February 3, 2023

Understanding That Fee Simple Is Not Freedom, Is Servitude-Slavery

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


If you the people out there on the lands of America don’t really have private land ownership you the people  out there on the lands of America don’t own government lands either. No title it simply is not yours. The Empire owns all property. Citizen subject slaves are tenants in law only. Renters. The United States is a private corporate club and they have made you property, human resources means somebodies property. And you thought slavery ended because of the Civil War? Sorry it did not end.  Excerpted from the book, America Is Still a British Colony.

 “63. 1. Origin of feuds- The constitution of feuds had its original from the military policy of the northern or Celtic nations, the Goths, the Huns, the Franks, the Vandals, and the Lombards, who all migrating from the same officina gentium (the storehouse of nations), as Crag very justly entitles it, poured themselves in vast quantities into all the regions of Europe, at the declension of the Roman empire. It was brought by them from their own countries, and continued in their respective colonies as the most likely means to secure their new acquisitions: and to that end, large districts or parcels of land were allotted by the conquering general to superior officers of the army, and by them dealt out again in smaller parcels or allotments to the inferior officers and most deserving soldiers. These allotments were called feoda, feuds, fiefs, or fees; which last appellation in the northern languages signifies a conditional stipend or reward. Rewards or stipends they evidently were; and the condition annexed to them was, that the possessor should do service faithfully, both at home and in the wars, to him by whom they were given; for which purpose he took the juramentum fidelitatis, or oath of fealty: and in case of the breach of this condition and oath, by not performing the stipulated service, or by deserting the lord in battle, the lands were again to revert to him who granted them.” 2 Blackstone’s Commentaries, page 45

“Feud: 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,”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition p.748 (1968).

“Thus, the people had land they occupied, devised, inherited, alienated, or disposed of as they saw fit, so long as they remained in favor with the King.” F. L. Ganshof, Feudalism, p. 113 (1964).

“The largest estate in the land known to the law and implying absolute dominion over the land; an estate of inheritance clear of any condition, limitation, or restriction, to particular heirs. 28 Am J2d Est 10. An estate of lawful inheritance or pure inheritance, “fee” standing for inheritance and “simple” for pure or lawful. A legal or equitable estate in land constituting the largest estate and implying absolute dominion, although possibly subject to executory limitations or conditions subsequent. Hay’s Estate v Commissioner (CA5) 181 F2d 169, 39 ALR 2d 453; Ford v Unity Church Society, 120 Mo 498, 25 SW 394.”

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition, 1969

    Are taxes to be paid by common man holding fee simple title? Yes, according to the way fee simple is defined today. Today fee simple has been reduced in status to fee tail for common man, he is to pay all land taxes, also he must abide by all restrictions placed on the land by federal, State and local governments, nor can he use the land in any activity contrary to the Public Policy. The difference is the U.S. Corporation just as the knight was granted land for fee, in service of the king by grant. Common man receives their fee from the Corporation in tail, a lessor title, today fee simple and fee tail are synonymous, depending on your status. I would have placed the quote here from the Ohio Bar Association on fee simple, but they restrict its use, however it is on their web site so you can look go research for it yourself.

    “This holding of lands under another was called a tenure, and was not limited to the relation of the first or paramount lord and vassal, but extended to those to whom such vassal, within the rules of feudal [2] law, may have parted out his own feud to his own vassals, whereby he became the mesne lord between his vassals and his own or lord paramount. Those who held directly to the king were called his “tenants in … chief.

” I E. Washburn, Treatise on The American Law of Real Property, Ch. 11, Section 58, P. 42 (6th Ed. 1902), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

    Maybe with the below quote you will also understand the meaning and significance behind the pyramid on our dollar, with the all seeing eye at the top of the pyramid.

    “The fiefs were built in the same manner as a pyramid, with the King, the true owner of the land, being at the top, and from the bottom up there existed a system of small to medium sized to large to large sized estates on which the persons directly beneath one estate owed homage to the lord of that estate as well as to the King.” Id. at 114, Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“At the lowest level of this pyramid through at least the 14th and 15th centuries existed to serfs or villains, the class of people that had no rights and were recognized as nothing more than real property.” F.Goodwin, Treatise on The Law of Real Property, Ch. 1, p. 10 (1905), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

    “Under this type of fief a certain portion of the grain harvested each year would immediately be turned over to the lord above that particular fief even before the shares from the lower lords and then serfs of the fief would be distributed. A more interesting type of fief for purposes of this memorandum [3] was the money fief. In most cases, the source of money was not specified, and the payment was simply made from the fief holder’s treasury, but the fief might also consist of a fixed revenue to be paid from a definite source in annual payments in order for the tenant owner of the fief to be able to remain on the property.” Gilsebert of Mons, Chronique, cc. 69 and 1 15, pp. 109, 175 (ed. Vanderkindere), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“142. (1) Fee-simple estates–Tenant in fee simple (or, as he is frequently styled, tenant in fee) is he that hath lands, tenements, or hereditaments, to hold to him and his heirs forever; generally, absolutely, and simply; without mentioning what heirs, but referring that to his own pleasure, or to the dispostition of the law. The true meaning of the word “fee” (feodum) is the same with that of feud or fief, and in its original sense it is taken in contradistinction to allodium; which latter the writers on this subject define to be every man’s own land, which he possesseth merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior.” 2 Blackstone’s Commentary, page 105

“Thus, the term fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denotes the most and best title a person could have as long as the King allowed him to retain possession of (own) the land. It has been commented that the basis of English land law is the ownership of all reality by the sovereign. From the crown, all titles flow. The original and true meaning of the word “fee” and therefore fee simple absolute is the same as fief or feud, this being in contradiction to the term “allodium” which means or is defined as a man’s own land, which he possesses merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior.” Wendell [4] v Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491 (1848), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“Therefore on Common-Law England practically everybody who was allowed to retain land, had the type of fee simple absolute often used or defined by courts, a fee simple that grants or gives the occupier as much of a title as the “sovereign” allows such occupier to have at that time. The term became a synonym with the supposed ownership of land under the feudal system of England at common law. Thus, even though the word absolute was attached to the fee simple, it merely denoted the entire estate that could be assigned or passed to heirs, and the fee being the operative word; fee simple absolute dealt with the entire fief and its divisibility, alienability and inheritability.” Friedman v Steiner, 107 111. 131 (1883), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“If a fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denoted or was synonymous with only as much title as the King allowed his barons to possess, then what did the King have by way of a title?

The King of England held ownership of land under a different title and with far greater powers than any of his subjects. Though the people of England held fee simple titles to their land, the King actually owned all the land in England through his allodial title, and though all the land was in the feudal system, none of the fee simple titles were of equal weight and dignity with the King’s title, the land always remaining allodial in favor of the King.” Gilsbert of Mons, Chronique, Ch. 43, p. 75 (ed. Vanderkindere), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“Thus, it is relatively easy to deduce that allodial lands and titles are the highest form of lands and titles known to Common-Law. An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, transmissible to his heirs absolutely and simply, is an absolute estate in perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in its nature.” Stanton v Sullivan, 63 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

    The law of Mortmain, law of the sovereign, protecting his lands held by his lords and religious men in fee, prohibiting them from diluting his title. Declaring he could confiscate the land he or his lords were alienated from. Even the lords were subject to have their land reclaimed by the king, if they violated the king’s license requirements. You can find the law of Mortmain at the end of the chapter, in the quotes section.

    I want to make this clear, if the king and his law (common law) are still live, so are his Charters, Corporations and Trusts. Without defeating the king (death or removal) his law still exists, if his law still exists, his Corporation (Crown) is as I have said: alive and well. What did we do at the end of the Revolutionary War and in framing the 1787 Constitution? Claim the king’s law, his common law, his feudal law for our own, and made it our law. So, if you are subject to any tax on the land you live on, you do not, I repeat, DO NOT own your land, you do not have allodial title to you land. It is not possible, allodial and taxed property are an oxymoron, the two are as opposite as light and darkness, the two cannot exist together. Even worse than this, under common law, which we made our law o the land, you do not even have fee simple possession of your land, because early fee simple possession is free from taxation, you hold the land in fee simple at best if you have a tax shelter, trust. Fee tail, and lessor ownerships are evidenced by a title, deed or mortgage, which is how most land is held, and is subject to taxation and or repossession, if the taxes are not paid. I’m sorry but this is a fact, I don’t care what you have been told, or lead to believe concerning allodial title. A huge number of patriots believe because of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War that we are sovereigns here possessing the land through allodial title, as a matter of sovereignty, by defeating the king. Wrong, it is impossible, the king has conned Americans, or I should say allowed them to believe they are sovereigns, owning their land through allodial title.

    This would be a good place for you to read some quotes by Sir Edmund Burke, and by Adam Smith, because of the importance taxation plays in proving land ownership in America, by allodial title is an oxymoron. I’m including more quotes at the end of this chapter by Adam Smith and other relevant information.

“If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially.

For that service – for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire – my trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, through light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government, they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.”

Burke on Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775, pages 71,72, published by Allyn and Bacon”

“Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

“But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic.”

Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775 (So Benjamin Franklin saying: we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it, means nothing, and was not a hindrance to the king and his barristers.) Author’s comment in brackets.

“The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be compelled to contribute….”Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people.”


    Here are some court cases, that will help you understand fee simple, and how land is held in this country. In this first case you will see our perception of what took place, then the judge lets the air out, and tells you how it was and is, as a matter of law.

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801)

2 S.E. 70

Page 368

“….Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property of the soil within the limits of this State. Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of Paris. But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? Might it not be stated with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King of Great Britain from the Aborigines, when he drove them off, and took and maintained possession of their country?….

….At the time of the revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people had neither right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to, and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great Britain; but they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the people, who had no power to grant any part of it”….

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

WARNER v. HARDING, 1 N.C. 700; 2 S.E. 70; Page 703


“As to the exception to the value of 12d., nothing appears, non refert. As to the matter of record. The Queen may seize lands without any record. If return be made into the Exchequer that a man is beyond the sea and will not return, being commanded so to do, the Crown may seize his lands. And although the son cannot be heir during the life of his father, *the father may have an action de filio et haerede.”

North Carolina Reports (Archive)


2 S.E. 70

Page 680


Page 681

…..”the statute is to be construed reasonably, and shall be expounded as the King’s patents are. Therefore, if the King grant by his letters patent, under the great seal, all mines, the patentee shall not have royal mines. Then when all possessions are given, there is a right of entry and a right of action, but the right of action is not given by the general words of an act of Parliament. Now the word condition is a species and not a genus; and the 26 H., 8, enacting that such persons shall forfeit all the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in which the offender shall have any estate of inheritance, there is not a difference between an inheritance in fee or in tail, while there are but these two estates of inheritance, and the statute says that he shall forfeit all the lands in which he has an estate of inheritance; and a condition is as simple as an inheritance”….

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

McKENZIE v. HULET, 4 N.C. 613 (1817)

2 S.E. 70

 Page 443

….”Where a grant abuts upon the sea or a navigable river, it stops, according to the common law, at the ordinary high-water mark; and the shore that is, the ground between the high and low water marks belongs of common right to the king. Hale, de Jure Maris, 12. But it seems to be well settled that whatever is below the high-water mark may be granted by the king, of which many instances are put in the book already cited. The charter of Car. II. to the lords proprietors is an illustration of the form used by the crown in the grant of royalties”….

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801)

2 S.E. 70

Page 347

….”If the land had escheated, it then becomes necessary to inquire, In what manner has the State taken? I contend that the land is taken by the State, exempt of any trust for in England, when the Lord or King takes by escheat, they take discharged of the trust. 1 Coke’s Rep., 122, Chudleigh’s case. Before the Statute of 27 Henry, 8, whenever feoffee to uses did anything which produced escheat, the land reverted to the Lord discharge of the trust.

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801)

2 S.E. 70

August 1, 1999

Page 349

When the war broke out those who did not like the new government were at liberty to sell their lands and retire with the proceeds where they pleased; and this is agreeable to the law of nations. Vattel, B. 1, sec. 33, 195. This doctrine seems to have been held in view by the framers of the Constitution. Iredell’s Rev., 276. Declaration of Rights, sec. 25. This section only charges the sovereign, and by it no escheat can take place, and aliens may still take and hold lands. This section provides that the titles made by the King and the Lords Proprietors shall not be affected; and the General Assembly of this State have shown that they were under the influence of this opinion, as appears from the 3d chap., Acts 1777. Iredell’s Rev., 284, 285

    So read closely the portions of ancient state statutes, provided below.





“All fines and common recoveries levied and suffered within this State, in pursuance of or according to the common or statute laws of England, in the Superior Court of the county wherein the lands, tenements or hereditaments entailed lie shall be as good in law, to bar estates so entailed, as fines and common recoveries of lands, tenements or hereditaments levied, or England are. Any heir at law or other person claiming any right in the lands, tenements or hereditaments may, either by appeal or writ of error, reverse such fines or recoveries for any errors in levying or suffering the fines or recoveries.”

(Code 1852, 1639, 1640; Code 1915, 3234; Code 1935, 3697; 25 Del. C. 1953, 301. 302.) Bar of estate tail by deed.

“A person having a legal or equitable estate or right in fee tail in possession, remainder or reversion, in any lands, tenements or hereditaments may alien the lands, tenements or hereditaments, in fee simple, or for other less estate, by deed, in the same manner and as effectually as if such estate or right were in fee simple. The deed of alienation in fee simple of any person, of any lands, tenements or hereditaments shall have the same effect and operation for barring all estate tail and other interests in the lands, tenements or hereditaments, as such persons being a party cognizor to a fine in due manner levied,

or party vouchee to a common recovery with a double voucher in due manner suffered, of the lands, tenements or hereditaments. No deed shall avail within either of these provisions, unless it is duly acknowledged or proved according to law, or unless it would be a valid and lawful deed sufficient to pass the premises, if the maker were seized of the premises in fee simple.”

(Code 1852, 1641; Code 1915, 3235; Code 1935, 3698; 25 Del.

C. 1953, 302.)

303. Warranty by life tenant and collateral warranty.

“A warranty made by a tenant for life shall not, by descending or coming to a person in remainder or reversion, bar or affect his title. A collateral warranty shall not in any case bar or affect a title not derived from the person making such warranty.”

(Code 1852, 1642; Code 1915, 3236; Code 1935, 3699; 25 Del.

C. 1953, 303.)

304. Permanent leasehold estates as estates in fee simple.

“Permanent leasehold estates, renewable forever, shall be considered to be estates in fee simple, and shall be subject to the same modes of alienation, power of devise, and rules of descent and distribution, and to all the incidents of an estate in fee, provided that the grantor of the leasehold or the person entitled to the estate, out of which the term issues, has first released to the grantee of the term or the person in possession of the leasehold all his right to the rent charged upon or growing out of the leasehold.”

(15 Del. Laws, c. 168; Code 1915, 3237; Code 1935, 3700; 25 Del. C. 1953, 304.)

305. Deeds by foreign corporations; recording as evidence; ownership rights.

“All deeds to lands in Delawware executed and delivered b corporations created by and existing under the laws of the states and territories of the United States of America, other than Delaware, or created by and existing under the laws of any foreign state or nation, are made valid and effective to convey the fee simple or other estate purported to be conveyed in such deeds, with the same force and effect as if the corporation grantor had been a corporation lawfully created by and existing under the laws of this State. Such deeds, when recorded, or any office copy thereof, shall be admitted as evidence in all courts of this State, and shall be valid and conclusive evidence, with the same force and effect as if such deeds had been properly executed, acknowledged and delivered by corporations created by and existing under the laws of this State. A foreign corporation owning lands in Delaware may exercise all rights and privileges of ownership to the same extent as if such corporation were a corporation lawfully created by and existing under the laws of this State.”

(26 Del. Laws, c. 253; Code 1915, 3238; 38 Del. Laws, c. 174;

Code 1935, 3701; 25 Del. C. 1953, 305.)

    I just wanted to point out the below statute declared that the State of Georgia (created Corporation) is a successor to the Crown of England. The Crown is the Corporate entity of the king, and as I have stated before, first there were the Corporate Charters, amended to corporate colonies, amended to corporate States, via their State Constitutions, that did not change the original corporate charter, as declared in the 25th sec. of the North Carolina, Declaration of Rights, 1776 N.C. Constitution, which I quote again here:

“And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.” Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution

    Then confirmed by the 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the minerals did not change hands, they stayed with the king, his heirs and successors. In other words, the king, his heirs and his successors forever, were to continue to receive as a matter of Trust, the gain, profit from his corporate venture. To cement this since his subjects had gone brain dead, and now believed themselves free from their obligations. Believing when the States became States of, after the 1787 Constitution was ratified, they became free and sovereign. In March 1791 thanks to George Washington, the States of, became District States of the Crown, side stepping the 1787 Constitution and the States short lived independence declared in 1776, in favor of the king’s public policy, his taxes and licenses to be administered by his United States Corporation and its elected fiduciaries and den of thieves. When governing for the king, the President and Congress were no longer bound by the 1787 Constitution. The king would now receive as declared in his early Charters for himself, his heirs and successors, the 30 percent tax for his family business venture. Because now his bank could operate within the several District States, incorporated in the District of Columbia, this was not possible until Washington made the District States; never to be repealed. Also, go back and read the quotes I gave by Burke and Smith, there is no doubt.


52-1-2 G

*** CODE SECTION *** 12/31/98


“The General Assembly finds and declares that the State of Georgia became the owner of the beds of all tidewaters within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia as successor to the Crown of England and by the common law. The State of Georgia continues to hold title to the beds of all tidewaters within the state, except where title in a private party can be traced to a valid Crown or state grant which explicitly conveyed the beds of such tidewaters. The General Assembly further finds that the State of Georgia, as sovereign, is trustee of the rights of the people of the state to use and enjoy all tidewaters which are capable of use for fishing, passage, navigation, commerce, and transportation, pursuant to the common law public trust doctrine. Therefore, the General Assembly declares that the protection of tidewaters for use by the state and its citizens has more than local significance, is of equal importance to all citizens of the state, is of state-wide concern, and, consequently, is properly a matter for regulation under the police powers of the state. The General Assembly further finds and declares that structures located upon tidewaters which are used as places of habitation, dwelling, sojournment, or residence interfere with the state’s proprietary interest or the public trust, or both, and must be removed to ensure the rights of the state and the people of the State of Georgia to the use and enjoyment of such tidewaters. It is declared to be a policy of this state and the intent of this article to protect the tidewaters of the state by authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to remove or require removal of certain structures from such tidewaters in accordance with the procedures and within the timetable set forth in this article.”

“(1) An Act for reviving and enforcing certain laws therein mentioned and adopting the common laws of England as they existed on May 14, 1776, approved February 25, 1784. (For the adopting Act of 1784, see Prince’s 1822 Digest, p. 570; Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 721; and Code of 1863, Section 1, paragraph 6.)”






“2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.

2.04 Repealed statute not revived by implication.

2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.-The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. History.–s. 1,

Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87.”



“The common law The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly 1-11 Acts of Parliament The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.”

    I hope by now when you read the below statute, you recognize when they say public’s interest they are not talking about the people that voted them into office.


571. Legislative findings and purpose

“The Legislature finds and declares that the intertidal lands of the State are impressed with a public trust and that the State is responsible for protection of the public’s interest in this

land. [1985, c. 782 (new).]

The Legislature further finds and declares that this public trust is part of the common law of Maine and generally derived from the practices, conditions and needs in Maine, from English Common Law and from the Massachusetts Colonial Ordinance of 1641-47. The public trust is an evolving doctrine reflective of the customs, traditions, heritage and habits of the Maine people. In Maine, the doctrine has diverged from the laws of England and Massachusetts. The public trust encompasses those uses of intertidal land essential to the health and welfare of the Maine people, which uses include, but are not limited to,fishing, fowling, navigation, use as a footway between points along the shore and use for recreational purposes. These recreational uses are among the most important to the Maine people today who use intertidal land for relaxation from the pressures of modern society and for enjoyment of nature’s beauty. [1985, c. 782 (new).]

The Legislature further finds and declares that the protection of the public uses referred to in this chapter is of great public interest and grave concern to the State. [1985, c. 782 (new).]”



Title 24. Municipal and County Government

Chapter 65. Public Lands and Funds


The selectmen shall have the care of lands in the town granted under the authority of the British Government as glebes for the use of the Church of England and now by law granted to such town for the use of schools, and lands granted to the use of the ministry or the social worship of God, and lands granted to the first settled minister, and not appropriated according to law.


The selectmen shall be entitled to the possession of such lands, except when the same have been otherwise disposed of according to law. They may commence, prosecute or defend, in the name of the town, any action necessary to recover or protect such possession, or recover damages for injuries done to such lands.


The rents of lands granted to the use of the ministry or social worship of God, and the rents of lands granted to the first settled minister, shall annually, on February 1, be equally divided by the selectmen among the different organized religious societies in town that maintain public worship at least a fourth of the Sabbaths in the year. If there is not such a society, the same shall be covered into the treasury, and may be appropriated to pay for preaching the gospel or for the support of public schools, or for the improvement or care of public burial grounds, as such town by a vote in town meeting directs, until a religious society is organized in the town.


Section 2404 of this title shall not affect a lease of such lands or a contract relating to or disposition of the same under previous law.


Educational, ecclesiastical or municipal corporations may convey by deed the fee simple in lands the title to or use of which is held by such corporations under state or colonial grant for purposes defined in such grants. Such conveyance may be made to the owner and holder of leasehold rights in such land if such lands are then held under leease, but shall not be made t other than such holders of leasehold interests except subject to such leasehold interest, if any, or simultaneously with the extinguishment thereof. Such lands may be condemned in accordance with and in the manner provided by law. The funds received in consideration of such conveyance or awarded such corporations as damages in condemnation proceedings shall be kept intact, in trust, by such corporations as endowment funds, and the income only shall be used for the purposes for which such lands were originally granted. Such lands as may be sold, conveyed or condemned as provided in this section shall thereafter be subject to taxation as are other lands.”

New Jersey


46:1-1. Words and phrases defined

“As used in this title, except where the context clearly indicates a contrary intent, the terms “county recording officer” and “office of the county recording officer” mean the register of deeds and mortgages and his office in counties having such an officer and office, and the county clerk and his office in the other counties.”

46:2-1. Titles, rights and interests preserved

“Nothing in this title contained shall in any way affect, abridge or abrogate any title to or rights or interests in any real estate or personal property lawfully given, acquired and existing at the time when the Revised Statutes take effect.”

    The main thing I want you to understand, and I believe most do, as I said earlier, our laws were based on the Common law of England, all states in union of the United States are, accept one. That’s right one state out of the fifty is not under English Common law. A lot of you may think this must be Texas, but it’s not. The one state not subject to, or formed under English common law is New York, New York City is responsible for not only our demise, but the entire World’s. New York City is the alter ego of London, and the other banking centers for the Banksters of the World to operate. New York City is the home of the Bankers, the World Trade Center, the Stock Market, the World Bank’s control via the IMF and the United Nations, etc. The controlling center for all banking, communication and super computers containing data on everyone and every transaction for the Bankers to control the Worlds population and their leaders, through their finances, with the U.N. as their police force and NATO as prosecutor of the Law Of The Flag and Conqueror of new Empires. When you read the very revealing statements in the New York statutes below you will see, they declare themselves not to be under English Common law, by section 70, sec. 71 deals with Acts and sec. 72 deals with Resolutions.

    If you would like to understand how this fits into God’s Word, that is New York City, read Rev. 17-18, Jer. 51 and Isa 13. I wrote on this subject years ago and I won’t go into it here other than to say, New York City is the Biblical Babylon as you can read for yourself, as God Almighty defines Babylon in Rev. 18, no other City in the World meets His definition.

New York

New York State Consolidated Laws: General Construction






70. Statutes of England and Great Britain inoperative in this state.

71. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York inoperative.

72. Resolutions of the congress of the colony and the convention of New York inoperative.

S 70. Statutes of England and Great Britain inoperative in this state. A statute of England or Great Britain shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect in this state since May first, seventeen hundred and eighty-eight.

S 71. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York inoperative. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect in this state since December twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight.

S 72. Resolutions of the congress of the colony and the convention of New York inoperative. The resolutions of the congress of the colony of New York and of the convention of the state of New York, shall not be deemed to be the laws of this state hereafter.”



Civil Practice and Remedies Code




Sec. 5.001. Rule of Decision.


“The rule of decision in this state consists of those portions of the common law of England that are not inconsistent with the constitution or the laws of this state, the constitution of this state, and the laws of this state.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985″

North Carolina

“Chapter 40A. Eminent Domain. ARTICLE 1. General. 40A-1.

Exclusive provisions. It is the intent of the General Assembly that the procedures provided by this Chapter shall be the exclusive condemnation procedures to be used in this State by all private condemnors and all local public condemnors. All other provisions in laws, charters, or local acts authorizing the use of other procedures by municipal or county governments or agencies or political subdivisions thereof, or by corporations, associations or other persons are hereby repealed effective January 1, 1982. Provided, that any condemnation proceeding initiated prior to January 1, 1982, may be lawfully completed pursuant to the provisions previously existing. This chapter shall not repeal any provision of a local act enlarging or limiting the purposes for which property may be condemned. Notwithstanding the language of G.S. 40A-3(b),this Chapter also shall not repeal any provision of a local act creating any

substantive or procedural requirement or limitation on the authority of a local public condemnor to exercise the power of eminent domain outside of its boundaries.”

” 40A-2. Definitions. As used in this Chapter the following words and phrases have the meanings indicated unless the context clearly requires another meaning:

(1) “Condemnation” means the procedure prescribed by law for exercising the power of eminent domain.

(2)”Condemnor” means those listed in G.S. 40A-3.

(3) “Eminent domain” means the power to divest right, title or interest from the owner of property and vest it in the possessor of the power against the will of the owner upon the payment of just compensation for the right, title or interest divested.

(4) “Judge” means a resident judge of the superior court in the district where the cause is pending, or special judge residing in said district, or a judge of the superior court assigned to hold the courts of said district or an emergency or special judge holding court in the county where the cause is pending.

(5) “Owner” includes the plural when appropriate and means any person having an interest or estate in the property.

(6) “Person” includes the plural when appropriate and means a natural person, and any legal entity capable of owning or having interest in property.

(7) “Property” means any right, title, or interest in land, including leases and options to buy or sell. “Property” also includes rights of access, rights-of-way, easements, water rights, air rights, and any other privilege or appurtenance in or to the possession, use, and enjoyment of land.”

” 40A-3. By whom right may be exercised.

(a) Private Condemnors. — For the public use or benefit, the persons or organizations listed below shall have the power of eminent domain and may acquire by purchase or condemnation property for the stated purposes and other works which are authorized by law.

(1) Corporations, bodies politic or persons have the power of eminent domain for the construction of railroads, power generating facilities, substations, switching stations, microwave towers, roads, alleys, access railroads, turnpikes, street railroads, plank roads, tramroads, canals, telegraphs, telephones, electric power lines, electric lights, public water supplies, public sewerage systems, flumes, bridges, and pipelines or mains originating in North Carolina for the transportation of petroleum products, coal, gas, limestone or minerals. Land condemned for any liquid pipelines shall.”

    I guess now is a good time to deal with the pipe dreams we have been taught and allowed to believe, reinforced by the governments school system, in the selective teaching of history, also, parroted by the media. The pipe dream as I said earlier is our belief we do, or can possess land in this country, under the present law, in allodial title. Notice I said under the present law, this is the key to the king’s power, retaining possession to his Corporation, the Crown. What did we do at the beginning of this nation? Declare our law to be English common law, confirming the king’s Corporation and the law that created it and protects it even today.

“Corporation Sole: A corporation consisting of one person only and his successors. An older concept of the status of a king or a bishop as incorporated in order to give to them and their successors legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which they could not have in their natural capacities.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, Third Ed., 1969

“Reversion. The residue of an estate and left in the grantor, to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted out by him. The return of land to the grantor and his heirs after the grant is over.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, vol. 3, 1914

“651. b. Civil corporations (1) Lay corporations. ….But first, as I have laid it down as a rule that the founder, his heirs, or assigns, are the visitors of all lay corporations, let us inquire what is meant by the founder. The confounder of all corporations in the strictest and original sense is the king alone, for he only can incorporate a society; and in civil incorporations, such as mayor and commonalty, etc., where there are no possessions or endowments given to the body, there is no other founder but the king:”…. Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 685

 654. 10. Dissolution of corporations. ….But the body politic may also itself be dissolved in several ways; which dissolution is the civil death of the corporation: and in this case their lands and tenements shall revert to the person, or his heirs, who granted them to the corporation: for the law doth annex a condition to every such grant, that if the corporation be dissolved, the grantor shall have the lands again, only during the life of the corporation; which may endure forever: but, when that life is determined by the dissolution of the body politic, the grantor takes it back by reversion, as in the case of every other grant for life.” Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 700

    Not to get ahead of myself, we first declared our Independence, sounded good, but why would you place your neck back under the yoke, the law that subjected you? Simple, as history proves, many of our fore fathers, including Washington did not want to be separated from the king. Some stood to lose lands and title, others understood they were subjects of the king and liked it. History shows they were not at odds with being subjects of the king, just his policies, regarding taxes and their government being so far removed; commerce and legal convenience demanded representation here, but still controlled by the king.

The king being so far removed from his possessions in America, misjudged his subjects needs, rebellion turned into War. But as always, the belligerents just wanted their redress heard, and our fore fathers knowing full well English history and how the game was played, knew the king would capitulate and make the concessions needed, never dreaming they would have what appeared to be a separate sovereign country at the end of the War. What about this War, did we win? Well lets look at history, I have covered this before, but it bears repeating. Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, but the document read, Capitulation at Yorktown. Did Cornwallis surrender, or did they just quit fighting because the king, made the necessary capitulations to the colonist demands? Well, did Cornwallis surrender his arms, in other words, did he and his troops lay down their arms and leave unarmed? No. Did Cornwallis surrender his colors, the king’s flag? No. Anyone that knows anything about War and Conquest, knows the flag of the surrendering enemy has to be Surrendered; if not, you just fought a battle, and did not win the war. Was Cornwallis and his army allowed to return to England armed and with their colors? Yes. Were British subjects allowed to retain their lands and possessions in America? Yes Was the king removed from his throne and his laws defeated, by his removal? No. Tell me again America, we won the Revolutionary War? I’m sorry, the facts don’t support what you want to believe is the case.

    Now, to the so-called 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the king’s possessions were turned over to us without his losing the War. Benjamin Franklin spent almost the entire war traveling back and forth from France and England working out the terms of the Treaty, excuse me GRANT, from the king of England. Let me see, we did not win the War, we did not dictate the terms of surrender, the king’s barrister’s along with the esquires chosen from America, Franklin, Jay and Adams, wrote the document. A document wherein the king’s law remained in force, and he GRANTED lands to his new Corporation, the United States. However, he did not grant to his Corporation the rights to the minerals existing and all to be found in the future. As I have said before, he declared in his Charters, ownership to all minerals, and that he was to receive a portion of the gain/profit in this country forever. Go back and read the quotes earlier in this paper. Also, how can the king do anything else but give fee simple title, when his law provides for only him to have allodial title. Did he change his law? NO. Could he change the un-revocable Trust his Charters established for all his heirs and successors? No. No, and could not, without destroying his throne, his Crown (corporation) and his law, thereby conquesting himself. You see that is the only way under the king’s law to own land by allodial title, via conquest, as the conqueror. This is why no country has defeated the king of England and his Crown, because if his law exists wherein the Corporate Charter was created, and the king and his heirs remain, the king’s Crown and Charters remain in force.

    Let’s look at another source, here are several relevant quotes I pulled out of the Book written by Frederic Maitland, 1901, The Crown as Corporation.

“In 1522 Fineux C.J. after telling how some corporations are made by the king, others by the pope, others by both king and pope, adds that there are corporations by the common law, for, says he, “the parliament of the king and the lords and the commons are a corporation.”(7*) Y.B. 14 hen. VIII, f. 3 (Mich. pl. 2). The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“The king has two capacities, for he has two bodies, the one whereof is a body natural… the other is a body politic, and the members thereof are his subjects, and he and his subjects together compose the corporation, as Southcote said, and he is incorporated with them and they with him, and he is the head and they are the members, and he has the sole government of them.”(12*) Plowden, p. 234. The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“But, says an Act of 1738, the said premises “being vested in His Majesty, his heirs and successors in his politick capacity, which in consideration of law never dies, it may create a doubt whether the tenants of the said estates ought… to pay such fines… on the death of His present Majesty (whom God long preserve for the benefit of his People) or On the death of any future King or Queen.” So the tenants are to pay as they would have paid “in case such King or Queen so dying was considered as a private person only and not in his or her politick capacity”.(27*) (II Geo. II, c. 30, pr. and s. 1.) Thus that artificial person, the king in his politick capacity, who is a trustee for the Publick, must be deemed to die now and then for the benefit of cestui que trust.

But it was of “the Publick” that we were speaking, and I believe that “the Publick” first becomes prominent in connexion with the National Debt. Though much might be done for us by a slightly denaturalized king, he could not do all that was requisite. Some proceedings of one of his predecessors, who closed the Exchequer and ruined the goldsmiths, had made our king no good borrower. So the Publick had to take his place. The money might be “advanced to His Majesty”, but the Publick had to owe it. This idea could not be kept off the statute book. “Whereas,” said an Act of 1786, “the Publick stands indebted to” the East India Company in a sum of four millions and more.”(28*) 26 Geo. III, c. 62.

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“This is natural, for we may, if we will, trace the beginnings of a national debt back to days when a king borrows money and charges the repayment of it upon a specific tax; perhaps he will even appoint his creditor to collect that tax, and so enable him to repay himself.”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“In 1714 the Governor, Council and General Assembly of New York passed a long Act “for the paying and discharging the several debts and sums of money claimed as debts of this Colony”. A preamble stated that some of the debts of the Colony had not been paid because the Governors had misapplied and extravagantly expended “the revenue given by the loyal subjects aforesaid to Her Majesty and Her Royal Predecessors, Kings and Queens of England, sufficient for the honorable as well as necessary support of their Government here.” “This Colony”, the preamble added, “in strict justice is in no manner of way obliged to pay many of the said claims”; however, in order “to restore the Publick Credit”, they were to be paid.(35*)(Act of 1714 13 Anne) Here we have a Colony which can be bound even in strict justice to pay money. What the great colonies did the small colonies did also.”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“But then comes the lawyer with theories in his head, and begins by placing a legal estate in what he calls the Crown or Her Majesty. “In construing these enactments, it must always be kept in view that wherever public land with its incidents is described as ‘the property of’ or as ‘belonging to’ the Dominion or a Province, these expressions merely import that the right to its beneficial use, or to its proceeds, has been appropriated to the Dominion or the Province, as the case may be, and is subject to the control of its legislature, the land itself being vested in the Crown.”(44*)St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46. esp. p. 56; A.-G. of Brit. Columbia v. A.-G. of Canada, 14 App. Cas. 295; A.-G. of Ontario v. Mercer (1883), 8 App. Cas. 767; A.-G. of Canada v. As.-G. of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia [1898] A.C. 700.”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“Although the Secretary of State [for India] is a body corporate, or in the same position as a body corporate, for the purpose of contracts, and of suing and being sued, yet he is not a body corporate for the purpose of holding property. Such property as formerly vested, or would have vested, in the East India Company now vests in the Crown.”(45*) Ilbert, Government of India

(3rd.ed. 1915), p. 196″

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

    In the quote below from Maitland, you will see that even the Postmaster General was used to secure the king’s possessions in America, and was a vehicle used by the king, through the President and his powers as Commander-in-Chief, to expand the king’s land west, via the king’s law going west with the laws governing the mail. After that, is a quote from President Monroe, arguing that such powers were not being used and did not exist, he would no doubt have to eat a huge amount of crow today, if he was alive today, and saw the Dept. of Transportation, and the power they have been granted over the Nation’s roads, and skies. You will also see the need for the king to incorporate, and that a grant of sovereign land ownership in was given to the War Dept. Sounds like the military’s loyalty was bought and paid for, leading up to conquest of America, after the Civil War.

“In 1840 the Postmaster-General and his successors “is and are” made “a body corporate” for the purpose of holding and taking conveyances and leases of lands and hereditaments for the service of the Post Office. From the Act that effected this incorporation we may learn that the Postmaster as a mere individual had been holding land in trust for the Crown.(52*) 3&4 Vict. c. 96, s. 67 [now – Ed. VII, c. 48, s. 45] One of the main reasons, I take it, for erecting some new corporations sole was that our “Crown”, being more or less identifiable with the King, it was difficult to make the Crown a leaseholder or copyholder in a direct and simple fashion. The Treasurer of Public Charities was made a corporation sole in 1853.(53*) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, s. 47. Then in 1855 the Secretary of State intrusted with the seals of the War Department was enabled to hold land as a corporation sole.(54*) 18&19 Vict. c. 117, s. 2. Perhaps if there were a Lord High Admiral he would be a corporation sole vel quasi.(55*)

27&28 Vict. C. 57, s.”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“If the United States possessed, the power contended for under this grant, might they not, in adopting the roads of the individual states for the carriage of the mail, as has been done, assume jurisdiction over them, and preclude a right to interfere with or alter them? Might they not establish turnpikes, and exercise all the other acts of sovereignty, above stated, over such roads, necessary to protect them from injury, and defray the expense of repairing them? Surely, if the right exists, these consequences necessarily followed, as soon as the road was established. The absurdity of such a pretension must be apparent to all, who examine it. In this way, a large portion of the territory of every state might be taken from it; for there is scarcely a road in any state, which will not be used for the transportation of the mail. A new field for legislation and internal government would thus be opened.” President Monroe’s Message, of 4th May, 1822, p. 24 to 27. .

1 Johnson’s Dict. ad verb.; Webster’s Dict. ibid.

Post Routes

“All public roads and highways while kept up and maintained. 39 USC 482. All the waters of the United States during the time the mail is carried thereon, all the railroads or parts of railroads and all air routes which are now, or hereafter may be, in operation; all canals and plank roads during the time the mail is carried thereon; the road on which may mail is carried to supply any court house which may be without a mail; the road on which mail is carried under contract made by the Postmaster General for extending the line of post to supply mails to post offices not on any established route, during the time such mail is carried thereon; and all letter-carrier routes established in any city or town for the collection and delivery of mail matter.” 39 USC 481.

    Below is the Quote section, I’ve also added The Treaty of Verona, a quote by Senator Owen, from the Congressional Record, 1916 on the same Treaty, and last but not least, the Jesuit Oath. In these documents you will see thee hidden agenda of the Pope, had bought this information out in previous emails, but now is the proper time to re air this subject, so you can understand the relevance of the Informer’s comments, in his introduction. As the Informer said, in this last chapter I have dealt primarily with our nexus with the king of England, so as not to cloud the issue anymore than it is, by dealing with more than this subject.





Quotes section not included here.