Love for Life

Law-Property ownership - Allodial Title

19th May 2008

Allodium

Although this is a US based story, it still relates to Australia under the colour of law we have been duped by (see p4). See what has happened with removal of fee-simple on Queensland and the changes to the QLD (Brigalow Corporation) constitution.

This is now happening on NSW and Vic. Stay tuned and do your own research. Here’s a start:
http://www.saveoz.info/index.php?title=Land_ownership_removed_from_the_p...
http://www.agmates.com/News/aHewitt161007.html
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/2666
http://southerncrossparty.com/node/68
http://www.thewaterengine.com/law/SEC/As%20a%20citizen%20of%20the%20Comm...

Letters to the Editor:

This segment was inspired by Steve, who writes: ;

Dear Editor,
I met a person last year who said there was a way of removing your property tax from your home, all three taxes (land, air, house), so you didn't have to pay any more taxes on it. He explained a few things that had to be done first before you can follow through to remove the taxes on your home, and yes there are three separate taxes on any ones home. Can you find out what way to do this?

Steve,
The subject you raise goes much deeper than just taxes. It's a fundamental question of ownership.
Question: If my land can be taken from me for failure to pay the taxes, do I really own it?

Answer: Of course not. You rent it. You are merely a tenant.

The ins and outs of property ownership can be complex. A so-called owner is usually referred to as possessing a "bundle of rights." The metaphor refers to a bundle of sticks. All of the sticks making up the bundle collectively represent all the possible rights which can be owned in a property.

If one person owns all the sticks in the bundle, then he has absolute ownership. Another term for this is allodium.

Black's Law Dictionary defines:

Allodium. 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, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof.

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

Land held in allodium is called allodial. Black's says in part that allodial is the "opposite of feudal." Black's defines feud in part:

Feud. An estate in 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. [synonymous with ...] "fief", or "fee".

Another interesting definition from Black's:

Feudal possession. The equivalent of "seisin" under the feudal system.

Leads us to this definition in part:

Seisin. Possession of real property under claim of freehold estate. The completion of the feudal investiture, by which the tenant was admitted into the feud, and performed the rights of homage and fealty.

If I have piqued your interest thus-far, then I highly suggest you look up definitions for the words homage and fealty.

FEE-SIMPLE. In English, law. A freehold estate of inheritance, absolute and unqualified. It stands at the head of estates as the highest in dignity and the most ample in extent;

FEALTY. In feudal law. Fidelity; allegiance to the feudal lord of the manor; the feudal obligation resting upon the tenant or vassal by which he was bound to be faithful and true to his lord, and render him obedience and service.

HOMAGE. In feudal law. A service (or the ceremony of rendering it) which a tenant was bound to perform to his lord on receiving investiture of a fee, or succeeding to it as heir, in acknowledgment of the tenure. It is described by Littleton as the most honorable service of reverence that a free tenant might do to his lord. The ceremony was as follows: The tenant, being ungirt and with bare head, knelt before the lord, the latter sitting, and held his hands extended and joined between the hands of the lord, and said: "I become your man [homo] from this day forward, of life and limb and earthly honor, and to you will be faithful and loyal, and bear you faith, for the tenements that I claim to hold of you, saving the faith that I owe unto our sovereign lord the king, so help me God." The tenant then received a kiss from the lord. Homage could be done only to the lord himself.

Question: I have a warranty deed to my land. If I don't own it, who does?

Answer: Good question. The answer is a matter of conjecture. One thing is sure though, it's not you.

The quickest way to cut through the B.S. and find a culprit, is usually by following the money.

Depending upon which State your land is in, property taxes are initially collected by the Township, the Parrish, or sometimes directly by the County. Delinquent taxes are usually collected by the County. That tells me that the Townships are acting as agents for the Counties. But the Counties are sending most of the money to the States.

The States even tell the Counties how much to collect. A lot of people think it's the County Assesssor who does that, but it's not. The State tells the County how much money it should pay. The Assessor decides how to spread it around so everyone pays their "fair share."

When a parcel of land is foreclosed for back-taxes, it's the State that does it, not the County. I've seen many examples of the paperwork they use. For example, in Michigan, the Auditor General certifies that taxes have been unpaid for a certain period of time, and quotes a statute which supposedly applies. In the same document, he quits-claim to the State Department of Natural Resources.

Later, after some time passes, said Department issues a quit-claim deed to the State of Michigan. A clause in the deed always declares that an officer of the DNR has examined the property and found it to be abandoned. The state takes possession of the land, and either keeps it or resells it, which would seem to be the end of things.

It's important to realize that a quit-claim deed does not even pretend to convey clear title to land. The grantor in a quit-claim deed (that's the person signing the deed, the one who is granting the land away) does not claim he owns any interest in it. He simply says, "if I own any interest, then I grant it to the grantee (person receiving the interest)."

It's all good for appearances. It looked as though you owned the land, until the state took it from you. It looks as though the state owns the land. But who owns the state? Certainly not the people. The states are sub-corporations of the United States. Any vestage of the original independent sovereign states are long gone. Further, we know that the United States went bankrupt in 1933, and is owned by the same groups of families who own the Federal Reserve Banks.

The list of possible claims seems to go on and on. Fortunately there is a principal in law which states "Notice to agent is notice to principal."

How Did We Lose Our Land?

Here, I call your attention to an interesting definition, again from Black's:

Escheat. A reversion of property to the state in consequence of a want of any individual competent to inherit. [...snip] The word "escheat" in this country, merely indicates the preferable right of the state to an estate left vacant, and without there being any one in existence able to make claim thereto.

It seems to me, the million dollar question is:

When the state takes land on which back-taxes are due, is the operating principle of law delinquent taxes, or abandonment?

Answer: You be the judge. But I'm guessing it's abandonment.

I have a friend named Art, who has the distinction of having held on to a parcel of land longer, without paying the taxes, than anyone I've ever known of. How long? Eight years. Art thinks he could have held it forever, if it hadn't become too much trouble. I think he's probably right.

How did he do it? Art refused to abandon the property. This was Art's home. He stopped paying the taxes, and as you would expect, the State filed their paperwork. Art didn't leave. The sheriff came and told Art to leave, but Art didn't leave. So the sheriff took Art to jail for about thirty days. When he let Art out, he told him, "Don't go back to that house, or I'll put you back in jail." Art went back anyway. After about a year, the sheriff put Art back in jail for another thirty days, and gave him the same speech on the way out. Art went back anyway. He kept going back, for eight years, and enjoyed eight vacations courtesy of the county. Finally Art got tired, and abandoned the place.

Abandonment. That's how we lost our land. That's how we lost our government too. It's how we lose our families; our children; our God. We walk away. We get tired. I don't blame Art. He held out longer than anyone else I know. He did it to prove it could be done, and then he went on to other battles.

Can I Have Allodial Land?

Sure. If you want it bad enough. If you haven't seen it before, go to the video store and rent Braveheart. William Wallace was fighting for allodium. Thanks to him, his people had it-- for a time.

It's not just about taxes, it's about all rights. The right to use the land as you please. Even the right to make your own laws, and name or create your own jurisdiction, goes with the allodial rights to land. As far back in history as you can study, a man's freedom is tied to the land. Without land to call your own, you have no place to freely exist.

If your land is zoned, then you don't have the freedom to do with your land as you please.

Environmental codes, restrictive covenants, county health regulations, all dilute your rights in the land. Many of these so-called laws are enacted unlawfully and unconstitutionally, but when people fail to object, they abandon their rights.

Here are the steps I would take to establish allodium in land, if I were to choose this battle:

• Acquire a parcel of land which you are willing to walk away from if the battle becomes too much for you.

• Send a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the authority which collects property taxes for your land. Ask them to provide evidence of title for all lands in which they claim an interest of any nature whatsoever. If you manage to get them to respond at all, they will produce deeds for land which they own by commonly recognized standards. Such as the township hall. They will not produce title for your land, or make any claim on it. That which they do not claim to own, is abandoned by them.

• Send a similar FOIA request to the county, if they were not the same local authority mentioned above. Ask them for any evidence of title they have in your particular land.

• Same with the state. Make sure you send all these requests by registered mail, with a return card, so you have proof of service. If you don't get answers, send notices of fault and default at appropriate time intervals.

• Construct a public notice to the effect that you have requested all these entities to produce evidence of interest in your land, but that they have produced none. Include the land description. Post the notice on the public bulletin board at the county courthouse, and publish it for three consecutive weeks in a local newspaper of record. Be sure to include the phrase "Notice to agent is notice to principal."

• Construct a public notice, in affidavit form, which includes copies of all your publications, postings, FOIAs and proofs of service. Make a claim for all rights, in allodium, in your land. Include a metes and bounds description. Be sure the affidavit states that you withhold jurisdiction, and are recording only for the purpose of giving notice to the public. Record your notice with the county Register of Deeds.

• When you receive tax bills, return them refused with a that they produce evidence of title superior to yours. Do not pay them.

• Refuse all subsequent tax and foreclosure notices, and counter with demands to show cause.

• Post visible notices at all attempted tax sales, stating that you do not abandon your rights in the land.

• During all this time, either continuously occupy, or at least maintain continued custodial care of the land. Never abandon it.

• When you get out of jail, keep going back.

Will you succeed? Probably not, but you'll never know unless you try. Do I recommend this? No. But then I don't recommend anything along these lines. It's up to each of us to choose our own battles.

Obviously, if everyone did this, the game would be over. There aren't enough cells for everyone.

People are ruled like cattle and sheep, except that the fences which hold us are constructed in our minds.

I hope this will be a foundation for further study and action. Readers are welcome to send me your comments and insights to this answer, and I may append them as time allows.

---------------

(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

The Lawful Path - http://lawfulpath.com

----------------

Australian background

As a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, protected and administered under the Australian Constitution, I am asking each and every parliamentarian of each state government, why not even one of you have stood forth in your role as a elected Servant of the People, to protect them from this 'theft' of their rights, their possessions and their citizenship.

The following information was passed to me and has given me awful concern for both my family and the families of Australia. I would impress upon you the urgency to read it and have added this information to assist in you making that decision.

I am forwarding this to every person to Australia that I can, the newspapers, television stations, radio stations, and to the United Nations and her Majesty the Queen in London to show and describe how far the rights of the sovereign People of Australia are no longer respected and protected under the Constitution of Australia by our elected representatives in both the States and Federal governments.

In the attached documents, the Governor of Qld was removed from the position of governor, which is the Crown or Separation of Powers, and was placed into the Qld Parliament as a public servant on the 29 January 1999.

This was done by the leader of the National party in Qld, Mr Robb Borbidge by placing a bill on the table of parliament.

Even at that stage the parliament did not have to pass a law or assent to it in the parliament to remove the governor or pass any laws.

All that was necessary was to leave it on table of parliament for a period of 12 months and then under Acts Interpretation Act it automatically picks itself up, reprints itself into a law without parliament even voting!!!!!

I am personally astounded by this. Why then do we even have a parliament if they are not necessary in the process of making laws that affect the People of this country????

Why have the People not been told this????

Why do you politicians condone this ‘theft”????

In 2001, as is clearly described in documents by Mr Walter I have attached and which have been sent to the Governor of Australia, the Prime Minister John Howard, the Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, and the President of the Senate - the parliament of QLD, passed the Constitution of QLD and the People were broadly told this was possible because the members were democratically elected.
These people were not elected with a mandate to remove the People’s rights, but to protect them and swore an oath to do so.

In doing so, the parliament of QLD took all property, possessions and our land, into the government corporation, the Brigalow Corporation. The people did not at any time vote to have this done.

Shareholders of this corporation are the ministers of the Qld government and the Premier, who now has the vote of veto over our personal and private property . Public servant are now not public servants of the Crown – but of the state!

I refer to words of Judge White in the attached notes, in the matter of defending a 73 year old lady, Mrs Burns “Russia would be proud of these laws.”

To you the governing bodies of Australia I say – “This is not protection of the people – it is theft.”

There is no common law in QLD as it has been removed from the law of Qld and all that remains in civil law. You would be well advised to read all the attached notes, some of you may still have some humanity remaining and will be as shocked as I was.

Do not forget, we are not a civil law country.

The QLD government now owns all that an individual has because the people are now not individuals but individuals and corporations.

This includes both fee simple/private land and aboriginal land – as Mr Walters describes – none own their land any more – it is all held under the Brigalow Corporation of the Government of Qld.

All must do as they are told or suffer the consequences. This is not democracy! How did you all allow this to happen? Or is it part of the planning for all States of Australia?

The Qld government passed this without the People’s vote, bringing both the government, ministers, courts, judges and all judiciary into the Qld government. There is no longer a Separation of Powers.
All public servants are inside the government.

The ex-Premier/President of Qld who swore on oath to protect the Constitution, then stated he “can’t wait to see a republic”, used his new constitutional act to go behind an 84 year old referendum which cancelled the legislative council, then took all the positions out of that legislative council, for the staff he required.

He has now made the People of Qld subject to certain chosen parts of the Australia Act, where he does not recognize the Australian Constitution, although the documentation has misled the People into thinking otherwise. Even the Appeals Court of Qld has upheld this Qld government removal of rights and the disregard of the Australian Constitution.

Yet politicians in every party, in every state most particularly Qld seem to care nothing for this blatant removal of the very basis of this great country.

If Qld does not recognize the Australian Constitution, how then can you have a Writ for an Election?
Qld cannot be in any vote in this election, because the court cases of Bone & Mothershaw (included in the documentation), state that Qld is a sovereign state and can make any laws over land they want, fine and punish each and every individual as they want and no person has the right of recourse to justice in this state. If this is the case, then Qld no longer belongs to the Commonwealth of Australia and can not participate in the Federal election of Australia.

If the People no longer have any rights of ownership over their land, but must obey not only the current laws, but those yet to come, then they have no equity in their land.

If the People have no equity in their land, then the banks also have no equity in the land, and must also suffer the consequences of loans that no longer carry a basis for the money.

In fact, both the People and the banks only own a piece of paper, the actual physical land now resides under the ownership of the Qld Brigalow Corporation.

What monies are being borrowed by this Brigalow Corporation using the land that has been ‘stolen’ from its legitimate owners as collateral?

What will happen when both the People and the banks truly understand this?

Is every State and Federal minister ready for the chaos that will result in an ultimate destruction of the whole financial system of this country?

Will yours be one of the names listed as destroying this country?

When hard working citizens are punished so severely by all the courts in Qld, and by the High Court of Australia, ( see attached notes) then all is lost in this fine country . Fee simple land ownership no longer exists under the corporate structure of governments. The people have had all their rights totally removed.

This country is no longer a democracy but a totalitarian state.

Why should any other state politician concern themselves with QLD, you may ask.

Currently NSW is using both Bone & Mothershaw and the Mrs Burns cases (particularly in rulings in the Peter Spencer cases) to support decisions that indicate they not only support the Qld rulings, but are starting to see themselves as outside the Australian Constitution as well. It also appears that

NSW has removed its Governor in some manner as did Qld.

So we in NSW cannot vote either.

Where does this leave Mr Howard and Mr Rudd, who hold seats in the 2 states that are now no longer part of the Commonwealth? And both are leaders of the 2 parties who are participating in this ‘theft’.

And in fact, if all states follow this dangerous path and remove themselves and the People of those states, via this Corporate structure, from the Commonwealth of Australia, then all that is left is to cancel the Federal & State governments, because, ladies and gentlemen – you will no longer exist.
Unless you like to apply for a seat on the corporate board!

As to this pretence of giving the People a vote in the maintenance and protection of both this country and the Constitution via this coming election, I feel completely unable to vote for any party, as none of them have stepped forward in any way to protest this long-developing situation. My vote will be counted as a ‘donkey vote’. I wonder how many more you may expect.

This email will be going forward to every person I am able to reach, they will be asked to do the same. All comments and replies will be collated for forwarding to the International Courts as that may be the People of Australia’s only continuing protection.

Yours as a member of the People under Australian Constitutional Common Law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little current his-story people may not be aware of about title to property you think you own. Even after you have paid off a your mortgage.

Also another relevant email about the hotting up republic debate and certain refs to what is and has happened to prepare the country for this. The attachment (DOCUMENT ABOVE) talks about Qld, but many of the states need to be in a similar position (I'm guessing, I'm no political expert) of having sold out their sovereignty (for want of a better word) off the people.

Longer story than what is just here. Do your own research, or just watch the news, I'm sure they will tell us eventually.

Why do you think they can just fluoridate water in Qld without a discussion & referendum etc (on the public side). And privately, what gives them permission to medicate the water supply without asking your permission?

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" - this can be taken in many ways.

Cheers
Ant

PS I have more info if u want more detail.

===============

Graham,
The Queen is only used by Republicans to divert attention from their real goal which is to change the constitution so as to suit their intended dictatorship. The referendum defeated their plans but Premier Beattie saw an open back door and we now have the dictatorship they wanted.

Qld has become the Brigalow Corporation and has lost the protection of the Commonwealth. It has scrapped the Qld constitution and replaced it with the pre federation constitution with a few changes to suit themselves.

The Governor of Qld has been demoted to a parliamentary secretary under the control of Dictator Bligh. Moves have already been made in other states but you may get some protection from the Senates, which are there to protect state rights, something Qld does not have.

Of course with the corrupt use of Senate members as Parliamentary Ministers the chances of protection is lessened.

The Republic they seek will certainly give Canberra control over the states for that is their intention.

The Queen is our sovereign and the Governor General is our Australian Head of Sate. This third tier of government is a further protection and is the reason Monarchies have had stable governments. I don't think I could name a Republic that has not had a civil war or serious social disturbance. The USA and other republics have lost presidents at the point of a gun.

The most stable Republic is Switzerland which is ruled by the people through referendums and this has been that way for over 100 years. Add that system to out Monarchical System of government and we would be the envy of the world. We would also then have the opportunity of referendums on such matters as the immigration of unwanted racial aliens.

As the saying goes Graham. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

As for the current crop of Royals, with the exception of two or three I would replace them with people loyal to the British people who do not praise and support multiculturalism.

N.M.

References:

http://www.nickmaine.info/Australia.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----

From:

To:

Cc:

Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:28 AM

Subject: A republic will give Canberra control over states]

Dear Vanya,
What you say contains errors, and is full of generalities.

Of course the Queen would be 'involved'! She wishes to defend her wide realm and retain her glory.
But what benefit is there to the hoi polloi? Another layer of 'control' certainly is not! Two Houses are enough.

Isn't the Senate there to safeguard state's rights - to be apart from political party loyalty?

In a Republic, Magna Carta and the flag showing a British heritage should be retained.

What else is there?

At present Magna Carta is scorned. By whom? Yeah, even by the GG...

As my local federal member Peter SlipperBALLB said 'we kept those features that suited us", ie. not 'trial by one's peers'.

The Senate refused Gough Whitlam supply - money to run the country - so an election was sure, and did not need GG John Kerr's intervention under whatever rules applied.

As for WA's Richard Court (below), he was a lawyer and everything but a crook. He was known as 'Reckless Richard' for his supervision of the investment adviser/solicitor's mortgage scams in that state, and his brother Ken was one. The same occurred in Qld and Tas, around 1990, condoned by the ASIC.

The GST is money fixed for the states. Would they ever give that up? No.

When have the states ever resisted Canberra in a legal manner?

Against what?

Qld's Joh B-P did it, or threatened to, he was going to 'secede', but his PolCom Terry Lewis was a crook (14 years), Russell Hinze (the Minister for Everything) also, and Joh was probably one too.

What benefits were there in appeals to the Privy Council?

It was just more money for lawyers!

The problem in the Land of Oz is that it is a Lawyerocracy, not a Democracy, and 'the law' is unaffordable to the man-in-the-street.

Wouldn't you agree?

The challenge is to make the change to a republic, and to make it a good one, not a future lawyer's banquet.

And it might be better to divide WA, Qld and NSW each into two or three states.

There are over 50 in Godzone Country...

Please pass this on.

Cheers, anyway.
Graham.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Ivan Cox
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:48:44 +1000
To: <"Undisclosed-Recipient:;

Subject: A republic will give Canberra control over states

AUSTRALIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY An opinion column from the national convenor

Warning : republic will give Canberra control over states

...any republic will involve radical change...

Any change to a republic, even a so called minimalist republic, will necessarily involve radical change, warns lawyer and noted author Hal Colebatch, ( "We would be losing a lot more than Her Majesty, " The Australian, 2 May, 2008.

He says the radical nature of the change is "not immediately obvious."

The weight of constitutional scholars' opinion being that the governor-general, and not the Queen, is the Commonwealth of Australia's head of state, he warns that in a republic the state governors would be appointed by and loyal to the president.

Given that the state governors have the power to sack state governments, this would have effectively given Canberra, using the state governors, the power to sack state governments.

Australia is already a crowned republic, he says, but one with some unique historical and constitutional features that have subtle but important ramifications.

At the time of the referendum, constitutional monarchists warned that the republican model would diminish the states ( see, e.g. The Cane Toad Republic, 1999, chapter 12) Premier Richard Court and Robert Ellicott QC warned of the federation being split, and of secession.

..state leaders just don't understand what they would throw away....

But it seemed in 1999 as if the state leaders, with the exception of Western Australia's Richard Court, were ignorant of the advances gained for them under the 1986 Australia Acts as part of our constitutional system, and were willing to throw this advantage away.

Premier Jeff Kennett should have known about this. He once presented a superb defence of the constitutional system as it affects the states. This was in "The Crown and the States," a speech to the Samuel Griffith Society delivered in 1993, and published in Volume 2 of the Society's proceedings. But like so many politicians he foolishly jumped on the republican bandwagon at the 1998 Constitutional Convention.

Reaching the constitutional settlement in 1986 was not easy, and took three of four decades and the personal involvement of The Queen.

The story is told superbly by Anne Twomey in The Chameleon Crown: The Queen and Her Australian Governors, reviewed by Sir David Smith in this column on 22 July 2007.

Dr Twomey's speeches to meetings of ACM were one of the highlights of its 2007 programme.

Her book should be compulsory reading for all state politicians.

Fortunately, in 1999 the people showed how much wiser they are than republican politicians

------ End of Forwarded Message