Corruption in Government Must STOP -
Obey the Constitution
_________________________
Why is Obedience to the State and Federal Constitutions so Important?
Because Public Officers commit heinous criminal acts EVERY DAY
which they would NOT commit if they honored their oaths to obey the Constitutions
_______________
Attorneys commit crimes that are covered up other attorneys,
judges, and other public officers
Those who cover-up the crimes are more dishonest, corrupt, crooked, culpable, immoral, reprobate, decadent, degenerate, worthy of punishment, etc.,
than the original crime-committing attorney.
____________________
Serving in Public Office is a PRIVILEGE
WHY?
Because it is a privilege for a man to be deemed to be of the highest moral character, exhibiting such honesty, integrity, and good faith that other men would trust such a man to protect their life, liberty, and property. A man who is unfaithful and breaches such a sacred Trust is of such moral turpitude as to have descended below the level of a baby-raper, for such a one has figuratively raped the unborn as well as those who already have been born.
Public Officers that do not act with the highest fidelity to the Constitutions they are required to support exhibit contempt and disrespect for the high calling of public office.
Because it is a privilege for a man to be deemed to be of the highest moral character, exhibiting such honesty, integrity, and good faith that other men would trust such a man to protect their life, liberty, and property. A man who is unfaithful and breaches such a sacred Trust is of such moral turpitude as to have descended below the level of a baby-raper, for such a one has figuratively raped the unborn as well as those who already have been born.
Public Officers that do not act with the highest fidelity to the Constitutions they are required to support exhibit contempt and disrespect for the high calling of public office.
_________________________
Research Information
Here is the case law on land patents abstracted from reading 246 cases. Of those cases, 140 cases were deemed important enough to extract from and include in a Word document. The abstracts are listed in chronological order starting with a 1795 case, except that: two important cases are also set forth at the very beginning of the document, cases relevant to pleading the case are repeated on pages 73 thru 81, and the Teschemacher case is set forth in its entirety on pages 81 thru 84 in # 5 font because of the foundational principles explained.
Now that the rule of law is being restored, more people should be willing to look at the real law and enforce their rights to their own private property.
Many litigants have gone down in flames in the past decades when they argued that they "owned" land that had been held in trust by the United States of America and sold via land patent into private hands. The courts have repeatedly stated that that fact, by itself, does not invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts since most land in the United States had been held publicly by the United States of America. Merely "holding" land that was once held in trust by the United States of America will NOT invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. What is a relevant issue for invoking federal jurisdiction is that the Claimant is a successor to the rights, privileges and immunities granted by an Act of the Congress of the United States of America. The rights, privileges and immunities inhere in the land at the time the patent is issued and pass to successor heirs and assigns pursuant to the terms set forth in the patent. If those who lost their cases had had the benefit of the knowledge gleaned from these court cases, their results might have been different.
The attached zip file contains 140 cases regarding land patents. The cases are arranged alphabetically.
The cases include "losing" cases which are just as important to study as are "winning" cases. Read what the courts have repeatedly said about attempting to invoke federal jurisdiction by merely asserting possession of land originally granted via a federal land patent. The Hughes case in Washington and the Shultis case are instructive in this area. The land “owner” must evidence that he is entitled to the rights granted by the United States of America in the land. This is done through the chain of title. The rights are vested in and adhere to the land. They are not specific to the grantee unless the Act of Congress so provides. The rights pass to all subsequent grantees if there is an unbroken chain of title.
The laws in effect at the time the land was granted are the laws that govern the land today. For instance, if the United States of America granted public lands in one of its territories, such as the Territory of Wisconsin or the Northwest Territory, into private hands under the Act of April 24, 1820, those laws in effect at the time of the grant govern that land today. The result is obvious: no "real estate" taxes; no zoning restrictions; etc.
We the people were supposed to be kings in our own castle. The land that the castle was built upon first had to be owned by us with full "ownership rights". Today people buy property and let the attorney draft the deed naming them as "tenant" in common, "joint tenant", etc. A tenant is "One who holds of another (called "lord" or "superior") by some service; as fealty or rent." A "tenant" does not have "ownership rights". One who has "ownership rights" has the exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal.
Many litigants have gone down in flames when they argued that they held land that had been "patented" by the United States of America. The federal courts have repeatedly said that that alone will not invoke their jurisdiction. Others have lost their "case" because they brought up or made an equitable argument or made an "argument" in anticipation of what they expected their opponent would argue. Such an "equitable argument" is fatal. The Claimant must prevail on his own legal title, which means tracing his title from the Act of Congress through the issuance of the patent through mense conveyances to himself. In an ejectment action, the claimant must state that possession is being withheld from him by the defendant. Keep it simple.
We have been mislead and deceived regarding the proper preparation and recording of deeds with the county and the filing of property transfer forms with State authorities. The attorneys have deceived us into using artificial names, claiming ourselves to be tenants, such as joint tenants or tenants in common instead of owners of private property with ownership rights, and identifying our land as being situate in a public corporation such as "State of Wisconsin" instead of being situate on the land of "Wisconsin", the public Trust.
By and through their word-smithing and their failure to disclose the law and facts, the attorneys have stolen our "ownership" rights and subjected us to a system of ryot-tenure, which is a system of land-tenure, where the government takes the place of landowners and collects the rent by means of tax gatherers. We have been declared renters, or tenants, by and through the deception of attorneys. Our inheritance has been stolen.
A series of lectures by David Wilbur Johnson is found on the freedom-school site at: http://www.freedom-school.com/private-property-rights.html . They contain excellent historical and applicable information on land patents/grants and are downloadable in either .mp3 or .ra format.
Here is the case law on land patents abstracted from reading 246 cases. Of those cases, 140 cases were deemed important enough to extract from and include in a Word document. The abstracts are listed in chronological order starting with a 1795 case, except that: two important cases are also set forth at the very beginning of the document, cases relevant to pleading the case are repeated on pages 73 thru 81, and the Teschemacher case is set forth in its entirety on pages 81 thru 84 in # 5 font because of the foundational principles explained.
Now that the rule of law is being restored, more people should be willing to look at the real law and enforce their rights to their own private property.
Many litigants have gone down in flames in the past decades when they argued that they "owned" land that had been held in trust by the United States of America and sold via land patent into private hands. The courts have repeatedly stated that that fact, by itself, does not invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts since most land in the United States had been held publicly by the United States of America. Merely "holding" land that was once held in trust by the United States of America will NOT invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. What is a relevant issue for invoking federal jurisdiction is that the Claimant is a successor to the rights, privileges and immunities granted by an Act of the Congress of the United States of America. The rights, privileges and immunities inhere in the land at the time the patent is issued and pass to successor heirs and assigns pursuant to the terms set forth in the patent. If those who lost their cases had had the benefit of the knowledge gleaned from these court cases, their results might have been different.
The attached zip file contains 140 cases regarding land patents. The cases are arranged alphabetically.
The cases include "losing" cases which are just as important to study as are "winning" cases. Read what the courts have repeatedly said about attempting to invoke federal jurisdiction by merely asserting possession of land originally granted via a federal land patent. The Hughes case in Washington and the Shultis case are instructive in this area. The land “owner” must evidence that he is entitled to the rights granted by the United States of America in the land. This is done through the chain of title. The rights are vested in and adhere to the land. They are not specific to the grantee unless the Act of Congress so provides. The rights pass to all subsequent grantees if there is an unbroken chain of title.
The laws in effect at the time the land was granted are the laws that govern the land today. For instance, if the United States of America granted public lands in one of its territories, such as the Territory of Wisconsin or the Northwest Territory, into private hands under the Act of April 24, 1820, those laws in effect at the time of the grant govern that land today. The result is obvious: no "real estate" taxes; no zoning restrictions; etc.
We the people were supposed to be kings in our own castle. The land that the castle was built upon first had to be owned by us with full "ownership rights". Today people buy property and let the attorney draft the deed naming them as "tenant" in common, "joint tenant", etc. A tenant is "One who holds of another (called "lord" or "superior") by some service; as fealty or rent." A "tenant" does not have "ownership rights". One who has "ownership rights" has the exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal.
Many litigants have gone down in flames when they argued that they held land that had been "patented" by the United States of America. The federal courts have repeatedly said that that alone will not invoke their jurisdiction. Others have lost their "case" because they brought up or made an equitable argument or made an "argument" in anticipation of what they expected their opponent would argue. Such an "equitable argument" is fatal. The Claimant must prevail on his own legal title, which means tracing his title from the Act of Congress through the issuance of the patent through mense conveyances to himself. In an ejectment action, the claimant must state that possession is being withheld from him by the defendant. Keep it simple.
We have been mislead and deceived regarding the proper preparation and recording of deeds with the county and the filing of property transfer forms with State authorities. The attorneys have deceived us into using artificial names, claiming ourselves to be tenants, such as joint tenants or tenants in common instead of owners of private property with ownership rights, and identifying our land as being situate in a public corporation such as "State of Wisconsin" instead of being situate on the land of "Wisconsin", the public Trust.
By and through their word-smithing and their failure to disclose the law and facts, the attorneys have stolen our "ownership" rights and subjected us to a system of ryot-tenure, which is a system of land-tenure, where the government takes the place of landowners and collects the rent by means of tax gatherers. We have been declared renters, or tenants, by and through the deception of attorneys. Our inheritance has been stolen.
A series of lectures by David Wilbur Johnson is found on the freedom-school site at: http://www.freedom-school.com/private-property-rights.html . They contain excellent historical and applicable information on land patents/grants and are downloadable in either .mp3 or .ra format.
_____________________
|
| ||||