August 16, 2018

The Lollipop Mythos of Popular US History

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

No Citizen Can Own Property

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA
The Lollipop Mythos of Popular US History

Political charters for centuries have been instruments for the creation of corporate countries. Given an understanding of the nature of Chartered, contractual, compacts constitutions, it becomes clear as to why the following can be seen to make sense.. 28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
In the phrase given as, ‘of the United States’, what is the United States ?
Answer:
(A) a Federal corporation

In control of all corporations federal or private which have been created using the same corporate model as the Federal Corporation..

It’s all business..

All countries throughout history have been and still are, of necessity, personally owned private corporations created from personally owned ‘copywritten’ private political charters (constitutions), and that the governments and political assemblies, for example, parliaments and congresses, created under the authority of those constitutions, are mere agents to the owners of corporate countries. As an owner to a constitution, you are within your rights to by-pass your representative political governments and your political assemblies.

So obviously the citizenry are not the owners deciding what their private corporation does with it’s vast properties..

Countries are therefore, The Great Trading Corporations of their Owners –
Read under the title heading, §6. The Great Trading Corporations, on page 7 of,
A treatise on the law of private corporations
by Elliott, Charles B. (Charles Burke), 1861-1935; Abbott, Howard S. (Howard Strickland), 1864-1944
Published 1911

“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)

Enjoy the cases below, it proves no one can own property, without fear of it being seized for any reason either by the U.S.State, one of it’s Estates or the king/queen of England.

“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).

Gastromancy
Gas`tro`man´cy. n. 1. (Antiq.) A kind of divination, by means of words seemingly uttered from the stomach. gastromancy. 2. divination by the taste of ones burps or the flavor of ones farts. 3. gut feelings.

“Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels”~Francisco de Goya

Tenant status via fee simple is not ownership of land it is leasing of the land.. It is also the opposite of true freewill and of freedom…For an experiment stop paying the States property taxes and learn who really owns the private land.. Below is a great depiction of a public lands owner..

The state is a mythical concept, a jejune concept, one that mankind needs to find the maturity to grow out of. The unquestioning acceptance of this myth, one saturated with internal contradictions, is that which defines the statist politically brainwashed left v. right paradigm Zombies….

Cognitive impairment has been and is the whole purpose of the Public Schools Academy Media Government spokesmen Public Relations Regime.

The prevalence of myths is astounding…

Share