<;

History: History of Law and Justice

Recent

• Love Problem Solution Specialist BABA JI +91-9694102888 in Varanasi
  0 comments, 2 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 Husband Wife Relationship Problem Solution in Varanasi
  0 comments, 2 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 Husband Wife Relationship Problem Solution in Varanasi
  0 comments, 2 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 Boyfriend Vashikaran Specialist Baba in Varanasi
  0 comments, 2 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 Lost Love Spell Caster in Varanasi
  0 comments, 2 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 Boy Vashikaran Specialist Baba Ji in Varanasi
  0 comments, 2 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 Girl Vashikaran Specialist Baba Ji in Varanasi
  0 comments, 3 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 intercast Love Marriage Specialist Baba Ji in Varanasi
  0 comments, 3 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 Husband Wife Problem Solution Baba Ji in Varanasi
  0 comments, 3 hours ago
• +91-9694102888 Black Magic Specialist Baba Ji ~in Varanasi
  0 comments, 3 hours ago

Filter By Topic

• Cops & Courts

• General
• Civil Liberties
• Dealing with Cops
• Drugs
• Prison Nation
• Surviving Lawsuits

• Entertainment & Culture

• General
• Art & Design
• Dressing for Success
• Drinking, Smoking, & Leisure
• Food
• Literature & Fiction
• Movies & TV
• Music
• Social Media
• Sports
• Video Games

• Philosophy & Economics

• General
• Anarchism
• Austrian Economics
• Environment
• Ethics
• Interventionism
• Keynesianism & Monetarism
• Libertarianism, Agorism, & Voluntaryism
• Political Philosophy
• Religion & Atheism
• Socialism, Marxism, & Communism

• 

  Seth Cochran December 5, 2015 at 10:25 pm

  I recently started looking into the nature of land ownership. I was under the impression that land ownership was absolute- a person is free to lease, sell, rent, put up for collateral, or destroy their land as they see fit. Where, then, does the right of the state to tax and seize fit in?

  The common sense answer- that ownership is not absolute- is mostly correct. But it’s quite interesting to look into the history of why land ownership is not absolute.

  The ownership of land that isn’t subject to any higher authority- no state, no landlord, etc.- is called alloidal title or title in alloidum. In feudal times, the only person to hold alloidal title was the feudal lord. He was considered sovereign over the land. No one else had a right to interfere with his use of the property. Other types of ownership that the lord bestowed allowed the people on the land to exercise certain rights, such as the right to sublet, or the right to put the land up as collateral.

  In modern nation-states, the sovereign (i.e., the government) still exercises exclusive alloidal title. That is to say, you don’t own the land, the United States does. You can’t ever remove the land from their jurisdiction because you don’t have that right. Moreover, as the sovereign, the government retains the right to tax land, seize it through eminent domain, and steal a portion of the land in the event that there is no will.

  What exactly do landowners own then? They own an interest in real property. When land is bought and sold, what’s actually being legally exchanged is the interest in the land, not the land itself. This is called fee simple ownership. Interestingly, the word fee in this concept is a descendant of the word fief, or land held on the condition of feudal service.

  Under fee simple ownership, the government- be it feudal lord or “we the people”- retains full ownership of the land, while the subjects of the government are free to exchange title to the land. Never does the land cease to belong to the sovereign, and thus it’s power it protected.

  As I researched the nature of land ownership, and it’s descent from English common law, the blind justifications made more sense. Of course, they’re not morally right (Thomas Jefferson was in favor of alloidal title) but they make more sense.

  I’d like to know your thoughts on the matter, and if there’s a professional real estate lawyer who could contribute more to the conversation, that would be great.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• 

  Properal December 7, 2015 at 3:31 pm

  You are correct.  In the US, the government just took over the allodial title from the crown.  I believe there was debate at the time whether individuals or the government should hold the allodial title. I don’t think there was any official legislation, it just was adopted.

  Here is a paper that explains why having individuals hold allodial title would be beneficial in modern society:

  Allodialism as Economic Policy by John Cobin

   

  It is interesting that many people think the state is necessary for property to be defined and protected, yet the most absolute form of individual ownership of land (allodial), predated feudalism, and the formation of states in Europe.

   

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Properal December 22, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    The article Allodialism as Economic Policy by John Cobin linked above is very relevant to the topic.
    Excerpts from the article:

    Allodialism is a legal philosophy and absolute system of real property ownership that is, more or less, the antithesis of feudalism. It is a system where real property is held absolutely by persons, without being liable to property taxation or regulation by a superior.

    On Feudalism:

    Feudalism is a system where one person (such as a king or the state) is the sole allodiary who owns, possesses, and ultimately controls all the rights to real property in a political jurisdiction. In the modern age, this position is held by force. Indeed, coercion is a major factor in feudal policy, both because none but the sole allodiary are able to obtain allodial rights and because all subjects must comply with 5 regulations and pay taxes on real property. These constraints are more or less unilaterally established by the sole allodiary and may not be agreeable to his tenants. This process commences when a political jurisdiction is conquered by a ruler who in turn becomes the sole allodiary, or when a democratic election or other political means empowers a sole allodiary like the state. Therefore, a basic feature of feudalism is that the sole allodiary retains his unique rights by forcing others to accept his legislated or tacit unilateral contracts. Since the “contract” is forced upon others, and is thus involuntary, it is likewise mutable according to the caprice of the sole allodiary.

    Back to Allodialism:

    Allodialism is not a novel concept in public policy. American founders Thomas Jefferson and John Adams discussed it, along with many of their contemporaries. For them, allodialism was an important policy issue (Cobin 1997, pp. 149-51, Alexander 1991). Subsequently, ante-bellum America had adopted a quasi-allodial policy (Cobin 1997, ch. 4), but its post-bellum and present real property policy has been feudal in theory and at least quasi-feudal in practice. Public policy for real property in modern Chile is likewise quasi-feudal or feudal (Cobin 1999, pp. 1-2, 20-2). In the modern world, the state has become the allodial owner of real property over a feudal realm (Cobin 1997). However, rather than using middlemen between allodial owners and the contractual users and possessors of real property, the state manages its real property holdings directly. In the United States, it accomplishes this through an agency system of localities.

    The author goes on to discuss why allodialism would be a better policy.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 8, 2015 at 2:48 pm

  There is more to this topic than most people realize.  Let us start with the thought:  The “King” “owned” the land ( notwithstanding the concept that a “creator” created the land it belongs to the creator and can’t be “owned” by mortals ) so if “the people” threw off the King and his claim to ownership the “people” own the land.  When the “people” created a government to regulate behavior between themselves and other Nations, I don’t recall that they delegated their land to that government.  At best any of us may have is dominion over a piece of land.   The proof is in the question if you “own” land who did you get it from?  Who did “that” individual get it from?  NOW just keep asking that question until you get back to the original owner!  Many people who claim to “own” land do so by “financing” the “purchase”.  When one finances something that something is surrendered to the provider of the “funds”.  You get the use of the land or thing but you don’t own it.  There is some evidence that taxation is based on the privilege of having a mortgage as the means of “financing” a land purchase.  All of that said the biggest problem is LANGUAGE.  If you write all of you Laws, Contracts, Mortgages, and Land Purchases in FICTION-LANGUAGE all that you have is the illusion of OWNERSHIP.  In the world of fiction we are all actors on a stage.  This is a truly interesting topic which has more twists and turns than a Gordian knot, and most of those twists and turns are created by members of the “legal” profession.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Brian Farmer December 13, 2015 at 12:48 am

  As best I can tell, LAND is still allodial.  Real Estate is fee simple.  This is somethign I am still studying, and actively working on.

   

  The Federal Government never had jurisdiction over the LAND in the original 13 colonies.  (That was one of the conditions the states had that the federal government would not gain jurisdiction over the land.)  Now lands gained after that, the Federal Government had jurisdiction over.

   

  The Federal Government passed those lands on to private citizens by means of Land Patents.  Jurisdiction over the land was passed directly to the citizen.  (The Federal Government never gave the individual states jurisdiction over the land. Jurisdiction passed directly to the citizen.)  The US Constitution clearly says that rights the federal government does not have belong to the states OR the citizens.

   

  As best I can tell, the title to land is still allodial.  But somehow, there is “real estate” that is overlaid over the land, and the title to the real estate is fee simple.

   

  I live in Ohio.  The legal description of land says that it is part of the United States Military District when you trace the deeds.  But no one pays attention to the legal description.  If I asked you where you lived, you would probably tell me 123 Main St., Anytown, USA.  That is your address, right?

   

  WRONG.  That is the legal description of an approximate portion of Main Street, which is under state jurisdiction.  It is NOT a reference to the private land which abuts Main Street.  You live in the west 1/2 of the NW quarter of Section 23, Township 123, Range 456 of the United States Military District.  That is the legal address of your home.

   

  Now if cops and courts ASSUME that 123 Main Street actually refers to private lands which abut Main Street, and no one challenges it in court…well, justice is blind.  You have the obligation to show the court the truth.

   

  Try to borrow money from a bank to purchase vacant land.  You can’t.  Banks won’t loan money on vacant land because they know they can’t foreclose on LAND.  Once there are improvements on the land, it somehow becomes “real estate” which they can foreclose on.

   

  It should be noted that the ORIGINAL title to lands is the Land Patent.  Go to your county Recorder’s Office to see copies of the original Land Patent.  Odds are, the Land Patents were never filed. (Or only a handful of patents.)  What has been filed are certificates of title, (nut not actual title.)  You can obtain certified copies of the original land patents, and you can still have them recorded at the county recorder’s office.

   

  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, reoffment, and the like.

  “Where the United States has parted with title by a patent legally issued and upon surveys made by itself and approved by the proper department, the title so granted cannot be impaired by any subsequent survey made by the government for its own purposes.” Cage v. Danks, 13 La.Ann 128.

  Summa Corp. v California, 466 US 198, the Supreme Court ruled forever that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case, the land in question was tidewater land and California’s claim was based on California’s constitutional right to all tidewater lands. The patent stood supreme even against California’s Constitution.

  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 the 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. Ware v Hytton (1796), 3 Dall. (3 U.S. 199)

   

  Keep in mind that the Federal Government acquired lands by means of Treaties, and any Land Patent for land acquired under a Treaty is an extension of the Treaty.

   

  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 any individual State.

  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 [141] 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 11 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)

   

  As an assignee, whether he be the first, second or third party to whom Title is conveyed shall lose none of the original rights, privileges or immunities of the original grantee of land patent. “No state shall impair the obligations of contracts.” United States Constitution, Art. I, Section 10.

   

  Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 498 498 (1839) Nothing passes a perfect title to public lands…but a patent.

   

  Paramount Title: In the law of real property, properly one which is superior to the title with which it is compared, in the sense that the former is the source or origin of the latter. It is, however, frequently used to denote a title which is simply better or stronger than another, or will prevail over it. But this use is scarcely correct, unless the superiority consists in the seniority of the title spoken of as “paramount.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

  Legal titles to lands cannot be conveyed except in the form provided by law. IBI (31) Legal title to property is contingent upon the patent issuing from the government. (32) That the patent canes the fee and is the best title known to a court of law is the settled doctrine of this court. [Marshall v Ladd, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 106 (1869).]

  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, Ill (1935); see also United States v Cherokee Nation, 474 F. 2d 628, 634 (1973)]

  The patent is the instrument which, under the laws of congress, passes the title of the United States…and the patent, when regular on its face, is conclusive evidence of that title…Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States, and the whole legislation of the federal government in reference to the public lands declares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title. 132 US 239

  The boundaries of the territory are given in Article 11 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)

  Hooper et. al.v. Scheimer, 64 US. (23 how.) 240 (1859) A patent can not be declared void at law, nor can a party travel behind the patent to avoid it
  “A patent when attacked incidentally, cannot be declared void, unless it be procured by fraud, or is void on its face, or has been declared void by law. A patent cannot be avoided at law in a collateral proceeding unless it is declared void by statute, or its nullity indicated by some equally explicit statutory denunciations. Once perfect on its face is not to be avoided, in a trial at law, by anything save an elder patent. It is not to be affected by evidence or circumstances which might show that the impeaching party might prevail in a court of equity. A patent is evidence, in a court of law, of the regularity of all previous steps to it, and no facts behind it can be investigated A patent cannot be collaterally avoided at law, even for fraud. A patent, being superior title, must of course, prevail over colors of title; nor is it proper for dray state legislation to give such titles, which are only equitable in nature with a recognized legal status in equity courts, precedence over the legal title in a court of law”

  “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)

  “legal title to property is contingent upon the patent issuing from the government.” [Sabo v. Horvath, 559 p. 2d 1038, 1040 (aka. 1976)]

  “that the patent carries the fee and is the best title known to a court of law is settled doctrine of this court,” [Marshall v. Ladd, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 106 (1869)]

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

  “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.” [Gibson v. Chauteau, 13 Wall 92 (1871)]

  “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)]

  “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)]

  “patents rights to the land is the title in fee.” [City Of Los Angeles V. Board Of Supervisors Of Mono County, 292 P. 2d 539 (1956)]

  “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)]

  “the congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” [Constitution Of The United States Of America, Article IV, Section III, Clause 11.]

  [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.

  The Power of Congress to dispose of its land cannot be interfered with, or its exercise embarrassed by any state legislation; nor can such legislation deprive the grantees of the United States of the possession and enjoyment of the property granted by reason of any delay in the transfer of the title after the initiation of proceedings for its acquisition. [Gibson vs. Chouteau, 13 Wal. (U.S.) 92, 93].

  An estate in inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner and alienable by him, transmissable to his heirs absolutely and simply, is an in absolute estate
  perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in its nature, Stanton vs. Sullivan. 61 R.I. 216 7 A. 696.

  ”Title and rights of bona fide purchaser from patentee…will be protected.” United States vs. Debell, 227 F 760 (C8 SD 1915, United States vs. Beamon, 242 F 876. (CA8 Colo. 1917): State vs. Hewitt Land Co., 74 Wash 573, 134 P 474, from 43 USC & 15 n 44.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Properal December 14, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    I would like to think there was some way for individuals to hold land in allodium and have the courts consistently recognize it, but they do not:

    The federal courts have squarely rejected this argument, ruling that federal government conveyances of property by federal land patent in centuries past “do not prevent the creation of later interests and have nothing to do with claims subsequently arising under state law.” See Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670, 672 (7th Cir. 1986). The fact that Lizalek’s land, like other land in the State of Wisconsin, was conveyed by federal land patent long ago is irrelevant to the County’s authority to tax the property.

    See, Federal Land Patent Barring Property Tax Argument Fails In Wisconsin

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      

      Brian Farmer December 15, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      [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.

       

      The Glick case you cited is irrelevant to the topic at hand.  In the Glick case, defendants obtained mortgages to buy property.  Then they filed some declaration of patent on land that was already patented, in the hopes they would no longer be obligated to pay a mortgage contract they agreed to.

      The defendants did not argue the validity of the original land patent.  They argued the validity of their ‘declaration of patent’.

       

      The court correctly recognized the Glick defendants as being full of BS.

       

      I’d have to read Lizalek’s brief to see what law he cites, but judging by the appellate decision, he didn’t give them much to work with.  His case appears to be a common “argue on theory” instead of argue on the law.

       

      Appellate judges taught me the best way to do an appellate brief is to state the facts, state the issues (assignments of error), and then state the case law supporting my argument.  They love it when you do it this way.  If you have case law to support, you may even want to print out the entire decision for each case law, so if the appellate judge is reviewing the case from home, and does not have access to Westlaw or Nexus, they can still review the case law you cited.  (If you give the judge a whole decision to read, and your opponent only gives a citation to a case, the judge has a better chance of going with what you gave them in hand because they don’t have to take the effort of looking up some case law.  Make their job as easy as you can!)  Also, unless it is a very complex case, oral arguments carry little weight.  Simply rest on the strength of your brief as your opening statements.  (I have witnessed very experienced attorneys turn into stuttering and stumbling messes when the opposing attorney simply rested on the strength of their brief as their oral argument.  Appellate judges taught me that if I did this, even as a pro se litigant, I would know more than half the lawyers who walked into their courtrooms.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      • 

        Properal December 15, 2015 at 4:24 pm

        I did not site the Glick case, the court did in it’s decision on the Lizalek case.  I just quoted the court decision from the Forbes article.

         

        It seems Lizalek was not foreclosed on because of a lack of paying his mortgage. He was foreclosed on for not paying taxes.

         

        Here is a longer excerpt for more context:

        Lizalek first contends that the County had no right to tax his land because the federal government conveyed the land with a clear title to an owner “and to his heirs and assigns forever” through a “federal land patent” in 1837. Lizalek contends that he is the assignee of that land patent, so the County cannot encumber the title to his land; his land is not subject to the political jurisdiction of the State of Wisconsin or the County. The federal courts have squarely rejected this argument, ruling that federal government conveyances of property by federal land patent in centuries past “do not prevent the creation of later interests and have nothing to do with claims subsequently arising under state law.” See Wisconsin v.Glick, 782 F.2d 670, 672 (7th Cir. 1986). The fact that Lizalek’s land, like other land in the State of Wisconsin, was conveyed by federal land patent long ago is irrelevant to the County’s authority to tax the property.

        https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=99724

        You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  David Ottinger December 13, 2015 at 2:23 am

  The current theory I’m pursing is in regards to sovereignty.  Only sovereigns are capable of holding allodial title.  And, if you’re a citizen of the United States, then you have surrendered your sovereignty to that particular legal fiction.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Properal December 14, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    Only sovereigns are capable of holding allodial title.

    Allodial ownership of land goes back to the time before feudalism, when sovereignty at least the modern use was not even a concept yet.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      

      David Ottinger December 24, 2015 at 12:04 pm

      My anarchism has led me to distinguish governance from government.  Governance is the act of governing, thus includes self-governance.  And, government is an institution that houses a particular form of governance.  The hierarchy of which is either a monarchy or oligarchy.  Thus, while ‘sovereignty’ is a modern concept, we can look back in history an identify the historic rulers as the sovereigns of their times, i.e. the heads of government, and not to be confused with the body politic.  Further more, we can recognize the form of governance, i.e. the way order was structured during that particular era.   So, it’s quite possible that allodial title was granted to a few people, i.e. the right to make such a property claim, during that period, but it is no longer permitted under the current form of governance unless you’re able to exercise your full right of contract — which we currently do not have as we cannot withdraw economic consent.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 13, 2015 at 8:13 am

  Does anybody ever consider the effect of a prefix?  The natives of Australia were called aborigine until someone explained to them that the prefix ab means NO.  So the “original” people of Australia were called the no original people by the invaders.  Lawyers and Attorneys are the ones primarily involved in writing the “papers” for land.  So if the root  LODIAL means original-contract – AL Lodial means NO-ORIGINAL-CONTRACT.  We will have nothing and perish because of our ignorance.

   

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Seth Cochran December 13, 2015 at 8:21 am

    Part of me thinks that’s not at all how the law works.

    Another part of me thinks that’s EXACTLY how the law works.

    When it comes down to it, we can debate how much right to land we theoretically own, so long as we don’t try to usurp the jurisdiction of the State. If we try to do that, theory goes out the window and the police come knocking. Let’s make no mistake that the purpose of law is not justice, but power.

     

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      

      David Ottinger December 13, 2015 at 11:27 am

      “Let’s make no mistake that the purpose of law is not justice, but power.”

      I disagree with this, but on the semantics — which is important, especially given the topic.    What you call “law,” I call edicts.  Edicts are decrees that are contractual in nature, and the thing about contract is that it is not law, but has the force of law, hence why it’s referred to as “binding”.   Law is a reference to natural order.  Thus, for you to enter into contract, you are making a law because your word, or rather oath, becomes part of that order.  Hence, it is referred to as law.

       

      But, the conflict with the rule of law is that it is an elusive notion since there is yet to be an objective standard adopted for evaluating moral theories.  Personally, I think this is where Stefan Molyneux’s UPB book comes into play.   And, the overall point is: In the absence of an objective standard, the “law” is managed arbitrarily despite various efforts to achieve an objective standard.    The end result is rule by might rather than rule of law.   And, the powers-that-be apply Plato’s Noble Lie in order to obfuscate this reality because there is yet to be an objective standard adopted.

       

      The state is a steward of the law.  Although, wherever you find the “laws” most numerous, there you will also find the greatest injustice.

       

      Injustice is the product of inconsistency with the law, i.e. law being moral theory.

       

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • • • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Brian Farmer December 13, 2015 at 9:08 am

    Perishing because of ignorance is a very fitting description for your post.

    Simply because a word begins with letters which can also be used as a prefix does not make those letters a prefix, nor do they change the meaning of the word.

    Ironically, the word prefix has the prefix of “pre-” before the fix.

    Pre-cious

    Pre-tty

    Pro-perty

    A-nd

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      

      David Ottinger December 13, 2015 at 11:05 am

      pre-fix — fixed in the front.    The ‘pre’ fits.

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • • • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Properal December 13, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    According to dictionary.com the all- in allod is from the word all and -od is from an old german word meaning property.

    Word Origin from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allod
    …from Medieval Latin, from Old German allōd (unattested) entire property, from al-all + -ōd property; compare Old High German ōt, Old English eād property

     

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 13, 2015 at 9:41 am

  A rut is a grove without ends

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 13, 2015 at 2:03 pm

  David, on the point: “Injustice is the product of inconsistency with the law, i.e. law being moral theory.”  Is the inconsistency with the Law itself or the application and enforcement of the Law?  If there were more precision in the writing of the Law would there be less “injustice”.  Also if there were more precision in the enforcement of the Law would there be less injustice?  I do NOT concur with your view of the nature of a Contract.  The Contract is protected by the Language of the Constitution because it is the way that an individual makes Private-Law.  The Statutes, Codes, and Ordinances which are called Law are “Social” Contracts.   The only thing delegated to Government is Authority, but I will grant you the idea that Authority isn’t much good if there isn’t at least the threat of force to back it up.  Much of the trouble and disappointment we have with our Government comes from OUR lack of understanding of the Law, Language, and OUR responsibility for keeping Government in check.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    David Ottinger December 13, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    The inconsistency is with the moral theories applied.   In other words, we’re governing ourselves in accordance to a false abstraction if there is injustice.  For example, theft is the initiation of force against another in order to seize property.   This occurs when there is an exchange of property without consent.  If the given society sets up a system with a policy such as police power (not to be confused with security)  that grants these agents such rights, then that system is pardoning one group of people from theft while holding another group accountable to such moral theories.  Clearly, in such a scenario there is no equality of law.  And in the absence of equality of law there is no rule of law, but rather rule by might, i.e. despotism.

     

    “The Contract is protected by the Language of the Constitution.”

     

    The constitution is a contract.  So what is the natural law, i.e. moral theory, concerning contracts?

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 13, 2015 at 5:29 pm

  I don’t have access to the source for the information that I have, however the claim is: words that begin with a vowel and two consonants have multiple-definitions, or conflicting definitions.  Using such words in the construction of a Law makes the language of the Law ambiguous.  The other problem that might arise is taking the meaning as literal:  Does all-property mean all-land?  If the word means all-land it would mean the whole-world.  Who/What ever is the creator is the original-
  “owner”  Show me the bill of sale or the Land-Grant from the Original-Owner and the matter is settled.  If this can’t be done it seems like the BEST that anyone can do is just a claim not a proof.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 14, 2015 at 3:49 am

  There is a lack of theory IN any contract.  The “Terms” of the contract are the points of the private Law of the contract.  Only contract terms that are voluntary are acceptable.  Offer, acceptance and the value of a consideration.  If there is force or coercion you do not have contract.  If there is lack of knowledge, or deception you do not have contract.  If there is a lack of mental-capacity or any other condition which would interfere with a full and free acceptance you do not have contract.  Also if an offer is for an unlawful-purpose you can not make a valid-contract.  On the point of “setting up” a police organization, if you must “tax” society to “pay” for the operation of the police it really isn’t stealing.  In contrast the IRS is a Foreign Agency which uses deceptive language to extort money and property from individuals who do not engage in “taxable” activity, and that is FRAUD.  Again authority is delegated to Government not power.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    David Ottinger December 14, 2015 at 11:49 am

    I disagree.  Sovereign powers, i.e. full right of contract, are surrendered to “government.”  There is no reason for people to surrender their sovereignty in order to obtain services.  All the so called “representatives” are contracting on your behalf.

    This is an unconscionable bargain because no man in his/her right mind would yield this natural right for services as it is not necessary.  Such a hierarchical setup is feudalistic in nature as the individual gives up rights for security.

    This sort of top-down power structure is the product of conquest.  So, the so called “social contract” is illusory.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 14, 2015 at 12:55 pm

  First I can’t even imagine a “partial” power concerning contract.  One either has the capacity for the contract or not.  .Also one can’t “surrender” a gift of the creator.  I would have to do a show me when it comes to “surrender” of “power”.  Show me the Law or the Constitution that demands a surrender of power.  With the claim: “There is no reason for people to surrender their sovereignty in order to obtain services.”  I concur, except that I would say individual not people.  If you “let” others around you “control” your thinking with corrupt-Language you are in fact conquered.  If you want a discussion of Sovereignty you might want to write with a form that reflects facts rather than opinion.  If you write [Sovereign powers] you have two “nouns” in a sequence, the first (Sovereign) is used as an adjective modifying the second (powers).  The second word is considered a pronoun because it is modified by the adjective which colors the original-noun.  There are two ways to change this 1) make the string a compound-noun Sovereign-powers with a hyphen, or 2) write the term as a prepositional phrase: for the power of the Sovereign.  Because of the position in the prepositional-phrase one can PROVE that “power” and Sovereign are nouns = facts.  This is not “my” rule this is by a World-Wide fact of a Language.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  David Ottinger December 14, 2015 at 1:47 pm

  If you have to obtain a license in order to participate in a particular industry, then you gained certain contracting powers that you were otherwise not permitted to exercise.  If, however, you were a sui juris, i.e. sovereign, you’d be able to enter into any contract you deemed worthwhile.  There would be NO restrictions on your capacity to contract.

   

  So, what would you call someone not exercising his/her “gifts of the creator” due to a threat of force if not surrender?

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 14, 2015 at 3:12 pm

  Legal = by agreement. Lawful = in the concurrence with the Law.  The government can “make” anything legal or illegal.  A “license” is a permission to do that which you could do before someone(thing) made it illegal.

  “So, what would you call someone not exercising his/her “gifts of the creator” due to a threat of force if not surrender?”

  A victim with a lack of knowledge

  Sounds like you found a group or mentor that “taught” you all about “Sovereign Citizens”.  So now you want to trade one form of fiction for another, because you are unwilling to even consider that it is the procedure that is just as important as the subject-matter.  i.e. it is the form of the Language for the expression of the sovereignty that make the difference not the sovereignty as a subject-matter.  If you want to “be” your own man you must give up the fiction language which makes you the slave and learn the Correct-Sentence-Structure-Form for the communication or the thinking.  A “government” is a thing on a piece of paper which has NO POWER without a delegation of AUTHORITY to DO or NOT DO specific things.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    David Ottinger December 14, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    Frank,

    I find you’re actually edifying my points with these distinctions.   Just because some entity decreed some particular act to be illegal in the absence of a license does not automatically mean the rule of law is being upheld,  i.e. de facto vs de jure.  So, it is perfectly plausible for one group to conquer a region and dictate rights thereby imposing upon that particular area a juris-diction and further decreeing the populace as subjects.   Also, I disagree that someone could make anything justifiably legal or illegal because that which is unlawful cannot be made legal, except under rule by might.  And, if such an event should occur, then what has been adopted is lawlessness.  In the absence of sound moral theories and consistency with those theories, then the individual or group has adopted lawlessness.  I do not care how many edicts someone or group might have on paper (e.g. you could have an ocean) you would still have lawlessness.

     

    “So, what would you call someone not exercising his/her “gifts of the creator” due to a threat of force if not surrender?”

    A victim with a lack of knowledge

    Ok, but I was asking you to name the act.  Give me a verb.

     

    What fiction have I adopted?

     

    Also, shouldn’t it be sovereign-citizens according to your grammar rules?

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 14, 2015 at 4:27 pm

  When it come to “case” Law did anyone consider WHY taking a “case” into a Court where the writing of the “case” consists mainly of an opinion and the “ruling” of the Judge is an opinion, that taking the SAME “case” to the same Judge on a different day yields a different opinion?  One would thing that taking a “cast” to Court where the “circumstances” of the new case are so close to the circumstances of a prior case that there would be little reason for a different “ruling”, but it happens.  So what makes the difference?  The weather, the day of the week, the mood of the Judge, what?

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 14, 2015 at 7:45 pm

  Not “my” rules and not grammar rules, but rather the rules of the syntax.  The rules of Quantum-Language are with a concurrence in many Nations of the World.    “What fiction have I adopted?” – sovereign citizen – the adjective sovereign modifying the word citizen making Sovereign the colorful opinion of a kind of citizen = fiction-language.   The “facts” don’t support your claim that FRAUD is never “lawful”, but there are “legal” forms of fraud.  Look them up in your Black’s.  Theories are fantasy, illusion, or dreaming.  I will give you the only two verbs in the English-Language: is = singular are = plural.  every other word that you think of or “use” as a verb is just another word USED AS A VERB.  Such as turning a noun into a “verb” by adding an “ing”:thus  run + ing = runing = gerund   That you can not even begin to grasp what I am trying to say just shows that you are totally hung up on subject matter and are ignoring procedure.  “sound moral theories” = adjective, adjective, pronoun = opinion = not fact = lack of correct-sentence-structure-form.  If “sovereignty” is the “subject” the Correct-Sentence-Structure-Pares-Syntax-Grammar is the procedure.  If you ignore the procedure you will never gain the correct-knowledge of sovereignty.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Seth Cochran December 14, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    Frank,

    You’re getting waaaay to involved in the legalese. Grammar isn’t the supreme evil of the world. The state will find a way to tax and seize with or without the right nouns and verbs in place. I get you’re passionate, but you’re coming off as conspiratorial at best, and a paranoid jerk at worst.

    That said, thanks for contributing to the conversation.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    David Ottinger December 14, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    I’m discussing certain concepts and you’re discussing how people ought to speak.  So, since we can’t even get on the same topic, this conversation is pointless.

    If you can understand my points, then the language served its function.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 15, 2015 at 2:39 am

  If I say 3+3=6 you both would “accept” the “answer” as correct along with every other individual on the Planet who has been taught the RULES for the numbers and symbols of math.  When I offer a FORM of writing for the Language that has s set of rules which gives the writing and reading of Language the same precision as the math problem you would rather call the messenger names than look at or think about the corruption of Language as the means for keeping people in a state of slavery.  This is not legal speak,   Correct-Sentence-Structure is what sets you free of legalese.  It is not just grammar, but grammar, syntax, and choice of words that sets you free of the corrupt Language trap.  The leaders of the World have kept the people separated by the simplest, most common thing one could think of CORRUPTION of the LANGUAGE. World Leaders 1, people 0  There used to be a cigarette commercial on TV: (before the state made them illegal) “I would rather fight than switch” the modern version = I would rather fight than LEARN.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    David Ottinger December 15, 2015 at 9:59 am

    If this wasn’t liberty.me, I would think you’re trolling me, especially with the use of the word ‘quantum’.  That’s an immediate red flag for me.  So, out of curiosity I googled all this stuff and ended up watching the guy that made all this crap up.  He broke my bullshit meter multiple times before I had to turn it off.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wynn_Miller

    The guy is a conartist.  He’s claiming that Bill Clinton’s infamous, “That depends on the definition of ‘is’,” was a product of his counseling.   The guy’s target market is Christians because they’re a bit more susceptible to taking things or people at their word.  And the guy is well versed in his conspiracy theories, so he’s like “Look at all this esoteric knowledge I have.  That’s why you should listen to me.  Look at how knowledgeable I am.  And you know I know because *drops a list of famous names* know me.”

     

    Oh yeah, this guy talks about aliens and dimensions, too.  Sheesh.  Do the initiated get special decoder rings, too?    **shakes head**.  No thanks.

     

     

    Seth, sorry for derailing your thread with this rabbit hole of quantum-cheese-language.

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      

      Rick Rule December 15, 2015 at 10:18 am

      David, Seth

      Glad you guys stepped up. I was afraid of setting myself up as the grumpy posting cop at Liberty.Me

      You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 15, 2015 at 1:33 pm

  If “this guy” were as bad as you say he would be sitting in a Federal Prison.  Your reaction confirms what I have observed in a lot of individuals.  That observation is that just having a higher than average capacity to think and reason doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual uses that capacity for a positive purpose.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Rick Rule December 15, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    So Frank, you deny being this person?

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 15, 2015 at 3:46 pm

  Rick,  “this” is an ambiguous-pronoun because I can’t see who/what you are pointing at when you are speaking.  Person is the word that Attorneys assigned to Corporation-Entities so that the Entities could be sued like “real” people  David-Wynn: Miller is a “real” individual.  You can believe the WiKi rumors and negative propaganda or you can take anything that David-Wynn: Miller says about the construction of a correct-sentence and disprove it using sound-logic and intelligent-reasoning as long as any claim you make is supported by more than just opinion.  Just write one true-correct-complete-sentence and show how each word in the sentence is used in accord with the rules of syntax and grammar.  In fact the challenge is for anyone on liberty.me.    Just in case you didn’t know, a correct sentence expresses a single thought with a subject, a verb, and a predicate.  Language is the platform for the expression of all thinking.  Is it your claim that it makes no difference how one puts words together for the expression of a thought?

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Rick Rule December 15, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    I thought you liked simplicity, what could be more simple than ” yes”, or ” no”?

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 15, 2015 at 6:06 pm

  Rick   If you were to put the yes or the no into a complete-Correct-sentence you would fulfill the request.  Just a little story:  Dave was giving a seminar in the meeting room of a Restaurant.  The owner of the restaurant complained that people kept parking in the loading zone of the restaurant on spite of a no parking sign.  Dave asked the owner: how do you no park?  The Owner couldn’t answer, so Dave told him to put up a sigh that stated:  “For the parking of the car is with the towing and crushing”.  If you saw such a sigh would you take the chance and park in the spot?  Would you have any difficulty understanding the message on the sign?

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

    

    Rick Rule December 15, 2015 at 6:09 pm

    Frank

    Finally it is clear. The moral of the story is ” don’t respond to Frank”!

    You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• • • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Frank Maruschak December 15, 2015 at 8:18 pm

  I came to liberty.me because I thought I would find the best and the brightest with a conviction for the principals of liberty.  Among those individuals I hoped to find those who would further the cause of precision in the construction of the language for the reduction of lies and untruth.  All except Lobo have laughed at the writing and I have  made a big mistake in trusting the integrity of Liberty.me I apologize for the intrusion into Liberty.me.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

  

  Roger Browne December 16, 2015 at 7:40 am

  Frank: language, by its nature, grows from the bottom-up, from its many individual users. Language is not imposed from the top down. So it’s inevitable that language will be full of imprecision and ambiguity, due to the way it has arisen from many different people.

  You are correct in your diagnosis of the problem of language, but not in the solution to this problem. By its very nature, a language cannot exist that is both universal and precise. It’s a losing battle to hope for this.

  Instead, the skilled writer works with the imperfect tools available to craft a great message, just as a carpenter has only imperfect tools to work with, but uses them to craft great pieces of furniture.

  To obsess about the perfect language is to abandon the quest for great communication.

  You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

• You must be logged in to reply to this topic.