I Must Take a Closer Look at This

[pumpkin]

I am in search of the Truth. I have had some success in State courts, some personally and more helping others. But, I have had no success fighting property taxation. I see that admiralty actions are in rem. Funny, that is exactly how they come after property for not paying taxes. I have denied any contract, but that doesn't seem to matter. Has anyone here used the saving clause, by recording with the county, the reservation of rights? All rights reserved. Has it accomplished anything?

Also, in writing this, I realize, maybe MY NAME is also in rem? Because, My Name would be in personam?

[walter]

I am in search of the Truth. I have had some success in State courts, some personally and more helping others. But, I have had no success fighting property taxation. I see that admiralty actions are in rem. Funny, that is exactly how they come after property for not paying taxes. I have denied any contract, but that doesn't seem to matter. Has anyone here used the saving clause, by recording with the county, the reservation of rights? All rights reserved. Has it accomplished anything?

Also, in writing this, I realize, maybe MY NAME is also in rem? Because, My Name would be in personam?

Doesn't matter who's name you have the property in, could be mickey mouse.
mickey still has to pay the tax.
The tax is on the property not a name.

We can't own property because the nation/crown holds title.
As equity holder, called "owner", is only the first tenant. Expropriation validates that.
Until you can transfer the complete title out of the nation/crown to a foreign jurisdiction.(nation)

[Michael Joseph]

Doesn't matter who's name you have the property in, could be mickey mouse.
mickey still has to pay the tax.
The tax is on the property not a name.

We can't own property because the nation/crown holds title.
As equity holder, called "owner", is only the first tenant. Expropriation validates that.
Until you can transfer the complete title out of the nation/crown to a foreign jurisdiction.(nation)

Exactly.

Survey First
Claim Second
Once Claim is established in the cognizance of all nation states then
Grant Property Rights to Lords, Earls, Barons, etc [those clothed with Royalty]
Estates are carved out of Property.

Thusly Land is property but Residential, Commercial, Agricultural, Religious, etc. are estates.

Those who hold property rights historically could collect Quit Rents. The Estates and their uses were created and let out to Tenants called Terre-Tenants. The terre-tenants [grantee] are trustees subject to the bylaws which govern the use. For the consideration of the transfer of the estate the trustee pays a FEE. The terre-tenant does not have true Ownership and Dominion over property but only over the Estate subject to the bylaws that govern the uses. The terre-tenant is allowed to buy/sell the Estates and to take profits, rents and avails to his own but the property remains vested in those who hold the property rights.

When you begin to see this as a mathematical formula, then you can easily see if the State has been mortgaged then other districts form whereof uses and rents are established within those Collection Districts = Hell = Debt. Dis-trictus. The Claim is upon the THING and said claim is in regard to who has the right to use.

The actual name matters not - in the end those Property Rights are going nowhere unless the Heads of State decide to alienate said Property Rights. Good stuff walter - you are right on target!

Trump is talking about bringing money back to America. And many of the masses are backing this plan but then again these have no idea of the ESF and its purpose. If they did they would realize how ignorant is such a plan. In order for the global population to accept a one-world government there must be a one-world catastrophe - money bubble explodes! Yep, that would do it!

Have you read Genesis 47 lately? Maybe you should. For it foretells the end from the beginning. An inversion "V"

On the "Carolinas" originally 8 shares were issued in this PROPRIETORSHIP - the Crown held 6 shares and Earl Granville and Earl Carteret held the other shares. These Earls were vested with property rights and granted the ability to administrate government. Later all 8 shares were returned to the Crown. And Corporations such as THE VIRGINIA COMPANY and THE DUTCH EAST/WEST INDIES COMPANY - were vested with property rights of the Crown. The latter corporations fly the Red, White and Blue colours of the Crown. So what is new under the sun? Nothing.

Best Regards,
MJ

[allodial]

I am in search of the Truth. I have had some success in State courts, some personally and more helping others. But, I have had no success fighting property taxation. I see that admiralty actions are in rem. Funny, that is exactly how they come after property for not paying taxes. I have denied any contract, but that doesn't seem to matter. Has anyone here used the saving clause, by recording with the county, the reservation of rights? All rights reserved. Has it accomplished anything?

Also, in writing this, I realize, maybe MY NAME is also in rem? Because, My Name would be in personam?

Personification of vessels. Some will say "Suretyship!? Haw Haw, that are for one assuming liability for another person." However, the personification of vessels (things) is how owning a mail receptacle (postal term) or boat becomes suretyship (the mailbox is a person itself). Foreclosure is a remedy or the like in admiralty. Many have overlooked that when they come after your property, its not YOU or you they come after directly but the property personified.

If a tax is rightly owned, one pays it. That said: there are two primary classifications of real property as for as tax assessment goes: commercial, residential. A third is: private.

Doesn't matter who's name you have the property in, could be mickey mouse.
mickey still has to pay the tax.
The tax is on the property not a name.

The tax obligations arise out of clearly defined nexus . Its not called real estate for nothin. Real is Spanish for ROYAL.

We can't own property because the nation/crown holds title.
As equity holder, called "owner", is only the first tenant.

The word 'own' does not necessarily designate exclusivity. Also owner can mean surety. There is such a thing as 'divided title': equitable owner and legal owner. Possession and ownership are not necessarily the same in equitable jurisprudence.

Until you can transfer the complete title out of the nation/crown to a foreign jurisdiction.(nation)

Last I checked, New York, Pennsylvania and Missouri are nations. Its an old rule that a state has no obligation to take cognizance of any other states in the sense that the state of Florida doesn't have to say "Florida Supreme Court" in its statutes it can just say "Supreme Court" like no other exists (it doesn't have to consider conflict in names because 'the whole world" to the State of Florida is ...Florida). So when the governor of Florida speaks of "the nation" he probably talking about Florida regardless of the presumptions people make.

[pumpkin]

Well then, how does the savings to suitors clause play into this? From I have read, in rem was unknown to the common law. Also, unless I misread the treaty of Paris, the crown's claim was abandoned.

[allodial]

Well then, how does the savings to suitors clause play into this? From I have read, in rem was unknown to the common law. Also, unless I misread the treaty of Paris, the crown's claim was abandoned.

I dunno how many people can read cases like State v. Manuel, Chisolm. v. Georgia or even the Treaty of Paris and not figure out were sovereignty vests in America. I just don't get it. There is a State attorney general that posts in the most clear and plain letters on his/her website explaining what the crown is in Illinois. The crown's claim wasn't abandoned, there was SUCCESSION after all out WAR. Succession or having it outright TAKEN is not ABANDONMENT.

Revolution meant in 1775 "motion backward", a return to a prior position. The colonists desired to return to their independent position of 1763 as granted by the Charters. Webster's 1828 Dictionary says of revolution: "Motion of any thing which brings it to the same point or state; as the revolution of a day." The colonists were attempting something unique. To preserve a government, not overthrow it. The meaning today is not one of preservation, but replacement in a violent way. Webster's New World Dictionary (1976) says of revolution: "overthrow of a government, form of government, or social system by those governed and usually by forceful means, with another government or system taking its place." This definition adequately explains the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution in Russia (1917), and many others. But the American Revolution, often equated with these, should not be. It had different methods and different results. Our Revolution resulted in the same people being in power before and after the War. Unique. There were no blood baths and "reigns of terror." Unique again. Our forefathers drove the announced enemy (per Prohibitory Act) from this soil, and a new nation was born. Nothing more; nothing less.

Quoting from the authors of The Revolution Myth (p. 90):

"Irving Kristol observes that 'a successful revolution is best accomplished by a people who do not really want it at all, but find themselves reluctantly making it. The American Revolution was exactly such a reluctant revolution.' In fact, it could be argued that there was no revolution at all.

A Revolution is not a rebellion. A revolution is putting things back in order as it WAS -- to REVOLVE. At the Revolution the prerogatives of the British Crown and Parliament transferred to the people (and that does not mean 'every warm body') of each colony-now-called-state. Also, every one the British colonies had an internal crown just like all of the other ones that might exist to day. This stuff is spelled out in books which one can read online for FREE.

England had its own crown and kingdom. Scotland had its own crown and kingdom. Ireland had its own crown and kingdom. That is why its called the United Kingdom(no 's') of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is a union of the English (Wales became part of England per the Statute of Rhuddlan - 1284) and Scottish crowns.

***

Civil law is another term for admiralty jurisprudence. This has been pointed out so many times I almost wonder why I am even typing it. Saving to suitors is a jurisdictional issue because a maritime power has no business making seizure on land. However, the states have admiralty jurisdiction too! Where does anyone supposed the United States got its admiralty jurisdiction? It sure didn't get it from itself!

[Michael Joseph]

Civil law is another term for admiralty jurisprudence. This has been pointed out so many times I almost wonder why I am even typing it. Saving to suitors is a jurisdictional issue because a maritime power has no business making seizure on land. However, the states have admiralty jurisdiction too! Where does anyone supposed the United States got its admiralty jurisdiction? It sure didn't get it from itself!

Exactly, it has to be granted by a higher power!




Best Regards,
MJ

[pumpkin]

There is a State attorney general that posts in the most clear and plain letters on his/her website explaining what the crown is in Illinois. The crown's claim wasn't abandoned, there was SUCCESSION after all out WAR. Succession or having it outright TAKEN is not ABANDONMENT.


Illinois is a State, so what is a State?


STATE, n. A people permanently occupying a
fixed territory bound together by common-law habits
and custom into one body politic exercising,
through the medium of an organized government,
independent sovereignty and control over all persons
and things within its boundaries, capable of
making war and peace and of entering into international
relations with other communities of the
globe.

And about the common law. Isn't the common law competent to give the remedy? I have checked with the recorder of the county. There is no record of any claim of any interest by the State or the county upon my property. Now the State having Admiralty jurisdiction is what I am getting at. State's have in rem, and in personam admiralty jurisdiction. What I am curious about, would admiralty utilize the states rules of court or precedent of the State's courts? How is it possible to tell if the in rem action concerning property tax is admiralty? It surely isn't common law, but I sure as hell would like to get it back into common law possible using the saving to suitors clause (and would that apply to a State court in admiralty jurisdiction?)

[xparte]

Commercial lands are conquered lands this land is your land my land not QUITE or Quiet titles the land whisperer . Favorited as royal domain how do titles work like a subject and predicate the latter determination and terms entitlements are under contract.The revolutionary and commercial complaint is was delivered with peasantry muskets and pitchforks albeit written on copyright representation nobility the fictional titles paper.Accepting a title when its deeded is accepting a debt . Crusades who was forced to forgive the debt .

[allodial]

Commercial lands are conquered lands this land is your land my land not QUITE or Quiet titles the land whisperer . Favorited as royal domain how do titles work like a subject and predicate the latter determination and terms entitlements are under contract.The revolutionary and commercial complaint is was delivered with peasantry muskets and pitchforks albeit written on copyright representation nobility the fictional titles paper.Accepting a title when its deeded is accepting a debt . Crusades who was forced to forgive the debt .

If you purchase a franchise there might be a fee. Simple.

Q. Is tribute exacted of children or of strangers?
A. Of [CENSORED].

Q. Then the [CENSORED] are free..meaning exempt?
A. Yes.

Q. So if I identify myself as a [CENSORED], should I expect to be taxed?
A. Yes, young grasshopper. You can count on it.