The United Nations thru Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development ideology. Have a goal. In short it is to eliminate the Constitution and our right as Citizens of these United States to own private property. They now have a foreigner in the White House that is being directed to aid and support that agenda. If you think for a moment that the 535 members of the Congress will work in your behalf , or stop the White House from attempting to take your land , you simply have not been paying attention. And you can be certain that this move on private property did not start with obama. Its been in the works for decades. The difference is that now this white house occupant has the undivided attention of the Pentagon. We are rapidly running out of time , but until they come and shut us all up like they did Andrew Brietbart, we will continue to fight for Freedom as described in the original documents, the Right to own Property. Please study the following, then email us , for your copy of how to own your property in Allodium! And go for it.
The Right of the Citizens of the several States to hold title in allodium.
The Supreme Court and Lower Courts Affirm That Americans Are Sovereign Citizens
To fully comprehend the expanse of the unalienable Rights possessed by Americans at the close of the Revolution it is only necessary to examine early court decisions. Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793) “At the Revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects…” Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) “In the United States the people are sovereign , and the government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, N.Y. (1829) “The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign are entitled to the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.” People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen 345, 348 N.Y. (1825) “The people have been ceded all the rights of the King the former sovereign.”
As noted within the preceding paragraph early court decisions recognized that American Citizens were now “sovereigns without subjects” and held all of the Rights which formerly belonged to the King by his own prerogative. In Lansing v. Smith the Court used the word “prerogative” in its decision. “Prerogative” is defined as: “an exclusive right, privilege exercised by virtue of rank or office.” (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language)
Therefore, after the inception of the new Republic, it was recognized by the Courts that Americans now held exclusive Rights, which formerly belonged to the King alone. Americans identified such Rights as “unalienable Rights,” which emanated from the throne of God.
The Citizens Right To Hold Title To Land In Allodium
One Right held by the King, but no others, was the Right to hold title to land in allodium.
“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, Chonique, Ch. 43, p. 75 (ed. Vanderkindere).
Thus, it is relatively easy to deduce that allodial lands and titles are the highest form of lands and titles known to Common Law. At the Revolution, the Common Law was the municipal law of England.
To fully understand the Citizen’s Right to own property it is necessary to understand the definition of the word allodium.
Webster’s dictionary (1825 Ed) states that allodium is “land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud.”
Take note of the preceding sentence, “It is thus opposed to feud.” Generally, land titles are either allodial in nature where a man or woman holds title to land by Right, and he or she does not have to pay a form of rent such as the “property tax” or perform a service to or for a lord in order to keep title to the land, or…. land titles are feudal in nature where a man must pay a rent or provide a service to or for his superior in order to remain on the land. With any type of feudal title the man or woman NEVER owns the land. At the inception of the Republic it was determined that all land titles in America would be allodial in nature, and that all feudal tenures were abolished.
It should be noted that it is not possible for a Republic and a feudal system to coexist within the same state. Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees the Arizona People a Constitutional Republic: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” Further the Arizona Enabling Act also mandates that Arizona would be a Constitutional Republic. The Arizona Enabling Act at Section 20 reads in pertinent part: “The constitution (Arizona Constitution) shall be republican in form and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”
Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law 1856 notes that ALL titles to land in America are allodial in nature.
ALLODIUM estates. “Signifies an absolute estate of inheritance, in coutradistinction to a feud.”
2. “In this country (America) the title to land is essentially allodial, and every tenant in fee simple has an absolute and perfect title, yet in technical language his estate is called an estate in fee simple, and the tenure free and common socage. 3 Kent, Com. 390; Cruise, Prel. Dis. c. 1, 13; 2 Bl. Com. 45.” (Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law 1856.)
The initial state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights written at the time of the Revolution confirm that the possession of land was an unalienable Right, and as governments within America were “instituted to secure Rights,” the possession of land must be an unalienable Right today. If government does not recognize that land ownership remains an unalienable Right then government has failed to perform its primary duty which is securing the Rights of the People.
Joseph L. Story appointed by President Madison to the Supreme Court (1811-1845) wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833): “The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point. I call them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become worthless or visionary. What is personal liberty, if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our industry? What is political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all of our posterity? What is the privilege of the vote, if the majority of the hour may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives, to gratify the rapacity of the indolent, the cunning, or the profligate, who are borne into power upon the tide of a temporary popularity?”
The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1766) asserts that: “All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they can not by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
The Constitution of Pennsylvania of August 16, 1776, affirmed: “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
The Constitution of Vermont of July 8, 1777, affirmed: “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
The Constitution of Massachusetts of October 25, 1780, recognized: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
The Constitution of New Hampshire of June 2, 1784, affirmed: “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights; among which are – the enjoying and defending life and liberty – acquiring, possessing and protecting property – and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.”
Possession of property at the time of the Revolution was defined as: “The detention or enjoyment of a thing which a man holds or exercises by himself or by another who keeps or exercises it in his name. By the possession of a thing, we always conceive the condition, in which not only one’s own dealing with the thing is physically possible, but every other person’s dealing with it is capable of being excluded.” (See: Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law 1856)
After reading the above state constitutions it is quite easy to deduce that at the Revolution the possession of property was considered an inalienable Right.
It should also be understood that a natural Right referred to in the constitutions noted above was a Right endowed by God. A natural Right was founded upon God’s Law or in the terms of that day the Law of Nature and Nature’s God. A natural Right as it originated with God must be termed an unalienable Right.
Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) at number 41 stated: “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”
Further, early court decisions of the 19th century specifically affirm that the title to land held by all Americans was allodial in nature.
Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492 (1863) “I see no way of solving this question, except by determining whether our Pennsylvania titles are allodial or feudal….I venture to suggest that much of the confusion of ideas that prevails on this subject has come from our retaining, since the American Revolution, the feudal nomenclature of estates and tenures, as fee, freehold, heirs, feoffment, and the like….We are then to regard the Revolution and these Acts of Assembly as emancipating every acre of soil of Pennsylvania from the grand characteristics of the feudal system. Even to the lands held by the proprietaries themselves, they held them as other citizens held, under the Commonwealth, and that by title purely allodial.”
Matthews v. Ward, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 443 (1839), “…after the American Revolution, lands in this state (Maryland) became allodial, subject to no tenure, nor to any services incident there to.”
Stanton v. Sullivan, 63 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839) “Thus, it is relatively easy to deduce that all allodial lands and titles are the highest form of lands and titles known to the 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 estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in nature.”
In 1881 the 46th Congress commissioned the work: The Public Domain Its History with Statistics within this work pursuant to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 are the following excerpts pertaining to feudal tenures (conditions) in America.
“The ordinance of 1787 was the first general legislation by the Congress of the United States on the subject of real property. In it the leading features of feudalism are specifically repealed. Since the period of its passage the policy of the jurisprudence of the United States is not to encourage restraints upon the power of alienation of land. Free and unconditional alienation is now the rule of the National Government in the disposal of the public domain, and encouraged by all the states and Territories in land transfers.” (Page 156, paragraph 5)
“Most of the feudal incidents of tenure (which in the colonies were mere form) were abolished in many of the States after the Revolution, and by the United States in the immortal ordinance of 1787, the most progressive and republican act ever performed by a nation in relation to the estates of her people. It made the individual absolutely independent of the State, and the entire owner of his or her home.” (Page 157, paragraph 1) Note that this paragraph confirms that feudalism and a Republican form of government cannot coexist. To continue:
“All lands granted or patented before the Revolution, within the colonies, were held by socage tenure. After this came the allodial legislation by States and the National Government. (Page 157, paragraph 4) (See: 3 Kent, 512)
“The highest title to land in the United States is a government grant, a patent either from the National Government or a State.” (Page 157, paragraph 10)
“A Government grant for land has been, and is held to be, a contract executed.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87. (Page 157, paragraph 11)
“This statute (Northwest Ordinance of 1787) struck the key-note of our liberal system of land law, not only in the States formed out of the public domain, but also in the older States. The doctrine of tenure is entirely exploded; it has no existence. Though the word may be used for the sake of convenience, the last vestige of feudal import has been torn from it. The individual title derived from the Government involves the entire transfer of the ownership of the soil. It is purely allodial, with all the incidents pertaining to that title, as substantial as in the infancy of Teutonic civilization.” (Page 158, paragraph 4)
The Federal Land Patent
The preceding paragraphs, excerpts from a work commissioned by the 46th Congress, make the statements that a government grant for land is the “highest form of title” and that said patent is “contract executed.” This document also states that a government transfer of the soil to a Citizen was “purely allodial.” These excerpts refer to a Federal Land Patent.
Walton v. United States, 415 f 2d 121, 123 (10th cir. 1969) “…a patent, once issued, is the highest evidence of title and is the final determination of the existence of all facts.” Marshall v. Ladd, 7 Wall, 74 U.S. 106 (1869) “…that the patent carries the fee and is the best title known to a court of law is settled doctrine of this court.” United States v. Stone 69 U.S. 2 Wall 525 525 (1864) “A patent for land is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive as against the government and all others claiming under junior patents or titles…”
A man or woman who holds title to lands by and through a federal land patent can never be ejected from those lands. A land patent is the legal title to land. It is superior to all equitable deeds. Note: A tax deed, a warranty deed, and a quit claim deed are all examples of equitable deeds. That is to say that the aforementioned deeds originate from the body of law known as Equity. The land patent originates in the Common Law.
Bagnell v. Broderick, 38 U.S. 436 (1839) “Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States, and the whole legislation of the government in reference to the public lands declares the patent to be the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title. Until it issues, the fee is in the government, which by the patent passes to the grantee, and he is entitled to recover the possession in ejectment.” Sanford v. Sanford, 139 US 642 (1891) “In ejectment the question always is who has the legal title for the demanded premises, not who ought to have it. In such cases the patent of the government issued upon the direction of the land department is unassailable.” Johnson v. Christian, 128 US 374 (1888) “In the United States courts, a recovery in ejectment can be had upon the strict legal title only, and a court of law will not uphold or enforce an equitable title to land as a defense in such action.” Hooper v. Scheimer, 64 U.S. 235 (1859) “It is also the settled doctrine of this Court that no action of ejectment will lie on such an equitable title, notwithstanding a state legislature may have provided otherwise by statute. The law is only binding on the state courts, and has no force in the circuit courts of the Union.” Fenn v. Holme, 62 U.S. 481 (1858) “The plaintiff in ejectment must in all cases prove a legal title to the premises in himself, at the time of the demise laid in the declaration, and evidence of an equitable title will not be sufficient for a recovery.”
The explicit language within the land patent, itself, is further evidence of the allodial nature of the patent. This excerpt is from a land patent that traces its legal authority to the Homestead Act of 1862.
“NOW KNOW YE, That there is, therefore, granted by the UNITED STATES unto the said claimant the tract of Land above described; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said tract of Land, with the appurtenances thereof, unto the said claimant and to the heirs and assigns of said claimant forever…(emphasis added to the word: forever) (See: attachment 1)
In addition there are numerous court cases that have established that all conditions attached to the patented land must be so stated within the patent or they are barred. Summa Corp. v. California State Lands Commission, 466 U.S. 198 (1984) “California cannot at this late date assert its public trust easement over petitioner’s property, when petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest had their interest confirmed without any mention of such an easement in the federal patent proceedings. The interest claimed by California is one of such substantial magnitude that, regardless of the fact that the claim is asserted by the State in its sovereign capacity, this interest must have been presented in the patent proceedings or be barred.”
The federal land patent constitutes a contract between the Citizen and the United States Government. The state, such as the State of Arizona, is not a party to that contract. If a state wanted to assert any claim upon that land it had to do so at the patent proceedings, or such a claim is “barred.”
Why? The U. S. Constitution at Article 1, Section 10 states: “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.”
The courts have found the land patent to be “contract executed” (Fletcher v. Peck) and no state may, pursuant to the United States Constitution at Article 1, section 10 impair “the obligation of contracts.”
Lands that were held in trust by the Federal Government prior to being made patent by a Citizen were termed ungranted or unappropriated public lands. This may be confirmed by reading the Homestead Act of 1862. (ADD EXCERPT FROM THE HOMESTEAD ACT)
The Arizona Enabling Act at Section 20, Second states in pertinent part: “That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated and ungranted public lands lying within the boundaries thereof…”
As the Arizona people have disclaimed all right and title to said lands forever, and as “all political power is inherent in the people” (See: Arizona Constitution Article 2, Section 2) The State of Arizona has no authority to tax, regulate, zone, or in any way enact legislation that affects land, which was considered “unappropriated and ungranted public lands,” when Arizona was admitted to the union of the several States.
Further, there is no mention within the Arizona Enabling Act that the Arizona people regain any right to tax and/or regulate said “ungranted” and “unappropriated” lands when said lands are granted by the Federal Government to a Citizen at a date subsequent to statehood. The State of Arizona cannot unilaterally amend the Arizona Enabling Act. Within Section 20 of said Act it states that the Act can only be amended with the consent of the Arizona People and the United States.
You can stand up and claim what is your rights or you can lay down and let them run over you and take it away! The choice is yours!!!
The Arizona Sentinel
In an interview a few years ago, while running for Governor, Bruce Olsen said, "We are running out of time. I’m convinced I can work with other governors to save our Republic. I have a plan, should our country fall apart. We must be prepared. It’s important that our people become debt free. I am also hoping to change the way we title property. We must see to it that Americans actually own what they pay for. One more thing. We must learn that the individuals that our media promotes for elected office, are the ones we must run from." Bruce Olsen lives in Arizona and shares from The Arizona Sentinel. His main site went down in 2016 and this link contains some of his earlier work. You can still see some of his more recent work via Constitutional Liberty Coalition.