Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?

[David Merrill]

Thanks, David. First time uploading to Google docs. I tried uploading the file directly but I got a message that the file was to big for the "file type". It is only 49K and the limit is 19K. Maybe we can change that; the Word doc is only 5 pages of text.

Anyway, try this out; I changed the share settings to "people with a link can view without signing in". If that doesn't work, I will change it to full public sharing.

Payment Coupon Authorization

That setting will work well for most people. However Google is so dominant a search engine there will be a lot of people who have registered for a free gmail.com email address and have forgotten. Those are the class who will not be able to access your docs on that setting AJ. If they do not remember their password, they will be called upon to login to see the document. I am using Public to anybody on the Web.

You have done an excellent job of refining the Coupon Redemption document. Assuming you worked on it. Which is like with me; people think that is my work but I heard the suitor who hired me got it from Rick ERTYL. I heard Rick wrote up the first draft and apparently, not to criticize, his word processing skills were just plain poor. Assuming Rick has a mastery of spoken English, he may be a high-school dropout. I am not saying that to be insulting - it is just that the suitor needed to hire me; or anybody with grammar and word processing skills just to finish the Coupon Redemption technique on paper. It is Rick's intellectual property as I understand it.

It would be a masterpiece in its original form if there were in fact funds setting in the mythical Treasury Direct or STRAWMAN SSN accounts based in HJR-192 or whatever. It would be terrific if there were because you could literally pay any bill simply by referring the bill collector to the Treasury like that. Go get your money over at my back-room account with the Treasury!

There is a consistent money-mechanism related to the creation of credit though, that can arise from this coupon redemption method though. Setoff. The bill collector will consistently acknowledge that the debt has been setoff to zero - that the account has been zeroed out.

This setoff must be combined with the techniques of being a suitor, proper record-forming and knowledge of money, responsibility and proper timely response, or the bills continue and your credit rating will be affected, and possibly liens may arise affecting your property. In other words, the zeroing of your account is fleeting. It is a requirement of law that you get that setoff in writing in the process, it would seem. I recall when playing with the technique, the attorneys for the debt collectors would play several different games; the most common one was to zero the account for "Ten Days" awaiting your response. This way Refusal for Cause could be interpreted that you were refusing Setoff, not that they would begin billing again in ten days...

One suitor was going to develop the document into a business plan and so we set him up for a firmly documented setoff for his Example. But he had some health troubles that caused him to drive to the wrong city for filing, a misjudgment caused by pain and at a timing in his crisis that he never got the plan back on its feet. He is better now though.

The suitor should be able to spot the Setoff and get that into an evidence repository, forming the Record around it. Then one can use it to keep liens from developing or being enforced. One can use the Setoff to clean up the credit report but most take my addition (the last paragraph added to Rick's work) seriously. If you say what you say on the Coupon Redemption remittance, then you can no longer get credit under the influence of fraud anyway. If you sign for credit, even endorsement on the back of your paycheck you go in eyes wide open. Your confession about understanding to be the secured party to any credit is now on paper! In other words, this process changes your credit life permanently.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[allodial]

I've only read the first post. Its rather typical to Sheriff's Departments, Fire Departments or the like to contract privately. If you look at the LAPD Sheriff, they openly 'sell' their services. If you take your property off the books, you can contract with the County of the City of .... Sheriff or w/e or you can contract with private security--even with Blackwater if you wanted. The County Treasurer, City Treasurer or State Treasurer might be who you'd want to pay to cover your fees. Alternatively, the City, County or State Attorney (General) or the like. If you want to send kids to school, same deal. Pay up.

A purpoted method for taking property off the books is to pay the property tax off (some suggest seven years worth) and notify the assessor that the property is ***private** rather than residential or public--OBVIOUS as in CAPTAIN OBVIOUS--dont use a zip code or a domestic address when doing this! The property being free from mortgage is allegedly a prerequisite. Simple notice to the County/City Assessor.

Bob; house of Smith
private 100 Main street
near Los Angeles, California not domestic

to -> Roger Smith d/b/a Los Angeles County Assesor... or w/e

This concerns parcel/record # ... This is to inform you that your records are inaccurate. My private property appears to be incorrectly classified by you as "residential" or "public" rather than private.

You could probably even have the State Guard, US Marshalls, State Patrol or US Army guard your private property.

[Treefarmer]

A purpoted method for taking property off the books is to pay the property tax off (some suggest seven years worth) and notify the assessor that the property is ***private** rather than residential or public--OBVIOUS as in CAPTAIN OBVIOUS--dont use a zip code or a domestic address when doing this!

How is ownership of a parcel of land connected with a domestic ZIP code address?
It seems to me that a "residential address" which was issued by the Post Office refers to the mailbox on the side of the road.
The mailbox is on the federal, state, or county road right-of-way, and often it's not even on the side of the road on which the mailbox owners' land is located.
What contract, treaty, law or agreement ties a "residential address" and its mailbox to a piece of land on which someone makes their home?

Thank you

[David Merrill]

Property Taxes are paid by the Registered Owner by and thru an a priori agreement.

Again what is Property? Property is Right of Use. The Registered Owner has the Right of Use via Agreement. The Trustee has the management of the Right of Use. And the tax is collected on the RIGHT OF USE.

Something tells me if I look at a Deed of Trust I am going to find an agreement within that says the Borrower agrees to pay the Property Taxes.....let me see if I can find one now....



Well now, look at that. It is indeed found within a pre-existing agreement. Wherein that agreement has made known a new term BORROWER and the BORROWER is exactly the same as LEGAL M. NAME or cestui que trust.

And i will wager that the Grantor is lawfully siezed of the estate - therefore the Property never leaves the State. Starting to see why SR#62 is not required to be Public Law?

For those playing catchup at Heinz field, Property is Right of Use. The Deed incorporated by reference a Survey and the Survey is Recorded on a Plat and the Plat is located on a Book of Maps and the Book of Maps is Registered at a book and page WITHIN a Trust Asset Registry known as Register of Deeds or County Clerk and Recorder.

And that agreement does not say the Borrower will repay in Pesos. It says the Borrower will repay with the money of the STATE.

The State is concerned with their Property. So now I ask, what again is Property. If you have not seen it yet. Go to the Top and read again.

But read this first


Plus something tells me the agreement is Probated - Dead Hand - irrevocable Trust Agreement. The Grant cannot be undone.




One thing to consider is what Registry will the Property - and the Agreements that govern the Property - be Registered? Under who's Law Form?

I have been utilizing that clerk and recorder (county) law form for over twenty years now. That is where the chattel mortgage on the home resorts to for recordation. In my opinion, the plan outlined in the opening post is clever because it hardly qualifies as a novation. You are in essence still paying "taxes".

Let's speak about this in simpler terms - a car loan. The car loan is going to stipulate that you carry minimum coverage from the state. However the state allows for a liquidity (cash) bond. So you may be bound or have the option of keeping the mortgage - not paying it off - even though you are "rich" enough to have the $30K (or whatever it has gone up to) bond setting in your bank. The mortgager has no leg to stand on by saying that you have no insurance policy, therefore pay the loan off or hand the car back.

The "taxes" clause of the mortgage agreement must have a purpose, other than to earn tax revenue for the City and State. You are meeting that obligation by carrying fire and law enforcement protection in my proposal - albeit it is only a first draft. Therefore if the mortgage company were to start hovering because of the "taxes" clause, you would copy your ongoing Agreement to them, with your first R4C to their Presentment.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Metheist]

Property Taxes are paid by the Registered Owner by and thru an a priori agreement.

Again what is Property? Property is Right of Use. The Registered Owner has the Right of Use via Agreement. The Trustee has the management of the Right of Use. And the tax is collected on the RIGHT OF USE.

Something tells me if I look at a Deed of Trust I am going to find an agreement within that says the Borrower agrees to pay the Property Taxes.....let me see if I can find one now....



Well now, look at that. It is indeed found within a pre-existing agreement. Wherein that agreement has made known a new term BORROWER and the BORROWER is exactly the same as LEGAL M. NAME or cestui que trust.

And i will wager that the Grantor is lawfully siezed of the estate - therefore the Property never leaves the State. Starting to see why SR#62 is not required to be Public Law?

For those playing catchup at Heinz field, Property is Right of Use. The Deed incorporated by reference a Survey and the Survey is Recorded on a Plat and the Plat is located on a Book of Maps and the Book of Maps is Registered at a book and page WITHIN a Trust Asset Registry known as Register of Deeds or County Clerk and Recorder.

And that agreement does not say the Borrower will repay in Pesos. It says the Borrower will repay with the money of the STATE.

The State is concerned with their Property. So now I ask, what again is Property. If you have not seen it yet. Go to the Top and read again.

But read this first


Plus something tells me the agreement is Probated - Dead Hand - irrevocable Trust Agreement. The Grant cannot be undone.




One thing to consider is what Registry will the Property - and the Agreements that govern the Property - be Registered? Under who's Law Form?

Why not re-deed absent the agreement to pay property taxes?

[Treefarmer]

Property Taxes are paid by the Registered Owner by and thru an a priori agreement.

Again what is Property? Property is Right of Use. The Registered Owner has the Right of Use via Agreement. The Trustee has the management of the Right of Use. And the tax is collected on the RIGHT OF USE.

Something tells me if I look at a Deed of Trust I am going to find an agreement within that says the Borrower agrees to pay the Property Taxes.....let me see if I can find one now....



Well now, look at that. It is indeed found within a pre-existing agreement. Wherein that agreement has made known a new term BORROWER and the BORROWER is exactly the same as LEGAL M. NAME or cestui que trust.

And i will wager that the Grantor is lawfully siezed of the estate - therefore the Property never leaves the State. Starting to see why SR#62 is not required to be Public Law?

For those playing catchup at Heinz field, Property is Right of Use. The Deed incorporated by reference a Survey and the Survey is Recorded on a Plat and the Plat is located on a Book of Maps and the Book of Maps is Registered at a book and page WITHIN a Trust Asset Registry known as Register of Deeds or County Clerk and Recorder.

And that agreement does not say the Borrower will repay in Pesos. It says the Borrower will repay with the money of the STATE.

The State is concerned with their Property. So now I ask, what again is Property. If you have not seen it yet. Go to the Top and read again.

But read this first


Plus something tells me the agreement is Probated - Dead Hand - irrevocable Trust Agreement. The Grant cannot be undone.




One thing to consider is what Registry will the Property - and the Agreements that govern the Property - be Registered? Under who's Law Form?

This may be a dumb question, but it's been on my mind for a while now:
Why is title split up into legal and equitable?

You said in your other above referenced post (But read this first) "The Legal Title manages the Rights of Use or manages the Property. And the Equitable Title Uses the Right of Use or Uses the Property. "

Why can a man or woman not hold both legal and equitable title?
Seems like they go together; or should anyways. Isn't that the essence of true ownership?

When did title first get split up into legal and equitable?

It seems to me that allodial ownership (without taxation at gunpoint on pain of dispossession) cannot exist until legal and equitable title are united into one, under the control of the owner who is also the manager and the user of the property.

[allodial]

TIt seems to me that allodial ownership (without taxation at gunpoint on pain of dispossession) cannot exist until legal and equitable title are united into one, under the control of the owner who is also the manager and the user of the property.

That is why it is also referred to as "full title" as opposed to when 'legal title' and 'equitable title' are 'separated'. Apparently "Papers, please!" is basically a request to make a determination as to whether one has full title or not.

[shikamaru]

This may be a dumb question, but it's been on my mind for a while now:
Why is title split up into legal and equitable?

You said in your other above referenced post (But read this first) "The Legal Title manages the Rights of Use or manages the Property. And the Equitable Title Uses the Right of Use or Uses the Property. "

Why can a man or woman not hold both legal and equitable title?
Seems like they go together; or should anyways. Isn't that the essence of true ownership?

When did title first get split up into legal and equitable?

It seems to me that allodial ownership (without taxation at gunpoint on pain of dispossession) cannot exist until legal and equitable title are united into one, under the control of the owner who is also the manager and the user of the property.

I can answer this ....

The King's attorners attempted to evade his law (and revenues) by vesting the legal title in someone who could not be burdened with the King's dues while the equitable titled was vested in another.

The term use also refers to purpose. Land is classified as to purpose.

The King attempted to quash all of this by the Statute of Uses (1535).
The Statute of Uses vested the legal title back into the beneficial owner, thus subject to the King's charges.
Attorners in return invented the 'use upon a use'.

From this is where trusts are born.

Remember originally that the common law recognizes one owner and one owner only. The owner possesses both the legal title (ownership) as well as the use of the property (benefits, income). Also remember that this owner only tenures (holds) an abstract of the land and not the land itself.

This tenure is subject to the duties or charges imposed by his lord (feudalism).

From the above, we can see all other titles are incident and inferior to the radical title possessed by the King. The King is the overlord or lord paramount.

A 'use upon a use' (trust) allows the Courts of Equity to administrate while keeping silent as to the law (Common Law).

Thanks to the Lord Bacon and King James the I & VI, Equity trumps Common Law. This is due to the rivalry of Bacon and the displeasure of King James I with Edward Coke.

Coke rocks . If you want to study Common Law, start with Coke, not Blackstone.

[Treefarmer]

I can answer this ....

The King's attorners attempted to evade his law (and revenues) by vesting the legal title in someone who could not be burdened with the King's dues while the equitable titled was vested in another.

The term use also refers to purpose. Land is classified as to purpose.

The King attempted to quash all of this by the Statute of Uses (1535).
The Statute of Uses vested the legal title back into the beneficial owner, thus subject to the King's charges.
Attorners in return invented the 'use upon a use'.

From this is where trusts are born.

Remember originally that the common law recognizes one owner and one owner only. The owner possesses both the legal title (ownership) as well as the use of the property (benefits, income). Also remember that this owner only tenures (holds) and abstract of the land and not the land itself.

This tenure is subject to the duties or charges imposed by his lord (feudalism).

From the above, we can see all other titles are incident and inferior to the radical title possessed by the King. The King is the overlord or lord paramount.

A 'use upon a use' (trust) allows the Courts of Equity to administrate while keeping silent as to the law (Common Law).

Thanks to the Lord Bacon and King James the I & VI, Equity trumps Common Law. This is due to the rivalry of Bacon and the displeasure of King James I with Edward Coke.

Coke rocks . If you want to study Common Law, start with Coke, not Blackstone.

Very interesting.
I thought that the American revolution got us away from the Crown.
How did the feudalism creep back in?
Was allodial title ever possible in this country since the Columbus invasion?
There is something totally perverse about this servitude that is being touted as freedom.
Like calling marshmallows and beer "food".

[shikamaru]

Very interesting.
I thought that the American revolution got us away from the Crown.
How did the feudalism creep back in?

Some argued that after the Revolution that people merely replaced one overlord for another.
Governments assumed the powers and prerogatives of the King.
(European) Land law has always had a very heavy feudal and servile tint to it .
Land law is heavy in usage of feudal terms.

In Roman Civil Law, there is the concept of the peculium.
The peculium works like such: the property, de jure, is owned by the dominus (master), but in custom and practice is possessed, used, and enjoyed by the servus (slave).

One can see that there are similarities between "ownership" of land by a tenant and the peculium.

Was allodial title ever possible in this country since the Columbus invasion?

I don't know, but I am willing to find out .
Allodial title may or may not be possible, but I believe if not possible, it can be approximated very closely .

There is something totally perverse about this servitude that is being touted as freedom.
Like calling marshmallows and beer "food".

Indeed ....

Property taxes is rent on land.
My usage of rent in this case is in the signification of revenues (Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations).
Interestingly enough, some precursors to the modern day property tax were the rentcharge and quit-rent .....

It is all about revenue and revenue stream.

The King's hunger for revenues have had a major influence on the course of develop of the Common Law.