Property taxes are unconstitutional

the whole premise of your post however is double-minded. You cannot title a sodium hydroxide solution in "water" in h20 because its NOT. Its not "limited" water! Water limited to or by its acid components, or alkaline in this case. Thats ridiculous.

"allodial title since the four basic restrictions that apply to fee simple ownership, apply to it as well: taxation, expropriation, escheat and eminent domain."

Only a psychopathic con artist or someone who is completely unknowledgeable about land law would try and actually "sell" all the elements of a feudatory fee-simple contract to someone as "allodial", any different than sodium hydroxide solution as water:

So are you saying that is someone elses argument put up as a sacrificial lamb for me to obliterate or something that you actually agree with?

Now I told you in my last post there is no such thing as "limited allodial title", where are you getting that jibberish from? And even if there was it does not change the substantial meaning of allodial title but only serves to blur the lines between in-fee and allodial which are otherwise already perfectly clear.

Blackstone spells out the difference between allodial title and fee simple is quite clearly;


In the second volume of his commentaries {Lewis' ed. at p. 104-5.) Blackstone wrote:

1. Tenant in fee simple [ALL land titles in America are FEE-SIMPLE] (or, as he is frequently styled, tenant in fee) is he that hath lands, tenements, or hereditaments, to hold to him and to his heirs forever; generally, absolutely and simply; without mentioning what heirs, but referring that to his own pleasure, or to the disposition of the law.

The true meaning of the word fee (feo¬dum) is the same with that of ferid or fief, and in its original sense it is taken in contradiction to allodium which latter the writers on this subject define to every man’s own land, which he possesseth merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior. This is property in its highest degree; and the owner there¬of hath absolutum et directum dominium, and therefore is said to be seized thereof absolutely in dominico suo, in his own demesne.

But feodum, or fee, is that which is held of some superior, on condition of rendering him service; in which superior the ULTIMATE property of the land resides.

And therefore Sir Henry Spelman defines a feud or fee to be the right which the vassal or tenant hath in lands, to use the same, and take the profits thereof to him and his heirs, rendering to the lord his due services; the mere allodial property of the soil always remaining in the lord.

This allodial property no subject in England has; it being a received and now undeniable principle in the law, that all the lands in England are holden mediately or immedi¬ately of the King. The King therefore only hath absolutum et direc¬tum dominium; but all subjects’ lands are in the nature of feodum or fee; whether derived to them by descent from their ancestors, or pur¬chased for a valuable consideration; for they cannot come to any man by either of those ways, unless accompanied with those feudal clogs which were laid upon the first feudatory when it was originally granted. A subject therefore hath only the usufruct, and not the ab¬solute property of the soil; or, as Sir Edward Coke expresses it, he hath dominium utile, but not dominium directum. And hence it is. that, in the most solemn acts of law, we express the strongest and highest estate that any subject can have by these words:—"he is seised thereof in his demesne, ‘as of fee*”. It is a man’s demesne, dominicum, or property, since it belongs to him and his heirs forever; yet this dominicum, property or demesne, is strictly not absolute or allodial, but qualified or feudal; it is his demesne, as of fee; that is, it is NOT purely and simply his own, since it is held of a superior lord, in whom the ULTIMATE property resides.



That said, lets look at the present day wisconsin
constitution which claims all lands are allodial property;

and then

So "the king" has been regurgitated and relabeled as "the people" leaving all the old law of the realm in tact.

so who or what KNOWINGLY gave the state the authority to STOMP on my or your INDIVIDUAL rights? I would NEVER sign a contract like that would you?

so the property belongs to the state [the people] in which it is situate and they should be paying me taxes to maintain it for them should they not?


it should be pretty clear if you live in ANY country colonized or conquered by the british you own NOTHING!

 

an amendment is also called an article.

incidentally, for those who noticed "hua", for those who didnt better study.

The "soil" was granted to the states........all we get is the "land" and tenements etc.... For those who did not catch that, go back and read blackstone again Puts a whole new understanding of how this house of cards legal system works. or not.

 

You can declare whatever you want, but by your standard if I declare you have to give me all your money are you going to simply say yessa massa thanksya sir?

Nope you are going to say who the hell gave you the right to tell me I have to give you all my money.

I will say, why me and da boyz over here that you voted to run the joint for you did.

You will say he wait a minute I didnt say you can STOMP all over my rights!

I will say to f'ing bad here is the constitution contract and you did not say that we couldnt stomp all over your rights so stop your incessant whining and pay up pal!

That is the scenario you are referring to as law of the land. If you think a private inhabitant has a contract with the state lets see it?

Anarchy? Whats that? Absence of government? Absence of government is not anarcy. Absence of law is anarchy. as long as people agree to abide by community decisions made by "THEIR" courts, not government courts, anarchy cannot exist. Do you recognize the distinction? So no I do not suggest no agreements what so ever between people, which in fact is an impossible situation in the first place.

Yes the limits for land ownership in anything the british touched is usufruct, in other words own = feudatory rent. Fail to pay the rent yer otta there pal!

 

Simply facts.

The Articles of the U.S. Constitution are the basis upon which the U.S.A. was founded as a nation. Article V provides the means by which changes may be made via the Amendment process.

Article 1, Section 9 addresses titles of nobility, etc., and Amendment XIII only addresses slavery.

I find nothing in the U.S. Constitution making property taxes 'unconstitutional', so if a form of property belonging to one person is taxable, that of all persons is taxable, unless specifically exempted within the law imposing the tax.

Please excuse the interruption.

 

There are NO allodial titles in the united states period. That includes nevada and this has nothing to do with a "citizen".

Painting a pile of shit gold with a new label does not mean the substance is gold. Do you understand that concept? In fact that is fraud on its face under the statute of frauds.

Just because certain properties are "tax exepmt" does not imply they are allodial of have an allodial title. Not even the states have allodial title.

There is no such thing as sort of allodial.

You did not address any of the law I put up and I will ask you again; what happened to allodial title in this country? How did we get stripped of that right.

If you want to make crazy claims that things are "sort of" allodial produce the records as I have done to support my case.

thats right everyone pays taxes and are subjects in a feudal system, exect those granted exemption by the king, or state same difference..

 

yep I have had that in my collection for years. In fact I personally had a very long conversation with one of the legislative attorneys ( to the tune of over an hour and a half ), who drafted that review, pointing out a couple of their errors and later sending him the the standing law in that regard in which to my surprise he thanked me.

What do you think is relevant to this discussion in that review?

 

yes very simple.

the unlawfully removed art 13 that I posted and the art you cite have completely different meanings. do you know what they are?

 

are you kidding?

an article in the sense it is used is an enumerated particular.

the original ratified 13th amendment refers to nobility, not slavery.

it demonstrates the government has no bounds when it comes to committing fraud against the people who foolishly think they created it.


You can declare whatever you want, but by your standard if I declare you have to give me all your money are you going to simply say yessa massa thanksya sir?........

Yes the limits for land ownership in anything the british touched is usufruct, in other words own = feudatory rent. Fail to pay the rent yer otta there pal!

put whatever label you want on it, its also very true and on point. You already said it, I merely clarified it.

 

It would appear my education ended long before most of those posting in these forums were born, so I tend to look at the Constitution relative to how it was taught me.
On the subject of taxation, no government can operate without some means of funding it.

Allow me to first express from my education, 1941-1953, how our government was intended to work.
As the Revolutionary war was fought to free both the people and the land from rule by Great Britain, it was seen as both necessary and beneficial for the States to unite in defending both the people and the lands they occupied, not only from abroad, but also from each other. The Constitution was written with an attempt to allow the people to achieve the greatest amount of freedom possible, with restrictions imposed as a result of consensual agreement, by both the people and the States. The Declaration of Independence speaks for the individual, as the sovereign most entity, who in order to secure their rights institute Governments.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

These Governments, Local, State, and Federal are both created and empowered by the people. That would presume that the people wielded power over the government and not the government wielded power over the people, even in the name of their best interests without first having received their consent.

Now, back to property taxes, governments are created to protect both the people and their property, therefore I find no reason property should not be taxed as a means of providing the protection afforded it. Since property taxes are applied at State or local levels of governments there may be some benefit to holding alodial title to property, but that would be covered by individual State laws.
The U.S. Constitution was written relative to the operation of the Federal level of government in conjunction with the individual States, not the individual people. Taxes, as well as representation was to be apportioned each State based upon the States proportion of population of the whole population. That was changed by the progressive movement in 1913 with the 16th amendment. I might add that in my schooling, the Federal Reserve Act, 16th and 17th amendments were not taught as good changes, but in combination would have the effect of taking power away from the people, Local and State governments and in effect achieve what our government has become today.

In my opinion, property taxes are a petty issue and Federal income taxes are a much greater issue, but few are willing to give up a free lunch.

 

We pay tax and never get much, kids grown up, live remote 15klms from tar, never get the grader or nothin.

 

because "freedom" is spelled feudal in america and feudal is SOP of the nobility.

I do too, however to be effective, if there were such a thing as an honest government court, people need to have a good understanding of the system and how it works. You cant change what you dont understand, and simply throwing a piece of paper in my face with soap box declarations on it that I had nothing to do with and not a party to, trying to convince me it somehow applies to me, well you all better guess again. You and others wanna tell me that I am subject to YOUR RULE fine.

I want bonafide citations that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt "in-fact" that "I" subrogated my rights and knowingly and willingly "consented" that the constitutional liabilities do apply to me.

 

The original handwritten copy of the 13th amendment contains the following text:
"AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

It contains no reference at all to nobility. I assume you are basing your claim on the Master/slave relationship?

But how did this become relevant to the Constitutionality of property tax?

 

Sounds like a local or county government issue.