ALLODIAL v FEUDAL TITLES

[pierre]

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist." John Adams

MEMORANDUM OF LAW HISTORY, FORCE & EFFECT OF THE LAND PATENT

SECTION I

ALLODIAL v FEUDAL TITLES

In America today, there is a phenomenon occurring that has not been experienced since the mid-1930's. That phenomenon is the, increasingly, rising number of foreclosures, both in the rural sector and in the cities. This phenomenon is occurring because of the inability of the debtor to pay the creditor the necessary interest and principle on a rising debt load, that is expanding across the country. As a defense, the land patent or fee simple title to the land and the Congressional intent that accompanies the patent is hereby being presented. In order to properly evaluate the patent in any given situation, it is necessary to understand what a patent is, why it was created, what existed before the patent, particularly in Common-Law England. These questions must be answered in order to effectively understand the association between the government, the land, and the people.

First, what existed before land patents? Since it is imperative to understand what the land patent is and why it was created, the best method is a study of the converse, or the Common Law English land titles. This method thus allows us to fully understand what we are presently supposed to have by way of actual ownership of land.

In England, at least until the mid-1600's, and arguably until William Blackstone's time in the mid-1700's, property was exclusively owned by the King. In arbitrary governments; the title is held by and springs from the supreme head -- be he the emperor, king, potentate; or by whatever name he is known.
McConnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scam (Ill.) 344, 367 (1837).

The king was the true and complete owner, giving him the authority to take and grant the land from the people in his kingdom who either lost or gained his favor. The authority to take the land may have required a justifiable reason, but such a reason could conceivably have been fabricated by the king leaving the disseised former holder of the land wondering what it was that had brought the king's wrath to bear upon him. At the same time the beneficiary of such a gift, while undoubtedly knowing the circumstances behind such a gift, may still not have known how the facts were discovered and not knowing how such facts occurred, may have been left to wonder if the same fate awaited him if ever he fell into disfavor with the king.

The King's gifts were called fiefs, a fief being the same as a feud, which is described as an estate in land held of a superior on condition of rendering him services. 2 Blackstone's Commentaries, p.105. It is also described as 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 ownership in the lands, Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition p. 748 (1968). Thus, the people had land they occupied, devised, inherited, alienated, or disposed of as they saw fit, so long as they remained in favor with the King. F.L. Ganshof, Feudalism, P. 113 (1964). "This holding of lands under another was called a tenure, and was not limited to the relation of the first or paramount lord and vassal, but extended to those to whom such vassal, within the rules of feudal law, may have parted out his own feud to his own vassals, whereby he became the mesne lord between his vassals and his own or lord paramount. Those who held directly to the king were called his "tenants in ... chief.” 1 E. Washburn, Treatise on The American Law of Real Property, Ch. II, Section 58, P. 42 (6th Ed. 1902). In this manner, the lands which had been granted out to the barons principal lands were again subdivided, and granted by them to sub feudatories to be held of themselves. Id., Section 65, p.44. The size of the gift of the land could vary from a few acres to thousands of acres depending on the power and prestige of the lord. See supra Ganshof at 113. The fiefs were built in the same manner as a pyramid, with the King, the true owner of the land, being at the top, and from the bottom up there existed a system of small to medium sized to large sized estates on which the persons directly beneath one estate owed homage to the lord of that estate as well as to the King. Id. at 114. At the lowest level of this pyramid through at least the 14th and 15th centuries existed to serfs or villains, the class of people that had no rights and were recognized as nothing more than real property. F. Goodwin, Treatise on The Law of Real Property, Ch. 11 p. 10 (1905). This system of hierarchical land holdings required an elaborate system of payment. These fiefs to the land might be recompenses in any number of ways.

One of the more common types of fiefs, or the payment of a rent or obligation to perform rural labor upon the lord's lands known as socage, was the crops fief. Id. at 8. Under this type of fief a certain portion of the grain harvested each year would immediately be turned over to the lord above that particular fief even before the shares from the lower lords and then serfs of the fief would be distributed. A more interesting type of fief for purposes of this memorandum was the money fief. In most cases, the source of money was not specified, and the payment was simply made from the fief holder's treasury, but the fief might also consist of a fixed revenue to be paid from a definite source in annual payments in order for the tenant owner of the fief to be able to remain on the property. Gilsebert of Mons, Chronique, cc. 69 and 115, pp. 109, 175 (ed. Vanderkindere).

The title held by such tenant-owners over their land was described as a fee simple absolute. "Fee simple, Fee commeth of the French fief, i.e., praedium beneficiarium, and legally signifieth inheritance as our author himself hereafter expoundeth it and simple is added, for that it is descendible to his heirs generally, that is, simply, without restraint to the heirs of his body, or the like, Feodum est quod quis tenet ex quacunque causa sive sit tenementum sive redditus, etc. In Domesday it is called feudom." Littleton, Tenures, Sec. lb, Fee Simple. In Section 11, fee simple is described as the largest form of inheritance. Id. In modern English tenures, the term fee signifies an inheritable estate, being the highest and most extensive interest the common man or noble, other than the King, could have in the feudal system. 2 Blackstone's Commentaries, p. 106. Thus, the term fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denotes the most and best title a person could have as long as the King allowed him to retain possession of (own) the land. It has been commented that the basis of English land law is the ownership of all realty by the sovereign. From the crown, all titles flow. The original and true meaning of the word “fee" and therefore fee simple absolute is the same as fief or feud, this being in contradiction to the term “allodium" which means or is defined as a man's own land, which he possesses merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior. Wendell v Crandall, 1 N.Y. 491 (1848).

Therefore on Common-Law England practically everybody who was allowed to retain land, had the type of fee simple absolute often used or defined by courts, a fee simple that grants or gives the occupier as much of a title as the "sovereign" allows such occupier to have at that time. The term became a synonym with the supposed ownership of land under the feudal system of England at common law. Thus, even though the word absolute was attached to the fee simple, it merely denoted the entire estate that could be assigned or passed to heirs, and the fee being the operative word; fee simple absolute dealt with the entire fief and its divisibility, alienability and inheritability. Friedman v Steiner, 107 Ill. 131 (1883). If a fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denoted or was synonymous with only as much title as the King allowed his barons to possess, then what did the King have by way of a title?

The King of England held ownership of land under a different title and with far greater powers than any of his subjects. Though the people of England held fee simple titles to their land, the King actually owned all the land in England through his allodial title, and though all the land was in the feudal system, none of the fee simple titles were of equal weight and dignity with the King's title, the land always remaining allodial in favor of the King. Gilsbert of Mons, Chonique, Ch. 43, p. 75 (ed. Vanderkindere). Thus, it is relatively easy to deduce that allodial lands and titles are the highest form of lands and titles known to Common-Law. An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, transmissible 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 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839). "The original meaning of a perpetuity is an inalienable, indestructible interest." Bovier's Law Dictionary, Volume III, p. 2570 (1914). The King had such a title in land. As such, during the classical feudalistic period of Common-Law England, the King answered to no one concerning the land. Allodial titles, being held by sovereigns, and being full and complete titles, allowed the King of England to own and control the entire country in the form of one large estate belonging to the Crown. Allodial estates owned by individuals exercising full and complete ownership, on the other hand, existed only to a limited extent in the County of Kent.

The above is five pages of a twenty-four page document. The entire document can be purchased here:

http://www.svpvril.com/CATALOG/P0001394.html

[DaleSVP]

From the March 2001 Idaho Observer:
Washington man successfully removes his land from tax rolls
[This document and the details of this property are on file in the office of The I.O.]

Following is the story of how I successfully withdrew my land from taxation in Washington State. For three years the county prosecutor threatened to foreclose on my property for non-payment of taxes. However, my property was finally dropped from the tax roll last year, and the county treasurer ceased sending the annual tax (rent) statement. I have enclosed an affidavit from a disinterested person who walked into the county treasurer's office and inquired into the tax status of my land. He ascertained not only that the property was not being taxed, but that the county had dropped the prior three years of back taxes and penalties.
As county officials took an adversarial position towards me, it was a rather complex and lengthy process walking through their defacto government minefield. Up to now I have been pretty quiet about my success, but I am now considering writing a book to detail exactly how I withdrew my property from county, state and federal jurisdiction. Given the complexity of this subject I can only give a "cocktail napkin" sketch here of my successful actions.
The secret of my success is contained in a book entitled The Errant Sovereign's Handbook by Augustus Blackstone (aka "Uncle Gus"). Without the fundamentals given in this book, I would not have gotten to first base nor would I have built my case on a solid foundation.
So here is an abridged version of what I did:
1. I read the above book cover to cover and followed the procedures to become a sovereign Elector.
2. I then followed Uncle Gus's procedure in Chapter 11 to attempt to extinguish all tax debt attached to my property.
3. I withdrew my property from registration.
4. I perfected a land patent on my property.
5. I complied with the Uniform Commercial Code whenever I received a "tax statement" in the mail.
6. As the treasurer and her "attorney" were totally uncooperative, I had to finally play my trump card: Article I, Section 10, united States Constitution - "No state shall.make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." Uncle Gus knows how to play this card effectively.
After many unfulfilled requests for information and documents, I began to take steps to (potentially) place liens on certain county officials. In the process three lawfully recorded affidavits (which enumerated public disclosure violations) and $33 in recording fees were unlawfully removed from the county auditor's office without my consent and without a warrant (a felony in Washington.)
I subsequently sought a Declaratory Judgment against a prosecutor. However, my suit was dismissed.
You probably won't be surprised to learn that the judge never read my paperwork. I then began to press criminal charges and continue to do so.
When I reported the "theft under false pretenses" of my affidavits, a prosecutor, named in one of the stolen affidavits, threatened me (in writing) with undisclosed prosecution. Isn't it rather ironic that it is a felony in the state of Washington to threaten a civil "servant", but the "servants" can, with immunity, threaten a citizen for reporting a crime of a "servant?” Under these conditions I had to be careful in wording my communications so as not to threaten to sue a county "servant." Therefore, I simply made it clear that I "will defend my right to private property to the highest court in the land," which is not a threat but the assertion of a right.
Unfortunately, in today's world no one has any rights unless he or she is willing to defend them. I believe my success in defending my private property rights rests in the fact that 1) I used Uncle Gus's technology to build an airtight case, 2) I am willing to publicly expose abuse of power of civil servants, despite their intimidation tactics, 3) I made clear resolve to take my case to the united States' supreme court if necessary, and 4) it would cost "the county" far more to usurp my private property rights than it would ever collect through Marxist "taxation" or "foreclosure."
There are no guarantees, though. I believe the evidence that I have accumulated thus far reveals not only abuse of power by county officials but the fact that the Washington state governor and attorney general do not support the supreme law of the land but, instead, knowingly support the abuse of power by county officials. Frankly, I do not find this encouraging. However, last fall I perfected a land patent on a second parcel of land and the county has never challenged it.
To obtain a copy of The Errant Sovereign's Handbook, send $18.50 ( FRNs or the equivalent in coin only) to:
Augustus Blackstone
c/o postal service address 9986 N. Newport Highway, #221
Spokane, Washington [99218]
I do not receive any remuneration for plugging Uncle Gus's book. I am just very grateful because the information worked for me.
Yours in Liberty,
An American
"Steadfast and True in Washington State"
***
Note: We made the editorial decision to not publish this man's name due to the nature of his accomplishments. It has been proven to us that this man has indeed been able to obtain a land patent in Washington state. Those who are interested in more information are encouraged to write to him c/o The Idaho Observer. Just indicate “land patent” on the envelope and we will pass it on. Considering the battle this man went through and the victory he won for property rights in this country, we are honored to provide this small service. ~(DWH)

[DaleSVP]

CONTROL THE WATER, CONTROL THE POPULATION

by Brother Gregory Williams
September 26, 2009
NewsWithViews.com http://www.newswithviews.com/Gregory/williams108.htm

Water is an essential element of life and therefore the control of water is an essential element to the control of people. Congress cannot grant itself new rights any more than the 16 Amendment granted it new taxing authority.[1] Senate Bill 787 introduced by Senator Feingold as The "Clean Water Restoration Act" does not grant to congress a new regulatory right over all waters which ebb and flow, including lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds.[2] They already have it.

Congress is merely attempting to pass a bill to regulate rights we the people have failed to retain.[3] That is not what people want to hear, but that is what they need to hear. It is what Patrick Henry called the whole truth. The question is why does congress have that power and why have we failed to retain it?

We need to take a look at a wider picture and discover how liberty is gained and lost. People are charging around at the red cape of congress imagining that this “apparent” seizure of water rights is some sort of unwarranted usurpation of their property rights. If this was an usurpation of a bonafide right we could honestly revolt in righteous disobedience.

Everyone should know and those whom you chose to have ministered your education and enlightenment should have told you that at least since 1933 it has been well established, published, and cognizable in courts that “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”[4]

This idea that”individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of Government” is the absolute antitheses of what is required to maintain a pure republic. As we have already seen in previous articles a Republic[5] is “A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens…” so at least since 1933 the republic was virtually dead or at least abandoned.

The Federal government is supposed to guarantee to the States a “Republican form of government” but the people are supposed to “retain” their own rights. For the “supreme power” to remain with the people in the state they must lead lives that keep them independent of the “government.” Maintaining a republic is the responsibility of the people who live in it.

Ben Franklin was not kidding when he stated and asked, “You have a republic, now can you keep it?” When God granted man dominion on this planet, He directed and warned us to “dress it and to keep it” because if we were slothful we were likely to loose that individual dominion and go under the authority of another like Cain, Nimrod, Pharaoh, Saul, Caesar or whatever flavor is most popular.

“The first farmer was the first man, and all historic nobility rests on possession and use of land.” Emerson.

Early Americans came here to obtain an actual freehold title in land. Many, like the pilgrims who called themselves Separatists, would not even agree to come to America unless they could eventually obtain such fee simple tenure title where they actually owned the use of the land untaxed.

They knew that it was essential that the use of the land actually belonged to the people with no lord of earth standing between them and their God given dominion. The Pilgrims, and the Company who made their journey possible, had agreed that after 7 years of working for that Company some land and its use would actually be owned by the people independently of the Company. Since almost half of the original settlers were dead after the first year the price they were willing to pay for actual and clear title to land was extreme.

A Freeman[6] had and is defined as someone who had a free hold title in land. In colonial America, “The ordinary citizen, living on his farm, owned in fee-simple, untroubled by any relics of Feudalism, untaxed save by himself, saying his say to all the world in townmeetings, had gained a new self-reliance. Wrestling with his soul and plow on week days, and the innumerable points of the minister’s sermon on Sundays and meeting days, he was becoming a tough nut for any imperial system to crack.”[7]

It was for these reasons and their fierce self reliance and independence that the Freemen of America were able to lawfully sign the Declaration of Independence claiming an unwarranted usurpation by the king. These Freemen were still a minority in America, today they are almost none existent.

“Liber homo. A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to act as juror.[8] An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudatory.”[9]

They understood that the King was revolting against the terms of the Charters and the natural rights they had obtained through their own sweat and blood. Men earned a free status by taking responsibility for themselves and earning the beneficial use of their own land and property by paying for it with the substance of their own being.

It was the propertied class and those who hoped to be Freemen someday who sought a righteous independence from unlawful usurping tyranny. These few but freedom loving Americans who were risking all so that they and their children might remain free were not rebels, but revolutionaries, and had been so since they first stepped foot in this new world.

Those who sought to be free souls under God, accepted the responsibilities coeval with those endowed rights. As usual most of the people were lukewarm on the subject. Over fifty thousand Americans joined the British to fight against those Americans seeking independence from the Crown's abuses of their well earned liberty.

These freeholders were not “contending that our rabble, or all unqualified persons, shall have the right of voting, or not be taxed; but that the freeholders and electors, whose right accrues to them from the common law, or from charter, shall not be deprived of that right.”[10]

Citizenship “in the United States” has become “a political obligation depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign.”[11]

This is a far cry from statements of the courts back in 1829 which said things like “People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.”[12] Or declarations of the court in 1793 which state, “In one sense, the term ‘sovereign’ has for its correlative ‘subject.’ In this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the [Original] Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.”[13]

What has happened to turn the world upside down and make the government sovereign and the people subject? This shift in society in relationship to its government seems to make the gains of that revolutionary conflict and the prior struggles and sacrifice little more than a failed enterprise.

We have rested far to long on the laurels of men, long dead, who once secured God given rights for themselves and their posterity. Their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness required a virtuous society composed of “minutemen” in word and deed, willing to pay the ultimate price for their sons, daughters and even their neighbors' freedom. Our modern pursuit of personal happiness has involved; not a virtuous heart but a visa mentality; not minutemen of service and sacrifice, but a government of benefits and entitlements at the expense of our neighbor; not a society willing to pay the price of liberty for all, but a monetary systems of indebtedness at the expense of our children.

Why have the people gone from sovereigns to subjects?

There are numerous reasons for this shift of which I could write a book about and have.[14] One reason is because people naturally want to believe they are free.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”[15]

Another reason is that Citizens of the United States do not own freehold title in land. They have, at best, a mere legal title. A “legal title” is only an “apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of ‘equitable title.’[16]

To put it more simply, people work all their lives to obtain a legal title which does not include the right to the, “Profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract, or the ownership of an estate...” [17] They have just paid for the right to rent the land they live on, the use of which is highly regulated.


Their ownership is not by the virtue and endowment of God to dress and keep but is by the “virtue of Government.” As a mere user, a United States citizens, they must pay a use tax if they wish to keep “the right to use and enjoy property according to one’s own liking or so as to derive a profit or benefit from it…[18] Fail to pay and you will be evicted. Fail to comply and you will be fined. Fail to bow and you will be punished. To call our selves free makes a mockery of those sacrificed that we might be free.

This tax is called tribute. Tribute is, “A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter.”[19] This “Excise (tribute), in its origin, is the patrimonial right of emperors and kings.”[20]


“The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute.” Proverbs 12:24

If you owe Caesar you must pay Caesar, but have the honesty, courage and diligence to ask and seek the whole truth in righteousness as to why ye are subject to his ordinances and tribute?

“Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” Matthew 5:6

Footnotes:

1. Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)
2. Senate Bill – 787, Section 3 (8) A through G
3. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ninth Amendment, Bill of Rights.
4. Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933.
5. Chapter 7. of the book The Covenants of the gods, Republic vs Democracy.
6. “Freeman; the possessors of allodial lands.” See Liberi, Blacks 3rd. & Oxford Dictionary
7. History of the U.S. Vol.1 James Truslow Adams, p. 176.
8. Ld. Raym. 417; Kebl. 563.
9. Black’s 3rd Ed. page 1105.
10. The Works of Alexander Hamilton, edited by Henry Cabot Lodge, N Y, 1904, I, 172. 9 Ibid., March 31, 1768.
11. Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492; etc.(1863) Black’s 3rd Ed. p. 95.
12. Lansing vs Smith 21 D. 89...4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829) [Court of Appeals of New York, relevant to eminent domain law]
13. Chishom v.Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419,455, 1L Ed 440 (1793).
14. The Covenants of the gods
15. Johann W. Von Goethe
16. Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. p. 1734.(“Legal” & “Equitable” titles.)
17. Black’s 3rd p 206
18. Beneficial Use, Black’s 3rd p 206
19. Brande. Black’s 3rd Ed. p. 1757.
20. Vectigal, origina ipsa, jus Cæsarum et regum patrimoniale est.

© 2009 Brother Gregory Williams - All Rights Reserved


Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Brother Gregory was born in America in 1948. His father was a practicing attorney and his mother the daughter of Norwegian immigrants. He Married in 1973, and is the Father of 6 children with a growing number of grandchildren. He grew up in southeast Texas, attending private schools, entering the seminary at 13, where he studied Latin, Greek, and theology. In the course of these studies he began to become aware of secrets hidden for centuries within ancient libraries that began to reveal a more fundamental purpose in the gospel of Christ. His quest to understand the “whole truth” has led him down a labyrinth of law and language, history and prophecy, fable and fallacy, in a unique portrait of bondage and betrayal, liberty and freedom, and the solution and salvation.

He is the author of several books, include The Covenants of the gods, Thy Kingdom Comes, and The Free Church Report, dozens of pamphlets, audio, and video recordings. He has appeared on radio and television “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God” which is at hand, within your reach. His common theme is how are men brought into bondage and how are they made free souls under God. His hope and prayer is to bring man's relationship with the God of creation and his relationship with the gods of the “world” into a new perspective and light. Knowing the truth shall set you free, if we will do the will of our Father in heaven.

He now lives near Summer Lake, Oregon where he continues to care for his family, tending sheep of the Church and overseeing the edification of the Church established by Christ in the hearts and minds of congregations of the people, for the people, by the people who will seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

Website: HisHolyChurch.org

Other Williams Articles:

The Decline of Freedom

Romans 13 and Christ's "Clergy Response Teams"