Sponsored
Joseph DeCota
by on September 17, 2021
15 views
American Property Rights
The revolutions in property among the Barbarians... As long as the German tribes dwelt in their forests, it did not occur to them to divide and appropriate the soil. The land was held in common: each individual could plow, sow, and reap. But, when the empire was once invaded, they bethought themselves of sharing the land, just as they shared spoils after a victory. "Hence," says M. Laboulaye, "the expressions sortes Burgundiorum Gothorum and {GREEK, ' k }; hence the German words allod, allodium, and loos, lot, which are used in all modern languages to designate the gifts of chance."
Allodial property, at least with the mass of coparceners, was originally held, then, in equal shares; for all of the prizes were equal, or, at least, equivalent. This property, like that of the Romans, was wholly individual, independent, exclusive, transferable, and consequently susceptible of accumulation and invasion. But, instead of its being, as was the case among the Romans, the large estate which, through increase and usury, subordinated and absorbed the small one. Among the Barbarians—fonder of war than of wealth, more eager to dispose of persons than to appropriate things—it was the warrior who, through superiority of arms, enslaved his adversary. The Roman wanted matter; the Barbarian wanted man.
Consequently, in the feudal ages, rents were almost nothing,—simply a hare, a partridge, a pie, a few pints of wine brought by a little girl, or a Maypole set up within the suzerain's reach. In return, the vassal or incumbent had to follow the seignior to battle (a thing which happened almost every day), and equip and feed himself at his own expense.
"This spirit of the German tribes—this spirit of companionship and association—governed the territory as it governed individuals. The lands, like the men, were secured to a chief or seignior by a bond of mutual protection and fidelity. This subjection was the labor of the German epoch which gave birth to feudalism. By fair means or foul, every proprietor who could not be a chief was forced to be a vassal." (Laboulaye: History of Property.)
By fair means or foul, every mechanic who cannot be a master has to be a journeyman; every proprietor who is not an invader will be invaded; every producer who cannot, by the exploitation of other men, furnish products at less than their proper value, will lose his labor. Corporations and masterships, which are hated so bitterly, but which will reappear if we are not careful, are the necessary results of the principle of competition which is inherent in property; their organization was patterned formerly after that of the feudal hierarchy, which was the result of the subordination of men and possessions.
The closest form of government where the federal government dominates the lives of the people using federal land is feudalism/manorialism. Today the federal government replaces the king as the landlord. This new king serves Global special interests, usually environmentalist and international dictates, which are contrary to the interests of the local farmer, rancher , homesteader, or private land owner. Too often they are also contrary to actual land and the environmental health.
In 1783 Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to insist that all federal land should be sold as quickly as possible and, “shall never after, in any case, revert to the United States.”
To ensure that the federal government never amassed large land holdings, our Founders allowed only three forms of federal land ownership and jurisdiction in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" "To exercise exclusive Legislation…, over such District [of Columbia] (not to exceed ten Miles square);"… " and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State…for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock Yards, and other needful buildings." (Italics added) [there exists no authority to own the land otherwise]
Most Americans have no idea that over 50 percent of the Western U.S. is owned or controlled by the federal or state governments. This creates a feudal relationship between an all-powerful government and the local landowners who must use the adjacent federal land to make a living. Our National Forests and Monuments are now under UN control. The United Nations along with Non-Governmental Organizations by way of WEF, REX84, Codex Alimentarius, and Agenda 21 policies, adopted by most UN countries, including the United States, has had a devastating affect on personal liberty and private property rights.
“legal titles cannot be conveyed except in the form provided by law.” McGarrahan v. Mining Co. 96 U.S. 316 (1877). When the word law is used it means common law. Modern Day Courts are not courts of law, they are equity courts under admiralty which has no jurisdiction over a sovereign unless the sovereign acquiesce. Officials are not Americans but rather agents of a foreign militarized corporate power structure.
“An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, transmissable to his heirs, absolutely and simply, is an absolute estate in perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in its nature.” Stanton V. Sullivan. 63 RI. 216696 (1839)
“This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, though from an opposite cause. Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term.” From an article describing property rights by James Madison, March 29, 1792 [this includes ones labor]
In a "Fifth Amendment" treatise by State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/97), he writes:
"Property "is defined by (Washington) state law. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972). Our state, and most other states, define property in an extremely broad sense."
"Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right." Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 409, 348 P.2d 664 (1960) (quoting from Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 355, 235 S.W. 513, 19 A.L.R. 1387 (1921)).
And further, Justice Sanders states:
"While it is up to each state to define property for itself, the right to use one’s property has been universally understood to be a fundamental attribute of real property ownership. Compare Eaton v. Boston, C. and M.R.R., 51 N.H. 504, 511-512 (1872) ("the framers of the Constitution intended to protect property rights which are worth protecting; not mere empty titles . . . among those elements is, fundamentally, the right of use . . . ") and Lord Coke: "to deprive one of the use of his land is depriving him of his land. What is the land but the profits thereof?" See also John M. Groen and Richard M. Stephens, Takings Law, Lucas, and the Growth Management Act, 16 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 1259, at 1266, 1295 (Spring 1993)."
If you are under the impression that you “own” your property because you paid good money for it and have the original deed with your name on it stored in a secure place for safekeeping, then read on … because, in fact, you are not the equitable or beneficial owner of that property but merely have what is called “color of title” with only an apparent right of ownership and possession as tenant (as long as you pay the levy/tax/rent, without full and absolute title (fee simple). Color of title is not the same thing as ownership with full and absolute (Allodial) title, but the powers that be would have you believe your deed is. [Affidavit of Transfer of Deed is not the deed]
Land is 3 dimensional space. Property is appurtenant to land. In the past, Land could not be bought or sold, but granted. If a person has a land patent and has title deed to the property on it, this is called allodial. If one party has title deed to the property and the other party has a land patent it is called feudal. Property is tangible, land is intangible. Property is taxable, land is not.
If you want to protect property you need to create asset protection, the IRS in title 26 shows which entities are nontaxable. Most land in the United States of America has been granted, to the people of this country and special reservation to the Native People and railroads by Congress.
Normally, as it was in the past, corporations cannot own land.
In my research, property tax is far from a recent invention and "property tax" was not just for land. The states/commonwealths taxed land, horses, cattle, and negroes. (their words, not mine) Land appeared on tax lists when in warrant or survey stage, and left when it became a patent. Land that was once patented ended up back on tax rolls when: 1 - owner died intestate with no heirs or assigns, 2 - owner got a mortgage using the land as collateral, 3 - subsequent owner got a mortgage.
A title deed holder, wanting to own the land, would simply bring the land patent forward in their name, they can do this because that is what title insurance is for, to protect the buyer of property from feudal issues that may come about later after purchase.
The critical aspect of land ownership is the extension of sovereignty by anyone who holds the land patent extending outward from their bodies domain, agency and possession. A land patent is supreme title to the land, but absolute ownership requires you to hold the land. Like a King. That is the hard part. This is another reason why the Second Amendment was adopted.
To patent your land is to protect your land and enable you to keep your land, through thick or thin, in good times and in bad, no matter what. Such a person (patentee), and his heirs, successors, and assigns, FOREVER OWNS that piece of land WITHOUT ANY RISK OF LOSING IT, until it is voluntarily placed in jeopardy such as given away, sold, or otherwise disposed of. No local, state or federal government, bank, mortgage company or speculator can ever take it away! [unless you violate drug laws that is, or the government abuses its power or authority in direct violation of your lawful & legal rights]
The supreme court of the United States of America has upheld land patents time and time again. “A patent for land is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive as evidence against the government and all claiming under junior patents or titles.” [United States v. Stone, 2 US 525]
“a patent to land is the highest evidence of title and may not be collaterally attacked” [State v. Crawford, 441p2d 586,590 (Ariz. app.1968)]
“the land patent is the highest evidence of title and is immune from collateral attack.” [Raestle v. Whitson, 582 p.2d 170,172 (1978)]
The Bureau of Land Management (created in 1946) has jurisdiction over land (surface and minerals) currently owned by the federal government, not private people’s land. If "your piece of ground" is not currently owned by the federal government, then the BLM most-likely has no jurisdiction over it.
“congress having the sole power to declare the dignity and effect it’s titles has declared the patent to be the superior and conclusive evidence of the legal title.” [Bagnell v. Broderick, 38 U.S. 438 (1839)]
“it is the largest estate in land that the law will recognize, a fee simple estate still exists even though the property is mortgaged or encumbered” [Hughes V. Miller’s Mutual Fire Insurance co., 246 s.w. 23 (1923)]
“state statutes that give less authoritative ownership of title than the patent can not even be brought into federal court.” [Langdon V. Sherwood, l24 U.S. 74,81 (1887)]
To pay off the civil war debt, the states eventually ceded their state land to the federal government in a trust. The trust limited its use to that of repaying the debt. Eventually, The private use of water on public land evolved into a property right that was codified by Congress as a “pre-existing right of possession” by a law, simply labeled the Act of 1866. This Act started what is known as the “split estate” in which one owner, the federal government in this case, owns the land and another owner, the homesteader, owns the mineral, grazing and/or water rights. The Act gave mineral rights to those miners actively mining the public lands and water rights to ranchers actively grazing the public lands. All other mineral and water rights remained with the federal government. These water and mineral rights were strengthened by the Act of 1870 and especially by the Desert Land Act of 1877.
Virginia’s 1783 “Cession of Western Lands to the United States” was the first to do so. The Act stated “…that the territory so ceded shall be…formed into states,…and the States so formed shall be distinct republican States, and admitted members of the Federal Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as other States….” (Italics added) This was known as the “Equal Footing Doctrine,” whereby every state entered statehood on an equal footing with all states already existing.
All land dispossessed of by the government prior to 1930 was patented to an individual (no fiction could own land), and that disposition was granted under various acts of Congress, such as the 1850 Oregon Donation Act—such patent, in pertinent part, states “to the patentee, his heirs, and assigns forever.” As a subsequent deed-holder via an equity interest in the property (you did pay for it, right?), you fall under the “assigns” category. Most of the patented lands were farms and ranches. I find that a lot of this land was re-registered so they could take advantage of government agricultural benefits.
A Michigan case Klais V. Danowski, 337 Mich. Reports 1964, Michigan Supreme Court held that, based on the supreme law of the land, patents to land were not cut off by the subsequent creation of the state and that the state has no jurisdiction on the patented lands. Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly found he could not attack a patent that is valid on its face. That means that neither the Michigan Supreme Court (or any other state supreme court), nor any lesser court can overturn the U. S. Constitution, acts of congress, a state’s enabling act and constitution, nor over 200 years of U.S. supreme court decisions upholding and abiding by the supreme law of the land which has always held that land patents convey and confirm absolute title to land.
Being the absolute legal title to land, the land patent, derived from the U.S. Constitution, makes the United States of America a party of interest in any attack on that title in courts of law. The only court of original and proper jurisdiction is the Supreme Court of the United States. The lesser federal courts can not rule on the force and effect of the patent. They must abide by the legislative intent, that patented land is outside of their jurisdiction.
“issuance of a government patent granting title to the land is ‘the most accredited type of conveyance know to our law’ “, [United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103,111, (1935)]; [United States v. Cherokee Nation, 474 f. 2d 628,634 (1973)]
“the patent is prima facie conclusive evidence of the title.” [Marsh v. Brooks, 49 U.S. 223,233 (1850)]
“a patent, once issued, is the highest evidence of title, and is final determination of the existence of all facts,” [Walton v. United States, 415 f2d 121,123 (10th cir. (1969)]
“a patent is prima facie valid and if its validity can be attacked at all, the burden of proof is upon the defendant” [State v. Crawford, 475 p.2d (Ariz. app. 1970)]
Looking for land patent records, check your county archives, then your state archives, then BLM (if not in the original 13 colonies); western states may want to reverse this order.
Fundamental Law of the Land - Forgetting this Law Loses One's Liberties - Fundamental Law of the Land is the law to which BOTH the People and governments are subject. The founding fathers understood the fundamental Laws of the Land.
At his 1801 inaugural, Thomas Jefferson said, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." And he wrote, "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." Letter, September 28, 1820.
US Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I § 1982
42 U.S. Code § 1982 - Property rights of citizens
All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. (R.S. § 1978.)
In a “Fifth Amendment” treatise by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/97), he writes: Our state, and most other states, define property in an extremely broad sense.” That definition is as follows:
“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.”
As a Founding Father, John Adams said:“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
President Calvin Coolidge said:“Ultimately, property rights and personal rights are the same thing.”
The Founding Fathers were very concerned about private property rights. Their Constitution and Bill of Rights protected property in many ways:
* The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4). They also required that indirect taxes, such as import duties, be levied uniformly (I-8-1 and I-9-6). They flatly denied Congress power to tax exports (I-9-5). * They empowered Congress to protect intellectual property by authorizing copyright and patent laws (I-8-8). * They granted Congress authority to punish piracy, a crime directed principally against property (I-8-10).
* They denied Congress and the states authority to pass ex post facto laws (I-9-3 and I-10), a ban that some of the Founders thought would protect property.
* When it became clear that the ban on ex post facto laws was not broad enough to protect property, they partially plugged the gap with the Fifth Amendment, which (1) prevented any person from being deprived of . . . property, without due process of law;� and (2) required compensation when property [was] taken for public use. �
* They added a section (Article I, Section 10) with several provisions protecting financial assets against state governments.
* Similarly, they inserted a section providing that those who had loaned money to the former Confederation Congress would be able to enforce those debts against the new government (V-1).
* They granted the federal courts jurisdiction over interstate land claims and interstate debts to limit the extent to which state courts could discriminate against the property rights of out-of-staters (III-2-1 and III-2-2).
* They added the Full Faith and Credit Clause (IV-1) partly to require state courts to honor property records in other states.
* Most of the Founders opposed slavery, but given the system of the day, they even included provisions that protected “property”� in slaves (e.g., I-9-1).
* The Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause (IV-2-1) protected the rights of citizens doing business and owning land in other states (including, the rights of women and free African-American citizens).
* The Founders gave Congress an unlimited power to dispose of public land (IV-3-2), but only limited power to acquire or hold land (I-8-17 and certain incidental powers). This was because they wanted most publicly-owned land to be transferred to the private ownership.
* The Founders inserted a provision specifically protecting the property of family members of those convicted of treason (III-3-2).
* They adopted the Third Amendment, preventing the government from quartering troops in private homes. * They adopted the Fourth Amendment, which protected “persons, houses, papers, and effects” from unreasonable “search and seizure”.
* They added the Eighth Amendment, which barred excessive fines.
* They also inserted a number of other checks and balances, designed partly to protect minorities from unfair property confiscations.
This is quite an extensive list; the only reason it wasn’t longer was because the Constitution was designed to give the federal government only limited powers over property. Under their Constitution, the States, not the federal government, would be the primary protectors and regulators of property.
As James Madison elaborated, property rights are as important as personal rights because the two are intimately connected. The right to labor and acquire property is itself an important personal right and entitled to government protection; and the property acquired through the exercise of this personal right is entitled, by derivation, to an equal protection. As he put it in his “Address at the Virginia Convention”: “It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right.”
Rancher and Property Rights Activist Wayne Hage said:“If you don’t have the right to own and control property then you are property.”
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” Frédéric Bastiat, French economist, author, and member of the National Assembly 1801 – 1850
Private Property Rights mean:
1. The owner’s exclusive authority to determine how private property is used;
2. The owner’s peaceful possession, control, and enjoyment of his/her legally purchased, patented/deeded private land/property;
3. The owner’s ability to make contracts to sell, rent, or give away all or part of the legally purchased/deeded private property;
4. That local, city, county, state, and federal governments are prohibited from exercising eminent domain for the sole purpose of acquiring legally purchased/deeded private property so as to resell to a private interest or generate revenues;
5. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government has the authority to impose directives, ordinances, fees, or fines regarding aesthetic landscaping, color selections, tree and plant preservation, or open spaces on legally purchased/deeded private property;
6. That no local, city, county, state or federal government shall implement a land use plan that requires any part of legally purchased/ deeded private property be set aside for public use or for a Natural Resource Protection Area directing that no construction or disturbance may occur;
7. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government shall implement a law or ordinance restricting the number of dwellings that may be placed on legally purchased/ deeded private property;
8. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government shall alter or impose zoning restrictions or regulations that will devalue or limit the ability to sell legally purchased/deeded private property;
9. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government shall limit profitable or productive agriculture activities by mandating and controlling what crops and livestock are grown on legally purchased/deeded private property;
10. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government representatives or their assigned agents may enter private property without the written permission of the property owner or is in possession of a lawful warrant from a legitimate court of law. This includes invasion of property rights and privacy by government use of unmanned drone flights.
The First Estate - Always Acting With An Informed Discretion.
Posted in: Education
Topics: liberty
Be the first person to like this.