(lengthy) YOUR LAND - IS IT YOURS?

Submitted by: Doris Parker

WHAT IS A LAND PATENT??

    Essentially, a Land Patent is the first conveyance of title ownership to land which the U.S. Government grants a citizen who applies for one. 

One of the earliest laws for granting Land Patents was passed by Congress on April 24, 1820. Among other things, Congress set up Government Land officers, now known as the Bureau of Land Management. Land was usually sold in parcels of 160 acres for $1.25 per acre. The law in 1820 prohibited the borrowing or use of "credit" for the purchase of government land. In the debates in Congress prior to passage of this act, Senator King of New York said in March 1820 ... "it was calculated to plant in the new country a population of independent unembarrassed freeholder ... that it would place , in every man, the Power to Purchase a freehold. the price of which could be cleared in 3 years... that it would cut up speculation and monopoly ... that it would prevent the accumulation of alarming debt which experience proved never would and never could be paid" !!! (emphasis added) Later on, in 1862, a Homestead Act stated in Section 4: "That no lands acquired under the provisions of this act shall in any event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts contracted prior to the issuing of the patent therefor".

    It can be clearly seen that the intent of these early lawmakers was for the people of this country to be FREEMEN AND FREEHOLDERS of their land, and not ever be subject to have it taken from them by any government, feudal authority or banker or any other party who might have a claim against the person who owned the land. In plain English, a Land Patent which gave you an allodial freehold, that was "judgement proof and yes- even immune from tax liens. In [60] effect, the only authority over you or your land was GOD himself. In England, a man, who owned free from authority of the king, was known as a freeholder and his land as a freehold or allodial freehold. Most land patents in the U.S. were issued prior to 1900. However, even today, new land patents continue to be issued, mostly for gas, oil and mineral rights on public lands. For this reason, there are several land offices that remain open in the United States.

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF A LAND PATENT?

    On the basis of all the case law I have seen, there is no doubt in my mind that a land patent issued by the Bureau of Land Management which gives you a title at law is far superior to any title acquired in equity. such as a sheriff's deed. The land patent will, therefore, prevent your ejectment and removal from the land or the property you occupy on the land. The debts or claims of other parties will remain, but the land will be removed from assets which they can attach. The law is on the books today which says that any debts, which lie against the land, that existed prior to the land patent being issued, are removed from the land. The next question is; if the land patents were issued 100 or more years ago to persons who are no longer alive, and if I now reside on only a portion of the land that was originally described in the original land patent, then how do I bring up the land patent in my name'? And if I bring it up in my name, will it remove the land as security which the Bank or Mortgage Company can sell and seize in a foreclosure action? [61]

DECLARATION OF LAND PATENT

    The procedures which I will describe are not time tested, as they have not worked their way through the U.S. Supreme Court. This does not mean that these procedures will not ultimately be successful. Any basis for a legal approach must be supported by a legal theory. We already know and can substantiate that an original land patent will protect your land from any equitable or collateral attack. However, we do not know for certain that the existing procedures will vest in us the same rights and immunities by filing a DECLARATION OF LAND PATENT, and updating it in your name. However, since there is little to lose and possibly much to gain, it would be wise to file a DECLARATION OF LAND PATENT, in the future event that it is sustained.

    The theory is based on two premises. First, in the original land patent, that was granted, lets say 100 years ago the land patent document itself says that this patent is granted to the original party AS WELL AS TO THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS. While most of us are not heirs, ARE NOT WE ALL ASSIGNS? Since land patents were originally issued, nearly all conveyances of title were done by the use of deeds, like Quit Claim Deeds and Warranty Deeds. However, the money lenders found a way around land patents by creating, new paper instruments like deeds of trust and mortgages, all of which convey equitable interests. However, the land patent its remains the highest title at law, and few persons have updated a land patent in their name. Where a land patent exists, no lien or mortgage could be ever placed on the land. Since the intent of the lawmakers is the law, historic evidence shows that our founding fathers wanted us to own the land [62] in its entirety, and subject to the claims of no other man or government or other institution. Because the laws were passed by Congress setting up Land Offices to grant land patents, the best jurisdiction in which to raise these issues are the Federal Courts.

    In the Declaration of Land Patent, we then declare that we are the ASSIGNEE'S of the original land patent, even though we may be 2nd,..3rd, 4th, etc., after the party to whom the original patent was issued. TO LET YOU KNOW HOW SERIOUS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TAKING THESE DECLARATIONS OF LAND PATENTS, Don Walker has recently stated: "That in Illinois, he personally knows of a farmer who applied for a $500,000 loan and was told by the Federal Land Bank that it would be granted if he removed his Declaration of Land Patent. Also, the FLB is now itself applying for and filing Declarations of Land Patents on farms it is "foreclosing on". We have also learned that oil, gas and coal companies are filing these declarations on land already titled in their name through deeds. Also, Dennis Schlueter of Fort Collins, Colorado has stated: he knows of banks who are foreclosing on mortgages, that are then filing these DECLARATIONS OF LAND PATENTS on the property that they just foreclosed on. Now if these land patents were worthless pieces of paper, then why is everybody jumping on the bandwagon?

    After the review of several different land patents, the one enclosed in this paper is, considered the one that best sums up what is to be said. [63]

     The one major pitfall, that must be avoided, is that when filing the declaration of land patents, do not place the same legal description in the declarations that was in the original land patent issued by the Bureau of Land Management. What this does is cloud the title to the property of other persons who are living in properties that are part of the legal description of the original land patent. As a result, several lawsuits were filed to quiet title. To prevent this from happening, you must write in your Declaration of Land Patent only the legal description of the property to which you are an assignee. In other words, the legal description from your deed or abstract is what you must use. For this reason, the enclosed Declaration of Land Patent has in it, adequate language for this purpose. A Declaration of Homestead should be attached to your Declaration of Land Patent, but the legal description in your Declaration of Homestead must be 160 acres or less to comply with Federal Law on filing Homesteads. Along with the declaration of Land Patent and the Declaration of Homestead is a certified copy of the original land patent which you can obtain from your nearest land office. These papers are all stapled together and filed in either your County Recorder's office or with the Register of Deeds.

    DO NOT SEND CHECKS. SEND MONEY ORDERS ONLY / MAKE PAYABLE TO: Bureau of Land Management

   After you receive your copy of the original Land Patent or Land Grant, then staple it to a Declaration of Land Patent and file it in your County Recorder's office or Register of Deeds. You now have your allodial title. If you haven't filed a Declaration of Homestead, then you should do so and attach it to your Land Patent. You may file a Declaration of Homestead on up to 160 [64] acres, but not more. A Declaration of Homestead can only be filed on property that you actually live on. A Land Patent can only be filed on property that has been assigned to you. You don't file one on your neighbor's property or they can sue you for slandering his title.

     A Declaration of Homestead should be filed whether or not you file a Land Patent. It may be filed with, before, or after your lawsuit is filed. Both Land Patents and Declarations of Homestead must be Notarized. A sample of both are enclosed. Make photocopies of both before using them or you may retype your own.

    After your Land Patent is filed, you must send a photocopy by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to your bank or mortgage company, FLB, FMRA, PCA, etc and to any and all parties that may have an equitable interest in your property so they have been placed on NOTICE that you are updating the Land Patent in your name and they will have 60 days to challenge your claim to your allodial title in a court of law or forever keep their silence. Be sure to keep your green tickets when they come back.

        GIVING NOTICE IS A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF LAW. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT

        LAND OFFICES ORIGINALLY ISSUED THE LAND PATENTS, THEY PUBLISHED

        THE LAND PATENT WITH LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 60 DAYS: WHEN NOT

        CHALLENGED BY ANYONE, THE LAND PATENT WAS THEN GRANTED. AN

        ALTERNATIVE WAY TO GIVE THE OTHER PARTY NOTICE IS TO PUBLISH A

        "NOTICE OF DECLARATION OF LAND PATENT" in a legal publication in your county

         of residence.

   Include the legal description on your property in the ad with this warning: "If any party having a claim, lien or debt or other equitable interest fails to file a suit in a court of law within 60 days [65] from the date of filing or on (insert date), then they shall waive all future claims against this land and it will become the property and allodial freehold of the Assignee to said Patent. (your name - Assignee)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

  Q. Why must we give the other side `NOTICE'?

  A. Giving NOTICE is a basic principle of common law. If someone was going to file a claim against property that you thought was yours, would you not want to be given NOTICE? if they fail to file a suit in court within the 60 days, the case is substantially weakened if they file it later. Also, filing the Land Patent is an excellent diversionary tactic, since the focus of the court battle shifts to who has the best title. Remember, you are an Assignee to that original patent, and your claim is valid. The U.S. Government signed a contract granting that Land Patent to the original party, their heirs or assigns. YOU ARE AN ASSIGNS to all allodial title or freehold. The original contract does not specify any expiration date. it is still in force. If the original land patent is immune from equitable or collateral attack, then so is yours.

    Q. Where can I find more case law on Land Patents?

    A. At your local library at your courthouse or university. Look up the Supreme Court Digests [66] on Land Patents, also a set of books called 43 USCS 17. Also books on State Law Digests. Look underthe section on Land Patents. There is also material in Bouvier's Law Dictionary. Also look under the term "Bureau of Land Management". You will also find many court cases and related documents on the DCS computer system, especially in the directories:

Law

        Pre1868 - Supreme Court Cases

        Post 1868 - Supreme Court Cases

        9th US Circuit Court of Appeals

    Q. Why send the Bureau of Land Management $20.00?

    A. This is the approximate cost for most copies of the original patents.

This includes $4.25 for the patent plus a search fee. A copy of the County Plat map makes it easier for them to locate the patent or grant. In your letter, BE SURE TO ASK FOR A CERTIFIED COPY. You should receive it in 4 to 6 weeks.

WHO DOES YOUR LAND BELONG TO?

    While it is generally believed in America today that the purpose of the American revolution was to resist taxation without representation. The primary reason for the revolution was to deliver America's Land Titles out of the hands of Great Britain and return them to the people. It was assumed by many, before the Revolution, that England rightfully "owned" America. It was because of this assumption that she gave grants of land to supportive Colonists, then taxes the Colonists as subjects. But, the patriots, of that day, insisted that the King of England did not own the land ... so it was not his to grant. After the Revolution, the land became the property of each [67] State's people, with the authority in the people to parcel out the land to claimants in a fair and equitable manner. If some land remained unoccupied, Jefferson said: that anyone occupying it had possession, the right of ownership, land title, was then to be held by way of ALLODIAL TITLE. That simply meant that there was "No Superior" to the land owner. He was the Superior, the Sovereign on his land.

    To encourage railroad growth and provide transportation for over three million new settlers that had immigrated from the East into a wilderness devoid of roads, the government gave the first railroad land grant ... 2,595,000 acres of federal land, six alternate numbered sections (640 acres in a section) of unpreempted, land for every mile of track built, to be issued to fund the building of the Illinois Central, with a branch to Chicago. The contract said that it should be completed in six years and that seven percent of the company's gross should be paid to the state in perpetuity. Also, Uncle Sam was permitted set his own charge for carrying troops, freight and mail, and eventually settled on fifty percent for the first two and eighty percent for the mail. The Illinois Central, then the longest line in the world, was completed three days before the deadline set in 1856.

    One of the earliest laws for granting patents was passed by an Act of Congress an April 24, 1820. The law in 1820 prohibited the borrowing or use of credit for the purchase of government land. In the debates in Congress prior to the passage of this Act, Senator King of New York said "... it (the Act) is calculated to plant, in the new country, a population of independent, unembarrassed freeholders ... it will put the power in every man to purchase a [68] freehold, the price of which can be cleared in three years ... it will cut up speculation and monopoly ... it will prevent the accumulation of an alarming debt, which experience proves never could or would be paid." In 1862, the Homestead Act. in Section 4, provided that "no lands acquired under the provisions of this Act shall in any event become liable to the satisfaction of any debts contracted prior to the issuing of the land patent."

     When taxation of real property began (and the people did not object) they voluntarily accepted the premiss that government was the Superiors and the land owner a mere serf in a feudal relationship to his master. And the whole process helped to contribute to an ever increasing control by Lawless Government. This Lawless Government has been preparing America for the time when the land will be confiscated to pay off the indebtedness to the Federal Reserve that has America on the verge of financial collapse.

    According to conservative estimates, possibly half a million U.S. farmers will be driven from the land in the next several years. Jim Hightower put the goal of the previous administration at 10,000 super farms. No one knows what this administration might do. Mr. Hightower is the Texas Commissioner of Agriculture. A total of "10,000" farms for the nation has been the goal of public policy ever since the Committee for Economic Development wrote its Adaptive Program for Agriculture, but true to "People's Republic" type thinking, the matter has never been taken up with the American Public. [69]

    Democrats and Republicans alike have allowed this policy to march forward, annihilating not only the family farm, but the freedoms of all Americans.

    So the mortgage foreclosures, in the words of the great thinkers, will deliver the landed resources of the United States into a few strong hands. Thomas Jefferson would have called it "landed aristocracy."

    The founding fathers knew that free men could survive only as long as they owned property, because it was this ownership that accounted for broad spectrum distribution of income and preservation of the jury system. They also knew that manipulation of the money supply, via debt, would ultimately take from the people their substances, by concentrating the property into the hands of a few, which is now the curse of the majority of the world.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied." [70]

"I OWN MY LAND?"

    Taken from a letter/notice from the United States Department of the Interior, it stated: "the United States has paramount title in the land."

    The legal definition of Paramount is as follows:

 Paramount Title: "In the law of real property -- one which is superior to the title with which it is compared, it is used to denote a title which is better or stronger dm another ..... (Black's Law, 4 Ed. pg 1267)

     Under the National Constitution, Article IV & 111, Clause 2, Congress was given power (by the people) to dispose of its territories and the land acquired for the people of the United States by purchase and by TREATY. The Administration (government) holds this land as TRUSTEE for the people!

    After the Declaration of Independence and the "REVOLUTION', the land was to be held by everyone (landowners) in/by Allodial Tils, which simply means there is no superior or "overlord" to or over the landowner. [71]

    Before we get into what Allodial Titles, and Land Patents are, let's go to the first U.S. Supreme Court case on land titles for a clearer and basic understanding as to what our forefathers established through their experience and sacrifice for their progeny.

   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 hy 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.

Our question, then, narrows itself down to this: is fealty an part of our land tenures? [72] What Pennsylvanian ever obtained his lands by "Openly and-humbly kneeling before his lord, being un-grit, uncovered, and holding up his hands together between those of the lord, who sat before him, and there professing that he did become his man from that day forth, for life and limb, and earthly honor, and then receiving a kissfrom his lord? - This was the oath of fealty which was, according to Sir Marlin Wright, the essential feudal bond so necessary to the very notion of a feud. But then came the Revolution, which threw off the dominion of the mother country, and established the independent sovereignty of the state (the people), and on the 27th day of November 1779 (I Smith's Laws 480), an act was passed for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvanian in the Commonwealth. Another act on the 9th of April 1781, (2 Smith 532), provide for opening the land office and granting lands to purchasers; and, says the 11th section, "all and every the land or lands-granted in pursuance of, this act shall be free and clear of all reservations and restrictions as to mines, royalties, quit-rents, or otherwise, so that the owners thereof respectively shall be entitled to hold the same in absolute and unconditional property, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and to all and all manner of profits, privileges, and advantages belonging to or occurring from the same, and that clear and exonerated from any charge or encumbrance whatever, excepting the debts of said owner,... [73] The province was a fief held immediately from the Crown, and the Revolution would have operated very inefficiently towards complete emancipation, if the feudal relation had been suffered to remain. It was therefore necessary to extinguish all foreign interest in the soil, as well as foreign jurisdiction in the manner of government. We are then to regard the Revolution and these Acts of Assembly as emancipating every acre of the soil of Pennsylvania from the grand characteristic of the feudal system. Even as to the lands held by the proprietaries themselves, they held them as other citizens held, under the Commonwealth, and that by a title purely allodial. All our lands are held mediately or immediately of the state, by the titles purged of all the rubbish of the dark ages, excepting only the feudal names of things not any longer feudal. Under the Acts of assembty I have alluded to, the state became the proprietor of all lands, but instead of giving them like a feudal lord to an enslaved tenantry, she has sold them for the best price she could get, and conferred on the purchaser the same absolute estate she held herself,... and these have been reserved, as everything else has been granted, by CONTRACT."

     To get a better understanding of this issue, we must take a look at certain definition, from Black's Law, as follows:

    "ALLODIAL. Free; not holden of any lord or superior, owned without obligation of vassalage of fealty; the ol2l2osite of feudal, " [74]

    "ALLODIUM. Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord of superior; Land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. (Emphasis added

            Take note that AIIodiaI is the opposite of Feudal.

    "FEUDAL. Pertaining to feuds, fees; relating to or growing out of the feudal system or feudal law; having the quality of a feud, as distinguished from 'allodial' (Emphasis added)

    "FEUD. An estate in the 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. In this sense the word is the same

as "feod", "feodum", "feudom", "fief", or "FEE".

    To simplify, one can have two different and opposite titles of land, one of 'Feudal, nature - owing a fee or duty to another who actually retains or own the land or the other being 'Allodial', Where the land is held absolutely in one's own right, not subject to another, a fee or a duty!

    So the..term OWNERSHIP" may take on a totally different meaning, dependent upon the type of title one has in the land. 'OWNERSHIP-' is a key principle as it pertains to the rights to acquire and use property as well as rights in the land as well. Ownership is defined as follows: [75]

      "OWNERSHIP: The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or claim. The entirety of the powers of use and disposal by law. The exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal. Ownership of property is absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has absolute dominion over the property. The ownership is qualified when ... use, of the property is restricted." (Emphasis added)

    The Act of Congress of April 24, 1820 was one of the earliest statutes passed for granted land Patents, along with the Homestead Act, Sec. 4 in 1862 and as stated earlier, the disposal of its territories and land acquired for the people is by purchase and by TREATY (Contract of and by the

People) to wit:

                  1) Northwest Ordinance (1787)

                  2) Treaty of Peace, 8 STAT.80 (1783)

                  3) Treaty of Ghent, 8 STAT.218 (1818)

                  4) Oregon Treaty, 9 STAT.869 (June 15, 1846)

                  5) Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 9 STAT.922 (1848)

                  6) Treaty of Cession, 8 STAT.200 (1863)

      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 if any individual State. [76]

    It was through the 'experiences' of our Founding Fathers, coming from a Feudal system, that they desired that in the new country, the United States, that all men would own their land, in its entirety, absolutely, with full dominion, and subject to the claims of no man or government! This was done through grant or purchase.

     Black's Law, 4th Ed. pg. 829, defines Grant as a conveyance(?), same reference, pg. 402 under general, to wit:

      Absolute or Conditional Conveyance. An Absolute conveyance is one by which the right or property in a Thing is transferred, by which it might be defeated or changed; as an ordinary deed of lands, in contradistinction to a mortgage which is a conditional conveyance.

    Now under the' term 'Grant' it shows 'Private Land Grant' as: A grant by a public authority vesting title to public land in a private (natural) person.

      Public Grant: A grant from the public; a grant of a power, license, privilege, or property, from the state or government to one or more individuals, contained in or shown by a record, conveyance, Patent, charter, etc.

     Before we go on to Patents, and with a little understanding of 'Grants', we will take a little time to touch up on the 'Purchase' of land as it affects title. Two points are raised or established, the first, from a court case, called STANEK v WHITE, 215 NWR 781 (1927), states: [77]

   "There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge."

     How does this affect your land purchase'? Very simple. When Congress, in 1933, suspended the gold standard (Art. 1, Sec. I 0) which denied you the right to PAY YOUR DEBTS AT LAW (which extinguishes the debt), to a system where you can only discharge your debts, but the debt still exists. This may be where your duty or fee comes from in the form of your property tax. But there may also be a distinction in the form or type of payment that you made in and for the land. The courts have ruled that the Federal Reserve Bank/System is not an agency of the U.S. Government, but rather a Private Corporation!

    Therefore, when you participate in the Federal Banking System, you are participating in a private money system, which is a privilege, and therefore a duty and fee is extracted, in the form of a tax, but since Federal Reserve Notes are not Lawful Money (no substance backing it!) you cannot pay your debts at law, they are only pieces of paper of which a debt attaches!

    To prove this, we go to the second point, the definition of Title, as found in Bouvier"s Dictionary of Law:

    "The means whereby the owner ... hath just possession of his property.

3. Title to personal property may accrue in three different ways; by original acquisition, by transfer by act of law, by [78] transfer by act of the parties. 5. THE LAWFUL COIN OF THE UNITED STATES WILL PASS THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE POSSESSION.' (Emphasis added)

    The Lawful coin of the United States was Gold and Silver which is 'substance'. In olden days, one got gold from the land and one could buy land with gold. But back then, the conveyance of land through purchase was honored (in the law) and full and absolute possession and ownership was transferred!

    So what we have covered so far, you can see that perhaps you don't own your land. Merely compare your so-called title or deed to the points of law as brought forth herein. See also the attached 'Exhibits' for your comparison. In mid-stream, we ask you the question, "Is property tax evidence of ownership?" We'll let you also answer that question.

      Now on to Land Patents- Because all Federal Land Patents flow from Treaties that fall under the "Supremacy Clause," no State, private banking corporation or other federal agency can question the superionty of title to land owners who have perfected their land by Federal Land Patent. Public lands, as found in 42 American Jurisprudence, Sec. 781 thru 873, shows that a Patent of land is to be the title to land and anything else is FRAUD. Transfer of a Patent is by release of Patent Interest Right and not by some form of 'USURY INSTRUMENT' of Trust or Warranty. (See also 40 AM JUR, 577 thru 688) [79]

    A Land Patent issued by the United States is legal and conclusive evidence of title to the land conveyed. (Opinion of U.S. Attorney General - Sept. 1869). A Land Patent is the highest evidence of title. Since Land Patents cannot be collaterally attacked as to their "Validity" or "Authenticity" as the highest evidence of title; Federal Land Patents were given free and clear 'ALLODIAL Title' with no encumbrances, then and now. Can you say the same about your land title'?

    The Patent alone passes land from the United States to the grantee and nothing passes a perfect title to land but a (WILCOX v JACKSON, 43 Peter (U.S.) 498, 10 L Ed. 264) ".... with no fee or duty (TAX)!!!

    Since a Land Patent is not a conveyance of title by someone assigning their equity interest over to you, but a Land Patent is a TITLE AT LAW, which establishes an ALLODIAL FREEHOLD that is judgement proof and even immune from tax liens! Again, can you say the same thing about your land title'? [80]

"THE PROPERTY TAX --- SCHOOL FUNDING ISSUE"

"OWNERSHIP VS FRAUD IS IT A MASTER-SLAVE RELATIONSHIP

    Well there's a lot of emotions flowing out and about, around this here Property Tax --- School Funding Issue! Within the State of Oregon, there was more than a lot of talk about a sales tax, which would accordingly lower property taxes. Following that, the people voted in the Lottery. With the promise that funds would or could go to lower property taxes. Time will tell on that one, just don't hold your breath! Most Oregonians don't want that sales tax! (Nor does any other person in this country, unless they are a politician.) And if school funding issues are brought into any discussion, in relation to or based on property taxes, watch out, 'fur can fly'! I

    Many people, with good intentions, support the schools, to a point, irrespective of the poor quality (the results) and the underlying goals of such controlled education. It seems that every year, along with teacher strikes, the property tax issue arises, with all the pros and cons. Seems to just get worse than better! And haven't you noticed, that all the politicians ever do, at any level, is to raise taxes ... then again, maybe you haven't noticed!

    But then it's a 'Catch 22 Situation'. To support the schools, financially, property taxes must go up! Vote property taxes down, and the schools must suffer! It's really a no win situation.

    Maybe the solution lies within QUESTIONS, or to put it another way, YOU may have to go back to the beginning and find or discover the ANSWERS! [81]

    In order to get the right answer(s), one must ask the right questions, like: Are property taxes necessary'? Are property taxes lawful?

    But the most important question is: "is property tax indicia (evidence) of true ownership"?

     Well now, let's, do some investigating! What does 'ownership' really mean? "The colete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or claim. The entirety of the powers of use and disposal by law. The exclusive right of Possession, enjoyment, and disposal. Ownership of property is absolute or Qualified. Ownership of property is Absolute when a single person has absolute dominion over it. The ownership is qualified when ... use is restricted".! (Black's Law Dictionwy, 5th Ed., pg.979) (Emphasis Added)

    So what does this tells us? Ownership in land is: "THE COMPLETE DOMINION, TITLE, EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF POSSESSION, ENJOYMENT, RIGHT TO CONTROL WITH ABSOLUTE DOMINION OVER IT!!

     That statement seems fo be meaningless in view of the compelling of PERMITS, and of course PROPERTY TAXES! Kind of like there's somebody watching over you, controlling or dictating what you can or cannot do on your land, and then demanding "TAXES" as well. [82]

     It would then appear that most people who have bought (paid of off) their land (with or without a home on it) do not have absolute control, dominion, use, or even full enjoyment of it, when the individual and land is RESTRICTED by local permits and property taxes!

    Then it also follows that, if there are such restrictions on your land, that you do not have 'absolute title'. Maybe then ... your not really an owner, in the true sense of the word. I guess you would be called a quasiowner. They kind of define that as 'something like" an owner! Maybe there is a 'SUPERIOR' above you, controlling the use of the land and compelling a duty of fee for the 'interest' or 'use' of the land ... called property taxes! In the old days, way back in time, it was called "FEUDALISM", which is defined in part as:

      "The system was based upon a servile relationship between a "vassal" and "lord". The vassal paid homage and service to the lord and the lord provided land and protection." (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg. 559).

     Well now, not too bad, but let's take a look at "FEUDUM", defined as: "A feud, fief, or fee (tax). A right of using and enjoying forever the lands of another, which the lord (superior) grants on condition that the tenant shall render @ (duty or tax) military duty, and other services. It is not properly the land, but a n@ in the land." (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.,'pg. 560) (Emphasis added) [83] So what you may be involved in, as a so called 'property owner', is a form of feudalism, which is basically in modem terms:

    "A system based upon a servant relationship between the servant and a superior (State, Banking Co., Corporation, or other). The servant for the payment of a property tax (fee) has a right to use the land on conditions! "

     For today,, those conditions are the property tax, land use laws and permits. It should be noted however that if the servant falls to pay the property taxes or violates any of the conditions, the servant will be removed off the land and another servant will be allowed to use the land ... on the same conditions! One must remember, however, the state will use any means to remove a servant/slave who fails to pay the taxes, even to the point of using a SWAT TEAM!

    The right to use the land does not grant absolute title. The servant is without and is denied the true title, and is involved in what is called simply a 'feudal system'. Please bear with me, my leading is not in vain!

    Let us now look at and define the word "FEUDAL", it is: "Pertaining to feuds or fees; relating to or growing out of the feudal system or feudal law; having the quality of a feud, as distini!uished from 'Allodial". (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg.559) (Emphasis added) [84]

     Well now, that's dam right interesting. This thing called "ALLODIAL", which is distinguished (opposite) from the "Feudal System" of the use of land without true ownership - for a fee! Well, we're going to take a good look at this 'Allodial' thing.

    But now those people who are in the know, or supposed to be, from REAL ESTATE AGENTS, STATE OFFICIALS, to POLITICIANS, obviously are not directed to this information, or most likely this information has been suppressed or even denied, not only from them ... but from you too, the so-called property owner!!! Could it be that those we elect(?) or the powers that are in the 'mushroom business', keeping everyone in the dark and feeding them 'bull'?

    Well hang on, we're getting warm. I now direct you to the definition of Allodial, it is: "Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without ablization of vassalage of fealty; the opposite of feudal." (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg.70)(Emphasis added)

     Can you believe, a title of land where you are not beholden' to anybody', owned without any 'obligation', of any duty or fee... a property tax'? Amazing but true!

    Strictly speaking, in regards to land, we go to yet another definition, and that is of land being held in ALLODIUM, as- [85] "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, with out recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account there of". (Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg. 70)

    Therefore, if any title on land would be wanted or sought after, as a treasure, it would certainly be an 'Allodial Title' would it not'?

    Imagine a 'Title', on your land, where you are not subject to duties, fees, or taxes! Land held in absolute ownership with no superior above you! That means (what should have happened) when you paid off the debt on your land, the State, the Bank, or the party holding the contract until full payment, should of then transferred the proper true title, an Allodial Title. You would then own your land free and clear, fee simple. absolute! It could then be said, that you held your land in "PARAMOUNT", as in holding paramount title. Paramount being defined as:

    "In the law of real property, one which is superior to the title with which it is compared, in the

     sense that the former is the source of the later. It is, however, frequently used to denote a title

     which is simply better or stronger than another, or will prevail over it." (Black's Law Dictionary,

     5th Ed., pg. 1001) [86]

    So now the question is, does the title you hold, or will receive, give you full absolute ownership, free and clear, fee simple, not subject to any duty or tax .... do you hold your land in Allodium with a paramount title'???

     In the old days, it is my understanding, that land held under these titles could not be licenced, seized, or taxed! Of course this applied to the land as well, because of the "STATUS" of not only the land, but the "owners" as well. The land was owned, and nobody else had any control, what so ever! The land represented the wealth of the family, it was the family! Irrespective of hardships, family members could always go back to the land, the family farm, to survive and rebuild any monetary loss and self esteem!

    But no so today! With the many restrictions placed upon the land, and of course, with the State owning the land (State holds true titles) the people cannot use the land for their needs, purposes, or desires.

    Many people have been forced onto the welfare system as a result of this modern day 'Feudal System'. The land is simply ... not yours!

    But now the question is this; "Why do you, the so called property owner, do not have and hold an "Allodial/Paramount Title" to the land (And Home) that you THINK you own? [87]

    Why are you, the individual(s), the true substance and strength of this country, denied the proper lawful title to your land? Why are you denied the full enjoyment, from the use and ownership of your land'? Is the quest for control and power, by those in authority over you, worth the violation of your "Life", "Liberty", and "Pursuit of Happiness"? Why are you led to believe that you own the land? Why are you called a landowner, when you are compelled to duties, fees, and taxes'? When you bought your property, did you understand and agree to having a 'superior' above you, controlling the use of your land? Why has the State denied you true title to your property?

    Is it because the need and greed for power and control over the masses that necessitates the fraud and scams to keep the State coffers full and the sheep in line, thinking and believing that they own their land, thereby making it a little easier to fleece! State Dictatorial control, under the guise of permits, property taxes, and school funding, in relation to the ownership of land" necessitates..."the end justifies the means!"

     This "Citizen", having an interest in the basic land/title issue, and fully understanding the principles involved, the truth that "we are merely serfs upon the land," that no one really owns their land, and having no need to participate in "their" deceitful fraud ... has turned his energy toward other interests.

    One such interest was 'prospecting' and its related area of information. That of course led to collecting and reading books and information about mining claims and U.S. regulations on [88] mining claims from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). One of the letter documents that I had received was quite a surprise, since I had skimmed over it some time back.

      The letter was from the "United States Department of the Interior", "Bureau of Land Management", titled "Notice to Mining Claimant", 2nd. paragraph, and in part said:

        "Since a mining claimant has merely a possessory interest in the

        location, the United States has PARAMOUNT TITLE in the land..."

        (Emphasis added)

        *this statement could apply to so-called Property owners!

     NOW THE QUESTION IS! "By what authority does the U.S. Government and your State Government hold land in paramount title (untaxable, unalienable, and unseizable) and yet denies the very people of this country the RIGHT to hold their land in same status ... in Allodium?"

      Is this not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Who's fooling who? Who's controlling who? Those are questions you need to get answered. Its' been said many times, but here, it is more than applicable - and that is:

     "All had better WAKE UP! For Gods' sake, WAKE UP!!!" [89]

        Consider and understand that, your government(?) is involved in a 'belief system scam'. That is, if they can get the people to believe in certain things, then the Government can not only control the people, but also get the people to pay for their own servitude!

                         HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:

                       1. Socialistic Income Tax

                       2. Socialistic Social Security

                       3. The Welfare System

                       4. Government Schools

                       5. State Ownership of your Vehicles

                       6. Zoning

    Get the people to 'believe' that 'they' own their own land and they will pay the taxes on it, most of them, with a smile on their face! Get the people to 'believe' they need to pay a property tax to support the schools (free education) and the Government can add another link in the chain ... in the enslavement of the people in this "Land of the Free!".

      One might ask now, "How do the schools get funding"? Well, that's simple. Since the monetary system of this country is run by a "Private Corporation" circulating 'Bills', 'Notes" and 'Checks' (credit) without substance and in violation of U. S. and every State Constitutions (U. S. Art. I Sec. I 0) (Look up your own States' Constitution Article and Section). Since most taxing schemes are based upon fraud and theft, demand your public servants to retum the power [90] and authority to regulate the money system back to the U.S. Treasury, and then demand the Treasury to turn on the printing presses. I mean it's not really money, there's no substance, it's just paper! It's one of those 'belief scams', you believe its money, that it has value, and your 'confidence' thus makes it so! But it's just paper with nothing of value for support! Since your Government can and should operate honestly, they can just send the 'cash' directly to the schools!

    Of course, the other alternative is to shut all the schools down and tum over the education to `private enterprise' and 'home schools'!

     But remember, the issue here is "That you don't own your land!" And that's why you are compelled to pay property taxes ... to support the schools. Now I realize that every point cannot be raised here, either in support or otherwise, but you must start with the basics.

   "Get your land back, under a lawful, paramount, Allodial Title whereby you own it free and clear, fee-simple, ABSOLUTELY, owing nothing to nobody!" To do this, there's a price to be paid, and it is; Tum off the boob tube, put the beer down, read the Constitution, study the points raised herein, write some demanding, letters to your public servants, get together in your local and MAKE it happen.

   "Yes, we may not know what the future lies, but MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR EXODUS!!!" [91]

    This same point and principle applies to your automobile, you think you own it, but the State compels you to 'Drivers License, Registration, and Insurance, because the State holds the true title to your car, you merely carry a 'Certificate of Title', certifying that a true title exists. You do not have paramount title to your car, which is your property('?)(possession 9/10 of the law). [92]

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

    When you buy property, you must know the difference between Allodium and Feudal, and the various kinds of Titles.

    When you own property, Allodial, no one can claim any control over your property but you. When you own property Feudally, you do not really own it, but are only renting it, and the owner has control of the use of the property. Feudal ownership is a deception, because you have, in actuality, contracted for a third party to own the property. Therefore. you must abide by the provisions of the contract, and pay the third party a rent for the use of the property. If you do not pay that rent or tax, you will be removed from it and it will be "sold" to someone who will pay. Property is "sold" on the courthouse steps every day of the year, except weekends. You ask "Why on the courthouse steps and not in the courthouse'?". This is because the property is "sold" under color of law, and not according to the Common Law.

     In order to own the property Allodial, you must make a Bill of Conveyance to contract with the seller of the property, get the property surveyed, do a Title search, and file those documents with the Recorder in the Judicial Circuit or District in which the property is located. If you do not file for "homestead exemption or make any other contracts with the County or State, then you cannot be assessed any tax or be forced to obtain permits to improve upon your property. This means that the property is yours and no one else's, and that you are the only one in control of your property. I feel that every property owner should have a copy of "Blacks Law Dictionary". [93]

     When you buy, make sure that the seller includes "ALL RIGHTS to the property in the Bill of Conveyance including mineral rights.

    When you buy a car, you must also know the difference. I will give you an example.

    When you buy a car from a dealer, the MANUFACTURER CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN is sent to the State (Department of Motor Vehicles). The Manufacturers Certificate of Origin IS THE TITLE!!! The State records the Title on microfilm and ISSUES a Certificate of Title, which does nothing but certify that there is a Title. THE STATE HAS THE TITLE!!! If you read the small print at the bottom of the certificate, you will find that you only have "VESTED INTEREST" in the conveyance, and not ownership of it. YOU HAVE JUST CONTRACTED FOR THE STATE TO OWN YOUR CAR!!!. When you do this, you must comply with the provisions of that contract and register the car every year, so the State knows where the car is, obtain a drivers license, and purchase insurance.

      You must also obey the statutes of the Corporate State and all the regulations that go along with them, so the Corporate State can keep their large greedy, deep into your pockets.

    You must also know the difference between paying and discharging a debt. When you pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance. (see Art. 1, Sect. 8, Cl. 5 and Art. I Sect. 10, Constitution for the United States of America). You pay a debt with Gold and/or Silver coin, but you can only discharge a debt with "Federal Reserve Notes". Gold and Silver coins are value, [94] if coined by Congress at the U.S. Mint. (Art. 1, Sect. 8, Cl. 5), and only Gold and Silver coin can be used to pay debts. (Art. 1, Sect. I 0). When you use Gold and Silver coin to pay a debt, it is paid in full. A Federal Reserve Note cannot pay a debt, because it is only BANK CREDIT, or a debt in itself. How can you pay a debt with a debt? You cannot! You can only discharge the debt with Federal Reserve Notes. The debt still exists and is not paid.

    Article 1, Section 8, Cl. 17, of the Constitution for the united States of America, establishes the District of Columbia as a DIFFERENT and SEPARATE NATION from the Republic of the united States of America. The Congress has the EXCLUSIVE RULE OVER THE Citizens of the District of Columbia, it's territories, Insular possessions and Federal enclaves. Those people have no RIGHTS, WHATSOEVER, other than what Congress gives them. The Social Security Number is the Main Contract with this Foreign government that creates this status of slavery.

    The way to own property in a Freehold status is to rescind ALL CONTRACTS with the Foreign Corporate Federal Government and the Corporate Regional State, county and municipality.

    These contracts include:

                 1. Birth Certificate

                 2. All licenses (including Marriage)

                 3. All permits

                 4. Social Security numbers [95]

                 5. Bank accounts (except barter banks)

                 6. Any contract that requires a Social Security Number

                 7. Any incorporation, entitlement, or privilege from any

                    level of government.

    This you must do by Affidavit. This is your declaration that you are a Free American, and not a United States Citizen (Citizen of the District of Columbia). You MUST, after you type them, get them notarized and have three of your peers witness yours, and the notaries signatures. The only reason for the notary, is to make the document cognizant in a foreign venue.

     Send a copy of the affidavit to the pertinent agency, along with the original True copy and certification and service. Keep two copies for yourself, and file the original Affidavit with a copy of the true copy certification and service with the Recorder of the Judicial Circuit or District in your area. You can do this in person (in the Common Law) or by return receipt mail. One copy goes with you, in your car, and the other remains in your files.

    With every Affidavit that you send to an agency, the number or identification card must be surrendered. In the case of the Social Security Administration, if you have a card, it must be surrendered and accompany the affidavit. In the case of the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Number Plate, Registration, Certificate of Title, and Driver's License must be enclosed with the Affidavit, etc.. The only exception to this would be if you do drive for hire, i.e., Taxi, Bus, or Truck driver.

    Make a copy of your Positive Identification in the size of an ID card with your right thumb print overlapping the bottom of the photo, laminate it, and carry it as your photo ID.

      Always work on a contract basis and NEVER sign anything "under the penalties of perjury," or use any Social Security number. You are then, a Free American and NOT a U.S. Citizen.

NOTE ADDED BY DCS STAFF:

    When making up your photo ID, you MUST, absolutely MUST, place a disclaimer on the ID such as: "Not a government issued identification."

    The disclaimer must appear on both the front and rear of the identification card.

    This step is necessary due to the fact that Congress has passed a law stating that it is Fraud for anyone to carry an non-governmental identification card without the disclaimer.

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

    When you "buy" property today, you do not buy the property, you buy a lease from the County? Think about it for a minute. If the county can tax the property, require a permit to improve it, take it away from you if you do not pay the tax, who owns it? (see Black's Law Dictionary, definitions, included.)

     If you PAY for it in Gold Coin, and on a Bill of Conveyance, do your Title search, and survey, file those three documents with the clerk of Circuit Court and the county recorders office, then you own allodial property and the county cannot tax it, make you get any permits, take it from you, or

even zone it, because the county does not own it anymore. Make sure that you retain ALL rights to the property on the Bill of Conveyance.

    The same goes for your car. Lets say that you buy a car from a dealer, and that you discharge the price of the car with Federal Reserve debt (FRAUDS). The Manufacturers certificate of origin (Title) goes from the dealer to the State (regional) Department of Motor Vehicles. When you sign all those papers at the dealership, you are contracting for the Regional State to own your car! When you do this, you must abide by the provisions of the contract and register it every year, so the owner knows where it is, buy insurance (a paeans scheme) and get a drivers license.

   The drivers license was only designed to regulate "Driving for Hire" and not to regulate the right to travel.

    A license is "privilege, or permission to do what is otherwise unlawful". The Right to travel cannot be regulated or taxed. (Art. 9 of the Bill of Rights).

    As for payment, you cannot pay a debt with a check or Federal Reserve Notes (FRAUDS).

    They only, discharge the debt and the debt still exists. To PAY a debt, you must barter, or pay in Gold or Silver Coin, which cancels the debt. The Federal Reserve Note is debt and you cannot pay a debt with a debt! (see Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 5 and Sec. 10, Constitution for the United States of

America)

    To own your own car you must buy it on a Bill of Conveyance, and obtain the manufacturers Certificate of Origin. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IT'S REGIONAL STATE WANTS TO BE YOUR GOD, BUT YOU CANNOT BE A U.S. CITIZEN (under the U.S. Code and statutes passed by Congress and the regional State legislators) and an American (under the Constitution and Gods Laws) at the same time. You cannot serve two masters. YOU HAVE THE CHOICE, MAKE IT! [98]

WALLACE VS HARMSTAD

     Ground-rent Deed invalid for fraudulent Altemation in hands of Flurchaser for Value without Notice. Effect of Altemation on the parties and those claiming them. Ground-rents are Rents - Service. Statute of quia emptores not in force in Pennsylvania. Titles to Land in Pennsylvania are allodial.

    1. Where a landlord after a sale of lots reserving groundments, and delivery of the deeds, obtained possession of them, and having fraudulently altered the causes reserving the rents, sold them: the purchaser, though bona fide and without notice of the fraud, cannot recover, either by action at law or by distress.

  2. A vested estate will survive the loss of the instrument by which it is created, for the deed may be proved by secondary evidence or presumed from prescription; but if destroyed by the fraudulent act of the party claiming under it, it cannot be then proved or supplied by any presumption in his behalf.

  3. Ground-rents are rents-service of which distress is a necessary incident: but a grantor who has not reserved his rent by a valid deed cannot enforce it, because the statute of which would have convert*ed the rentservice into a rent-charge, is not in force here, and it cannot exist independently of the deed, because Pennsylvania titles are allodial and not feudal. [99]

    ERROR to the District of Philadelphia.

     This was an action of replevin, by Edwin Harmstad against Mrs. Alice Wallace, who avowed for rent in arrear as reserved in one of the four ground-rent deeds, the validity of which was passed upon by this court in the cases of Arrison v Harmstad, 2 Barr 191, and Wallace v Harmstad, 3 Harris 462.

      The material facts connected with these cases will be found in the reports of these cases, and are in substance as follows:

     In the fall of 1838 Matthew Arrison agreed to sell to four brothers Harmstad, four adjoining lots of ground, reserving out of each lot a yearly rent of $60, payable half-yearly on January 1st and July 1st, in every year; the first half-yearly payment was to fall due on the 1st of July 1839. Under the deeds executed in accordance with this agreement, each of the Harmstads entered upon his lot and built a house thereon. The deeds were executed in duplicate, each deed was signed by both parties; a part of the bargain was that the grantees might extinguish their ground-rents at par whenever they pleased. When the deeds came to be executed, one of the four brothers discovered an 'open space, or unfilled blank, in all eight of the deeds; and in answer to his inquiry, was told by the alderman, that it meant that there was to be no limit of time within which the rents should be extinguished. This being in accordance with their understanding, the deeds were executed and delivered - the Harmstads took away their four deeds, while Arrison took away the four counterparts. [100]

     Some time afterwards an agent of Arrison procured from the Harmstads their four deeds, for the alleged purpose of getting them recorded, and while they were with Arrison, or another party beneficially interested in the ground-rents, the same, together with the four counterparts, were, either by Arrison or by some one under him, altered, by the filling up of the blank in each of them with the words "within ten years front the date there of." In the mean time the first half-year's ground-rent falling due July 1st 1839, was paid by the Harmstads without any knowledge of the alteration. When they paid it they asked for their deeds, and found they have not been recorded. Another agent of the grantor, or of his cestui que use, then carried the deeds to the recorder's office, left them there, and gave the Harmstads the recorder's receipts therefor; and it was not until some weeks afterwards, when the deeds came back, that they discovered the alteration. Since that time they refused to pay any more ground-rent.

    The case of Arrison v Harmstad, 2 Barr 191, and Wallace v Harmstad, 3 Harris 462, having settled that an action of debt on such ground-rent deed, or on the original contract prior to the deed, but supposed to be executed by possession, or for use and occupation, or of covenant on the ground-rent deed, will not lie--that all the covenants in the deed are gone, and that the estate in the land is vested in the grantee, freed and discharged therefrom--that the spoliator may lose, but could not gain from his wrongful act, and that any innocent purchaser of the rent is in no better condition, having bought from the spoliator nothing at all, and that there is no similitude between these cases and the case of negotiable paper in third hands, the owner of this deed, Mrs. Wallace, resorted to a distress for rent, on which distress this action of replevin was founded, as above

stated. [101]

    Under the ruling of the court below there was a verdict and judgement for plaintiff; whereupon the defendant sued out this writ, assigning the judgement of the court below for error.

  E.S. Miller, for plaintiff in error.

  J.A. Phillips, for defendant in error.

    The opinion of the court was delivered, May 6th 1863, by Woodward, J.- It is not to be doubted that the cases of Arrison v Harmstad, 2 Barr 191, and Wallace v Harmstad, 3 Barr 462, do decide that by reason of the fraudulent alteration of the deeds, reserving the ground-rent in question, neither an action of debt or covenant would lie on any one of the deeds for recovery of the rent, nor is it recoverable in an action on the verbal contract under which possession was obtained, nor in any action for use and occupation of the premises. Setting aside all the obiter dieta of those cases, they clearly established these several conclusions, grounding them all on the policy of the law which altogether forbids parties from tampering with written instruments or deeds, and which, in its application to the deed in question here, avoids the covenant reserving rent in favor of the fraudulent grantor, but preserves the fee simple to the innocent grantee, discharged from the covenants in the deed. When it was said in the argument of the first of the above cases that equity would reform the instrument in favor of a purchaser, Chief Justice Gibson replied, "Show a case; the deed is dead, and equity cannot put life into it."

    The stern ruling in those cases was applied without hesitation to a bonafide purchaser of the ground-rent without notice of the fraud, so that, as far [102] as concerns Arrison, and all persons claiming under him, the part of the deed which was intended to enure to his benefit, may indeed be said to be dead. It was not merely a voidable instrument, it was void. It was called a forgery, and treated as such, and neither law nor equity would tolerate it even in the hands of an innocent purchaser.

    The question presented now is whether a ground-rent so emphatically condemned, and denied all remedy, both at law and equity, can be enforced by distress. Mrs. Wallace having executed a distress, was sued in this action of replevin, when she avowed for rent in arrear, as reserved by one of the four deeds which were the subjects of animadversion in the above cited cases. Her learned counsel does not impugn those cases, but he seeks to parry the authority of them by a distinction so nice as to be highly creditable to his acumen, even if it be not well founded in law. Let me try to state it distinctly.

    He says that a ground-rent reserved in a deed by a grantor is an estate which vests in him the instant the fee simple in the land vests in the grantee that estate is a rent-service; that it continues to exist, though the instrument reserving it be destroyed- and that a right of distress is one of the necessary legal incidents of the estate. Then he argues that the plaintiffs distress was not by virtue of the deed, but was founded on the intrinsic and essential qualities of the estate in the grantor, and that the reference to the deed in the avowry was only for the purpose of defining the estate and the amount of the rent. [103]

    I think the defect of the argument will be found to consist in the third proposition. Not that it is untrue as a general position that a vested estate will survive the instrument of its creation, but that the position is too broadly stated when it is made to include an incorporeal hereditament which lies in grant, and can only exist by virtue of a deed, devise, or record, or by prescription, which is rather to be considered as an evidence of a former acquisition, than as an acquisition de nora: 2 Black 266.

      That ground-rent is a rent-service was demonstrated in Ingersoll v Sergeant, 1 Wh. 337, a case which has been so often recognized and followed as to have become a rule of property. Rent-service was the only kind of rent originally known to the common law; a right of distress was inseparably incident to it so long as it was payable to the lord who was entitled to the fealty; and it was called a rent-service because it was given as a compensation for the military or other services for which the land was originally liable. When a rent was granted out of lands by deed, the grantee had no power to distrain for it, because there was no fealty annexed to such grant. To remedy this inconvenience an express power of distress was inserted in grants of this kind, and it was thence called a rent charge, because the lands were charged with a distress. Rent-seek, or barren rent, is in effect nothing more than a rent for the recovery of which no power of distress is given, either by rules of the common law or the argument of the parties: 1 Co. Lit. (Thomas' ed.) star p.443, in note, and 2 Black. (Sharswood's) 42, and note. Blackstone ranks all of these rents as incorporeal hereditament, and Coke, commenting on Littleton's distinction between feoffment and grants, says, here is implied a division of fees into corporeal, as lands and tenements which lie in livery, comprehended in this word feoffment, and may pass by livery with [104] or without deed, and incorporeal, which lie in grant, and cannot pass by livery but by deed, as advowson, commons, etc: 2 Coke Lit. (Thomas' ed), star page 333. Rent belongs to this category, and is implied by Lord Coke's "etc.," and is indeed the most perfect illustration of an incorporeal hereditament, for it issues directly out of the thing corporate, without being any part of it.

    But suppose the deed by which an incorporeal hereditament was granted be lost or destroyed, must the grantee lose his estate? Lord Chief Justice Eyre answers this question in Bolton v The Bishop of Carlisle, 2 H. Black. 263, where he says, "In pleading a grant the allegation is that the party at such time did grant, but if by accident the deed be lost, there are authorities enough to show-that other proof may be admitted; the question in that case is whether the parties did grant? To prove this, the best evidence must be produced, which is the deed, but if that be destroyed, other evidence may be received to show that the thing was once granted. " So in Reed v Brookman, 3T. R. 151, where a lost release of an annuity was pleaded without profert, the King's Bench sustained the plea and overruled the demurrer to it.

    These cases, and others cited in the argument to the same effect, assert nothing more than a rule of evidence in very familiar practice with us, that secondary evidence will be received where the party shows it is out of his power, without any fault of his, to produce the primary, but they establish no exception to the general rule that incorporeal estates must be evidence by a grant. If the best evidence of the grant cannot be had, the next best will be received; but the result of the evidence must be to establish the grant. Even when an easement is to be suswned by [105] prescription, or a right of way by necessity, a grant is presumed from long enjoyment, of the easement, or from the necessity for the right of way, and thus again the result of the evidence is to establish the grant. So true is the maxim that incorporeal hereditament lie only in grant.

    But what is to be said to a party who is unable to produce the original grant because he has himself fraudulently altered it? Shall he or his alienee be permitted to go into secondary evidence? When the law has refused him all its forms of action on such a mutilated instrument, will it allow him to take redress into his own hands and levy a distress for himself? This would be to reverse the maxim, in idium spoliatofis, omniapraesumuntur. In accordance with the maxim, we ought rather to presume that he never had a grant, and therefore no estate which carried with it the incidental fight of distress.

    It is apparent that this view of the case places the plaintiff in error upon the Arisen deed just as much as she stood upon it in her former action of covenant, and it has been suggested, not in forgetfulness that it is not the position chosen for her by her consul, but by way of showing that his main proposition was too broadly stated for the case in hand, and that, holding only an incorporeal hereditament, he cannot get her case away from the deed. It seems to me that her fight of distress must be judged by the deed, and that the deed is no more available for this purpose than it was for the actions of debt and covenant.

    But now let the case be looked at from another stand-point. By the common law, before the statute of quia emptores (18 Edw. l,c. 1,A.D. 1290), according to the text of Littleton, "if a man [106] made a feoffment in fee simple, by deed or without deed, yielding to him and his heirs a certain rent, this was a rentservice, and for this he might distrain of common right; and if there were no reservation of any rent, nor of any service, yet the feoffee held of the feoffor by the same service as the feoffor did hold over of his lord next paramount." Upon which latter clause beginning with the words "and if there were no reservation," Lord Cokes's comment is, "This is evident, and agreeth with our books that in this case the law created the tenure," and on the words "by deed or without deed," he observes, "for all rent-services may be reserved without deed; and at the common law, if a man made a feoffment in fee by parol, he might upon that reoffment reserve a rent to him and his heirs - because it was a rent-service, and a tenure thereby created:" 1 Thomas' Co. Litt. star p.444

     Rent-service, then, was an essential element of the feudal tenure. It did not depend on contract, it resulted necessarily out of the grant of the feud. The services which the vassal was bound to preform were indeed declared by the lord at the time of the investiture in the presence of the other vassals: 1 Craise's Digest 9, and were assented to of course by the vassal: but as these were to a great extent uncertain, they could not be specified, and were only declared in a general way, as to attend on the lord in war, and on his courts in times of peace; to defend his person, and aid him to pay his debts, etc.; terms not agreed upon as between contracting parties, but terms dictated by a superior to an inferior. And by the old feudal law, the nonperformance of these services was not redressed by distress, but by forfeiture of the feud. Baron Gilbert, in his excellent little work on the "Law of Replevins, " tells us that the distress came from the civil law into the common law, and that there appear no footsteps of it in the feudw authors. He [107] admits, however, that it is immemorial in the common law " and was at first as burdensome and grievous to tenants as the feudal forfeiture for to the tenant there was no difference between the lord's seizing the land itself, or stripping him of the whole produce and fruits of it at his pleasure. But these oppression ended with the wars of the Barons, and towards the end of the reign of Henry III, particular laws were made to regulate the manner of distressing, and not to suffer the lords to extend this remedy beyond the mischief it was first introduced for, which was no more than to empower the lord, by seizing the chattels, to oblige the tenant to preform the feudal services: Gilbert's Law of Replevins, pp. 4-6. Fealty to him from whom the lands were holden was the great characteristic of feudal tenures; the services of fealty were enforced by distress, and hence, although a feud were granted absolutely, in fee simple, by livery of seisin only, and without a word of reservation expressed, the lord had his right of distress for the rent, which came to be the substitute of the feudal services. That right depended not on contract, or the terms of the reoffment, but was a condition of the tenure. It is very clear that it would have been no answer to a distress to tell the lord that he had lost, or by his wrongful act avoided, the deed which expressed the reservation of his rent-service. The reply could have been that the rent-service depended on no formal reservation, but that it resulted by inherent necessity out of the tenure, and that distress was its inseparable incident. This is the ground on which the present case is attempted to be supported. Let us proceed carefully in tracing the principles of the law that must determine whether it can be placed on this ground.

    The statute of quia emptores destroyed subinfeudation in England. Saith Littleton (speaking of the effect of the statute), "where a man upon a gift in tail, or a lease for life, will reserve to [108] himself a rent-service, it behoveth that the reversion of the lands and tenements be in the donor or lessor, for if a man will make a reoffment in fee, or will give lands in tail, the remainder over in fee simple, without deed reserving to him a certain rent, this reversion is void; for that no reversion remains in the donor, and such tenant holds his lands immediately of the lord of whom his donor held:" I Thomas, Coke Litt- star p. 444. Such was the effect of the statute.

    I find the best explication of this subject in Comment on Landlord and Tenant, p.97, to the effect following: "The statute quia emptores having abolished all intermediate tenures, and the reversion of every fee being by the feoffment divested out of the feoffor, and transferred to the original lord of the fee; the fealty and rent, as incident thereto, were likewise transferred. The fealty was inseparably incident to the reversion, and therefore never could be lost to the ultimate lord. But the rent, though generally incident to the reversion, might, at the will of the feoffor, be so separated from it, and reserved to the feoffor himself, provided such reservation were by deed. But the fealty being now severed from the rent, the remedy by distress, which was only given in respect of the fealty, became lost to the feoffor; and therefore such rent stood precisely in the same situation as other rents before the statute; and could only be distrained for by being charged upon the land by a special clause in the deed of reservation. When, therefore, a man aliens all his estate, and leaves no reservation in him, as if tenant in fee make a reoffment, or tenant for life alien his life estate, no rent can be reserved, except it be by a deed. On the other hand, a lease for years not being alienation of the freehold, but a mere contract for a temporary enjoyment of the land, a rent might well be reserved by parol upon such a contract." [109]

     The effect of the statute, to state it more briefly, was to take the rent-service out of the tenure, upon subinfeudation, and to convert it into a rent-charge, which must have a contract to support it. Now it is apparent that any right of distress which Arrison or his alienee, Mrs. Wallace, possessed, would in England be referred to the deed, because the reversion was gone from them, and all the essential qualities of the tenure went with the reversion. But the statute of quia emptores was never in force in Pennsylvania, Ingersoll v Sergeant, 1 Wh. 337, and therefore this rent-service is not converted into a rent-charge. Can it exist then independently of the deed? It certainly can, in the absence of the statute quia emptares, if our titles be feudal: it as certainly cannot, if our titles be allodial.

    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 Modem 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 principles that have entered into our conveyancing are alluded to, and several cages 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 feel, freehold, heirs, reoffment, and the like. [110] This term "rent-service" is feudal language, as we have seen, and yet there is nothing in the application of such terms to determine the quality of the tenure; for Cruise tells us, 1 Digest 7, that the circumstance of annexing a condition of military service to a grant of lands does not imply that they are held by a feudal tenure for the possessors of allodial property, who were called in France liberi homines, were bound to the performance of military service. He defines a feud as a tract of land held by a voluntary and gratuitous donation, on condition of fidelity and certain services, and allodial lands as those whereof the owner had the dominium directum et verum, the complete and absolute property, free from all services to any particular lord. And yet the accident of services being annexed to an allodial grant, did not make it feudal, which shows that the genuine distinction consisted in fealty, and not in services. Fealty, says Christian, in his note to 2 Black. 46, quoting Wright's Law of Tenures 35: "Fealty, the essential feudal bond, is so necessary to the very notion of a feud, that it is a downright contradiction to suppose the most improper feud to subsist without it; but the other properties or obligations of an original feud may be qualified or varied by the tenure or express terms of the feudal donation."

    Our question, then narrows itself down to this: is fealty any part of our land tenures? What Pennsylvanian ever obtained his lands by "openly and humbly kneeling before his lord, being ungrit, uncovered, and holding up his hands both together between those of the lord, who sat before him, and there professing that he did become his man from that day forth, for life and limb, and earthly honour, and then receiving a kiss from his lord?" This was the oath of fealty which was, according to Sir Martin Wright, the essential feudal bond so necessary to the very notion of a feud.

    I grant that the charter to Penn was in free and common socage, to which feudal tenures had at that time been reduced in England, and that the oath of fealty belonged to socage tenures as much as to original feuds, and was expressly recognized in the charter. But then came the Revolution, which threw off the dominion of the mother country, and established the independent sovereignty of the state and on the 27th day of November 1779 (I Smith's Laws,480), an act was passed for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania in the Commonwealth. This act, after reciting in four sections the rights and duties of a sovereign state, proceeded in sec. 5 to transfer to the Commonwealth every estate, right, title, interest, property, claim, and demand of the proprietaries, as fully as they hold them on the 4th day of July 1776, and all royalties, franchises, and lordships, granted in the Charter of King Charles the Second, were vested in the state. The manors and lands which had been surveyed for the proprietaries were excepted, and a pecuniary compensation to them was provided. Another Act of 9th of April 1781, 2 Smith 532, provided for opening the land office and granting lands to purchasers; and, says the 11th section, "all be free and clear of all remorvations and restrictions as to mines, royalties, quitrents, or otherwise, so that the owners thereof respectively shall be entitled to hold the same in absolute and unconditional property, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, belonging to or accruing from the same, and that clear and exonerated from any charge or encumbrance whatever, excepting the doubts of the said owner, and excepting and reserving only the fifth part of all gold and silver ore for the use of the Commonwealth, to be delivered at the pit's mouth, clear of all charges. [112]

    If it should be suggested that these acts were inapplicable to the city of Philadelphia, because it had been laid out by the proprietaries before the opening of the land office by the state, I would refer to Judge Gibson's observations in Bubley v Vanhom, 7 S. & R. 184, where he says, to have suffered the Penn family to retain those rights which they held strictly in their proprietary character, would have been inconsistent with the complete political independence of the state. The province was a fief hold immediately from the Crown, and the Revolution would have operated very inefficiently towards complete emancipation, if the feudal relation had boon suffered to remain. It was therefore necessary to extinguish all foreign interest in the soil, as well as foreign jurisdiction in the matter of government.

    We are then to regard the Revolution and these Acts of Assembly as emancipating every acre of the soil of Pennsylvania from the grand characteristic of the feudal system. Even as to the lands held by the proprietaries themselves, they held them as other citizens held, under the Commonwealth, and that by a title purely allodial. All our lands are held mediately or immediately of the state, but by titles purged of all the rubbish of the dark ages, excepting only the feudal names of things not any longer feudal.

    Escheat, which was one of the incidents of feudal tenures, is sometimes mentioned as making the feudal origin of our titles, and the allegiance which we owe to the state is also often spoken of as fealty. Escheat, with us, depends on positive statute, which makes the state the heir of property on defect of known kindred of the decedent. Not