Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Has anyone here successfully made their Real Property Private, and EXEMPT from Taxes?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
    Posts
    20

    Has anyone here successfully made their Real Property Private, and EXEMPT from Taxes?

    I am new here. This site has many thought provoking, and some (frankly) bizarre other postings (which I just stay away from, not saying you may not be right. Just not going there with you!).

    My questions is simple enough: I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers would have set up a Property Taxation system, that forces every owner of paid for land and buildings, to pay FOREVER both from themselves, and their descendants, property taxes, with the punishment for not doing so being that the Government is granted the power to seize their property if they don't pay the taxes! This means, in essence, that the Government ultimately owns the final interest (or however one says it) in every piece of property in the US!

    With this as my premise, Who here personally has succeeded in structuring their real property as Private Property, and has successfully protected it from Government Seizure for alleged unpaid property taxes?

    (Update July 25, 2016)

    So, based on the answers I have read thus far, the short answer is 'No.'

    (I am not into theoretical esoterica. I am a man of action, and I want what works. Such as, for example, the Refused for Cause Procedures.)
    Last edited by CommonLawWarrior; 07-25-16 at 06:28 AM.

  2. #2
    If the real property is under a mortgage, it might be deemed to be owned by the lender. The borrower might be in some agreement to pay those taxes.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post
    If the real property is under a mortgage, it might be deemed to be owned by the lender. The borrower might be in some agreement to pay those taxes.
    I get that. It is registered as 'Real Estate or Real Property' with the county courthouse, done so that the Lender has recourse if you don't pay off the debt.

    What I am referring to is PAID FOR property, turned into some kind of 'private property, land patent, or whatever you have to call it' that is NOT subject to property taxes. Has anyone on here DONE this?

    Theory is just talk, and that comes cheap. But I want to learn from someone who has put his full commercial liability on the line to WIN this fight!

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonLawWarrior View Post
    I get that. It is registered as 'Real Estate or Real Property' with the county courthouse, done so that the Lender has recourse if you don't pay off the debt.

    What I am referring to is PAID FOR property, turned into some kind of 'private property, land patent, or whatever you have to call it' that is NOT subject to property taxes. Has anyone on here DONE this?

    Theory is just talk, and that comes cheap. But I want to learn from someone who has put his full commercial liability on the line to WIN this fight!
    I may only speak of what passes for law in my STATE--
    That said, I am unaware of any Land that was "Registered" in my COUNTY

    You may find analogous STATUTES in your area that have to do with the difference between "Filing" and "Recording" a Deed
    with concomitant liabilities on both sides

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The State of Soleterra
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by CommonLawWarrior View Post
    I am new here. This site has many thought provoking, and some (frankly) bizarre other postings (which I just stay away from, not saying you may not be right. Just not going there with you!).

    My questions is simple enough: I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers would have set up a Property Taxation system, that forces every owner of paid for land and buildings, to pay FOREVER both from themselves, and their descendants, property taxes, with the punishment for not doing so being that the Government is granted the power to seize their property if they don't pay the taxes! This means, in essence, that the Government ultimately owns the final interest (or however one says it) in every piece of property in the US!

    With this as my premise, Who here personally has succeeded in structuring their real property as Private Property, and has successfully protected it from Government Seizure for alleged unpaid property taxes?
    Does the Constitution allow citizens to own property?
    In Canada the Constitution does not, citizens have no property rights.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by walter View Post
    Does the Constitution allow citizens to own property?
    In Canada the Constitution does not, citizens have no property rights.
    That is not what constitutions are about. Only signatories are parties in interest. The Constitution itself is a trust and the indenture is described in the Preamble, which is not a part of the Statute.

    The survey is the Declaration of Independence complimented by the Treaty at Fort Stanwix. This was the Israelite land grant through the Iroquois Federation eight years following the Declaration - Sanctification of the Altar.

    Many people become officers and by signing a proper oath have become the party in interest. But that is by Seth - Sons of Seth. The men of violence. The Sons of Cain are violent men. The officers use violence when necessary to protect the Elect from the Sons of Cain. Both classes are designated by the same WORD - owth.

    The Elect are Melchizedek. To accept the office, if elected, you must FORGIVE. Forgiveness removes you from the violence.

    Commonlawwarrior is going to have to wade in, eventually. But this is the reason that the Senate and Cornell Law have driven irregular legislation and "omitted" the Trading with the Enemy Act from the Bankers' Code. That violence was illegal to begin with. I was having a conversation about the violent murder that took place the day before, out of necessity. So here you can read about it for yourselves out of the guilty conscience of FDR himself:


    Name:  FDR March 3.jpg
Views: 1078
Size:  111.6 KB


    Name:  6 14 33 Administration.jpg
Views: 921
Size:  49.0 KB


    Attachment 4331
    Last edited by David Merrill; 07-24-16 at 05:46 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The Elect are Melchizedek. To accept the office, if elected, you must FORGIVE. Forgiveness removes you from the violence.
    The Posterity. Forgiveness or cancellation of debt is one operation, conservation of the peace by promoting equity and prosperity is another. With police being other than de jure law enforcement since they are invariably associated with municipal corporations, its probably confusing and maybe even disappointing for a young man or woman to desire to become law enforcement only to come into employment as a police officer and wonder why they are trained to behave more like a standing army rather than a sheriff. Even public officials inadvertently offer up evidence of that they themselves are confused or even clueless about the difference between the shrieval power and the police power.

    In ancient England, when the burroughs were formed in or up against counties and started to pay their own taxes (read: debts) directly into the King's treasury, the sheriff missed out on that loot (i.e. he wasn't involved in that collection process just like sheriffs aren't directly involved when the reader fills out the 1040 and attaches a check--or are they?). Get what happens when the entirety of the county is presumed swallowed up by municipal corporations: the mayors with chiefs of police come to head the collection and enforcement model for the municipal corporations: the corporate veil becomes a shield....or is it common seal (shield)? Funny how the treasurers and revenue collectors might remain county officers even in those cases. Maybe because the dead rather than owing the dead instead owe the living. So there must be a comte officer there to receive it from the Mayor & Co.

    Name:  cityhall_mayorpress9.jpg
Views: 705
Size:  157.1 KB

    Perhaps an affinity for collectives (such as that evidenced by Communists) might merely be an expression of a preference for corporate status to avoid debt....i.e. playing dead. Consider the militant atheistic denial of God but yet animosity remains for someone alleged to not exist (make sense of that): (a logic that leads to) "might as well play dead so as to avoid the consequences of life" (even if that means dragging whole communities down with you?).

    Consider: God of Christ being God of the living, rather than being God of the dead ==> King and Sheriffs (Princes) collect from the county and mayors and standing armies collect (debt) from the dead (debt)--the taxes are paid through the county treasurer to the State-King?

    Likely you'll not find it at all a coincidence I had a wild idea to visit a thrift shop, check the shelf and then I found a nearly (98%) mint hardcopy of this book:

    Name:  70121.jpg
Views: 723
Size:  109.6 KB

    When I saw it, I knew I was meant to have it. Not a single tear or crease in a page. I didn't even bother to think or debate about it. It felt perfect and at home in my hands like I had sent it forward to myself from a past life. When I took to reading through it before bed last night, I was "coincidentally" able to fix on a portion about the effect municipalities (compared to a sheriff and a county/comte (commitee?)) had on collection of debts to the King: the burroughs paid into the treasury directly and so the sheriff was left out of the loop on that. Keep in mind: municipal charters are contracts directly with the King (I have the Dartmouth case in mind).

    P.S. Incorporated? Anyone ever ask: "Incorporated into what?" (Into the District? Or into the body of the King? Or...?)
    Last edited by allodial; 07-24-16 at 09:45 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post
    The Posterity.

    Thank you! And through myself, as Trustee (of the Resulting Trust) one last opportunity for redemption is offered globally through the Triumvirate. - Through the Delegation of Authority.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 07-24-16 at 08:56 PM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    ... the reason that the Senate and Cornell Law have driven irregular legislation and "omitted" the Trading with the Enemy Act from the Bankers' Code. That violence was illegal to begin with. I was having a conversation about the violent murder that took place the day before, out of necessity. So here you can read about it for yourselves out of the guilty conscience of FDR himself:

    Name:  FDR March 3.jpg
Views: 1078
Size:  111.6 KB
    ...
    Attachment 4331
    That issue of illegality probably points to the limits of exercise of police power (i.e. they have trespassed into the county or 'royal courts' much like a stranger trespassing into part of 'the temple' where they ought not be)). Relatedly, I strongly suspect that the term 'county police' is a somewhat misleading and deceptive term.

    The point is, regarding the illegality, the issues surrounding the Dick Act might resonate here. The Dick Act, from what I recall, was passed because they realized that it was illegal for them to send the de jure militia or military overseas. That is because the militia is limited to their county, state or proper jurisdiction. Outside of their county or state (the Federal zone for federal citizens) the militia are mercenaries. It might help to realize that the National Guard was founded as a volunteer civic organization rather than being a de jure militia. That probably allows them to be used as mercenaries overseas bypassing multi-constitutional restrictions. Consider, a group of mercenaries, though mostly made up of men from Canada could easily be mistaken for the Canadian Army. When the Piper comes to collect for that kind of twistage I suspect it will be uber nasty, even for FDR.

    Vieira and others hold that the (U.S.) National Guard is not at all any militia per the Constitution and the Organic Laws of the United States of America but instead come under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 (as Troops or Ships of War) ('territorial militia' or 'territorial mercenaries'?).

    Thus: the issue of illegality under TWEA.

    Maybe its just a coincidence: after Kennedy, the U.S.S Flag starts flying backwards on Air Force One, Lyndon Johnson Americanizes the war in Vietnam. Does a backwards flag tends to connote illegality?

    The Dick Act helped resolve the issue of when the United States government could mobilize the National Guard, but federal authorities were not permitted to order the National Guard to service outside the United States.
    Last edited by allodial; 07-25-16 at 01:19 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
    Posts
    20
    Yes, the Constitution allows citizens to own property. We know this because the Bill of Rights protects citizens and their 'effects' from unlawful search and seizure without a warrant. So yes, citizens can own property, real, and personal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •