November 21, 2017

Wuerthner Cannot Prove Title To Public Lands

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“the best thing about federal lands is that I, along with the rest of American citizens, own them. And as a part owner, I have a right to voice my objections and my support for federal actions.”—George Wuerthner

No you don’t, no I don’t and not one citizen owns those lands.. Not one. And then below he contradicts himself and admits he and the rest of the U.S. citizens do not own those public lands by stating that someone else could sell them, trade them, transfer them.. How could they do that if they are not the owners? Obviously someone owns those lands. Who?

“That is why it is particularly disturbing to me, and many other Americans that we might lose our public lands. The potential transfer or sale of federal lands to the state or even private entities poses a long-term threat to our democracy and our way of life.”—George Wuerthner

I’ll tell you who owns the land, The Vatican. Their Banking Cartel out of Londinium. And their management corporation known as the United States Congress sitting in D.C.

Wuerthner further identifies himself as an American.. He is not. He is a U.S. citizen subject debtor slave.. A constitutor responsible for the debt congress creates. Wuerthner does not own his private land either.. Just tell George to stop paying property taxes and he’ll meet the real owner. The governing management agency for the land investment firm I mentioned above..
the UNITED STATES the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(all capital letters–a fiction–a corporation) the United States of America the United States (intent or defined to be the corporate US), a ” Corporation” with a legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government created (Incorporated) by (Presidential) Legislative Act, February 21, 1871 Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419
On June 20, 1874, the President with advice of Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons. 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337
A subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating that the District of Columbia should ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation,’ as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District
(brought forward from the act of 1871)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. CAMDEN IRON WORKS, 181 U.S. 453 (1901)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/181/453/case.html
METROPOLITAN R CO v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 132 U.S. 231 (1889)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/132/1/case.html
Corporate Officers
“… But by the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided …and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation.”
The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 472 (1890)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/woodbury.htm
“United States” is the “District of Columbia” incorporated. “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785, Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287
In UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, in Section 3002 Definitions, it states the following:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
So, anyone want to explain to us how, 300+ million contractual “person” sub contractors contracting with a superior corporation, are really the owners of it all. Every other corporate model around the world is the exact opposite. This one’s special. Go to work this morning and fire all those CEO’s. I wanna watch. Since none of you hold title to anything showing ownership of this corporate model, who does?

The States and it’s inhabitants claim this land as theirs, patriots claim they have allodial title to the land. How can this be when they never owned it to begin with?

“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?” MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70.

The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the sixth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title, thus protected, it confirmed by the ninth article of the Treaty of 1794, so that is could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding for the defect of alienage.” The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. (Footnote-annotated, Definitive Treaty of Peace).
“The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of corporations, created by the crown, in this country, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this country, WAS NOT affected by the revolution. The proper courts in this country will interfere to prevent an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local legislature where the lands lie, can adjudge a forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its property. The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 in the same manner as those of natural persona; and their title, thus protected, is confirmed by the 9th article of the Treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage. The termination of a treaty, by war, DOES NOT divest rights of property already vested under it. Nor do treaties, in general, become extinguished, ipso facto, by war between the two governments. Those stipulating for a permanent arrangement of territorial, and other national rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at the peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made.” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

“….Let the colonies 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. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation — the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have they may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . 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.” Edmund Burke, speech on conciliation with America, pages 71-72, March 22, 1775.

Property and Escheat
“By the law of England, before the Declaration of Independence, the lands of a man dying intestate and without lawful heirs reverted by escheat to the king as the sovereign lord; but the king’s title was not complete without an actual entry upon the land, or judicial proceedings to ascertain the want of heirs and devisees. Attorney General v. Mercer, 8 App. Cas. 767, 772; 2 Bl. Comm. 245. The usual form of proceeding for this purpose was by an inquisition or inquest of office before a jury, which was had upon a commission out of the court of chancery, but was really a proceeding at common law; and, if it resulted in favor of the king, then, by virtue of ancient statutes, any one claiming title in the lands might by leave of that court, file a traverse, in the nature of a plea or defense to the king’s claim, and not in the nature of an original suit. Lord Somers, in The Bankers’ Case, 14 How. State Tr. 1, 83; Ex parte Webster, 6 Ves. 809; Ex parte Gwydir, 4 Madd. 281; In re Parry, L. R. 2 Eq. 95; People v. Cutting, 3 Johns. 1; Briggs v. Light-Boats, 11 Allen, 157, 172. The inquest of office was a proceeding in rem. When there was a proper office found for the king, that was notice to all persons who had claims to come in and assert them, and, until so traversed, it was conclusive in the king’s favor. Bayley, J., in Doe v. Redfern, 12 East, 96, 103; 16 Vin. Abr. 86, pl. 1…..By the constitution of 1836 of the republic of Texas (article 4, 13 ), it was provided that the legislature should, ‘as early as practicable, introduce, by statute, the common law of England, with such modifications as our circumstances, in [161 U.S. 256, 264] their judgment, may require.’ 2 Chart. & Const. 1757. And by the statutes of Texas, from the time of its existence as an independent republic, the common law of England, so far as not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of Texas, has been declared to be, together with such constitution and laws, the rule of decision, and to continue in force until altered or repealed by the legislature. Tex. St. Jan. 20, 1840; Pasch. Dig. (4th Ed.) art 978; Rev. St. 1879, 3128; Courand v. Vollmer, 31 Tex. 397; Barrett v. Kelly, Id. 476.

By the constitution of the state of Texas of 1845, it was provided, in article 4, 10, that the district court should have original jurisdiction ‘of all suits in behalf of the state to recover penalties, forfeitures and escheats’; and in article 13, 4, as follows: ‘All fines, penalties, forfeitures and escheats which have accrued to the republic of Texas under the constitution and laws shall accrue to the state of Texas; and the legislature shall by law provide a method for determining what lands may have been forfeited or escheated.’ 2 Chart. Const. 1773, 1781. ….’The object of such a proceeding is not simply to have a decree declaring the escheat, and vesting the title in the state, but, by and through process to be issued under the judgment, to divest, not only the title of persons entitled to take the property of the deceased as his heirs, if perchance any such there be, but also, by a sale, to divest the title of the state, and to start, and confer upon the purchaser, a new title, deraigned directly from the sovereign of the soil. Rev. St. 1777-1780….” HAMILTON v. BROWN, 161 U.S. 256 (1896)
No One can Own Property. Below the subject of mortmain, it is dead on point. the cases below, it proves no one can own property, without fear of it being seized for any reason either by the State or the king/queen of England. WHAT IS GEORGE WUERTHNER FEARING???? THAT SOMEONE CAN SELL THOSE PUBLIC LANDS???? YES INDEED.. If we cannot protect our private land from these corporations how can claim we own government lands????

“The cases of purchases of land by aliens and corporations, under the statutes of mortmain, are not in point. It is settled, that an alien or a corporation may, by purchase, take land, but cannot hold; and the doctrine is put on the ground, that if one by an executed conveyance, which is his own act, passes land to an alien, or corporation, he shall not have it back; but it shall belong to the sovereign, upon office found. It is otherwise in regard to the act of law. If the heir, of one dying seized of land, be an alien, the law will not cast the descent on him, because he cannot hold beneficially, and the law will not give with one hand and take away with the other, but will cast the descent upon the next relation who is capable of holding. For the same reason, an alien husband does not take as tenant by the curtesy, nor an alien wife take dower….

It is a well-settled rule of law in England, and in this State as well as in most, if not all, of the other States of the Union, that an alien may acquire lands by purchase, and may hold them against all persons except the King, or the State; but upon office found, the King in England, or the State in this country, may seize and have them. Co. Lit. 2; 1 Black. Com. 372. Different reasons have been given for the rule. Mr. Justice BLACKSTONE, on the page above cited, says that “if an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must owe an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, to the King of England, which would probably be inconsistent with that which he owes to his own natural liege-lord; besides, that, thereby, the nation might in time be subject to foreign influence, and feel many other inconveniences. Wherefore, by the civil law, such contracts were also made void; but the prince had no such advantage of forfeiture thereby, as with us in England. Among other reasons which might be given for our constitution, it seems to be intended by way of punishment for the alien’s presumption in attempting to acquire any landed property.” One of the editors in his note (8) on this page remarks that “a political reason may be given for this, stronger than any here adduced. If aliens were admitted to purchase and hold lands in this country, it might at any time be in the power of a foreign State to raise a powerful party amongst us; for power is ever the concomitant of property.” He illustrates his position by referring to the course pursued by the Czarina of Russia to raise up a party and acquire an influence in Poland whereby she was enabled to dismember that devoted and unhappy Kingdom.
In the case of Governeur v. Roberston, 11 Wheat. Rep. 332, Mr. Justice JOHNSTON, in delivering the opinion of the Court, speaks of the rule as having been so long and so firmly established in the common law, that an enquiry into the foundation of it was a mere matter of antiquarian curiosity, and he then seems to approve what he had seen in an elementary writer, as the reason why the sovereign could not seize the lands until an office was found, to wit, “that every person is supposed a natural born subject, that is resident in the Kingdom, and that owes allegiance to the King, till the contrary be found by office.” There can be no doubt, then, of the rule of law, whatever may be the reason for it, that an alien may acquire by purchase, land or any other species of real estate, and may hold it against all persons except the King or State; and may hold even against the sovereign, until he may choose to have an office found, and process thereupon to have it seized into his hands. Among the modes of acquisition in England and in this State, is that by devise, or disposition contained in a man’s last will. Hence, in England, and perhaps in this State, an alien might take real property by devise, which would give him a good title to it, as against all persons but the sovereign….” TRUSTEES, DAVIDSON COLLEGE v. CHAMBERS’ EXECUTORS, 56 N.C. 253 {1857}

“….At common law, corporations generally have the legal capacity to take a title in fee to real property. They were prohibited in England by the statutes of mortmain, but these statutes have never been adopted in this State, so that the common-law right to take an estate in fee, incident to a corporation (at common law), is unlimited,except by its charter and by statute. But the authorities go to the extent that even when the right to acquire real property, is limited by the charter, and the corporation transcends its power in that respect, and for that reason is incompetent to take title to real estate, a conveyance to it is not void, but only the sovereign (here the State) can object. It is valid until assailed in a direct proceeding instituted by the sovereign for that purpose….” Leazern v. Hilegas, 7 Sargt., 313; Gonndie v. Northamton Water Co., 7 Pa. St., 233; National Bank v. Whiting, 103 U.S., 99; Angel & Ames on Corporations, Secs. 152-777; Runyon v. Coster, 14 Pet., 122; The Bank v. Poiteaux, 3 Rand (Va.), 136 Case is also cited in: MALLETT v. SIMPSON, 94 N.C. 37 (1886)and CROSS v. R. R., 172 N.C. 119 (1916).

U.S. citizen subject debtor-constitutor-slaves have been severely deceived.. And suffer from Stockholm False Entitlements Syndrome..Hilariously enough the Wuerthner clique hate corporations all the while being corporate subjects of  a corporation established in 1783..

THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783):
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the{The MONEY came from this investor} Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse, between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which Treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly;

I left off the link to the treaty..

To truly understand those corporate entities I recommend spending time reading their Nation State political charters which are contractual agreements. They have a pecking order. One of them is number one, top corporate entity above all others.. This number one owns all languages and legal terms. It owns the law. All man made law. And this can be confirmed in the W.I.P.O. = Worlds Intellectual Property Ownership database.. All Nation State political Charters are the private intellectual property of the men who created them.  All private business. Subjects don’t own Nation/States.. All i am is a shareholder stakeholder in whatever rights and privileges those owners have granted myself by contracting into their business model at the citizen level.. False entitlements and emotional attachments to material resources keeps the subjects at one anothers throats.. Fighting over the owners ideas.. Since i am a nobody in their no where land I don’t want to fight over any of their nonsense anymore.. Peace..

Share
  • RattlerRider

    At least all minds are not lost;

    “The highly recommended website of, Tom Remington, provides the reader
    with useful reading material to assist understanding through common
    sense concerning issues that affect people in their lives –”

    Does The U.N. Love You?

    http://www.tomremington.com/2016/10/30/does-the-u-n-love-you/

    A telling quote provided by Rattler Rider in the comments section of Tom Remington’s website –

    For years and years, the American priesthood has been preparing the minds

    of the people to take orders from Rome on matters political. For years and

    years, they have been concentrating their energies on America. For years

    and years, they have been steadily advancing on New York [City] and

    Washington City, two strategic points of the greatest importance [New

    York City hosting the Order’s most important branch of the Federal

    Reserve Bank and Washington, D.C., hosting the “temple” of the Order’s

    Federal Reserve Board]. From the city of New York, the business world is

    controlled. From that great metropolis issue the magazines and the

    newspapers of the largest circulation. From that city the transportation

    companies are controlled. He who rules in New York is the king of this

    nation [at which time is the Archbishop of New York, Edward Cardinal

    Egan, whose keynote speaker at the 2006 annual Alfred E. Smith dinner

    at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel was the crypto-Roman Catholic Episcopalian

    and CFR member, Republican John S. McCain, III]. The financial

    interests of that city dominate those of all others. Wall Street expands and

    contracts the currency, precipitates panics and checks them [as did the

    Masonic crypto-Roman Catholic Episcopalian J. P. Morgan in 1907 thus

    justifying the afore-planned Congressional promotion of a Marxist central

    bank with full credit monopoly], dictates Governmental policies, overawes

    administrations, beats Congress into submission to its will, uses the

    National treasury as a branch bank of its own, compels the government to

    withdraw from circulation $150,000,000 of its own gold, gets another

    mortgage on the Republic whenever it needs one in its business [then

    restoring the Pope’s Temporal Power]; and, upon occasion, can practically

    suspend the circulation of the nation’s own money [finally removing silver

    certificates and silver coin from circulation with crypto-Catholic LBJ],

    send prices and fortunes crashing downward [later to be experienced by the

    American people with the Stock Market Crash of 1929 caused by three Irish

    Catholic short-sellers—Tom Bragg, Ben Smith and Joe Kennedy], while

    the President of the United States, the officers of the law, the army and the

    navy [all controlled today by the Order’s Council on Foreign Relations

    (CFR)], and a nation of nearly a hundred million people look helplessly on.

    With the colossal riches of the Roman Catholic Church at his command

    [secretly wielded by Freemason J. P. Morgan], Thomas F. Ryan could

    absolutely dominate New York and Wall Street; and, through the

    instrumentalities already indicated, control American commerce, American

    politics, American legislation, American politics at home and abroad, and—

    worst of all—poison the American mind, . . .” {7} [Emphasis added]

    Thomas E. Watson, 1912 – U.S. Senator from Georgia, 1921-22 – The Roman Catholic Hierarchy

    Source:

    Laughing At YOU Who Cannot SEE

    http://www.tomremington.com/2016/10/29/laughing-at-you-who-cannot-see/

    Rattler Rider comments –
    August 4, 1790 – Article 1 of the U.S. Statutes at Large, pages 138-178,
    abolished the States of the Republic and created federal districts. An
    act making provision for the payment of the debt of the united States
    was passed which was titled “An Act making provision for the payment of
    the Debt of the United States.” This can be found at United States
    Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 34. This Act
    for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the
    Districts. If you don’t believe it look it up. The Act set up Federal
    Districts. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt.
    The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which
    most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to
    legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions
    were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote
    new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby
    binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became
    citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of
    the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is
    synonymous with subject.
    There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this
    planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a
    fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your
    mind that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our
    children to a fiction. You have been declared a fictional entity.
    See: “American law and procedure. Jurisprudence and legal institutions.
    Vol. XIII” By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law School), LL.D.
    (Ruskin University) from La Salle University. This book explains in
    detail the nature and purpose of these corporations.
    ( https://ia800203.us.archive.org/7/items/hallamericanlaw13chic/hallamericanlaw13chic.pdf )
    Subjects of the various Nation/States privileges are only valid in the Nation/State they reside within.. For example, if there is a Kingdom outside of this World it’s laws are not recognized in any kingdom of this world.
    Source
    Are You Man? Person? Persona? Artificial Corporate Property? Which One Are You?
    http://www.tomremington.com/2016/10/29/are-you-man-person-persona-artificial-corporate-property-which-one-are-you/#comment-2975547026

  • RattlerRider
  • RattlerRider

    Our lands????
    hohohohohohahahahahahaheheheheheheheheh!

    Paranoia, conspiracy, and false lands ownership entitlement issues all wrapped up into one big maggot filled enchilada!

    “During this Administration and Congress there is going to be every attempt to make our public lands completely subservient to ranchers wherever they choose to graze. Rules and regulations will never be enforced, and I think they will be allowed to push us around on our public property if we are out on it and they don’t like the way we look.”—Ralph Maughan

    hohohohohohahahahahahaheheheheheheheheh!