Private property versus Estate

[Lawdog]

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, 1990.

Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), although by statute term may also include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.

Saying you're not a person is the same as saying you're not a human being. So knock off the silliness already.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Just finished reading the link provided by Rottweiler on land patents. Seems that these establish highest claim and are immune from any attack, except for mistake or fraud.

But...that just covers the land parcel itself. Everything on the land is fair game. Including equitable relief, like letting someone else use the property to pay for a debt.

So the upshot as I see it is that for mortgages and the like, the possession could be taken away in equity, until the debt is paid OR expires under the Statute of Limitations.

Which means that in the 7th year, or maybe sooner, the whole thing could be clear.

Then there are property taxes. Same applies as far as any outstanding debt- but the question remains: how to avoid incurring any new debt...

So patent or no, the tax issue is going to be resolved by obtaining an exclusion, somehow (or an exemption).

A true exclusion will have the property out of the system w/o a #, just like the excluded folks- private freeholders etc.

Or, perhaps in the system but w/o any new taxes levied- practically similar to exempt.

But excluded is better: this means also excluded from regulations, like zoning.

If the property t'ain't in the computer- it's not real.

Just like the folks who aren't persons.

"A Man w/o a Person, is a Man w/o Prejudice""

[palani]

Bouvier

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

This bears repeating until absorbed:
In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms.

Also:
Things that are similar are not the same.

[andrewmitch]

doesn't mean it isn't true

and no, i do not classify myself as a human being; i would not allow any other man to classify me as anything. who gave anyone the authority to tell me what i am or what i am not? only God may do that.

have you looked up the definition of a human being?

[andrewmitch]

We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).


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

I don't know anything about the Skurdal case but based on what the court said I would agree. This is b/c it seems as though Skurdal merely "proclaimed" he didn't "consent". Skurdal probably didn't change his actual relationship with the authorities he was seeking to separate himself from. Based on that, I would say this particular case is "Quatloosie"

[rottweiler]

Opps, links work now.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Start with this.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...nty/index.html
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...ons/index.html
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnote...rms/index.html

[andrewmitch]

One thing Bill claim's is very interesting. That is that things like the Social Security Card, Licenses, etc are considered to be "Narrow Contracts"; that is they only apply to the specific item for which the license was issued. If it ends up being a binding contract for something more, then the party is commiting fraud b/c there was not disclosure. In other words, you could still be in the system for certain items but challenge jurisdiction for others.

Speaking of jurisdiction, he is indicating that we aren't so much challenging jurisdiction but we are challenging authority and when they over-step their authority we can sue for damamges.

I am not sure how to apply this to the property tax issue but I am sure there is a connection.

[rottweiler]

There are 46 audio files. Which one are you specifically talking about?

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

One thing Bill claim's is very interesting. That is that things like the Social Security Card, Licenses, etc are considered to be "Narrow Contracts"; that is they only apply to the specific item for which the license was issued. If it ends up being a binding contract for something more, then the party is commiting fraud b/c there was not disclosure. In other words, you could still be in the system for certain items but challenge jurisdiction for others.

Speaking of jurisdiction, he is indicating that we aren't so much challenging jurisdiction but we are challenging authority and when they over-step their authority we can sue for damamges.

I am not sure how to apply this to the property tax issue but I am sure there is a connection.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

I am starting to think that most of the ideas folks are posting are valid. However, will they hold up in court?

Given that all courts are merely an extension of the corporate governments I can't see how the battle can be won. Having said that, I think the crux of most of our battles begins w/ getting our cases tried in Common Law Court; and I have no idea of how to make that happen....

JG: Since at the ratification of USCON, all common law courts were abolished, there's no legal way to adjudicate a dispute in a common law court.

One is only promised the RULES of the common law, pursuant to the seventh amendment.

And that promise only exists where the value in question exceeds 20 dollars (silver or gold). Ergo, unless you have a receipt that states you paid at least 21 dollars (not FRNs), you can't exercise that option.

(Which might explain why realty attorneys routinely produce deeds with verbiage like 'for $1 in hand...')

Though most legal authorities imply that common law writs are out of date, etc, etc. I filed a common law writ in my own case, and was quite pleased with the results.

(Check out Writ of Error Coram Nobis)

[rottweiler]

ARTICLE III Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; --- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

Item 3. Comment -- As we see by the U.S. Constitution, Art. III, section 2, the "judicial power" extends to four general categories. Firstly, and, because of it's primacy, the most important of all these categories is the "Law", which is defined by the S.Ct. of the U.S. as the "common law".

Item 4. Parsons v. Bedford, et al. (1830) 3 Pet. 433
as per Mr. Justice Story,
@ p. 447 ;
"By common law, they (framers of the 7th amendment) meant what the constitution denominated in the third article 'law'; not merely suits which the common law recognized among it's old and settled proceedings, but suits ........etc."
http://lawfulcourts.com/

COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]

COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:

A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

JG: Since at the ratification of USCON, all common law courts were abolished, there's no legal way to adjudicate a dispute in a common law court.

One is only promised the RULES of the common law, pursuant to the seventh amendment.

And that promise only exists where the value in question exceeds 20 dollars (silver or gold). Ergo, unless you have a receipt that states you paid at least 21 dollars (not FRNs), you can't exercise that option.

(Which might explain why realty attorneys routinely produce deeds with verbiage like 'for $1 in hand...')

Though most legal authorities imply that common law writs are out of date, etc, etc. I filed a common law writ in my own case, and was quite pleased with the results.

(Check out Writ of Error Coram Nobis)