NO Law requires
you to record / pledge your private Land
As will be made painfully evident herewithin, Private Land is not required by any law, code or statute to be recorded. Any recording (pledge) of Private Land to any agency is strictly voluntary. Any recordation/contract you or an Attorney has done was a fraudulently conveyed act as the recording agency/lawyer told you that you must record your Private Property. The voluntary pledge that was done without just compensation is usually done through fraud, deceit, coercion and withholding of facts, which can only be construed as fraud and unjust enrichment by agency as well as a willful malicious act to unjustly enrich the recording agency and its public servants.
If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. Samuel Adams, our great president.
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, -‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).
There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property. (Police power, Due Process) Barber v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.
But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value. (Statute) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.
Justice Bandeis eloquently affirmed his condemnation of abuses practiced by Government officials, who were defendants, acting as Government officials. In the case of Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 US 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928) he declared:
"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a Government of laws, existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.
For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is
contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breads contempt for law;
it invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To
declare that, in the administration of the law, the end justifies the means
would bring a terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court
should resolutely set its face."
In HITCHENS v. ELLINGSWORTH, Supreme Court of Delaware. Sussex. April 16, 1915 (94 ATLANTIC REPORTER) it was stated:
[2-5] The legal execution and the delivery of a deed are essential to its validity. The recording of a deed is not essential to its validity … a deed takes effect from its delivery and not from its record…
[6] The possession or
control of a deed by the grantee is prima facie proof of the delivery of the
deed by the grantor…
also;
The California Constitution in Article I, Section 8 (and similar statements made
in all other
state constitutions), mandates that no one "be compelled to be a witness
against himself," is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in
Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that
to force anyone to register anything is communicative, and such
communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment.
So with that in mind, cite the case above and you have given the agency, etc. knowledge!
Under USC Title 42 §1986.
Action for neglect to prevent …, it states: Every person who, having
knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having power to
prevent or aid in preventing … Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be
liable to the party injured… and;
The means of "knowledge", especially where it consists of public record
is deemed in law to be
"knowledge of the facts". As the means of "knowledge" if it appears that
the individual had notice or information of circumstances which would put him on
inquiry, which, if followed, would lead to "knowledge", or that the facts were
presumptively within his knowledge, he will have deemed to have had actual
knowledge of the facts and may be subsequently liable for any damage or injury.
You, therefore, have been given "knowledge of the facts" as it pertains to this
conspiracy to commit a fraud against me.
I state NOW that I will NOT waive any fundamental Rights as:
“waivers of fundamental Rights
must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with
sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.
U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell,
160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)”.
And that the agency committed fraud, deceit, coercion, willful intent to injure another, malicious acts, RICO activity and conspired by;
Unconscionable “contract” - “One
which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in
distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept.”;
Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind. App. 289, 58
N.E.2d 947, 949, 950. and;
"Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized." Alexander v. Bosworth (1915), 26 C.A. 589, 599, 147 P.607.
And therefore;
“Failure to reveal the
material facts of a license or any agreement is
immediate grounds for
estoppel.” Lo Bue v. Porazzo, 48 Cal.App.2d 82, 119,
p.2d 346, 348.
The fraudulently “presumed” quasi-contractus that binds the Declarant with the CITY/STATE agency, is void for fraud ab initio, since the de facto CITY/STATE cannot produce the material fact (consideration inducement) or the jurisdictional clause (who is subject to said statute). (SEE: Master / Servant [Employee] Relationship -- C.J.S.) -- “Personal, Private, Liberty”-
Since the “consideration” is the “life blood” of any agreement or quasi-agreement, (contractus) “...the absence of such from the record is a major manifestation of want of jurisdiction, since without evidence of consideration there can be no presumption of even a quasi-contractus. Such is the importance of a “consideration.” Reading R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 7 W & S (Pa.) 317
So without a Contract (no recording of the deed) or consideration there is no City / government etc. jurisdiction as the property does not “reside” in the colorable fictitious territory as evidenced in Supreme Court cite below:
In Wheeling Steel Corp v.
Fox , 298 U.S. 193 (1936) it states: Property taxes can be on
tangibles or intangibles. In order to have a situs for
taxation (a basis for imposing the tax), tangible property (physical
property) must reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing
authority, and intangibles…
Under USC Title 42 §1982. Property rights of citizens …, further
evidences the above position that the City or State cannot take land because
they DO NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state governments /
agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in your real
private property in order to have jurisdiction over it (if your land has no
government grant/funding or is not a subsidized government project, then
agencies have neither). DEMAND any public servant/said agencies to provide the
legal document that allows any federal or state agency to supercede and/or
bypass Title 42 USC §1982 and/or §1441. Title 42 §1983.
Civil action for deprivation of rights …, further protects Declarant’s private
property.
The State cannot diminish rights of the people. Hurtado v.
California,
110 U.S. 516.
"To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature." O'Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.
"A state MAY NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted (sic) by
the Federal Constitution." MURDOCK v PENNSYLVANIA, 319 US 105.
"... THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES THE POWER TO DESTROY". McCULLOUGH v
MARYLAND, 4 Wheat 316.
"All subjects over which the sovereign power of the state extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced as self-evident. The sovereignty of the state extends to everything which exists by its authority or its permission.” McCullough v Maryland, 17 U.S. [4 Wheat] 316 (1819).
U.S. adopted Common laws of
England with the Constitution. Caldwell vs. Hill, 178 SE 383
(1934).
To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. (Jury) Hoke v. Henderson, 15, N.C. 15 25 AM Dec 677.
"The phrase 'common law' found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity, and admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence." Parsons v. Bedford, et al, 3 Pet 433, 478-9.
"If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction." Ramsey v. Allegrie, supra, p. 411.
Inferior Courts - The term may denote any court subordinate to the chief tribunal in the particular judicial system; but it is commonly used as the designation of a court of special, limited, or statutory jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity to its judgment. In re Heard’s Guardianship, 174 Miss. 37, 163, So. 685.
The high Courts have further decreed, that Want of Jurisdiction makes “...all acts of judges, magistrates, U.S. Marshals, sheriffs, local police, all void and not just voidable.” Nestor v. Hershey, 425 F2d 504.
Void Judgment - “One which has no legal force or effect, invality of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092.
Voidable Judgment - “One apparently valid, but in truth wanting in some material respect.” City of Lufkin v. McVicker, Tex.Civ.App., 510 S.W. 2d 141, 144.
Property MUST be devoted
/ pledged to the public with your consent and being fully compensated for such
"... In one of the so-called elevator cases, that of Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, [24 L. Ed. 77], it is said: 'When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public have an interest, he in effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.' But so long as he uses his property for private use, and in the absence of devoting it to public use, the public has no interest therein which entitles it to a voice in its control. Other case to the same effect are Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, [36 L. Ed. 247, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 468]; Weems Steamboat Co. v. People's Co., 214 U. S. 345, [16 Ann. Cas. 1222, 53 L. Ed. 1024, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 661]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622]; and Del Mar Water Co. v. Eshleman, 167 Cal. 666, [140 Pac. 591, 948]. Indeed, our attention is directed to no authority in this state or elsewhere holding otherwise." Associated etc. Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 526.
"... That subjecting petitioners' property to the use of the public as common carriers constitutes a taking of the same, admits of no controversy. 'Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and free enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of the constitution. ... It is not necessary, in order to render the statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must in terms or effect authorize the actual physical taking of the property or the thing itself, so long as it affects its free use and enjoyment, or the power of disposition at the will of the owner.' (Forster v. Scott,136 N. Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622]. ... Mr. Lewis in his work on Eminent Domain, third edition, section 11, says: 'A law which authorizes the taking of private property without compensation, ... cannot be considered as due process of law in a free government.' (Chicago etc, R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, [41 L. Ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581]." Associated etc. Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 528-530.
The binding shackles of Government is the Constitution, to wit:
The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his (God's) laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. 1772, Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109.
If the state
were to be given the power to destroy rights through taxation, then
the framers of our constitutions wrote said documents in vain.
A republic is not an easy form of government to live under, and when the
responsibility of citizenship is evaded, democracy decays and authoritarianism
takes over. Earl Warren, "A Republic, If You Can Keep It", p 13.
An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no duties,
and affords no protection. Norton vs.
Shelby County,
118 US 425.
“Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every department of the state government. State ex rel. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335.
"The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either
municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution.
They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are
merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent
that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies
of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but
the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but
states again these rights already existing, and when legislative
encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and
permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to
afford the necessary relief. City of
Dallas, et al. v.
Mitchell,
245 S. W.
944, 945-46 (1922).
A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.
"Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property." Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474.
"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another". SIMMONS v US, supra.
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.
History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government." Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. -- So. Dist. CA.
Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. Riley v. Certer, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P.2d 666; 79 ALR 1018.
When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459.
"The 'liberty' guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light
of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known
to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the
individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomote, and
generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Myer v. Nebraska, 262 U
.S. 390, 399; United States v. Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803).
It cannot be assumed
that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted
it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When
the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all
courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to
restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We
must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for
it is the mandate of the sovereign power. Cook vs Iverson, 122,
N.M. 251.
"Right of
protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere
right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land,
and force of body politic."
Billings v. Hall
(1857), 7 C. 1.
"Constitution of this
state declares, among inalienable rights of each citizen, that of
acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This is one of primary
objects of government, is guaranteed by constitution, and cannot be impaired by
legislation."
Billings v. Hall
(1857), 7 C. 1.
State Constitution - “The state constitution is the mandate of a
sovereign people to its servants and representatives. Not one of them has a
right to ignore or disregard these mandates...” John F. Jelko Co. vs.
Emery, 193 Wisc. 311; 214 N.W. 369, 53 A.L.R., 463; Lemon
vs. Langlin, 45 Wash. 2d 82, 273 P.2d 464.
People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93.
The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. (Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p.3270, sec. 1.)
The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by circuitous route. Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234.
“the government is but an agency to the state,” -- the state being the sovereign people. State v. Chase, 175 Minn, 259, 220 N.W. 951, 953.
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.
"...The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared." Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).
"The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign..." Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY).
Government / Public Servants / Officers / Judges Not Immune from suit!
"Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility while liability promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its people." (Civil Rights) (Rabon vs Rowen Memorial Hospital, Inc. 269 N.S. 1, 13, 152 SE 1 d 485, 493
Government Immunity - “In Land v. Dollar, 338 US 731 (1947), the court noted, “that when the government entered into a commercial field of activity, it left immunity behind.” Brady v. Roosevelt, 317 US 575 (1943); FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. RFC, 306 US 381 (1939).
The high Courts, through their citations of authority, have frequently declared, that “...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 Us 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308;
“When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially (and thus are not protected by “qualified” or “limited immunity,” - SEE: Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662; Bothke v. Terry, 713 F2d 1404) - - “but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency -- but only in a “ministerial” and not a “discretionary capacity...” Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464.
Immunity for judges does not extend to acts which are clearly outside of their jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel, C.A. N.J. 1966, 361 F.2d 581, Cert. Den. 87 S.Ct. 1367, 386 U.S. 1021, 18 L.Ed. 2d 457 (see also Muller v. Wachtel, D.C.N.Y. 1972, 345 F.Supp. 160; Rhodes v. Houston, D.C. Nebr. 1962, 202 F.Supp. 624 affirmed 309 F.2d 959, Cert. den 83 St. 724, 372 U.S. 909, 9 L.Ed. 719, Cert. Den 83 S.Ct. 1282, 383 U.S. 971, 16 L.Ed. 2nd 311, Motion denied 285 F.Supp. 546).
"Judges not only can
be sued over their official acts, but could be held liable for injunctive and
declaratory relief and attorney's fees." Lezama v.
Justice Court,
A025829.
"The immunity of
judges for acts within their judicial role is beyond cavil." Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1957).
"There is no common law judicial immunity." Pulliam v. Allen,
104S.Ct. 1970; cited in Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829.
"Judges, members of city council, and police officers as well as
other public officials, may utilize good faith defense of action for damages
under 42-1983, but no public official has absolute immunity from suit
under the 1871 civil rights statute." (Samuel vs University of Pittsburg,
375 F.Supp. 1119, 'see also, White vs Fleming 374 Supp. 267.)
TAKE DUE NOTICE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, SERVANTS, JUDGES, LAYERS, CLERKS, EMPLOYEES:
"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.
"All are presumed to know the law." San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel
(1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C.
182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P.
1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107;
San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P.
368.
"It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law
excuses no one." Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.
Jurisdiction challenged to all, at any and all times
once due process is
denied ALL jurisdiction ceases (SEE your law: 5 USC Sections 556(d), 557, 706
"Judge acted in the
face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of (personal)
jurisdiction would be liable." Dykes v. Hosemann, 743 F.2d 1488
(1984).
"In such case the judge has lost his judicial function, has become a mere
private person, and is liable as a trespasser for damages resulting from his
unauthorized acts."
"Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is as nothing.
Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also
Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351." Manning v. Ketcham,
58 F.2d 948.
"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the
clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority
exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when
the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is
permissible." Bradley v.Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352.
AT LAST
“But, in fact and in
law, such statutes are intended to be applied to those who are
here as "residents" in this State under the Interstate Commerce Clause of
the Federal Constitution and the so-called
Fourteenth Amendment.”
United States v United
Mine Workers of America,
(1947) 67 S.Ct. 677, 686, 330 U.S. 258.
Notice to all whom these presents may come:
“I am NOT here as a resident of any State (Nation), nor am I “in this State”, nor a "citizen of the United States" (in Congress assembled) as ALL are fictions/creations of government and therefore no statutes apply to Me as evidenced in above case. I am a Creature of Nature (the Creator) and therefore am transient by Nature traveling through Life in intinere, as a neutral, for a short time, on my way to the greater beyond, a steward of my fathers land and wishes. My documents of “in intinere” standing are recorded for all to see.” See: Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US (19 How.) 393, 595 (1857) Justice Curtis, S.Ct..
Notice of Full Faith and Credit
(I, Me, Myself am a “state”,
with standing, standing in “original jurisdiction” know as the common law, God’s
Law, a neutral traveling in itinere, demanding all of my rights under God’s
Natural Law, recorded in part in the Bible, which law is recognized in US Public
Law 97-280 as “the word of God and all men are admonished to learn and apply it”
so I demand anyone and everyone to notice God’s Laws, which are My Makers Laws
and therefore My Laws!)
– Article 1 of the Bill of Rights – guarantees freedom of religion-
Constitution for the United States of America ARTICLE IV, sect. 1, Full faith and credit among states. (Self-executing constitutional provisions) Section 1. Full faith and Credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other state.
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Guide to purchasing Private Property
This process works when you are paying cash/in full or have secured private funds/banker in order to procure the property/home. A bank giving you a mortgage may demand you record the property so ask them up front if you are using a public bank/mortgage company. If you have the funds to pay in full or do not have the funds but have secured funding, either way, you NEVER tell the seller, builder, realtor or their lawyer that YOU are paying for the property/home or who your lender is. You are acting on behalf of the buyer. All the entities need to know is that you will pay in full when all the proper documents have been provided as stated below. Do not do an electronic funds transfer from your lender or your bank account to the seller. Get a certified check so your name/address etc. are not on the check.
With the aforementioned be sure not to have a lawyer representing you in your purchase of Private Property and demand that the Deed not be recorded, as you will take care of any tasks required by law.
Make a statement that if the property is recorded the contract is voided and that all monies plus damages will be refunded/assessed for breach of contract.
When purchasing a home be sure you express that they must pass clear title on everything before a payment is made. Once the contract is complete to your satisfaction sign it with reservation of rights and be sure you put the statement on the contract saying they must pass clear title then wait for closing to make the payment They must to pass everything to you, everything has to be paid before you can pay them or they do not have clear title. You have to have all the evidence of such. Somebody has to sign off to you on the papers that they are passing good title here so that you can take possession whether it is the title company or builder or real estate agent.
Add a statement to the contract such as:
“Each undersigned seller certifies to the best of his knowledge, information and belief under penalty of
law that the private property herein described at the time of delivery is NOT subject to any security
interests and WARRANT title to be free and clear of any encumbrances, and for the value received by
seller does transfer full and clear deed/title to property herein described.”
So if they are selling the property they must be able to guarantee to you the title and possession of the property so you ask them to put the proof on the table where they have paid the owner or the Seller. If that’s not there, don’t give them a check! Because they are probably trying to take your check and pay for it and then step in there and make claims. The Seller has to be satisfied with a check in hand by either themselves or an agent who then signs off on the agreement. You make sure there is something in the agreement that shows whoever pays the Seller. The Seller has to sign off as having received payment in full
Be sure to set it up here so that everything is going to have to be on the contract before you’re going to put any earnest money on it.
Don’t give them a check at that real estate closing until everything is on the table, until they have everything there and you can ask them here for the acknowledgment invoice for you to sign.
State “I need all the papers here if you want to have my earnest money. I have to know if you can pass title. If you can’t pass any title here, if you can’t pay the seller off, I’m surely not going to give you any money here, because I want to see you’ve already paid the seller. That’s what my banker told me to watch for here, to be sure every dollar that’s listed on this contract has been paid out and the people it goes to have signed off on it, that I have that particular receipt in my hand.” You also go there with a witness, and every time something in that closing is agreed to and settled, stuff it inside of an envelope and that’s a done deal. The reason you do that is so that they don’t have any bystanders around that can testify to something other than settlement. Somebody goes with you. If you have an item for settlement on a receipt here for the utilities or water then that goes in the envelope, because you show where the Realtor has paid for it. Maybe the realtor is going to sign off for all of those, but you have to have that, and you just tell them, “My banker insisted you have that in your possession,” before you can give him a check. So the escrow can close immediately and not be held up, because of some unpaid, outstanding lien.
If they’re demanding both sides are represented by a BAR attorney then inform them these instructions will go to their attorney. Because you are the representative, you’re representing the strawman. You’re the attorney in fact. Just tell them, “I am the attorney here and I’m closing for the owner. I’m the representative of the owner. I’m not the owner of the property, but I can sign for the owner, and I have the owner’s check here, and the owner has already signed the check.”