Thursday, February 21, 2008

The Mother of all Secrets! Allodial Titles!

Below is just a short clip from the Allodial Land Patent info
I have. The complete hard copy is over 100 pages of hard and
solid evidence, backed by many, many hundreds of case law cites,
Statutes at Large, etc.

Find out how your "private" property was stolen from you over
the years, with smoke and mirrors by the trickster politicians
and banksters.

There is a way to free yourself from collateral attack, from
property tax, and from foreclosures, or from other "takings"
caused by government regulations. You CAN upgrade your lowly
equity deed into a paramount supreme title to your land!

My info is current up to April 1994.

(I had been informed by several people back in the 1990's that
the BLM was working back then to nip this in the bud. After
hundreds of people begain the filings, they realized what was
taking place. Although it may be even more difficult to get your
allodial title, perhaps through civil suits it could be obtained.)

You can read all Seven sections on line, or right click and download the
simple text format files from

(begin excerpt)

The settlers as a rule seem to have been poor persons, and
presumably without the necessary funds to improve and pay for their
land, but it appears that in every case where the settlement was made
under the preemption law, the settler ... entered and paid for the
land at the expiration of the shortest period at which the entry
could be made..," Close v Stuyvesant, 132 IL. 607 (1890). We must
look to the beneficent character of the acts that created these
grants and patents and the peculiar objects they were intended to
protect and secure. A class of enterprising. hardy and most
meritorious and valuable citizens has become the pioneers in the
settlement and improvement of the new and distant lands of the
government. McConnell v Wilcox, I Scammon (ILL.) 344 (1837). "In
furtherance of what is deemed a wise policy, tending to encourage
settlement, and to develop the resources of the country, it invites
the heads of families to occupy small parcels of the public land ...
To deny Congress the power to make a valid and effective contract of
this character ... would materially abridge its power of disposal,
and seriously interfere with a favorite policy of the government,
which fosters measures tending to a distribution of the lands to
actual settlers at a nominal price." Miller v Little, 47 Cal. 348
(1874). The legislative acts, the Statutes at Large, enacted to
divest the United States of its land and to sell that land to the
true sovereigns of this republic, had very distinct intents.
Congress recognized that the average settler of this nation would
have little money, therefore Congress built into the patent, and its
corresponding act, the understanding that these lands were to be free
from avarice and cupidity, free from the speculators who preyed on
the unsuspecting nation, and forever under the control and ownership
of the freeholder, who by the sweat of his brow made the land produce
the food that would feed himself and eventually the nation, Even
today, the intent of Congress is to maintain a cheap food supply
through the retention of the sovereign farmers on the land. United
States v Kimball Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (1979); see also Curry v
Block,. 541 F. Supp. 506 (1982). Originally, the intent of Congress
was to protect the sovereign freeholders and create a permanent
system of land ownership in the country. Today, the intent of
Congress is to retain the small family farm and utilize the cheap
production of these situations, it has been necessary to protect the
sovereign on his parcel of land, and ensure that he remain in that
position. The land patent and the patent acts were created to
accomplish these goals. In other words, the patent or title deed
being regular in its form, the law will not presume that such was
obtained through fraud of the public right. This principle is not
merely an arbitrary rule of law established by the courts, rather it
is a doctrine which is founded upon reason and the soundest
principles of public policy. It is one which has been adopted in the
interest of peace in the society and the permanent security of
titles. Unless fraud is shown, the rule is held to apply to patents
executed by the public authorities. State v Hewitt Land Co. , 74 Wash
573, 134 P. 474 (1913). It is therefore necessary to determine the
exact power and authority contained in a patent.

Legal titles to lands cannot be conveyed except in the form
provided by law. McGarrahin v Mining Co., 96 U.S. 316 (1877).
Legal title to property is contingent upon the patent issuing from
the government. Sabo v Horvath, 559 P.2d 1038 (Ak. 1976).

"That the patent carries the fee and is the best title known to
a court of law is the settled doctrine of this court." Marshall v
Ladd, 7 Wallace (74 U.S.) 153 (1869). "A patent issued by the
government of the United States is legal and conclusive evidence of
title to the land described therein. No equitable interest, however
strong, to land described in such a patent, can prevail at law,
against the patent". Land Patents, Opinions of the United States
Attorney General's office, (September, (1869).

"A patent is the highest evidence of title, and is conclusive
against the government and all claiming under junior patents or
titles, until it is set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal."
Stone v United States, 2 Wallace (67 U.S.) 765 (1865).
The patent is the instrument which, under the laws of Congress,
passes title from the United States and the patent when regular on
its face, is conclusive evidence of title in the patentee. When
there is a confrontation between two parties as to the superior legal
title, the patent is conclusive evidence of title in the patentee.
When there is a confrontation between two parties as to the superior
legal title, the patent is conclusive evidence as to ownership.
Gibson v Chouteau, 13 Wallace (U.S.) (1871).

Congress having the sole power to declare the dignity and effect
of its titles has declared the patent to be the superior and
conclusive evidence of the legal title. Bagnell v Brodrick, 38 U.S.
438 (1839). "Issuance of a government patent granting title to land
is the most accredited type of conveyance known to our law". United
States v Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103 1936); see also United States v
Cherokee Nation, 474 F.2d 628 (1973).

The patent is prima facie conclusive evidence of the title.
Marsh v Brooks, 49 U.S. 223 (1850).

A patent, once issued, is the highest evidence of title, and is
a final determination of the existence of all facts. Walton v United
States, 415 F.2d 121 (10th Cir. 1969); see also United States v
Beaman, 242 F 876 (1917); File v Alaska. 593 P.2d 268, 1979) (When
the federal government grants land via a patent, the patent is the
highest evidence of title). Patent rights to the land is the title
in fee, Fine v Bradshaw, 292 P.2d 539 (1956), the patent of the fee
simple, Squire v Capoeman, 351 U.S. 16 (1956), and the patent is
required to carry the fee. Carter v Ruddy, 166 U.S. 493 (1896); see
also Klais v Danowski, 129 N.W.2d 414 (1964) (Interposition of the
patent or interposition of the fee title).

The land patent is the muniment of title, such title being
absolute in its nature, making the sovereigns absolute freeholders on
their lands. Finally, the patent is the only evidence of the legal
fee simple title, McConnell v Wilcox, 1 Scammon (ILL.) 381 (1837).

All these various cases and quotes illustrate one statement that
should be thoroughly understood at this time, the patent is the
highest evidence of title and is conclusive of the ownership of land
in courts of competent jurisdiction. This however, does not examine
the methods or possibilities of challenging a land patent.
In Hooper Et Al v Scheimer, 64 U.S. (23 Howard) 235 (1859), the
United States Supreme Court stated; "I affirm that a patent is
unimpeachable at law, except, perhaps, when it appears on its own
face to be void; and the authorities on this point are so uniform
and unbroken in the courts, Federal and State, that little else will
be necessary beyond a reference to them." Id. at 240 (1859).

A patent cannot be declared void at law, nor can a party travel
behind the patent to avoid it. Id.

A patent cannot be avoided at law in a collateral proceeding
unless it is declared void by statute, or its nullity indicated by
some equally explicit statutory denunciations . Id.

One perfect on its face is not to be avoided, in a trial at law,
by anything save an elder patent. It is not to be affected by
evidence or circumstances which might show that the impeaching party
might prevail in a court of equity. Id. at 243.

A patent is evidence, in a court of law, of the regularity of
all previous steps to it, and no facts behind it can be investigated.

A patent cannot be collaterally avoided at law, even for fraud.
Id. at 245.

A patent, being a superior title, must of course, prevail over
colors of title; nor is it proper for any state legislation to give
such titles, which are only equitable in nature with a recognized
legal status in equity courts, precedence over the legal title in a
court of law. Id. at 246,

The Hooper case has many of the maxims that apply to the powers
and possible disabilities of a land patent, however there is
extensive case law in this area.

The presumptions arise from the existence of a patent,
evidencing a grant of land from the United States, that all acts have
been performed and all facts have been shown, which are prerequisites
to its issuance, and that the right of the party, grantee therein, to
have it issued, has been presented and passed upon by the proper
authorities. Green v Barber, 66 N.W. 1032 (1896).

It is not sufficient for the one challenging a patent to show
that the patentee should not have received the patent; he must also
show that he as the challenger is entitled to it. Kale v United
States, 489 F.2d 449 (1973).

A United States patent is protected from easy third party
attacks. Fisher v Rule, 248 U.S. 314 (1919); see also Hoofnagle v
Anderson, 20 U.S. (7 Wheaton) 212 (1822).

A patent issued by the United States of America so vests the
title in the lands covered thereby, that it is the further general
rule that, such patents are not open to collateral attack. Thomas v
Union Pacific Railroad Company, 139 F. Supp. 588 (1956). See also
State v Crawford, 475 P.2d 515 (Ariz. App. 1970) (A patent is prima
facie valid, and if its validity can be attacked at all, the burden
of proof is upon the defendant); State v Crawford, 441 P. 2d 586
(Ariz. App. 1968) (A patent to land is the highest evidence of title
and may not be collaterally attacked); and Dredge v Husite Company,
369 P.2d 676 (1962) (A patent is the act of legally instituted
tribunal, done within its jurisdiction, and passes the title. Such
a patent is a final judgment as well as a conveyance and is
conclusive upon a collateral attack). Absent some facial invalidity,
the patents are presumed valid. Murray v State, 596 P, 2d 805
(1979). The government retains no power to nullify a patent except
through a direct court proceeding. United States v Reimann, 604 F.2d
135 (1974); see also Green v Barker, 66 N.W. 1032 (1896) (The
doctrine announced was that the deed upon its face, purported to have
been issued in pursuance of the law, and was therefore only
assailable in a direct proceeding by aggrieved parties to set it
aside). Through these cases, it can be shown that the patent which
passes the title from the United States to the sovereigns, and was
created to keep the speculators from the land, is only liable in a
direct proceedings for fraud or mistake. In no other situation is it
allowable for the courts, to simply eliminate the patent. One
question that may arise is what do the courts mean by a collateral
attack and what can be done by courts of equity if a collateral
attack is presented?