The Sphere of State

Title: The Sphere of State, or The People as a Body-Politic
This book is written by Frank Sargent Hoffman in the year 1894.

Quote:

---

Pg. 57

1. The supreme ownership of all the natural sources of property is with the State

....

Indeed, no State has ever given up that ownership. It has only allowed individuals, under certain conditions and limitations, to possess and use its territory. If a State should unconditionally give up its control, it would thereby cease to be a State. Its sovereignty would be gone.

.....

If a State, at any time, adopts the system of individual control of its territory, the titles to the land are derived from the State, and each citizen holds his land ever subject to the super control of the State. Whenever the land of the community gets into the hands of the few, to the exclusion and injury of the many, or whenever the good of the State for any reason requires it, these titles may justly be revoked, and individual control abolished.

---

Quote:

---

Page 58

2. The State has the ultimate control of and responsibility for the methods of acquiring property. If the sources of property are under the supreme control of the State, it is easy to see that all property derived from those sources should be under its control also. No individual can take any of the materials of wealth without the consent of the State, and by his labor make them his property, and the State can never rightly give this consent except with the limitation that the ultimate ownership and control of all property is with itself. While the State, therefore, fully recognizes that natural right to property that comes from labor, it cannot regard this right as absolute, but most itself determine in what way and by what means property is to be acquired. It must prescribe the legitimate spheres of labor, and check the useless and wicked expenditure of labor. It should prevent by every means in its power the acquisition of property by trickery, by chance, by counterfeiting, by combinations to force up prices without increasing values, and by immoral practices of any kind whatever. .....

---

Quote:

---

Page 59

3. The State is also the supreme authority for determining how property should be used after it is acquired. No individual member of the State has a right to use his property as he pleases. ....

---

Continuing on a slightly different tangent:

Quote:

---

Page 210

Such, then, being the importance of the Family to the existence and welfare of the State, the State can not too carefully guard the formation of the Family or too securely guarantee to those who form it its protecting power. The means for the founding of a Family is marriage; and while the STate should encourage marriage in every reasonable way, it should not allow a Family to be formed entirely at the option of the parties. For the public have a right and an interest in the matter as really as the parties. They should first be required to obtain the public consent in order tha tht establishment of the new Family may be duly recognized and its security and peace fully assured.

---

Quote:

---

From the standpoint of the Church of Rome marriage is a sacrament, and throughout all Christendom it is usually attended by religious rites. but in the eye of the State it is simply a civil contract "evidenced in words prescribed by law, or by law counted sufficient." Marriage is the union of man and woman in the legal relation of husband and wife.

---

Thanks shikamaru. good stuff.fB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Title: The Sphere of State, or The People as a Body-Politic
This book is written by Frank Sargent Hoffman in the year 1894.

---

Thanks man, this just backs up what I have quoted before from Senate Resolution#62 that all ownership of property is by proxy of the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Continuing on a slightly different tangent:

---

This may be of interest to you shikamaru associated with this post of marriage. Here is listings of what states recognize a common-law marriage and which do not:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

This treatise really disturbs me for some reason.
I'm still looking for case law in support of all this too. I'm sure it is out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by motla68

This may be of interest to you shikamaru associated with this post of marriage. Here is listings of what states recognize a common-law marriage and which do not:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

---

Quote:

---

RECOGNIZE.

1. To know to be something that has been perceived before: recognize a face.
2. To know or identify from past experience or knowledge: recognize hostility.
3. To perceive or show acceptance of the validity or reality of: recognizes the concerns of the tenants.
4. To permit to address a meeting: The club's president recognized the new member.
5. To accept officially the national status of as a new government.
6. To show awareness of; approve of or appreciate: recognize services rendered.
7. To admit the acquaintance of, as by salutation: recognize an old friend with a cheerful greeting.
8. Law. To enter into a recognizance.
9. Biology. To exhibit recognition for (an antigen or a substrate, for example).


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/recognize#ixzz1IUNRdRyr

---

Quote:

---

RECOGNIZANCE.

1. Law.
1. An obligation of record that is entered into before a court or magistrate, containing a condition to perform a particular act, such as making a court appearance.
2. A sum of money pledged to assure the performance of such an act.
2. A recognition.
3. Archaic. A pledge; a token.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/recognizance#ixzz1IUNj0MQR

---

If the court doesn't recognize common law marriages .... GREAT!

This means that State (government) is not the superior party (lord paramount) of the marriage agreement.

According to George Gordon, a marriage license (See SERVITUDE) is a three-party general partnership with the State (government) as the superior party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

This treatise really disturbs me for some reason.
I'm still looking for case law in support of all this too. I'm sure it is out there.

---

There is some interesting history on the marriage license, it was first derived so that interracial people could marry:

"The trial judge in a famous interracial marriage case appropriately titled "Loving v. Virginia" apparently agreed that racial separation was God's will and that mankind must not reverse that principle. He ignored the principle of separation of church and state as well as the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution when finding the Loving family guilty of miscegenation. Part of his ruling stated:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

However, the phrase "bounds of their habitation" could well refer to tribal and cultural rather than racial distinctions."

It is now looked at as a corporate business merger hence the name "civil marriage" and have heard in certain circles that Arizona has some laws on the books stating so. I do not live there so I would not know.

Now is as good as any time for this:

Quote:

---

SERVICE, feudal law. That duty which the tenant owes to his lord, by reason of his fee or estate.

2. The services, in respect of their quality, were either free or base, and in respect of their quantity and the time of exacting them, were either certain or uncertain. 2 Bl. Com. 62.

3. In the civil law by service is sometimes understood servitude. (q. v.)

SERVITUDE, civil law. A term which indicates the subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing.

2. Hence servitudes are divided into real, personal, and mixed. Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1.

3. A real or predial servitude is a charge laid on an estate for the use and utility of another estate belonging to another proprietor. Louis. Code, art. 643. When used without any adjunct, the word servitude means a real or predial servitude. Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1.

4. The subjection of one person to another is a purely personal servitude; if it exists in the right of property which a person exercises over another, it is slavery. When the subjection of one person to another is not slavery, it consists simply in the right of requiring of another what he is bound to do, or not to do; this right arises from all kinds of contracts or quasi con tracts. Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1, art. 1.

5. The subjection of persons to things or of things to persons, are mixed servitudes. Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1, art. 2.

6. Real servitudes are divided into rural and urban. Rural servitudes are those which are due by an estate to another estate, such as the right of passage over the serving estate, or that which owes the servitude, or to draw water from it, or to water cattle there, or to take coal, lime and wood from it, and the like. Urban servitudes are those which are established over a building fur the convenience of another, such as the right of resting the joists in the wall of the serving building, of opening windows which overlook the serving estate, and the like. Dict. de Jurisp. tit. Servitudes. See, generally, Lois des Bat. Part 1 Louis. Code, tit. 4; Code Civil, B. 2, tit. 4; This Dict. tit. Ancient Lights; Easements; Ways; Lalaure, Des Servitudes, passim.

SERVITUS, civil law. A service or servitude; a burden imposed by law, or the agreement of parties upon certain persons, for the benefit of others; or upon one estate for the advantage of another, or for the benefit of another person than the owner.

---

Quote:

---

Black's Law Dictionary, 1856

MUNERA. The name given to grants made in the early feudal ages, which were mere tenancies at will, or during the pleasure of the grantor. Dalr. Feud. 198, 199; Wright on Ten. 19.

---

This one is good: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2005/...e-as-overlord/

Quote:

---

“The American Revolution clearly ended any tenurial relationship between the English king and American landholders. Some of the original thirteen states adopted the view that the state had succeeded to the position of the English king as ‘lord’ and that tenure continued to exist, while other states enacted statutes or constitutional provisions declaring that land ownership should thenceforth be ‘allodial,’ or otherwise declaring that tenure was abolished.” Cunningham, et al., at 25 (footnotes omitted). However, “In the remaining states it would seem that lands are still held in tenure of the state as overlord.” Moynihan, at 23.

---

Quote:

---

The first law of society being that the general interest shall be preferred to that of individuals, every individual who possesses under the protection of the laws, any particular property, is tacitly subjected to the obligation of yielding it to the community, wherever it becomes necessary for the general use.

---

More goodies have I :)

From the book, Land Tenure by Registration

Quote:

---

Nevertheless the nation, as a collective body, cannot by natural law ever lose its inherent right of ownership in all land lying within its boundaries. The laws of the United Kingdom do not recognise any private right of ownership in land, treating of all titles as though they were held in dependence upon the crown.

Thus the primary right of ownership in land has always belonged, and always must belong, to the nation; individual rights of ownership can only come by a secondary title.

---

Can we say superior title? Radical title?

Can we say overlord? Lord paramount?