Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post

#1 Money held in trust if it is lawful money can give rise to lawful money transaction because the holder of the money is an agent of the beneficiary for the purpose of receiving or making payment. Not sure how anyone who sufficiently comprehends banking or trust law could arrive at your conclusion. The trust aspect of banking is distinct and different from the payment and transactional system. The the authorizations riding along with the trust agreement (in the bank account agreement) authorizes the bank to receive or make payments ON BEHALF OF or FOR the accountholder (owner): that is an agency-principal relationship riding on top of or next to a grantor-trustee-beneficiary relationship.

#2 I suspect you're only seeing a portion of the bigger picture: the political status of the owner affects the level of title the owner can claim. Your perspective on title to property fails to take in how political status affects or limits the level of title a person can hold.

#3 Allodial doesn't mean 'superior'. In most any context the one who holds property in allodium is not a 'user' and it is not a 'use' on his or her part. Divided title pertains to a use as in to borrow my lawnmower or renting a tool from ABC Hardware you are 'use-ing' (divided title ) but its not yours. You are rather injuriously muddying the waters between situations of divided title and situations of property held in allodium. There is no "use" with allodial title.

#4 A fee simple simple estate is hardly an estate in held in allodium. I'm not sure how anyone who knows trust law or property law could arrive at your conclusion. A fee simple estate is held with the county or state as a landlord, rent has to be paid in the form of property tax. Your statements are highly misleading.

#5 MJ if you're a fief or subject of a European or Roman Monarch then that limits your title right there--your entire life would be held in divided title potentially from cradle to grave. Not saying that to be a bad thing, but simply on the topic of divided title vs allodial title, the political status would be specific to your situation though hardly universal and would limit your ability to assert allodial title. The contraindications or benefits associated with being of a particular status seems to be at the heart of wars: this thing called envy. Someone admitted to me that European nobility didn't despise Americans, they were envious because they were under restrictive fiefdoms and feudal obligations with tiny portions of land to boot. While Americans had access to property in allodium.

then he might have to live up to the terms of that fief or alienation.
Divided title vs Allodial title.

“The federal citizens has a right to hold property, but due to his status and his use of legal tender [Federal Reserve Notes] it appears he cannot hold the absolute title to or estate in the land as can white citizens and free inhabitants can (if they pay for the property rights with a lawful tender of gold or silver coin I would suspect.)”

Paying with gold or silver is not necessarily a perfect solution because you can’t buy what another man does not own. That there was a slap.

What if I had previously purchased the property with Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)? I would apparently have equitable title to the property, but I would probably not have legal title to the property. Legal title would probably be held by the federal government and/or the Federal Reserve.

As a result of using FRNs, the land would fall into a trust relationship wherein I was the beneficiary and the federal government and/or Federal Reserve was the fiduciary. I could “use” my land, but they would control it.

Legal title moves by descent from one generation to another by means of wills. If some ancestor bought the land prior to 1968, maybe 1964 when we stopped using silver in our money and perhaps even prior to 1933 when we stopped using gold that ancestor bought both legal and equitable titles to the property.
Those titles would “descend” to his heirs by means of his last will and testament The heirs who never purchased the land with FRNs would retain both legal and equitable title and could therefore sell both titles to a buyer who bought with gold or silver rather than FRNs.

How do we redeem legal title from the government and/or Federal Reserve?

I’m not sure you’d even have to pay property taxes on land if you owned legal title to that land or that you could pay property taxes in the medium of FRNs on land if you owned both legal and equitable titles.

Property taxes paid for with FRNs only apply to property held by equitable title.

Might be true that property taxes on a property which the owner held legal title could be paid only with gold or silver. Article 1.10.1 of the federal Constitution: “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Those who pay for property with FRNs only receive equitable title, and the legal title goes to the federal government and/or the Federal Reserve. You and I as purported “property owners” would actually own only equitable title to our land and properties.

The county tax assessor comes to determine how much tax you owed on your property that assessment if paid with FRNs would seemingly apply only to the equitable title to the property.

What about property taxes on the legal title to the property?

What if they discovered that legal title was, in fact, held by the Federal Reserve?

What if they assessed a property tax on the legal titles to all of the land held within their country?

What if they assessed a property tax in the form of gold on whoever holds legal title to the properties within their county?

Does the law read that whoever holds legal title is not obligated to pay any property tax on that property?

Would that infuriate the public when they discovered that
1) they don’t really “own” their property; and
2) they are obligated to pay property taxes while the real “owner” is not.

At least discover who owns legal title to properties within the county.

Do you see the apparent danger in FRNs? Once any property is paid for in FRNs, in theory, the legal title to that property may be lost to the “black hole” of government and/or Federal Reserve.

How do we redeem legal title from the government and/or Federal Reserve?”

I’m curious what would be with his use of lawful money vs. legal tender and converting fed property to private property.

Would buying the land with lawful money instead of FRN regardless who had use of it prior to the lawful money purchase, take full legal and equitable title?

Every contract to purchase states “for ten dollars and other considerations in hand”?

Twenty dollars is the minimum to guarantee a jury trial of right.

How is anything “paid for” with fiat promise to pay debt notes?

Or could it of been lawful, legal and debt free back then?