. In plain English,
a Land Patent which gave you an allodial freehold, that was judgement
proof and yes, even immune from tax liens. In effect, the only
authority over you or your land was GOD himself. In England, a man,
who owned free from authority of the King, was known as a freeholder
and his land as a freehold or allodial freehold. Most landpatents in
the U.S. were issued prior to 1900.  However, even today, new land
Patents continue to be issued, mostly for gas, oil and mineral rights
on public lands. For this reason, there are several land offices that
remain open in the United States.

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF A LAND PATENT?

On the basis of all the case law I have seen, there is no doubt in my
mind that a land patent issued by the Bureau of Land Management which
gives you a title at law is far superior to any title acquired in
equity, such as a sheriff's deed. The land patent will, therefore,
prevent your ejectment and removal from the land or the property you
occupy on the land. The debts or claims of other parties will remain,
but the land will be removed from assets which they can attach. The
law is on the books today which says that any debts, which lie against
the land, that existed prior to the land patent being issued, are
removed from the land.

The next question is; if the land patents were issued 100 or more
years ago to persons who are no longer alive, and if I now reside on
only a portion of the land that was originally described in the
original land patent, then how do I bring up the land patent in my
name?  And if I bring it up in my name, will it remove the land as
security which the Bank or Mortgage Company can sell and seize in a
foreclosure action?

DECLARATION OF LAND PATENT
The procedures which I will describe are not time tested, as they have
not worked their way through the U.S. Supreme Court. This does not
mean that these procedures will not ultimately be successful. Any
basis for a legal approach must be supported by a legal theory. We
already know and can substantiate that an original land patent will
protect your land from any equitable or collateral attack.  However,
we do not know for certain that the existing procedures will vest in
us the same rights and immunities by filing a DECLARATION OF LAND
PATENT, and updating it in your name. However since there is little to
lose and possibly much to gain, it would be wise to file a DECLARATION
OF LAND PATENT, in the future event that it is sustained.

The theory is based on two premises. First, in the original land
patent, that was granted, lets say 100 years ago the land patent
document itself says that this patent is granted to the original party
AS WELL AS TO THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS FOREVER. While most of us are
not heirs, ARE NOT WE ALL ASSIGNS?

Since land patents were originally issued, nearly all conveyances of
title were done by the use of deeds, like Quit Claim Deeds and
Warranty Deeds.  However, the money lenders found a way around land
patents by creating new paper instruments like deeds of trust and
mortgages, all of which convey equitable interests.  However, the land
patent itself remains the highest title at law, and few persons have
updated a land patent in their name.  Where a land patent exists, no
lien or mortgage could be ever placed on the land.

Since the intent of the lawmakers is the law, historic evidence shows
that our founding fathers wanted us to own the land in its entirety,
and subject to the claims of no other man or government or other
institution.  Because the laws were passed by Congress setting up Land
Offices to grant land patents, the best jurisdiction in which to raise
these issues are the Federal Courts.

In the Declaration of Land Patent, we then declare that we are the
ASSIGNEE'S of the original land patent, even though we may be 2nd,
3rd, 4th, etc., after the party to whom the original patent was
issued.

After the review of several different land patents, the one enclosed
in this paper is, considered the one that best sums up what is to be
said.

The one major pitfall, that must be avoided, is that when filing the
declaration of land patents, do not place the same legal description
in the declarations that was in the original land patent issued by the
Bureau of Land Management. What this does is cloud the title to the
property of other persons who are living in properties that are part
of the legal description of the original land patent. As a result,
Several lawsuits were filed to quiet title. To prevent this from
happening, you must write in your Declaration of Land Patent only the
legal description of the property to which you are an assignee. In
other words, the legal description from your deed or abstract is what
you must use. For this reason, the enclosed Declaration of Land Patent
has in it, adequate language for this Purpose. Along with the
declaration of Land Patent a certified copy of the original land
patent which you can obtain from your nearest land office must be
attached. These papers are all stapled together and filed in either
your County Recorder's office or with the Register of Deeds.

After you receive your copy of the original Land Patent or Land Grant,
then staple it to a Declaration of Land Patent and file it in your
County Recorder's office or Register of Deeds. You now have your
allodial title.  A Land Patent can only be filed on property that has
been assigned to you.  You don't file one on your neighbor's property
or they can sue you for slandering his title.

The Land Patents you get from the BLM must be certified.

After your Land Patent is filed, you must send a photocopy by
Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to your bank or mortgage
Company, FLB, FR, PCA, etc . and to any and all parties that may have
an equitable interest in your property so they have been placed on
NOTICE that you are updating the Land Patent in your name and they
will have 60 days to challenge your claim to your allodial title in a
court of law or forever keep their silence. Be sure to keep your green
tickets when they come back.  GIVING NOTICE IS A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF
LAW. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT LAND OFFICES ORIGINALLY ISSUED THE LAND
PATENTS, THEY PUBLISHED THE LAND PATENT WITH LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 60
DAYS: WHEN NOT CHALLENGED BY ANYONE, THE LAND PATENT WAS THEN GRANTED.
AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO GIVE THE OTHER PARTY NOTICE IS TO PUBLISH A
"'NOTICE OF DECLARATION OF LAND PATENT"" in a legal publication in
your county of residence. Include the legal description on your
property in the ad with this warning: "If any party having a claim,
lien or debt or other equitable interest fails to file a suit in a
court of law within 60 days from the date of filing or on (insert
date), then they shall waive all future claims against this land and
it will become the property and allodial freehold of the Assignee to
said Patent. (your name - Assignee)


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. Why must we give the other side NOTICE?

A. Giving NOTICE is a basic principle of common law. If someone
was going to file a claim against property that you thought was
yours, would you not want to be given NOTICE?  If they fail to file
a suit in court within the 60 days, the case is Substantially
weakened if they file it later. Also, filing the Land Patent is an
excellent diversionary tactic, Since the focus of the court battle
shifts to who has the best title. Remember, you are an Assignee to
that original patent, and your claim is valid. The U.S. Government
signed a contract granting that Land Patent to the original party,
their heirs or assigns. YOU ARE AN ASSIGNS to all allodial title or
freehold. The original contract does not specify any expiration
date. It is still in force. If the original land patent is immune
from equitable or collateral attack, then so is yours.

Q. Where can I find more case law on Land Patents?

A. At your local library at your Courthouse or university. Look up
the Supreme Court Digests On Land Patents, also a set of books called
43 USCS 17. Also books on State Law Digests. Look under the section
on Land Patents. There is also material in Bovier's Law Dictionary.
Also look under the term "Bureau of Land Management".

Q. Why send the Bureau of Land Management $10.00?

A. This is the approximate cost for most copies of the original
patents. The cost is actually $1.10 per page plus $.25 for the
certification. A one page patent Will cost $1.10 + $.25 or $1.35,
five pages will cost $5.50 + $.25 or $5.75. The BLM will send you
a refund if you sent too much and they have sent the patent and a
bill for a balance if you have not sent enough. A land Patent is
generally l to 3 pages. I have seen some that run 21 pages. In your
letter, BE SURE TO ASK FOR A CERTIFIED COPY. You should receive it
in 4 to 6 weeks. You can go directly to the office in your area and
get the Patent in l or 2 hours.

WHO OWNS THE LAND

While it is generally believed in America today that the purpose
of the American revolution was to resist taxation without
representation. The primary reason for the revolution was to deliver
America's Land Titles out of the hands of Great Britain and return
them to the people.

It was assumed by many, before the Revolution, that England
rightfully "owned"' America. It was because of this assumption that
she gave grants of land to supportive Colonists, then taxed the
Colonists as subjects. But, the patriots, of that day, insisted that
the King of England did not own the land... so it was not his to
grant.  After the Revolution, the land became the property of
each state's people, with the authority in the people to parcel out
the land to claimants in a fair and equitable manner. If some land
remained unoccupied, Jefferson said: that anyone occupying it had
possession, the right of ownership.

Land title, was then to be held by way of ALLODIAL TITLE. That
simply meant that there was "No Superior" to the land owner. He was
the Superior, the Sovereign On his land.

To encourage railroad growth and provide transportation for over
three million new Settlers that had immigrated from the East into a
wilderness devoid of roads, the government gave the first railroad
land grant... 2,595,000 acres of federal land, six alternate
numbered sections (640 acres in a section) of un-preempted, land for
every mile of track built, to be issued to fund the building of the
Illinois Central, with a branch to Chicago. The contract said that
it should be completed in six years and that seven percent of the
company's gross should be paid to the state in perpetuity. Also,
Uncle Sam was permitted to set his own charge for carrying troops,
freight and mail, and eventually settled on fifty percent for the
first two and eighty percent for the mail. The Illinois Central,
then the longest line in the world, was completed three days before
the deadline set in 1856.

One of the earliest laws for granting patents was passed by an
Act of Congress an April 24, 1820. The law in 1820 prohibited the
borrowing or use of credit for the purchase of government land. In
the debates in Congress prior to the passage of this Act, Senator
King of New York said...it (the Act) is Calculated to plant, in
the new country, a population of independent, unembarrassed
freeholders...it will put the power in every man to purchase a
freehold, the price of which can be cleared in three years...it Will
cut up speculation and monopoly...it Will prevent the accumulation of
an alarming debt, which experience proves never could or would be
paid." In 1862, the Homestead Act, in Section 4, provided that "no
lands acquired under the provisions of this Act Shall in any event
become liable to the satisfaction of any debts contracted prior to
the issuing of the land patent".

When taxation of real property began (and the people did not
object) they voluntarily accepted the premise that government was
the Superiors and the land owner a mere serf in a feudal relationship
to his master. And the whole process helped to contribute to an ever
increasing control by Lawless Government.

This Lawless Government has been preparing America for the time
when the land will be confiscated to pay off the indebtedness to the
Federal Reserve that has America on the verge of financial collapse.

Democrats and Republicans alike have allowed this policy to
march forward, annihilating not only the family farm, but the
freedoms of all Americans.

So the mortgage foreclosures, in the words of the great
thinkers, will deliver the landed resources of the United States into
a few strong hands. Thomas Jefferson would have called it "landed
aristocracy."The founding fathers knew that free men could survive
only as long as they owned property, because it was this ownership
that accounted for broad spectrum distribution of income and
preservation of the jury system. They also knew that manipulation of
the money supply, via debt, would ultimately take from the people
their substances, by concentrating the property into the hands of a
few, which is now the curse of the majority of the world.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If the American people ever allow the
banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and
then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around
them will deprive the people of all property until their children
will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied."

"DO I OWN MY LAND?"

Taken from a letter/notice from the United States Department of
the Interior, it stated:

"the United States has paramount title in the land."

The legal definition of Paramount is as follows:

Paramount Title: "In the law of real property one which is
superior to the title with which it is compared, it is used to denote
a title which is better or stronger than another,.... (Black's Law,
4 Ed. pg 1267)

Under the National Constitution, Article IV, Section III, Clause
2, Congress was given power (by the people) to dispose of its
territory and the land acquired for the people of the United States
by Purchase and by Treaty. The Administration (government) holds
this land as TRUSTEE for the people!

After the Declaration of Independence and the "REVOLUTION", the
land was to be held by everyone (landowners) in/by Allodial Title,
which simply means there is no superior or "overlord" to or over the
landowner.

Before we get into what Allodial Titles, and Land Patents are,
let's go to the first U.S. Supreme Court case on land titles for a
clearer and basic understanding as to what our forefathers
established through their experience and sacrifice for their progeny.

The case is Wallace v Harmstad, S Ct 492 (1863), and the
opinion of the Court was delivered, May 6th 1863, by Justice
Woodward, and in part, he stated:

"I see no way of solving this question, except by determining
whether our Pennsylvania titles are allodial or feudal. It seems
strange that so fundamental a question as this should be in doubt at
this day, but it has never had, so far as I know, a direct judicial
decision. In a valuable note by Judge Sharswood to the opening
passage of Blackstone's Chapter on Modern English Tenures.
(2 Sharswood's Black. 77), it is said, "that though there are some
opinions that feudal tenures fell with the Revolution, yet all agree
that they existed before, and the better opinion appears to be that
they still exist. "In support of this statement, the feudal principals
that have entered into our conveyancing are alluded to, and several
cases are cited in which the consequences and qualities of feudal
tenures have been recognized in our estates, although generally, in
these very cases, it has been assumed that our property is allodial.

I venture to suggest that much of the confusion of ideas that prevails
on this subject has come from our retaining, since the American
Revolution, the feudal nomenclature of estates and tenures, as fee,
freehold, heirs, feoffment, and the like.

Our question, then, narrows itself down to this: is fealty a part of
our land tenures? What Pennsylvanian ever obtained his lands by
"Openly and-Humbly kneeling before his lord, being un-grit, uncovered,
and holding up his hands together between those of the lord, who sat
before him, and there professing that he did become his man from that
day forth, for life and limb, and earthly honor, and then receiving a
kiss from his lord?" This was the oath of fealty which was, according
to Sir Martin Wright, the essential feudal bond so necessary to the
very notion of a feud.

But then came the Revolution, which threw off the dominion of the
mother country, and established the independent sovereignty of the
state (the people, and on the 27th day of November 1779 (1 Smith's
Laws 480), an act was passed for vesting the estates of the late
proprietaries of Pennsylvanian in the Commonwealth.

Another act on the 9th of April 1781, (2 Smith 532), provided for
opening the land office and granting lands to purchasers: and, says
the 11th section, "all and every land or lands - granted in pursuance
of this act shall be free and clear of all reservations and
restrictions as to mines, royalties, quit-rents or otherwise, so that
the owners thereof respectively shall be entitled to hold the same in
absolute and unconditional property , to all intents and purposes
whatsoever, and to all and all manner of profits, privileges, and
advantages belonging to or occurring from the same, and that clear and
exonerated from any charge or encumbrance whatever, excepting the
debts of said owner,...

The province was a fief held immediately from the Crown, and the
Revolution would have operated very inefficiently towards complete
emancipation, if the feudal relation had been suffered to remain. It
was therefore necessary to extinguish all foreign interest in the
soil, as well as foreign jurisdiction in the manner of government.

We are then to regard the Revolution and these Acts of Assembly as
emancipating every acre of the soil of Pennsylvania from the grand
characteristic of the feudal system. Even as to the lands held by
the proprietaries themselves, they held them as other citizens held,
under the Commonwealth, and that by a title purely allodial. All our
lands are held mediately or immediately of the state, by the titles
purged of all the rubbish of the dark ages, excepting only the feudal
names of things not any longer feudal.

Under the Acts of Assembly I have alluded to, the state became the
proprietor of all lands, but instead of giving them like a feudal
lord to an enslaved tenantry, she has sold them for the best price,
she could get, and conferred on the purchaser the same absolute estate
she held herself,... and these have been reserved, as everything else
has been granted, by CONTRACT. "

To get a better understanding of this issue, We must take a look at
certain definition, from Black's Law, as follows:

"ALLODIAL. Free; not holden of any lord or superior, owned without
obligation of vassalage of fealty; the opposite of feudal."

"ALLODIUM. Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any
lord of superior; Land not subject to feudal duties or burdens."
(Emphasis added)

Take note that Allodial is the opposite of Feudal!

"FEUDAL. Pertaining to feuds, fees; relating to or growing out of the
feudal system or feudal law; having the quality of a feud, as
distinguished from 'allodial'" (Emphasis added)

"FEUD. An estate in the land held of a superior on condition of
rendering him services. An inheritable right to the use and occupation
of lands, held on condition of rendering services to the lord or
proprietor, who himself retains the property in the lands.  In this
sense the word is the same as "feod", "feodum", "feudom", "fief', or
"FEE". (Emphasis added)

To simplify, one can have two different and opposite titles of land,
one of 'Feudal, nature - owing a fee or duty to another who actually
retains or own the land or the other being 'Allodial', Where the land
is held absolutely in one's own right, not subject to another, a fee
or a duty!

So the..term "OWNERSHIP" may take on a totally different meaning,
dependant upon the type of title one has in the land. 'OWNERSHIP' is
a key principle as it Pertains to the rights to acquire and use
property as well as rights in the land as well.  Ownership is defined
as follows:

"OWNERSHIP: The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in
a thing or claim. The entirety of the powers of use and disposal by
law - The exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal.
Ownership of property is absolute or qualified.  The ownership of
property is absolute when a single person has absolute dominion over
the property. The ownership is qualified when... use, of the property
is restricted." (Emphasis added)

The Act of Congress of April 24, 1820 was one of the earliest statutes
passed for granted land Patents, along with the Homestead Act, Sec. 4
in 1862 and as stated earlier, the disposal of its territory and land
acquired for the people is by purchase and by TREATY (Contract of and
by the People) to wit:

l) Northwest Ordinance (1787)
2) Treaty of Peace, 8 STAT, 80 (1783)
3) Treaty of Ghent, 8 STAT. 218 (1818)
4) Oregon Treaty, 9 STAT. 869 (June 15, 1846)
5) Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 9 STAT. 922 (1848)
6) Treaty of Cession, 8 STAT. 200 (1863)

The Treaty (Contract) Law cannot be interfered with, as the Supreme
Court has held that 'Treaties' are the 'supreme law of the land', See
also Article 6, Sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  the Treaty is
declared the will of the People of the United States and shall be
superior to the Constitution and � the laws of if any individual
State.

It was through the 'experiences' of our Founding Fathers, coming from
a Feudal system, that they desired that in the new country, the United
States, that all men would own their land, in its entirety,
absolutely, with full dominion, and subject to the claims of no man or
government! This was done through grant or purchase.

Black's Law, 4th Ed. pg.829, defines Grant as a conveyance(?),

same reference, pg. 402 under general, to wit:

Absolute or Conditional Conveyance. Absolute conveyance is one by
which the right or property in a thing is transferred, by which it
might be defeated or changed; as an ordinary deed of lands, in contra-
distinction to a mortgage, which is a conditional conveyance.

Now under the term 'Grant' it shows 'Private Land Grant' as: A grant
by a public authority vesting title, to public land in a private
(natural) person.

Public Grant: A grant from the public; A grant off a power, license,
privilege, or property, from the state or government to one or more
individuals, contained in or shown by a record, conveyance, Patent,
charter, etc.

Before we go on to Patents, and with a little understanding of
"Grants', we will take a little time to touch up on the 'Purchase' of
land as it affects title. Two point are raised or established, the
first, from a court case, called Stank v White, 215 N.W. 784
(1927),states:

"There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid.  When
discharged, the debt still exists, though divested of its character as
a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge." (Emphasis
added)

How does this affect your land purchase?  Very simple. When Congress,
in 1933, suspended the gold standard (Art.I, Sec. 10) which denied you
the right to PAY YOUR DEBTS AT LAW (which extinguishes the debt), to a
system where you can only discharge your debts, but the debt still
exists. This may be where your duty or fee comes from in the form of
your property tax. But there may also be a distinction in the form or
type of payment that you made in and for the land. The courts have
ruled that the Federal Reserve Bank/System is not an agency of the
U.S. Government, but rather a Private Corporation!

Therefor, when you participate in the Federal Banking System, you are
participating in a private money system, which is a privilege, and
therefore a duty and fee is extracted, in the form of a tax, but since
Federal Reserve Notes are not Lawful Money (no substance backing it!)
you cannot pay your debts at law, they are only pieces of paper of
which a debt attaches

To prove this, we go to the second point, the definition of Title, as
found in Bovier's Dictionary of Law:

"The means whereby the owner....hath just  possession of his property.

Title to Personal property may accrue in three different ways: by
original acquisition, by transfer by act of law, by transfer by act of
the parties.

THE LAWFUL COIN OF THE UNITED STATES WILL PASS THE PROPERTY
ALONG WITH THE POSSESSION." (Emphasis added)

The Lawful coin of the United States was Gold and Silver which is
'substance'. In olden days, one got gold from the land and one could
buy land with gold. But back then, the conveyance of land through
purchase was honored (in the law) and full and absolute possession and
ownership was transferred!

So what we have covered so far, you can see that perhaps you don't own
your land. Merely compare your so-called title or deed to the points
of law as brought forth herein. In mid stream we ask you the question,
"Is property tax evidence of ownership?"' We'll let you also answer
that question.

Now on to Land Patents. Because all Federal Land Patents flow from
Treaties that fall under the "Supremacy Clause," no state, private
banking corporation or other federal agency can question the
superiority of title to land owners who have perfected their land by
Federal Land Patent. Public lands, as found in 42 American
Jurisprudence, Sec. 781 thru 873, shows that a Patent of land is to
be the title to land and anything else is FRAUD. Transfer of a patent
is by release of patent Interest Right and not by some form of 'USURY
INSTRUMENT' of Trust or Warranty. (See also 40 Am Jur, 577 thru 688)

A Land Patent issued by the United States is legal and conclusive
evidence of title to the land conveyed. (Opinion of U.S.  Attorney
General Sept. 1869). A Land Patent is the highest evidence of title.
Since Land Patents cannot be collaterally attacked as to their
"Validity" or "Authenticity' as the highest evidence of title; Federal
Land Patents were given free and clear 'ALLODIAL Title' with no
encumbrances then and now. Can you say the same about your land title?

The Patent alone passes land from the United States to the grantee and
nothing passes a perfect title to land but a Patent (Wilcox v Jackson,
13 Peter (U.S.) 498, 10 L.ed 264)

           * . . . with no fee or duty (TAX)!!!

Since a Land Patent is not a conveyance of title by someone assigning
their equity interest over to you, but a Land Patent is a TITLE AT
LAW, which establishes an ALLODIAL FREEHOLD that is Judgement proof
and even immune from tax liens! Again, can you say the same thing
about your land title? "THE PROPERTY TAX SCHOOL FUNDING ISSUE."

"OWNERSHIP VS FRAUD" IS IT A MASTER SLAVE RELATIONSHIP???"

Well there's a lot of emotions flowing out and about, around this here
Property Tax School Funding Issue! Within the State of Oregon, there
was more than a lot of talk about a sales tax, which would accordingly
lower property taxes. Following that, the people voted in the Lottery.
With the promise that funds would or could go to lower property taxes.
Time will tell on that one just don't hold your breath! Most
Oregonians don't want that sales tax! (Nor does any other person in
this country, unless they are a politician.) And if school funding
issues are brought into any discussion, in relation to or based on
property taxes, watch out, 'fur can fly'!

Many people, with good intentions, support the schools, to a point,
irrespective of the poor quality (the results) and the underlying
goals of such controlled education. It seems that every year, along
with teacher strikes, the property tax issue arises, with all the pros
and cons. Seems to just get worse than better! And haven't you
noticed, that all the politicians ever do, at any level, is to raise
taxes...then again, maybe you haven't noticed!

But then it's a 'Catch 2 Situation. To support the schools,
financially, property taxes must go up! Vote property taxes down, and
the schools must suffer! It's really a no win situation.  Maybe the
solution lies within QUESTIONS, or to put it another way, YOU may have
to go back to the beginning and find or discover the ANSWERS!

In order to get the right answer(s), one must ask the right questions,
like:  Are property taxes necessary?  Are property taxes lawful?


But the most important question is, "Is property tax indicia
(evidence) of true ownership"?

Well now, let's do some investigating! What does 'ownership' really
mean? "The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing
or claim. The entirety of the powers of use and disposal by law. The
exclusive right of Possession, enjoyment, and disposal.  Ownership of
property is absolute or qualified. Ownership of property is Absolute
when a single person has absolute dominion over it.  The ownership is
qualified when... use is restricted"!  (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th
Ed., pg.979) (Emphasis Added)

So what does his tell us? Ownership in land is: "THE COMPLETE
DOMINION, TITLE, EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF POSSESSION, ENJOYMENT, RIGHT TO
CONTROL WITH ABSOLUTE DOMINION OVER IT!!

That statement seems to be meaningless in view of the compelling of
PERMITS, and of course PROPERTY TAXES! Kind of like there's somebody
watching over you,, controlling or dictating what you can or cannot do
on your land, and then demanding "TAXES" as well.


It Would then appear that most people who have bought (paid off) their
land (with or without a home on it) do not have absolute control,
dominion, use, or even full enjoyment of it, when the individual and
land is RESTRICTED by local permits and property taxes!

Then it also follows that, if there are such restrictions on your
land, that you do not have 'absolute title'. Maybe then... you are not
really an owner, in the true sense of the word. I guess you would be
called a quasi owner. That defines you as "something like' an owner!
Maybe there is a 'SUPERIOR' above you, controlling the use of the land
and compelling a duty of fee for the 'interest' or 'use' of the
land... called property taxes! In the old days, way back in time, it
was called "FEUDALISM".

"The system was based upon a servile relationship between a "vassal"
and "'lord". The vassal paid homage and service to the lord and the
lord provided land and protection." (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed,,
pg. 559)

 Well now, not too bad, but let's take a look at "FEUDUM", defined as:

"A feud, fief, or fee (tax). A right of using and enjoying forever the
lands of another, which the lord (superior) grants on condition that
the tenant shall render fealty (duty or tax) military duty, and other
services. It is not properly the land, but a right in the land."
(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg. 560) (Emphasis added)

So what you may be involved in, as a so called 'property owner', is a
form of feudalism, which is basically in modern terms:

"A system based upon a servant relationship between the servant and a
superior (State, Banking Co., Corporation, or other).  The servant for
the payment of a property tax (fee) has a right to use the land on
conditions!"

For today,, those conditions are the property tax, land use laws and
permits. It Should be noted however that if the servant fails to pay
the property taxes or violates any of the conditions, the servant will
be removed off the land and another servant will be allowed to use the
land...on the same conditions! One must remember, however, the state
will use any means to remove a servant/slave who fails to pay the
taxes, even to the point of using a SWAT TEAM!

The right to use the land does not grant absolute title. The servant
is without and is denied the true title, and is involved in what is
called simply a 'feudal system'. Please bear with me, my leading is
not in vain!

Let us now look at and define the word "FEUDAL", it is:

"Pertaining to feuds or fees; relating to or growing out of the feudal
system or feudal law; having the quality of a feud, as distinguished
from "Allodial". (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg.559) (Emphasis
added)

Well now, that's darn right interesting. This thing called "ALLODIAL",
which is distinguished (opposite) from the "Feudal system" of the use
of land without true ownership - for a fee!  well, we're going to take
a good look at this 'Allodial' thing.

But now those people who are in the know, or supposed to be, from REAL
ESTATE AGENTS, STATE OFFICIALS, to POLITICIANS, Obviously are not
directed to this information, or most likely this information has been
suppressed or even denied, not only from them...but from you to, the
so called property owner!!! Could it be that those we elect(?) or the
powers that are in the 'mushroom business', keeping everyone in the
dark and feeding them 'bull'?

Well hang on, we're getting warm. I now direct you to the definition
of Allodial, it is:

" Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation
of vassalage of fealty; the opposite of feudal." (Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg.70) (Emphasis added)

Can you believe, a title of land where you are not beholden' to
anybody', owned without any 'obligation', of any duty or fee...
a property tax? Amazing but true!

Strictly speaking, in regards to land, we go to yet another
definition, and that is of land being held in ALLODIUM, as!

"Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or
superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held
by absolute ownership, with out recognizing any superior to whom any
duty is due on account there of'.. (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.,
pg 70)

Therefore, if any title on land would be wanted or sought after, as a
treasure, it would certainly be an 'Allodial Title' would it not?

Imagine a 'Title', on your land, where you are not subject to duties,
fees, or taxes! Land held in absolute ownership with no superior above
you! That means (what should have happened) when you paid off the debt
on your land, the State, the Bank or the party holding the contract
until full payment, should of then transferred the proper true title,
an Allodial Title. You would then own your land free and clear, fee
simple, absolutely! It could then be said, that you held your land in
"PARAMOUNT", as in holding paramount title. Paramount being defined
as:

"In the law of real property, one which is superior to the title with
which it is compared, in the sense that the former is the source of
the later. It is, however, frequently used to denote a title which is
simply better or stronger than another, or will prevail over it."
(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg. 1001)

So now the question is, does the title you hold, or will receive, give
you full absolute ownership, free and clear, fee simple, not subject
to any duty or tax....do you hold your land in Allodium with a
paramount title???

In the old days, it is my understanding, that land held under these
titles could not be liened, seized, or taxed! Of course this applied
to the land as well because of the "STATUS" of not only the land, but
the owners" as well. The land was owned, and nobody else had any
control, what so ever! The land represented the wealth of the family,
it was the family! Irrespective of hardships, family members could
always go back to the land, the family farm,, to survive and rebuild
any monetary loss and self esteem!

But no so today! With the many restrictions laced upon the land, and
of course with the State owning the land (State holds true titles) the
people cannot use the land for their needs, purposes, or desires.

Many people have been forced onto the welfare system as a result of
this modern day 'Feudal System' The land is simply...  not yours!

But now the question is this; "Why do you, the so called property
owner, do not have and hold an 'Allodial/ Paramount Title" to the land
(and home) that you THINK you own ?"

Why are you, the individual(s), the true substance and strength of
this country, denied the proper lawful title to your land? Why are you
denied the full enjoyment, from the use and ownership of your land? Is
the quest for control and power, by those in authority over you, worth
the violation of your "Life", "Liberty", and "Pursuit of Happiness".
Why are you led to believe that you own the land?  Why are you called
a landowner, when you are compelled to duties, fees, and taxes? When
you bought your property, did you understand and agree to having a
'superior' above you, controlling the use of your land? Why has the
State denied you true title to your property?

It is because the need and greed for power and control over the masses
that necessitates the fraud and scams to keep the State coffers full
and the sheep in line, thinking and believing that they own their
land, thereby making it a little easier to fleece!  State dictatorial
control, under the guise of permits, property taxes, and school
funding, in relation to the ownership of land" necessitates..."the end
justifies the means!"

This "Citizen", having an interest in the basic land/title issue, and
fully understanding the principles involved, the truth that "we are
merely serfs upon the land," that no one really owns their land, and
having no need  participate in "their" deceitful fraud...has turned
his energy toward other interests.

One such interest was 'prospecting' and its related area of
information. That of course led to collecting and reading books and
information about mining claims and U.S. regulations on mining claims
from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). One of the letter documents
that I had received was quite a surprise, since I had skimmed over it
some time back.

The letter was from the "United States Department of the Interior",
"Bureau of Land Management", titled "Notice to Mining Claimant", 2nd.
paragraph, and in part said:

"Since a mining claimant has merely a possessory interest in the
location, the United States has PARAMOUNT TITLE in the land..."
(Emphasis added) this statement could apply to so called  Property
owners!

NOW THE QUESTION IS! "By what authority does the U.S. Government and
your State Government hold land in paramount title (un-taxable,
unalienable, and unseizable) and yet denies the very people of this
country (the RIGHT to hold their land in same status . . . in
Allodium?"

Get the people to 'believe' that 'they' own their own land and they
will pay the taxes on it, most of them, with a smile on their face!
Get the people to 'believe' they need to pay a property tax to support
the schools (free education) and the Government can add another link
in the chain...in the enslavement of the people in this "Land of the
Free!"

One might ask now, "How do the schools get funding"? Well, that's
simple. Since the monetary system of this country is run by a "Private
Corporation" circulating 'Bills', 'Notes', and 'Checks' (credit)
without substance and in violation of U.S. and every State
Constitutions (U.S. Art. l Sec, 10) (Look up your own States'
Constitution Article and Section). Since most taxing schemes are based
upon fraud and theft, demand your public servants to return the power
and authority to regulate the money system back to the U.S. Treasury,
and then demand the Treasury to turn on the printing presses. I mean
it's not really money, there's no substance, it's just paper! It's one
of those 'belief scams', you believe its money, that it has value, and
your 'confidence' thus makes it so!  But it's just paper with nothing
of value for support! Since your Government can and should operate
honestly, they can just send the 'cash' directly to the schools!

Of course, the other alternative is to shut all the schools down and
turn over the education to 'private enterprise' and 'home schools'!

But remember, the issue here is "That you don't own your land!" And
that's why you are compelled to pay property taxes...to support the
schools. Now I realize that every point cannot be raised here, either
in support or otherwise, but you must start with the basics.

"Get your land back, under a lawful, paramount, Allodial Title whereby
you own it free and clear, fee-simple, ABSOLUTELY, owing nothing to
nobody!" To do this, there's a price to be paid, and it is; Turn off
the boob tube , put the beer down, read the Constitution, study the
points raised herein, write some demanding letters to your public
servants, get together in your local and MAKE it
happen."

"Yes, we may not know what the future lies, but MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR
OUR EXODUS!"

 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

When you buy property, you must know the difference between Allodium
and Feudal, and the various kinds of Titles.

When you own property, Allodial, no one can claim any control over
your property but you. When you own property Feudally, you do not
really own it, but are only renting it, and the owner has control of
the use of the property. Feudal ownership is a deception, because you
have, in actuality, contracted for a third party to own the property.

Therefore, you must abide by the provisions of the contract, and pay
the third party a rent for the use of the property. If you do not pay
that rent or tax, you will be removed from it and it will be "sold" to
someone who will pay. Property is "sold" on the courthouse steps every
day of the year, except weekends. You ask "Why on the courthouse steps
and not in the courthouse?"  This is because the property is "sold"
under color of law, and not according to the Common Law.

In order to own the property Allodial, you must make a Bill of
Conveyance to contract with the seller of the property, get the
property surveyed, do a Title search, and file those documents with
the Recorder in the Judicial Circuit or District in which the property
is located.

If you do not file for "homestead" exemption or make any other
contracts with the County or State, then you cannot be assessed any
tax or be forced to obtain permits to improve upon your property.
This means that the property is yours and no one else's and that you
are the only one in control of your property. I feel that every
property owner should have a copy of "Blacks Law Dictionary".

When you buy, make sure that the seller includes "ALL RIGHTS to the
property in the Bill of Conveyance including mineral rights.

You must also obey the statutes of the Corporate State and all the
regulations that go along with them, so the Corporate State can
keep their large greedy hands deep into your pockets.

You must also Know the difference between paying and discharging
a debt. When you pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance.
(see Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 5 and Art. I Sect. 10, Constitution for
the United States of America). YOU pay debt with Gold and/or Silver
coin, but you can only discharge a debt with "Federal Reserve
Notes"... Gold and Silver coins are value, if coined by Congress at
the U.S. Mint. (Art, I, Sect. 8, Cl. 5), and only Gold and Silver
coin can be used to pay debts. (Art. l, Sect. 10. When you use Gold
and Silver coin to pay a debt, it is paid in full. A Federal Reserve
Note cannot pay a debt, because it is only BANK CREDIT, or a debt in
itself.  How can you pay a debt with a debt?  You Cannot!  You can
only discharge the debt with Federal Reserve Notes. The debt still
exists and is not paid.

Article I, Section 8, Cl.17, of the Constitution for the united States
of America, establishes the District Of Colombia as a DIFFERENT and
SEPARATE NATION from the Republic of the united States of America .
The Congress has the EXCLUSIVE RULE OVER THE Citizens of the District
of Columbia, it's territories, Insular possessions and Federal
enclaves.  Those people have no RIGHTS, WHATSOEVER, other than what
Congress gives them. The Social Security Number is the Main Contract
with this Foreign government that creates this status of slavery.

The way to own property in a Freehold status is to rescind ALL
CONTRACTS with the Foreign Corporate Federal Government and the
Corporate Regional State, county and municipality.

When you "'buy'" property today, you do not buy the property, you
buy a lease from the County! Think about it for a minute. If the
county can tax the property, require a permit to improve it, take it
away from you if you do not pay the tax, who owns it? (see Blacks
Law Dictionary definitions, included).

If you PAY for it in Gold Coin, and on a Bill of Conveyance, do your
Title search, and survey, file those three documents with the clerk of
Circuit Court and the county recorders office, then you own allodial
your property and the county cannot tax it, make you get any permits,
take it from you, or even zone it, because the county does not own it
anymore. Make sure that you retain ALL rights to the property on the
Bill of Conveyance.

As for payment, you cannot pay a debt with a check or Federal Reserve
Notes (FRAUDS). They only, discharge the debt and the debt still
exists. To PAY a debt, you must barter, or pay in Gold or Silver Coin,
which cancels the debt. The Federal Reserve Note is debt and you
cannot pay a debt with a debt! (see Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 5 and Sec. 10,
Constitution for the United States of America)

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IT'S REGIONAL STATE WANTS TO BE YOUR GOD,
BUT YOU CANNOT BE A U.S. CITIZEN (under the U.S. Code and statutes
passed by Congress and the regional State legislators) and an American
(under the Constitution and Gods Laws) at the same time, You cannot
serve two masters. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE, MAKE IT!

WALLACE V HARMSTAD

Ground-rent Deed invalid for fraudulent Alternation in hands of
Purchaser for Value without Notice, Effect of Alternation on the
parties and those claiming them. Ground-rents are Rents Service.
Statute of quia emptores not in force in Pennsylvania. Titles to Land
in Pennsylvania are allodial.

l. Where a landlord after a sale of lots reserving ground-rents, and
   delivery of the deeds, obtained possession of them, and having
   fraudulently altered the causes reserving the rents, sold them: the
   purchaser, though bona fide and without notice of the fraud, cannot
   recover, either by action at law or by distress.

2 . A vested estate will survive the loss of the instrument by which
it is created, for the deed may be proved by secondary evidence or
presumed from prescription; but if destroyed by the fraudulent act of
the party claiming under it, it cannot be then proved or supplied by
any presumption in his behalf.3. Ground-rents are rents service of
which distress is  a necessary incident: but a grantor who has not
reserved his rent by a valid deed cannot enforce it, because the
statute of quia emptores, which would have converted the rent-service
into a rent-charge is not in force here, and it cannot exist
independently of the deed, because Pennsylvania titles are allodial
and not feudal.

ERROR to the District of Philadelphia.

This was an action of replevin, by Edwin Harmstad against Mrs.  Alice
Wallace, who avowed for rent in arrear as reserved in one of the four
ground-rent deeds, the validity of which was passed upon by this court
in the cases of Arrison v Harmstad, 2 Barr 191, and Wallace v
Harmstad, 3 Harris 462.

The material facts connected with these cases will be found in the
reports of these cases, and are in substance as follows:

In the fall of 1838 Mathew Arrison agreed to sell to four brothers
Harmstad, four adjoining lots of ground, reserving out of each lot a
yearly rent of $60, payable half yearly on January 1st and July 1st,
in every year; the first half-yearly payment was to fall due on the
1st of July 1839. Under the deeds executed in accordance with this
agreement, each of the Harmstads entered upon his lot and built a
house thereon. The deeds were executed in duplicate, each deed was
signed by both parties; a part of the bargain was that the grantees
might extinguish their ground rents at par whenever they pleased. When
the deeds came to be executed, one of the four brothers discovered an
"open space, or unfilled blank, in all eight of the deeds and in
answer to his inquiry, was told by the alderman, that it meant that
there was to be no limit of time within which the rents should be
extinguished. This being in accordance  with their understanding, the
deeds were executed and delivered - the Harmstads took away their four
deeds, while Arrison took away the four counterparts.

Some time afterwards an agent of Arrison procured from the Harmstads
their four deeds, for the alleged purpose of getting them recorded,
and while they were with Arrison, or another party  beneficially
interested in the ground-rents, the same, together with the four
counterparts, were, either by Arrison or by some one under him,
altered, by the filling up of the blank in each of them with the words
"within ten years from the date thereof." In the mean time the first
half year's ground rent falling due July 1st 1839, was paid by the
Harmstads without any knowledge of the alternation. When they paid it
they asked for their deeds, and found they have not been recorded.
Another agent of the grantor, or of his cestui queuse, then carried
the deeds to the recorder's office, left them there, and gave the
Harmstads the recorder's receipts therefor; and it was not until some
weeks afterwards, when the deeds came back, that they discovered the
alternation. Since that time they refused to pay any more ground-rent.

The case of Arrison v Harmstad, 2 Barr 191, and Wallace v Harmstad, 3
Harris 462, having settled that an action of debt on such ground-rent
deed, or on the original contract prior to the deed, but supposed to
be executed by possession, or for use and occupation, or of covenant
on the ground-rent deed, will not lie--that all the covenants in the
deed are gone, and that the estate in the land is vested in the
grantee, freed and discharged therefrom--that the spoliator may lose,
but could not gain from his wrongful act, and that any innocent
purchaser of the rent is in no better condition, having bought from
the spoliator nothing at all, and that there is no similitude between
these cases and the case of negotiable paper in third hands, the owner
of this deed, Mrs. Wallace, resorted to a distress for rent, on which
distress this action of replevin was founded, as above stated.

Under the ruling of the court below there was a verdict and judgement
for plaintiff; whereupon the defendant sued out this writ, assigning
the judgement of the court below for error. E.S. Miller, for plaintiff
in error. J.A. Phillips, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 6th 1863, by Woodward, J.
It is not to be doubted that the cases of Arrison v Harmstad, 2 Barr
191, and Wallace v Harmstad, 3 Barr 462, do decide that by reason of
the fraudulent alternation of the deed, reserving the ground-rent in
question, neither an action of debt or covenant would lie on any one
of the deeds for recovery of the rent, nor is it recoverable in an
action on the verbal contract  under which possession was obtained,
nor in any action for use and occupation of the premises. Setting
aside all the obiter dictum of those cases, they clearly established
these several conclusions, grounding them all on the policy of the law
which altogether forbids parties from tampering with written
instruments or deeds, and which, in its application to the deed in
question here, avoids the covenant reserving rent in favor of the
fraudulent grantor, but preserves the fee simple to the innocent
grantee, discharged from the covenants in the deed, When it was said
in the argument of the first of the above cases that equity would
reform the instrument in favor of a purchaser, Chief Justice Gibson
replied, "Show a case; the deed is dead, and equity cannot Put life
into it."

The stern ruling in those cases was applied without hesitation to a
bona fide purchaser of the ground-rent without notice of the fraud, so
that, as far as concerns Arrison, and all persons claiming under him,
the part of the deed which was intended to enure to his benefit, may
indeed be said to be dead. It was not merely a voidable instrument, it
was void. It was called a forgery, and treated as such, and neither
law nor equity would tolerate it even in the hands of an innocent
purchaser.

The question presented now is whether a ground rent so emphatically
condemned, and denied all remedy, both at law and equity, can be
enforced by distress. Mrs. Wallace having executed a distress, was
sued in this action of replevin, when she avowed for rent in arrear,
as reserved by one of the four deeds which were the subjects of
animadversion in the above cited cases. Her learned counsel does not
impugn those cases, but he seeks to parry the authority of them by a
distinction so nice as to be highly creditable to his acumen, even if
it be not well founded in law. Let me try to state it distinctly.

He says that a ground-rent reserved in a deed by a grantor is an
estate which vests in him the instant the fee simple in the land vests
in the grantee; that estate is a rent-service; that it continues to
exist, though the instrument reserving it be destroyed; and that a
right of distress is one of the necessary legal incidents of the
estate. Then he argues that the plaintiff's distress was not by virtue
of the deed, but was founded on the intrinsic and essential qualities
of the estate in the grantor, and that the reference to the deed in
the avowry was only for the purpose of defining the estate and the
amount of the rent.

I think the defect of the argument will be found to consist in the
third proposition. Not that it is untrue as a general position that a
vested estate will survive the instrument of its creation, but that
the position is too broadly stated when it is made to include an
incorporeaI hereditament which lies in grant, and can only exist by
virtue of a deed, devise, or record, or by prescription, which is
rather to be considered as an evidence of a former acquisition, than
as an acquisition de nora: 2 Black 66.

That ground-rent is a rent-service was demonstrated in Ingersoll v
Sergeant, l Wh. 337, a case which has been so often recognized and
followed as to have become a rule of property. Rent-service was the
only kind of rent originally known to the common law; a right of
distress was inseparably incident to it so long as it was payable to
the lord who was entitled to the fealty; and it was called a rent-
service because it was given as a compensation for the military or
other services for which the land was originally liable. When a rent
was granted out of lands by deed, the grantee had no power to distrain
for it, because there was no fealty annexed to such grant.  To remedy
this inconvenience an express power of distress was inserted in grants
of this kind, and it was thence called a rent charge, because the
lands were charged with a distress. Rent-seek, or barren-rent, is in
effect nothing more than a rent for the recovery of which no power of
distress is given, either by rules of the common law or the argument
of the parties: 1 Co. Lit. (Thomas' ed.) star p. 443, in note, and 2
Black. (Sharswood's) 42, and note.  Blackstone ranks all of these
rents as incorporeal hereditament, and Coke, commenting on Littleton's
distinction between feoffment and grants, says, here is implied a
division of fees into corporeal, as lands and tenements which lie in
livery, comprehended in this word feoffment, and may pass by livery
with or without deed, and incorporeal, which lie in grant, and cannot
pass by livery but by deed, as advowson, commons, etc: 2 Coke Lit.
(Thomas' ed), star page 333. Rent belongs to this category, and is
implied by Lord Coke's "etc.," and is indeed the most perfect
illustration of an incorporeal hereditamint, for it issues directly
out of the thing corporate, without being any part of it.

But suppose the deed by which an incorporeal hereditament was granted
be lost or destroyed, must the grantee lose his estate? Lord Chief
Justice Eyre answers this question in Bolton v The Bishop of Carlisle,
2 H. Black. 23, Where he says, "In pleading a grant the allegation is
that the party at such time did grant, but if by accident the deed be
lost, there are authorities enough to show that other proof may be
admitted; the question in that case is whether the parties did grant?
To prove this, the best evidence must be produced, which is the deed,
but if that be destroyed, other evidence may be received to show that
the thing was once granted. "So in Reed v Brookman, 3 T.R. 151, where
a lost release of an annuity was pleaded without profert, the King's
Bench sustained the plea and overruled the demurrer to it.

These cases, and others cited in the argument to the same effect,
assert nothing more than a rule of evidence in very familiar practice
with us, that secondary evidence will be received where the party
shows it is out of his power, without any fault of his, to produce the
primary, but they establish no exception to the general rule that
incorporeal estates must be evidence by a grant. If the best evidence
of the grant cannot be had, the next best will be received; but the
result of the evidence must be to establish the grant. Even when an
easement is to be sustained by prescription, or a right of way by
necessity, a grant is presumed from long enjoyment, of the easement,
or from the necessity for the right of way, and thus again the result
of the evidence is to establish the grant. So true is the maxim that
incorporeal hereditament lie only in grant.

But what is to be said to a party who is unable to produce the
original grant because he has himself fraudulently altered it? Shall
he or his alienee be permitted to go into secondary evidence? When
the law has refused him all its forms of action on such a mutilated
instrument, will it allow him to take redress into his own hands and
levy a distress for himself? This would be to reverse the maxim, in
idiom spoliatoris, omniapraesumuntur. In accordance with the maxim,
we ought rather to presume that he never had a grant, and therefore
no estate which carried with it the incidental right of distress.

It is apparent that this view of the case places the plaintiff in
error upon the arisen deed just as much as she stood upon it in her
former action of covenant, and it has been suggested, not in
forgetfulness that it is not the position chosen for her by her
consul, but by way of showing that his main proposition was too
broadly stated for the case in hand, and that, holding only an
incorporeal hereditament, he cannot get her case away from the deed.
It seems to me that her right of distress must be judged by the deed,
and that the deed is no more available for this purpose than it was
for the actions of debt and covenant.

But now let the case be looked at from another stand-point.  By the
common law, before the statute of quia emptores (18 Edw. l, c. l, A.D.
1290), according to the text of Littleton, "if s man made a feoffment
in fee simple, by deed or without deed, yielding to him and his heirs
a certain rent, this was a rent service, and for this he might
distrain of common right; and if there were no reservation of any
rent, nor of any service, yet the feoffee held of the feoffor by the
same service as the feoffor did hold over of his lord next paramount."
Upon which latter clause beginning with the words "and if there were
no reservation," Lord Cokes's comment is, "This is evident, and
agreeth with our books that in this case the law created the tenure,"
and on the words "by deed or without deed," he observes, "for all
rent-services may be reserved without deed; and at the common law, if
man made a feoffment in fee by parol, he might upon that feoffment
reserve a rent to him and his heirs; because it was a rent-service,
and a tenure thereby created:

Rent-service, then, was an essential element of the feudal tenure. It
did not depend on contract, it resulted necessarily out of the grant
of the feud. The services which the vassal was bound to preform were
indeed declared by the lord at the time of the investiture in the
presence of the other vassals: 1 Craise's Digest 9, and were assented
to of course by the vassal: but as these were to a great extent
uncertain, they could not be specified, and were only declared in a
general way, as to attend on the lord in war, and on his courts in
times of peace; to defend his person, and aid him to pay his debts,
etc.; terms not agreed upon as between contracting parties, but terms
dictated by a superior to an inferior. And by the old feudal law, the
nonperformance of these services was not redressed by distress, but by
forfeiture of the feud. Baron Gilbert, in his excellent little work on
the "Law of Replevins, "tells us that the distress came from the civil
law into the common law, and that there appear no footsteps of it in
the feudal authors. He admits, however, that it is immemorial in the
common law and was at first as burdensome and grievous to tenants as
the feudal forfeiture; for to the tenant there was no difference
between the lord's seizing the land itself, or stripping him of the
whole produce and fruits of it at his pleasure. But these oppression
ended with the wars of the Barons, and towards the end of the reign of
Henry III. particular laws were made to regulate the manner of
distressing, and not to suffer the lords to extend this remedy beyond
the mischief it was first introduced for, which was no more than to
empower the lord, by seizing the chattels, to oblige the tenant to
preform the feudal services: Gilbert's Law of Replevin, pp, 4-6.
Fealty to him from whom the lands were holden was the great
characteristic of feudal tenures: the services of fealty were enforced
by distress, and hence, although a feud were granted absolutely, in
fee simile, by livery of seisin only, and without a word of
reservation expressed, the lord had his right of distress for the
rent, which came to be the substitute of the feudal services. That
right depended not on contract, or the terms of the feoffment, but was
a condition of the tenure. It is very clear that it would have been no
answer to a distress to tell the lord that he had lost, or by his
wrongful act avoided, the deed which expressed the reservation of his
rent service. The reply could have been that the rent-service depended
on no formal reservation, but that it resulted by inherent necessity
out of the tenure, and that distress was its inseparable incident.
This is the ground on which the present case is attempted to be
supported, Let us proceed carefully in tracing the principles of the
law that must determine whether it can be placed on this ground.

The statute of guia emptores destroyed subinfeudation in England.
Saith Littleton (speaking of the effect of the statute), "where a man
upon a gift in tail, or a lease for life, will reserve to himself a
rent-service, it behoveth that the reversion of the lands and
tenements be in the donor or lessor, for if a man will make a
feoffment in fee, or will give lands in tail, the remainder over in
fee simple, without deed reserving to him a certain rent, this
reversion is void; for that no reversion remains in the donor, and
such tenant holds his lands immediately of the lord of whom his donor
held:" 1 Thomas, Coke Litt. star p. 444. Such was the effect of the
statute.


I find the best explication of this subject in Comyn on Landlord and
Tenant, p. 97, to the effect following: "The statute guia emptores
having abolished all intermediate tenures, and the reversion of every
fee being by the feoffment divested out of the feoffor, and
transferred to the original lord of the fee: the fealty and rent, as
incident thereto, were likewise transferred. The fealty was
inseparably incident to the reversion, and therefore never could be
lost to the ultimate lord. But the rent, though generally incident
to the reversion, might, at the will of the feoffor, be so separated
from it, and reserved to the feoffor himself,  provided such
reservation were by deed. But the fealty being now severed from the
rent, the remedy by distress, which was only given in respect of the
fealty, became lost to the feoffor; and therefore such rent stood
precisely in the same situation as other rents before the statute;
and could only be distrained for by being charged upon the land by a
special clause in the deed of reservation.  When, therefore, a man
aliens all his estate, and leaves no reservation in him, as if tenant
in fee make a feoffment, or tenant for life alien his life estate, no
rent can be reserved, except it be by a deed.  On the other hand, a
lease for years not being alienation of the freehold, but a mere
contract for a temporary enjoyment of the land, a rent might well be
reserved by parol upon such a contract."

The effect of the statute, to state it more briefly, was to take the
rent-service out of the tenure, upon subinfeudation, and to convert it
into a rent-charge, which must have a contract to support it. Now it
is apparent that any right of distress which Arrison or his alienee,
Mrs. Wallace, possessed, would in England be referred to the deed,
because the reversion was gone from them, and all the essential
qualities of the tenure went with the reversion. But the statute of
guia emptores was never in force in Pennsylvania, Ingersoll v
Sergeant, 1 Wh. 337, and therefore this rent-service is not converted
into a rent charge.  Can it exist then independently of the deed? It
certainly can, in the absence of the statute quia emptares, if our
titles be feudal: it as certainly cannot, if our titles be allodial.

I see no way of solving this question, except by determining whether
our Pennsylvania titles are allodial or feudal. It seems strange that
so fundamental a question as this should be in doubt at this day, but
it has never had, so far as I know, a direct judicial decision. In a
valuable note by Judge Sharswood to the opening passage of
Blackstone's Chapter on Modern English Tenures (2 Sharswood's Black.
77), it is said, "that though there are some opinions that feudal
tenures fell with the Revolution, yet all agree that they existed
before, and the better opinion appears to be that they still exist."
In support of this statement, the feudal principles that have entered
into our conveyancing are alluded to, and several cases are cited in
which the consequences and qualities of feudal tenures have been
recognized in our estates, although generally, in these very cases, it
has been assumed that our property is allodial. I venture to suggest
that much of the confusion of ideas that prevails on this subject has
come from our retaining, since the American Revolution, the feudal
nomenclature of estates and tenures, as feel, freehold, heirs,
feoffment, and the like. This term "'rent-service"' is feudal
language, as we have seen, and yet there is nothing in the application
of such terms to determine the quality of the tenure; for Cruise tells
us, 1 Digest 7, that the circumstance of annexing a condition of
military service to a grant of lands does not imply that they are held
by a feudal tenure:  for the possessors of allodial property, who were
called in France liberi homines, were bound to the performance of
military service. He defines a feud as a tract of land held by a
voluntary and gratuitous donation, on condition of fidelity and
certain services, and allodial lands as those whereof the owner had
the dominium directum et verum, the complete and absolute property,
free from all services to any particular lord. And yet the accident of
services being annexed to an allodial grant, did not make it feudal,
which shows that the genuine distinction consisted in fealty, and not
in services.  Fealty, says Christian, in his note to 2 Black. 46,
quoting Wright's Law of Tenures 35: "Fealty, the essential feudal
bond, is so necessary to the very notion of a feud, that it is a
downright contradiction to suppose the most improper feud to subsist
without it; but the other properties or obligations of an original
feud may be qualified or varied by the tenure or express terms of the
feudal donation."

Our question, then narrows itself down to this: is fealty any part of
our land tenures? What Pennsylvanian ever obtained his lands by
"openly and humbly kneeling before his lord, being ungrit, uncovered,
and holding up his hands both together between those of the lord, who
sat before him, and there professing that he did become his man from
that day forth, for life and limb, and earthly honor, and then
receiving a kiss from his lord?"  This was the oath of fealty which
was, according to Sir Martin Wright, the essential feudal bond so
necessary to the very notion of a feud.

I grant that the charter to Penn was in free and common socage, to
which feudal tenures had at that time been reduced in England, and
that the oath of fealty belonged to socage tenures as much as to
original feuds, and was expressly recognized in the charter. But
then came the Revolution, which threw off the dominion of the mother
country, and established the independent sovereignty of the state and
on the 27th day of November 1779 (1 Smith's Laws, 480), an act was
passed for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of
Pennsylvania in the Commonwealth. This act, after reciting in, four
sections the rights and duties of a sovereign state, proceeded in
sec. 5 to transfer to the Commonwealth every estate, right, title,
interest, property, claim, and demand of the proprietaries, as fully
as they hold them on the 4th day of July 1776, and all royalties,
franchises, and lordships, granted in the Charter of King Charles the
Second, were vested in the state. The manors and lands which had been
surveyed for the proprietaries were excepted, and a pecuniary
compensation to them was provided.  Another Act of 9th of April 1781,
2 Smith 532, provided for opening the land office and granting lands
to purchasers; and, says the 11th section, "all be free and clear of
all reservations and restrictions as to mines, royalties, quit-rents,
or otherwise, so that the owners thereof respectively shall be
entitled to hold the same in absolute and unconditional property, to
all intents and purposes whatsoever, belonging to or accruing from
the same, and that clear and exonerated from any charge or encumbrance
whatever, excepting the doubts of the said owner, and excepting and
reserving only the fifth part of all gold and silver ore for the use
of the Commonwealth, to be delivered at the pit's mouth, clear of all
charges.

If it should be suggested that these acts were inapplicable to the
city of Philadelphia, because it had been laid out by the
proprietaries before the opening of the land office by the state, I
would refer to Judge Gibson's observations in Bubley v Vanhorn, 7 S.
& R. 184, Where he says, to have suffered the Penn family to retain
those rights which they held strictly in their proprietary character,
would have been inconsistent with the complete political independence
of the state. The province was a fief hold immediately from the Crown,
and the Revolution would have operated very inefficiently towards
complete emancipation, if the feudal relation had boon suffered to
remain. It was therefore necessary to extinguish all foreign interest
in the soil, as well as foreign jurisdiction in the matter of
government.

We are then to regard the Revolution and these Acts of Assembly as
emancipating every acre of the soil of Pennsylvania from the grand
characteristic of the feudal system. Even as to the lands held by the
proprietaries themselves, they held them as other citizens held, under
the Commonwealth, and that by a title purely allodial.  All our lands
are held mediately or immediately of the state, but by titles purged
of all the rubbish of the dark ages, excepting only the feudal names
of things not any longer feudal.

Escheat, which was one of the incidents of feudal tenures, is
sometimes mentioned as making the feudal origin of our titles, and
the allegiance which we owe to the state is also often spoken of as
fealty. Escheat, with us, depends on positive statute, which makes
the state the heir of property on defect of known kindred of the
decedent.  Nothing about it but the name is feudal, and this is
another instance in which a word applied in a sense different from
its original meaning, suggests ideas which have been exploded. As
to allegiance, it is indeed due from every citizen to the state, but
it is a political obligation, and is as binding on him who enjoys the
protection of the Commonwealth, without owning a foot of soil, as on
him who counts his acres by hundreds and thousands. So also it is
due to the Feudal Government, through which none of our titles have
been derived. The truth is, that this obligation, which is reciprocaI
to the right of protection, results out of the political relations
between the government and the citizen, and bears no relation whatever
to his land titles any more than to his personal property.

Under the Acts of Assembly I have alluded to, the state became the
proprietor of all lands, but instead of giving them like a feudal lord
to an enslaved tenantry, she has sold them for the best rice she could
get, and conferred on the purchaser the same absolute estate she held
herself, except the fifth of gold and silver, and six acres in the
hundred for roads, and these have been reserved, as everything else
has been granted, by contract. Her patents all acknowledge a pecuniary
consideration, and they stipulate for no fealty, no escheat, rent-
service, or other feudal incident. I conclude, therefore, that the
state is lord paramount as to no man's land. When any of it is wanted
for public purposes, the state, in virtue of her political
sovereignty, takes it, but she compels herself, or those who claim
under her, to make full compensation to the owner.

Now, if the state was not paramount lord of the lots which Arrison
possessed, how could he become the lord of his grantee? How could he
receive anything out of those lots, against his absolute deed in fee
simple, except, by an express reservation? To do so, he must ignore
the American Revolution, and all our legislation about lands, and
place himself back upon the common law, as it stood in the thirteenth
century, before the statute of quia emptores was passed.  But if he is
not permitted to do all this, then he must show a deed for what he
claims, and this brings us back to the first conclusion, that the
present right of distress depends on a deed rio less than the previous
actions at law.

There is in the English reports a long line of cases terminating in
Ward v Lumley, decided in the Exchequer in 1860, and reported in 5
Hurlstone, Young & Gordon, wherein it was held that canceling a lease
by mutual consent of both parties, does not destroy the estate vested
in the lessee, and the lessor may therefore maintain an action of debt
on the demise for the recovery of the rent, a case which is a fair
type of its class and which it is said rules the present case in favor
of the plaintiff in error.

An obvious distinction betwixt that case and the present is the
absence of all fraudulent intent in the destruction of the lease; but
not to insist on this, let me say that all cases of that sort proceed
on the ground that, the lease leaves a reversion in the lessor, in
virtue of which he may sue for rent. That this in that ground of
recovery in such instances, is shown by the cases in which it has been
held that a lessor cannot bring an action of covenant, after he has
assigned the reversion for any breach subsequent to the assignment,
but the action can only be brought by the assignee of the reversion.
Consequently, if the assignee of the reversion sue the assignee of the
term, or the assignee of the term sue the lessor, the action is local,
and must be brought in the county where the land lies: Thursby v
Plant, 1 Saund. Rep. 241, and notes.

Now, whoever will turn back and read the extract I made from Comyn,
will see that the statute quia emptores did not affect leases of
chattel interests, but only feoffment by mesne lords.  Subinfeudation
was what the statute destroyed, and it destroyed it by vesting the
reversion in the ultimate signory. But in leases for years, the
reversion remains in the lessor, and goes by assignment, to his
assignee, and carries with it the right of action.  The case, is that
here was a conveyance in fee simple of an allodial estate, without any
reversion remaining in the grantor, and therefore all his remedies for
rent on his contract.  If the estate were feudal the absence of the
statute would lead to a different conclusion; but with great deference
to all counter opinions, I hold that the estate was strictly allodial,
and that Arrison retained only what was expressed in the deed. If the
question were up for the first time, we might perhaps doubt whether
the alteration made by Arrison was fatal to Mrs.  Wallace's rights;
but we consider ourselves concluded on that question by the previous
decisions, and have not therefore discussed it. Taking the doctrine of
those cases, the only question left has seemed to us to be, whether
Mrs. Wallace had any remedy by virtue of the estate that is in her,
and independently of the deed; and all we have said must be understood
as applying to that question.

We have not thought it worth while to consider the case in connection
with the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries, for if that statute should
be found to be applicable, it would only bring us to the conclusion
which we reach without it.

The judgment is affirmed.

               LAND PATENTS AND ALLODIAL TITLES

                  Part I: Introduction

If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of
their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks
and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of
all property until their children will wake up homeless on the
continent their father occupied. [Thomas Jefferson]

While it is generally believed in America today that the purpose of
the American Revolution was to resist taxation without representation,
the actual reason was to eliminate the cause of this and many other
injustices, and that cause was the admiralty jurisdiction imposed
within the bodies of the counties. A major effect of this cause was a
contractual feudal/serf relationship between the colonial landholders
and the Crown - legal title being held by Great Britain and an
equitable title being held by the colonist/serf in possession of and
working the land.

This presumption of rightful legal title was challenged by the
colonists, who insisted that the King of England did not own the land
and, therefore, it was not his to grant to supportive colonists.
After the Revolution, the land became the property of each State's
people, with the authority of the people to parcel out the land to
claimants in a fair and equitable manner. If some land remained
unoccupied, Jefferson said that anyone occupying it has, by
possession, the right of ownership. Land was to be held by allodial
title, which simply means there is "No superior or overlord" to the
land owner. He was Sovereign on his land.

One of the earliest statutes for granting land patents was passed
by an Act of Congress, April 24, 1820, which prohibited the use of
credit for the purchase of government land.  In the debates in
Congress prior to the passage of this Act, Senator King of New York
said:

It (the Act) is calculated to plant in the new county a population
of independent, unembarrassed freeholders...it will put it in the
power of every one to purchase a freehold, the price of which can be
cleared in three years... it will prevent the accumulation of an
alarming debt, which experience proves never could or would be paid.

In 1862, the Homestead Act, Section 4, provided that:

No lands acquired under the provisions of this Act shall in any event
become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts contracted
prior to the issuing of the land patent.

The issue of allodial v feudal land titles in Africa was addressed by
the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania in the case of Wallace
v Harmstad in 1863:

I see no way of solving this question, except by determining whether
our Pennsylvania titles are allodial or feudal...

I venture to suggest that much of the confusion of ideas that prevails
on this subject has come from our retaining, since the American
Revolution, the feudal nomenclature of estates and tenures, as fee,
freehold, heirs, feoffment and the like.

Our question, then, narrows itself down to this:  is fealty any
part of our land tenures?

What Pennsylvanian ever obtained his lands by openly and humbly
kneeling before his lord, being un-girt, uncovered, and holding up
his hands both together between those of the Lord, who sat before
him, and there professing that he did become his man from that day
forth, for life and limb, and certainly honor, and then receiving a
kiss from his lord?  This was the oath of fealty which was, according
to Sir Martin Wright, the essential feudal bond so necessary to the
very notion of a feud.

We are then to regard the Revolution and these Acts of Assembly as
emancipating every acre of soil of Pennsylvania from the grand
characteristics of the feudal system.  Even as to the lands held by
the proprietaries (City of Philadelphia) themselves, they held them as
other citizens held, under the Commonwealth, and that by a title
purely allodial.  Wallace v Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492, (1863)

So, the people had a right to allodial land titles as a direct result
of the Declaration of Independence and the War for Independence that
followed.  A holder of an allodial title (i.e., there being no
Superior or overlord) cannot taxed on that property against his
consent.  There could be a transfer or sales tax imposed by the State
at the time of purchase, but no taxation of the property itself
against the owner's consent.  And yet, the taxation of property soon
became the custom, and not the exception, in this country.  Why and
How?

When taxation of real property began, because of "the confusion of
ideas that prevails on this subject," the people unknowingly, and
voluntarily accepted the premise that government was the Superior
and the legal title holder; and their interest in the land was merely
an equitable one. This voluntary acceptance constituted tacit consent
to a feudal contract. King George, once again, was back in America.

When the gigantic public trust was implemented in 1913 via the Federal
Reserve Act, no immediate changes with regard to this master/serf
relationship between government and landholder were necessary. Life
went on as usual with no clues to the fact that all property had been
hypothecated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve; and as
trustees, they held legal title. This was accomplished by allowing the
same taxing agencies to act as administrating agents for this newly
formed trust.

With the feudal tenant registered as a beneficiary of this trust via a
Birth Certificate, and title to the land held in trust, further
involvement and the consequent subjection to the controls of
management was left to the individual. For example: The farmer/tenant
was left to his own devices and discretion as to what to plant, when
to plant, how much to plant, etc., as long as he paid his tithes to
the tax collector (now, in actuality, a collector of interest and/or
insurance, premiums. However, when he applied, for, and received, such
"benefits" as farm subsidy, government supported grain storage, etc.,
he became further bound to the trust and incurred certain additional
obligations and duties, he voluntarily subjected himself to the
coercive terms of adhesion contracts. Now, he could be ordered and
directed as what to plant, where to plant, when to plant, how much of
each crop, and even be ordered to destroy crops already in existence.
If he thought that such coercive, and apparently insane, actions were
violative of his rights to due process of law and went to court, as
many farmers did, he lost; and the court did not tell him why, that a
contract was being enforced against him in which he had voluntarily
subjected himself to its coercive terms.

If he had understood the facts and the applicable law, as it applies
to those facts, he could have used the law to extricate himself from
such an intolerable situation, in lieu of having the law used against
him.


The founding fathers knew free men could survive only as long as they
owned allodial title to property, because it is this type of ownership
that accounted for broad spectrum distribution of income and
preservation of the common law jury system, which they referred to as
the "palladium," or the very cornerstone, of liberty. They also knew
that manipulation of the money supply, via debt, would ultimately take
from the people their substance by concentrating the property into the
hands of a few.

Mortgage foreclosures of equitable title interests are on the
increase, and are the means of implementing this public policy.


The best title one can acquire from a title company today is a "Fee
Simple Absolute" defined as:

A fee simple absolute is an estate limited absolutely to a man and his
heirs and assigns forever without limitation or condition.

At first blush it would appear that this is the same title as
"allodial" defined as:

Free, not holden to any lot or superior; Black's Law Dictionary

In order to discover the legal distinction between the terms
"allodial", and "fee simple absolute,"  we must define the word
"estate" as used in the definition of "fee simple absolute."

ESTATE: The degree, quantity, nature, and extent of interest which a
person has in real property is usually referred to as an estate, and
it varies from absolute ownership down to naked possession. Black's
Law Dictionary

Thus, "fee simple absolute" is an over broad, catch all, phrase that
encompasses all interests in land from allodial down to naked
possession. It in no way describes or defines your vested interest
in the land. Clearly, if the land is in trust, with legal title being
held by the trustees of that trust, you do not possess allodial title.
In order to discover your particular interest in this "fee simple
absolute" (your degree of serfdom), we must know of all adhesion
contracts you have consummated, placing additional burdens and
restrictions upon your use of that land.

Maybe we are beginning to understand the legal basis for planning
commissions, land use permits, building permits, etc., etc... The
bottom line is the degree, quantity, nature, and extent of interest;
and which party to the contract(s) possesses what.

What we are going to examine now is how one, as a free sovereign, can
claim allodial title to property hypothecated to a trust governed by
the Monetary Power.

The formula of the Monetary Povier for a world program to deprive
landowners of their lands has been stated thus:

We shall soon begin, to establish huge monopolies, colossal reservoirs
of wealth, upon which even the big... properties will be dependent to
such an extent that they will all fall together with the government
credit on the day following the political catastrophe.  The economists
here present, must carefully weigh the significance of this
combination. We must develop, by every means, the importance of OUR
SUPER GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTING IT AS THE PROTECTOR AND BENEFACTOR OF
ALL WHO VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT TO US. (Join the Trust wherein "US" are
the trustees)

The aristocracy... as a political force has passed away. We need not
take theirs into consideration. But, as owners of land, they are
harmful to us in that they are independent in their sources of
livelihood. THEREFORE, AT ALL COSTS, WE MUST DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR
LAND.

THE BEST MEANS TO ATTAIN THIS, IS TO INCREASE THE TAXES AND MORTGAGE
INDEBTEDNESS. These measures will keep land ownership in a state of
unconditional subordination...

At the same time, IT IS NECESSARY TO ENCOURAGE... ESPECIALLY...
SPECULATION... Without Speculation industry will cause private capital
to increase and tend to improve the condition of Agriculture by
freeing the land from indebtedness for loans by the land banks.
It is necessary for industry to deplete the land both of and through
speculations, transfer all the money of the world into our hands....

To destroy... industry, we shall, as an  incentive to this
speculation, encourage a strong demand for luxuries, all enticing
luxuries.

We will force up wages, which however will be of no benefit to the
workers, for we will at the same time cause a rise in the prices of
prime necessities, pretending that this is due to the decline of
agriculture and cattle raising....That THE TRUE SITUATION SHALL NOT
BE NOTICED PREMATURELY, (before recognition of the Anti-Christ), WE
WILL MASK IT, BE A PRETENDED EFFORT TO SERVE THE WORKING CLASS AND
PROMOTE GREAT ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES, FOR WHICH AN ACTIVE PROPAGANDA
WILL BE CARRIED ON THROUGH OUR ECONOMIC THEORIES.

Part II: Color of Title

Today, the American based system establishing land ownership consists
of three key requirements. These three are the warranty deed or some
other type of deed purporting to convey ownership of land, title
abstracts to chronologically follow the development of these different
types of deeds to a piece of property, and title insurance to protect
the ownership of that land. These three ingredients must work together
to ensure a systematic and orderly conveyance of a piece of property.
None of these three by itself can act to completely convey possession
of the land from one person to another. At least two of the three are
always deemed necessary to adequately satisfy the legal system and
real estate agents that the title to title property has been placed in
the hands of the purchaser.  Often, all three are necessary to
properly pass the ownership of the land to the purchaser. Yet does the
absolute title and the ownership of the land really pass from the
seller to purchaser with the use of any one of these three instruments
or in any combination thereof?  None of the three by itself passes the
absolute or allodial title to the land, the system of land ownership
in America originally operated under, and even combined, all three can
not convey this absolute type of ownership. What then, is the function
of these three instruments that are used in land conveyances; and what
type of title is conveyed by the three? Since the abstract only traces
the title and the title insurance only insures the title, the most
important and therefore the first group to examine are the deeds that
purportedly convey the fee from seller to purchaser.

These deeds include the ones as follows: warranty deed, quit claim
deed, sheriff's deed, trustee's deed, judicial deed, tax deed, will,
or any other instrument that purportedly conveys the title.  Each of
these documents state that it conveys the ownership to the land. Each
of these, however, is actually a color of title. [G.  Thompson, Title
to Real Property, Preparation and Examination of Abstracts, Ch. 3,
Section 73, p.93 (1919.]

A color of title is that which in appearance is title but which in
reality is not title; and, in fact, any instrument may constitute
color of title when it purports to convey title to the land, as well
as the land itself, although it is void as a muniment of title. The
Supreme Court of Missouri has stated:

[When we say a person has a color of title, whatever way be the
meaning of the phrase, we express the idea, at least, that act has
been previously done... by which some title, good or bad, to a parcel
of land of definite extent has been conveyed to him. St. Louis v
Gorman, 29 Mo. 593 (1860)

In other words, a color of title is an appearance of apparent title,
an "image" of the true title, hence the qualification "color of"
which, when coupled with possession, purports to convey the ownership
of the land to the purchaser. However, this does not say the color of
title is the actual or true title itself, nor does it say the color of
title itself actually conveys ownership. In fact the claimant or
holder of a color of title is not even required to trace the title
through the chain down to his instrument. Rather it may be said a
color of title is prima facie evidence of ownership of land, and
rights to possession of the land until such time as that presumption
of ownership is disproved by a better title or the actual title
itself. If such cannot be proven to the contrary, then ownership of
the land is assumed to have passed to the occupier of the land. To
further strengthen a color of title holder's position, courts have
held that the good faith of the holder of a color of title is presumed
in the absence of evidence to, the contrary.

With such knowledge of what a color of title is, it is interesting to
discover what constitutes colors of title:

1. Warranty deed - A warranty deed is like any other deed or
conveyance, and a warranty deed or conveyance is a color of title.


2. Deeds generally - Deeds constitute colors of title and a deed that
purports to convey interest in land is a color of title.  A deed
which, on its face, purports to convey a title constitutes a claim and
color of title.

3 . Quit-claim deeds - A quit-claim deed is a color of title and
can pass the title as effectively as a warranty with full covenants.


4. Sheriff's deeds, Judicial deeds, and tax deeds are also colors of
title. The Illinois Supreme Court Went into detail in its
determination that a tax deed is only a color of title:

There the complainant seems to have relied upon the tax deed as
conveyinq to him the fee, and to sustain such a bill, it was
incumbent of him to show that all the requirements of the law had been
complied with. Huls v Buntin, 47 ILL- 396 (1865)

A simple tax deed by itself is only a color of title and does not meet
all the requirements of the law for a fee simple, allodial title. Thus
any tax deed which purports, on its face, to convey title is a good
color of title.

5 . Wills - A will passes only a color of title and can pass only so
much as the testator owns, though it may attempt to pass more.

6. Trustee's deed, mortgage and foreclosure - A trustee's deed, a
mortgage and strict foreclosure or any document defining the extent of
a disseisor's Claim or purported claim have all been held to be colors
of title:

[t]here is nothing here requiring a deed, to establish a color of
title, and under the former decisions of this court, color of title
may exist without a deed. Baldwin v Ratcliff, 125 ILL. 376 (1888)

Thus, a color of title does not mean the actual title, nor does the
question of notice of outstanding title effect a color of title.

None of these cases have been overruled and are still valid, well
established, law. All of the documents described in these cases are
the main avenues of claimed land ownership in America today: yet, none
actually conveys the true and allodial title. They in fact convey
something quite different.

When it is stated that a color of title conveys only an appearance of
title, such a statement is correct but, perhaps, too vague to be
properly understood in its correct legal context. Of better use are
the more pragmatic statements concerning title. A title, or color of
title, in order to be effective in transferring the ownership, or
purported ownership, of the land must be a marketable or merchantable
title.

A marketable or merchantable title is one that is reasonably free from
doubt. This title must be reasonably free from doubts as necessary to
not affect the marketability or salability of the property, and must
be a title a reasonably prudent person would be willing to accept.
Such a title is often described as one which would ensure to the
purchaser a peaceful enjoyment of the property;  and it is stated that
such a title must be obvious, evident. apparent, certain, sure or
indubitable.

Marketable Title Acts adopted in several states generally do not lend
themselves to an interpretation that they might operate to provide a
new foundation of title based upon a stray, accidental, or interlopinq
conveyance. Their object is to provide for the recorded, fee simple
ownership an exemption from the burdens of old conditions,, which at
each transfer of the property interferes with its marketability. What
each of these legal statements in the various factual situations says
is that the color of title is never described as the absolute or
actual title, rather each says that is one of the types of titles
necessary to convey ownership or apparent ownership. In order for a
title to be effective it must be marketable - it must be a title which
is good of recent record even if it may not be the actual title in
fact.

Authorities hold that to render a title marketable, it is not only
necessary that it shall be free from reasonable doubt; in other words,
that a purchaser is not entitled to demand a title absolutely free
from every possible suspicion. Cummings v Dolan, 52 Wash. 496, 100 P
989 (1909)

The record referred to is the title of abstract and all documentary
evidence pertaining to it:

It is an axiom of hornbook law that a purchaser has notice only of
recorded instruments that are within his chain of title. (1 R, Patton
& C. Patton, Patton on Land Titles. Section 69, at 230-233.  (2nd ed.
1957); Sabo v Horvath, 559 P.2d 1038 (AK. 1976) ]

Title insurance then guarantees that a title is marketable but not
absolutely free from doubt, and under the color of title system used
most often in this country today, no individual operating under this
type of title system has the absolute or allodial title.  All that is
really necessary to have a valid title is to have a relative clean
abstract with a recognizable color of title as the operative
marketable title within the chain of title. It therefore becomes
necessarily difficult, if not impossible after a number of years,
considering the inevitable contingencies that must arise and the title
disputes that will occur, to ever properly guarantee an absolute
title. This is not necessarily the fault of the seller, but it is the
fault of the legal and real estate systems for allowing such a diluted
form of title to be controlling in an area where it is imperative to
have the absolute title. In order to correct this problem, it is
important to return to those documents the early leaders of the nation
created to properly ensure that property remained one of the
inalienable rights the newly established sovereign freeholders could
rely on to always exist.  This correction must be in the form of
restricting or perhaps eliminating the widespread use of a marketable
title and returning to the absolute title.

Part III: LAND Patents - Why They Were Created

The Americans had a choice as to how they wanted their new government
and country to be formed. Having broken away from the English
sovereignty and establishing themselves as their own sovereigns, they
had their choice of types of taxation, freedom of religion, and most
importantly ownership of land. The Founding Fathers chose allodial
ownership of land for the system of ownership in this country:

After the American Revolution, lands in this state (Maryland) became
allodial, subject to no tenure nor to any services incident thereto.
in re Waltz et al., Burlow v Security Trust and Savings Bank, 240 P.
19 (1925), quoting Matthews v Ward, 10 Gill & Johnson (Md.) 443 (1839)

The tenure referred to in this case was the feudal tenure and the
services or taxes required to be paid to retain possession of the land
under the feudal system. This new type of ownership was acquired in
all thirteen states.

The basis of English land law is the ownership of the realty by the
sovereign and from the crown all titles flow. It was stated this way
in the case of McConnell v Wilcox:

From what source does the title to the land derived from a government
spring? In arbitrary governments, from the supreme head be he the
emperor king or potentate; or by whatever name he is known. In a
republic, from the law making or authorizing to be made the grant or
sale. In the first case, the party looks alone to his letters patent;
in the second, to the law and the evidence of the acts necessary to be
done under the law, to a perfection of his grant, donation or
purchase... The law alone must be the fountain from whence the
authority is drawn; and there can be no other source. McConnell v
Wilcox, 1 Scammon ILL. 344 (1837)

The American people as newly established sovereigns after the
Revolutionary War, became complete owners in their land beholden to
no lord or superior, sovereign freeholders in the land themselves.
These freeholders in the original thirteen states now held allodial
the land they possessed before the war only feudally. This new and
more powerful title protected the sovereigns from unwarranted
intrusions or attempted takings of their land. More importantly,
it secured in them a right to own land absolutely in perpetuity.
By definition, the word perpetuity means:

Continuing forever. Legally, pertaining to real property, any
condition extending the inalienability... [Black's Law Dictionary,
p. 1027 (5th ed. 1980).]

In terms of an allodial title, it is to have the property of
inalienability forever. Nothing more need be done to establish the
ownership of the sovereigns to their land, although confirmations
were usually required to avoid possible future title confrontations.

The Constitution in its original form was ratified by a convention of
the states on September 17, 1787. The Constitution and the government
formed under it were declared in effect on the first Wednesday of
March, 1789. Prior to this time, during the Constitutional Convention,
there was serious debate on the disposal of what the convention called
the "Western territories," now the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota,, more commonly known as the
Northwest Territory, This tract of land was ceded to the new American
republic in the treaty signed with Britain in 1783.  1783.Part of the
method by which the new United states decided to dispose of its
territories, was stipulated in Article IV, Section III, Clause 2, of
the U.S. constitution:

The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful
Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property
belonging to the United States.

Thus, Congress was given the power to create a vehicle to divest the
National government of all its right and interest in the land. This
vehicle, known as the land patent, was to forever divest the
government of its land and was to place such total ownership in the
hands of the sovereign freeholders who collectively created the
government. The land patents issued prior to the initial date of
recognition of the United States Constitution were ratified by the
members of Constitutional Congress. Those patents created by statute
after March, 1789, had the Congressional intent behind such statutes
as a reference and basis for the determination of their powers and
operational effect.

There have been dozens of statutes enacted pursuant to Art.IV Sec.
III, Cl. II. some of these statutes had very specific intents of
aiding soldiers of wars or dividing lands in a very small region of
one state, but all had the main goal of creating in the sovereigns -
freeholders on their lands - a status in which they were beholden to
no lord or superior. One of these acts however, was the main patent
statute in reference to the intent Congress had when creating the
patents. That Statute is 3 Stat.  566.

In order to understand the validity of a patent in today's property
law, it is necessary to turn to other sources than the acts
themselves. These sources include the Congressional debates and case
law citing such debates. The best source is the Abridgment of the
Debates of Congress, Monday, March 6, 1820. This abridgment and the
actual debates found in it concern 3 Stat. 566, one of the most
important of the land patent statutes.

In this important debate, the reason for such a particular act in
general and the protection afforded by the patent in particular were
discussed. As Senator Edwards stated:

But, he said, it is not my purpose to discuss, at large, the merits of
the proposed change. I will, at present, content myself with an
effort, merely, to shield the present settlers upon public lands from
merciless speculators, whose cupidity and avarice would unquestionably
be tempted by the improvements which those settlers have made with the
sweat of their brows, and to which they, have been encouraged by the
conduct of the government itself; for though they might be considered
as embraced by the letter of the law which provides against intrusion
on public lands, yet, that their case has not been considered by the
Government as within the mischiefs intended to be prevented is
manifest, not only from the forbearance to enforce the law,, but from
the positive rewards which others, in their situation, have received,
by the several laws which have heretofore been granted to them by the
same right of preemption which I now wish extended to the present
settlers.  [Id. at 456.]

Further, Senator King from New York stated:

He considered the change as highly favorable to the poor man; and he
argued at some length, that it was calculated to plant in the new
country a population of independent, unembarrassed freeholders... that
it would cut up speculation and monopoly; that the money paid for the
lands would be carried from the state or country from which the
purchaser should remove; that it would prevent the accumulation of an
alarming debt, which experience proved never would and never could be
paid. [Id. at 456-57]

In other statutes, the Supreme Court recognized much of these same
ideas.

The object of the Legislation is manifest. It was intended to prevent
speculation by dealings for rights of preference before the public
lands were in the market. The speculator acquired power over choice
spots, by procuring occupants to seat themselves on them and who
abandoned them as soon as the land was entered under their preemption
rights, and the speculation accomplished. Nothing could be more easily
done than this, if contracts of this description could be enforced,
The Act of 1830, however, proved to be of little avail; and then came
the Act of 1838 (5 stat. 251) which compelled the preemptor to swear
that he had not made an arrangements by which the title might inure to
the benefit of anyone except himself, or that he would transfer it to
another at any subsequent time. This was preliminary to the allowing
of his entry, and discloses the policy of Congress.

Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of
titles emanating from the United States and the whole legislation of
the government must be examined in the determination of such titles.
It was clearly the policy of congress, in passing the preemption and
patent laws, to confer the benefits of those laws to actual settlers
upon the land. The intent of Congress is manifest in the
determinations of meaning, force, and vested in the patent. These
cases illustrate the power and dignity given to the patent. It was
created to divest the government of its lands, and to act as a means
of conveying such lands to the generations of people that would occupy
those lands. This formula, "or his 'legal' representatives,"  embraces
representatives of the original grantee in the land, by contract, such
as assignees or grantees, as well as by operation of law, and leaves
the question open to inquiry in a court of justice as to the party to
whom the patent, or confirmation, should enure. The Patent was and is
the document and law that protects the settler from the merciless
speculator from the people that use avarice to unjustly benefit
themselves against an unsuspecting nation. The patent was created with
these high and grand intentions, and was created with such intentions
for a sound reason.Part IV: The Power And Authority Of A Patent

Legal titles to lands cannot be conveyed except in the form provided
by law. Legal title to property is contingent upon the patent issuing
from the government.

That the patent caries the fee and is the best title known to a court
of law is the settled doctrine of this court. Marshall v Ladd, 7
Wallace (74 U.S.) 153 (1869).

A patent issued, by the government of the United States is legal and
conclusive evidence of title to the land described therein. No
equitable interest, however strong, to land described in such a
patent, can prevail at law, against the patent. [Land Patents,
opinions of the United States Attorney General's office.  (Sept.
1869)]

A patent is the highest evidence of title, and is conclusive against
the government and all claiming under junior patents or titles, until
it is set, aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal. Stone v United
States, 2 Wallace (69 U.S.) 765 (1865)

The patent is the instrument which, under the laws of Congress, passes
title from the United States and the patent when regular on its face,
is conclusive evidence of title in the patentee. When there is a
confrontation between two parties as to the superior legal title, the
patent is conclusive evidence as to ownership. Congress having the
sole power to declare the dignity and effect of its titles has
declared the patent to be the superior and conclusive evidence of the
legal title.


Issuance of a government patent granting title to land is 'the most
accredited type of conveyance known to our law'. (United States v
Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103 (1935); see also United States v Cherokee
Nation, 474 F.2d 628 (1973)

The patent is the only evidence of the legal fee simple title.  These
various cases and quotes illustrate one fact that should be thoroughly
understood. THE PATENT IS THE HIGHEST EVIDENCE OF TITLE AND IS
CONCLUSIVE OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN COURTS OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.

Part V: Treaties - The Substance of Federal Land Patents

The question of supremacy of confirmed federal patent proceedings,
pursuant to an 1851 Act that had been enacted to implement the Treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, versus a claimed public trust easement
by the City of Los Angeles, and State of California, was decided by
the United States Supreme Court in April, 1984 (Summa Corporation v
State of California, 104 U.S.  1751, 31 Cal.3d 288,182 Cal. Rptr. 599,
644 P.2d 792). In this case petitioner (Summa Corporation) owned the
fee title to the Ballona Lagoon, a narrow body of water connected to a
man-made harbor located in the City of Los Angeles on the Pacific
ocean. Thelagoon became part of the united States following the war
with Mexico, which was formally ended by the Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo in 1848. Petitioner's predecessors in interest had their
interest in the lagoon confirmed in federal patent proceedings
pursuant to an 1851 Act to implement the treaty, which provided that
the validity of claims to California lands would be decided according
to Mexican law. California made no claim to any interest in the lagoon
at the time of the patent proceedings, and no mention was made of any
such interest in the patent that was issued.

Los Angeles brought suit against petitioner in a California state
court, alleging that the city held an easement in the Ballona lagoon
for commerce, navigation, fishing, passage of fresh water to canals,
and water recreation; such an easement having been acquired at the
time California became a State. California was joined as a defendant
as required by state law and filed a cross-complaint alleging that it
had acquired such an easement upon its admission to the Union and had
granted this interest to the city.

The trial court ruled in favor of the city and State, finding the
lagoon was subject to the claimed public easement. The California
Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner's arguments that the
lagoon had never been tideland. Even if it had been, Mexican law
imposed no servitude on the fee interest by reason of that fact, and
such a servitude was forfeited by the State's failure to it in the
federal patent proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

The question we face is whether a property interest so substantially
in derogation of the fee interest patented to petitioner's
predecessors can survive the patent proceedings conducted pursuant to
the statute implementing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

CALIFORNIA ARGUES THAT SINCE ITS PUBLIC TRUST SERVITUDE IS A SOVEREIGN
RIGHT, THE INTEREST DID NOT HAVE TO BE RESERVED EXPRESSLY ON THE
FEDERAL PATENT TO SURVIVE THE CONFIRMATION PROCEEDINGS...

The necessary result of the Coronado Beach decision (U.S. v Coronado
Beach Co., 255 U.S. 472 (1921), is that even "sovereign" claims such
as, those raised by the State of California in the present case must,
like other claims, be asserted in the patent proceedings or be
barred...

Those decisions control the outcome of this case. WE HOLD THAT
CALIFORNIA CANNOT AT THIS LATE DATE ASSERT ITS PUBLIC TRUST EASEMENT
OVER PETITIONERS PROPERTY, WHEN Petitioner's PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST
HAD THEIR INTEREST CONFIRMED WITHOUT ANY MENTION OF SUCH AN EASEMENT
in proceedings taken pursuant to the Act of 1851.  The interest
claimed by California is one of such substantial magnitude that...
(it) must have been presented in the patent proceedings or be barred.

Part VI: The Land Acquisition Treaties [C]

Northwest Ordinance:

A resolution of Congress that merely stated its intent that the
territory shall be divided into three to five states to be created
upon the existence of a certain number of inhabitants required to
become states of the Union. The Ordinance was not a treaty. Its
subject matter was part of all territory gained from Great Britain
under the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, 1783, 8 Stat.80.

Treaty of Peace, 8 Stat. 80 (1783):

The boundaries of the territory are given in Article II of the treaty,
i.e., the western boundaries of those states today known as
Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois and Minnesota - all the
states from the Mississippi River and eastward to include the,
original 13 colonies. Therefore, every federal land patent in every
state thereof flows from that treaty.

Treaty Of Cession, 8 Stat. 200 (April 20, 1803):

This was the famous "Louisiana Purchase" from which was gained the
following states: Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
Iowa, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and the
Northeast two-thirds of Colorado.

Treaty of Ghent: 8 Stat. 218 (October 20, 1818):

Merely established the northern boundary of the Louisiana Purchase as
the 49th parallel to the Rocky mountains.

An agreement with Great Britain that gave the United States undisputed
claim to the Pacific Northwest south of the 49th parallel. The states
created from this acquisition are Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and the
southwest corner of Wyoming.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 9 Stat. 922 (1848):

Following the War with Mexico, under this treaty, the United States
paid Mexico $15 million dollars in gold coin for reparations, and the
territory now known as the states of California, Nevada, Utah,
Arizona, and the western portions of Colorado and New Mexico.

It is noteworthy that all lands under this treaty, purchased by
private individuals from the United States, were paid for in gold and
silver coin; after which a federal land patent was confirmed and
issued to the private claimant.

Because of the confusion of land claims by the Gold Rush settlers on
Mexican land grants, Congress enacted the Act of Congress, March 2,
1851, to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of
California. For the first time, a Land the State of California. For
the first time, a Land Commissioner was established to confirm the
claims and the Court of Private Land Claims was established to settle
disputes before final confirmation by what is now known as the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management under the present Department of the Interior
of the United States. The Act of 1851 established a two year limit to
contest claims, after which the confirmed land claims were closed
forever by the issuance of a federal land patent that generally
included the phrase: ...given this___ day to________ his heirs and
assigns forever.

No claims could be made after the issuance date of the patent.  This
is what Summa (supra) was all about. The two year limitation on
contests of federal land patents issued to private land claimants was
extended by the Act of March 3, 1891, and is still in force today.

Gadsden Purchase, 10 Stat. 1031 (Dec. 30, 1853):

This was a treaty between Mexico and the United States in which the
U.S., paid $10 million dollars in gold coin to Mexico for that
southernmost strip, of New Mexico. The treaty is significant because
it refers back to the Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo and conferred all
the same rights and privileges to Citizens of that territory as in the
1848 treaty. Hence, that southernmost portion is, in actual fact
included in the Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo.  All feudal land patents
in this area also flow from treaty law.


Cession of Texas:

Texas was annexed to the United States by the independent vote
of the inhabitants.

While the Cession of Texas is a treaty, it was annexed as a House
Joint Resolution (HJR) and it should be reasonably certain that its
inhabitants had the same protection as those given under treaty law.


Part VII: The Supremacy Clause

The lead case which said treaty law cannot be interfered with by a
state legislature is Ware v Hylton (1796), 3 Dallas (3 U.S.  199). In
this case, the Supreme Court held that a treaty is the supreme law of
the land, pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution.

... and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding...

Any act of the legislature cannot stand in its way because a treaty is
the declared will of the people of all the United States and shall be
superior to the constitution and laws of any individual state. In
other words, federal land patents put into evidence by a land owner
cannot be challenged by a state court because it flows from a United
States treaty and, therefore no court has jurisdiction over title or
ownership to land traced to this paramount source of title. Only
private citizens were given federal land patents, hence the term
"private land claim," or "PLC," used by the Bureau of Land Management
as the date of the original patent.

Because all federal land patents flow from treaties that fall under
the supremacy clause, no state, private banking corporation or other
federal agency can question the superiority of title to land owners
who have "perfected" their land by federal land patent.  Jurisdiction
by any state court is invalid. Since federal land patents cannot be
collaterally attacked as to their validity or authenticity as the
highest evidence of, title, no mortgage institution can claim title to
land by its "lien." Certified federal land Patents were given free and
clear allodial title with no encumbrances, then and now!

43 USC 59 establishes duly certified copies of federal land patents
shall be evidence in all cases where originals would be evidence.
Section 57 covers the states of Oregon and California.  Section 58
covers Louisiana.

43 USC 83 covers the evidentiary effect of certified federal land
patents for all states. All the courts in the United States must take
judicial notice of these federal patents and their evidentiary effect
under these federal statutes. If the patents are not certified when
entered into evidence, any court may ignore the patent and overrule it
as evidence of superior or paramount title versus the mortgage lien,
the county tax assessment, etc..

The Act of Congress, March 3, 1851, since updated by the Act of
Congress, 1891, stated anyone who was establishing a claim had to have
it confirmed by the United States Land Commission. If no one protested
that claim within a two year period, it could no longer be attacked
under any circumstances, it was final. This is what the Summa case
addressed. When the United States Supreme Court interprets a federal
statute, the courts of every state are bound by that interpretation.

The key to finding case law in every state upholding federal treaty
and its laws can be found in its law libraries in the Key Digest under
"public lands". Am. Jur. 2d is the starting point to find the case law
on treaties as they pertain to decisions in the states.  

Part VIII: In Summary

The federal land patent is the paramount or common source of titles
from the united States government. It is the mechanism and procedure
for an individual to lay claim to his right to allodial title of land,
as was established by the Declaration of Independence (our first
organic Law) and the War for Independence that followed. A free
sovereign individual who has a perfected federal land patent in his
possession, is in a very enviable position at law.  No one can take
that land from him without first proving they have a superior vested
right in the land, and that is not possible.

For example, a title company insures "good title" and a bank has given
a farmer a loan on those grounds. Basically the title insurance
company is at fault; they did not search that title back far enough to
its original source to see who owned the land. If the bank
subsequently attempts to foreclose, the farmer, who has done his
homework properly should win. Any remaining controversy is between the
bank and the title insurance company. In this example, it appears that
it does not matter whether the farmer is an heir or assign, the bank
has to prove it has superior title in that land in order to take it
over.

Anyone who has purchased foreclosed lands has done so without guaranty
of clear title, including IRS and state taxing agency foreclosures. By
perfecting a federal land patent, a free sovereign should now be in a
position to go on the offense.