Land Patent Instructions

[mrg]

I am not sure if this has any bearing here:


"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.

I do not know what weight in "law" a Senate Resolution carries, but if this statement reflects or defines "public policy," and carries any force of action in implementation of the statement, (rule of the gun) then perhaps an argument might be made for the existence of a de facto National So******t Republic.

This also would seem to preclude any "individual so-called 'ownership' in allodium.

Originally Posted by mrg

I am not sure if this has any bearing here:


"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.

I do not know what weight in "law" a Senate Resolution carries, but if this statement reflects or defines "public policy," and carries any force of action in implementation of the statement, (rule of the gun) then perhaps an argument might be made for the existence of a de facto National So******t Republic.

This also would seem to preclude any "individual so-called 'ownership' in allodium.

A resolution by itself does not and cannot manifest itself as law when standing by itself. However, when a resolution is part of the information packet in a bill that has be passed into law, then they can make the claim, that it was by reference, passed into law. Senators and Reps are given an information packet with a proposed bill; a background and rationale for the impending bill. So when the proposed bill is passed into law, the reference material is also passed right along with it, unless specifically objected to upon the passing of the bill. This is how a lot of material is passed into law... I am certain that you have heard reference to something "being snuck into the bill".. that is what is meant.

Jerry.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by mrg

I am not sure if this has any bearing here:


"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.

I do not know what weight in "law" a Senate Resolution carries, but if this statement reflects or defines "public policy," and carries any force of action in implementation of the statement, (rule of the gun) then perhaps an argument might be made for the existence of a de facto National So******t Republic.

This also would seem to preclude any "individual so-called 'ownership' in allodium.

Ok so by Mrg's quote above, it occurs to me that the 1933 resolution is an act of usurpation because `the State' is only `holder in due course' (is this correct phrase?) because The Land is Ours, it belongs to The People!

`The State' is our creation and as I've said before elsewhere on the Forum, our steward to manage our stuff!

It's a Trust.

What's the proof? The Bureau of Land Management is the registrar of public lands to record who exercises final Rights over land that has been dispursed upon acceptance of terms of certain Acts of Congress regarding the claiming of homestead.

I think it was Henry who wrote recently that we need to stop hiding under rocks and sue our steward to stop evey encroachment and usurpation of Our Birth-Rights!

Originally Posted by idknow

Ok so by Mrg's quote above, it occurs to me that the 1933 resolution is an act of usurpation because `the State' is only `holder in due course' (is this correct phrase?) because The Land is Ours, it belongs to The People!

`The State' is our creation and as I've said before elsewhere on thE Forum, our steward to manage our stuff!

It's a Trust.

What's the proof? The Bureau of Land Management is the registrar of public lands to record who exercises final Rights over land that has been dispursed upon acceptance of terms of certain Acts of Congress regarding the claiming of homestead.

I think it was Henry who wrote recently that we need to stop hiding under rocks and sue our steward to stop evey encroachment and usurpation of Our Birth-Rights!

I concur with Mgr's assessment and also with HB's suggestion..

One question... In which court do we place that suit? Who controls (by force of arms) those Courts?

Jerry.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

I concur with Mgr's assessment and also with HB's suggestion..

One question... In which court do we place that suit? Who controls (by force of arms) those Courts?

Jerry.

If you're asking about where we file suit for a redress of grievances, it would seem to me that we'd file in

1. a state court for state usurpation; or,
2. in federal court because our federal constitution says that the supreme court, henceforth, the C.I.T in N.Y.C., is the constitutionally authorised tribunal, I think.

Originally Posted by idknow

If you're asking about where we file suit for a redress of grievances, it would seem to me that we'd file in

1. a state court for state usurpation; or,
2. in federal court because our federal constitution says that the supreme court, henceforth, the C.I.T in N.Y.C., is the constitutionally authorised tribunal, I think.

Actually, I was just being facetious. It really makes no difference in filing a suit.. All of the men and or women that would be dressed in black, are all members of the same corporation, and have a vested interest in making sure the corporation continues to operate status quo.

All that we can really do at this point in time, is make public record of the issues. Then patiently wait for the CommonLaw Court to gather a full head of steam... then those commonlaw public records will speak for themselves.

Just my opinion.

Jerry.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Actually, I was just being facetious. It really makes no difference in filing a suit.. All of the men and or women that would be dressed in black, are all members of the same corporation, and have a vested interest in making sure the corporation continues to operate status quo.

All that we can really do at this point in time, is make public record of the issues. Then patiently wait for the CommonLaw Court to gather a full head of steam... then those commonlaw public records will speak for themselves.

Just my opinion.

Jerry.

clearly that then would be a conflict of interest then that needs a redress of grievance.

Originally Posted by idknow

clearly that then would be a conflict of interest then that needs a redress of grievance.

And again.... with whom do we file our grievance? Congress? They are corporate members. The Supreme Court? They too are corporate members. The Armed Forces of the United States? They are corporate members. How about your next door neighbor who works for Howdy Doody Pumpkin Pie Company? Depending on frame of reference, he too works for the corporation.

Sorta looks like we are just bumping our heads on the ceiling. Kinda reminds me of the predicament of the founding fathers... they made numerous appeals to the King... but to no avail.

Jerry.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

And again.... with whom do we file our grievance? Congress? They are corporate members. The Supreme Court? They too are corporate members. The Armed Forces of the United States? They are corporate members. How about your next door neighbor who works for Howdy Doody Pumpkin Pie Company? Depending on frame of reference, he too works for the corporation.

Sorta looks like we are just bumping our heads on the ceiling. Kinda reminds me of the predicament of the founding fathers... they made numerous appeals to the King... but to no avail.

Jerry.

I see that you're trying to make a point, but i also think you're leaving out everything relevent that has been discussed here on the forum.

We, the Sovereigns, do know from discussion here (or are learning), how to get satisfaction from the courts, the only issew is what would be the proper oration of truth, fact and complaint to get the desired decision.

Originally Posted by idknow

I see that you're trying to make a point, but i also think you're leaving out everything relevent that has been discussed here on the forum.

We, the Sovereigns, do know from discussion here (or are learning), how to get satisfaction from the courts, the only issew is what would be the proper oration of truth, fact and complaint to get the desired decision.

Perhaps attempting to emphasize a point but definitely not trying to make one.

Relevent? What is relevent in regard to what has been discussed? Has anyone scanned court opinions from their individual cases and provided evidence of their winning process? I include myself in this delema, and there are some old timers on here that know I followed procedure to the letter and still lost... big time..

The point that I am emphasizing is simply this.. we as a group are no-where near in comparison with the oratory skills of those who wrote the Constitution or wrote the many grievances that were sent to King George, and yet all their appeals did nothing to divert the inevitable consequences of tyranny. Now while we sit here and amass a thousand other unprovable theories on how to approach the well equipped opposing team, that team is also amassing the necessary force to deter any of our feable attempts.

I mean good gracious alive. Look right down the street from your house... how many of your neighbors are working for the very system that you are attempting to enlighten? Do you even know the neighbors on your block? Have you ever attempted to convince them of the situation? How about those that you know are within the system on a voluntary basis and are receiving compensation for their time.. have you attempted to convince them that they need to leave their well paying positions in order to join the ranks of those of us who are not of the same mind set?

Great to be in America... I can jump on the soap box, and you can listen to what I have to say, or walk away; or you can listen and later discard what I say as nonsense; or you can listen and act. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

One of the most corrupt judges of his time had this to say..
"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself."
- Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

---- and from that day till now, I have not read a more truthful confession by a corporate government official.
Brandeis himself was a LAW breaker, and yet he proudly displays the fact of what has happened and what the government truthfully expects from the remainder of the population.

Because they have been expecting a particular attitude to develope among the population, they have taken the time and resources to develope a defense system that will not allow any small segment of the population to upset the scheme that they have set in motion.

Play in the judicial sandbox, and you can expect sand to get thrown forcefully in your eyes; play in the sandbox, and you can expect the goon squad to hold you down and push sand down your throat.... but whatever you do, don't expect to find justice within that system... by its' very nature, you cannot find justice in the belly of a whore.

Jerry.