First Principle: All Rights Flow From Title

09 Mar

Thomas Jefferson - Series of 1869 $2 bill

Thomas Jefferson – Series of 1869 $2 bill (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“What follows is personal conjecture that I cannot prove and might contain fundamental errors.  But I’ve considered these possibilities for over a decade and I remain convinced that they’re at least interesting and possibly correct:

According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856 A.D.), all rights flow from title.

For example, my “right” to drive or sell my car, is based on my “title” to that car. So long as I have valid title, I have the right to drive or sell that car.  My “rights” to any property flow from my title to that property.

But since I lack title to your car, I have no right to drive it. If I attempt to drive or sell a car for which I have no title, I can be charged with a crime. The same is true for houses, computers or any other form of property. Rights flow from title.

Thus, if you have no title, you have no rights.  If you have diminished title, you have diminished rights.

The idea that rights flow from title is, for most Americans, important and unexpected. I.e., most of us believe that we go to a Ford dealer to buy a physical automobile when, in fact, we are actually buying the title to the particular automobile. We don’t buy the car; we buy the title to the car.  This distinction may seem irrelevant, but it’s vital. Legally, that 2,000-pound car is virtually insignificant. It’s the title that has value. When you “buy” a property, you’re not really “buy­ing” the land, the car, the house—you’re “buying” the title to that property.

Anyone who doubts that rights flow from title and the real ob­ject of sales is the title rather than the tangible object, need only try “buying” a new Cadillac from some stranger on the street for $500. I guarantee that if you didn’t get a legitimate title to that Caddy, you’ve got nothing. When the police catch up with you, you’ll certainly loose possession of the Caddy and you’ll probably have to do some very fancy talking to avoid being charged with receiving stolen property (receiving property without a legitimate title).

Once you recognize that your right to drive the Caddy flows from the title to that car, you’ll begin to see that the critical element of every sale is not the physical property, but the title to that prop­erty. In the final analysis, ownership of the physical Cadillac is noth­ing. Ownership of the title to that Caddy is everything.

That being so, next time you purchase a car, you might want to spend less time relishing the new car smell and all the bells and whistles on the dashboard, and instead pay close attention to the real item of value: the title.  But if you’re like most Americans, you don’t even know what the title to your car is.

Ancient principle

The relationship between title and rights is enshrined in the an­cient principle that the person who owns the money also owns what­ever that money is used to buy.

For example, suppose I give an employee $100 and send him to town to buy some groceries—who owns the groceries?  Me or my employee?  In fact, even if the receipt carries the employee’s name, if I owned the money, the groceries purchased with my “money” are legally mine.

(But did I really own that “money”?)

That same principle applies to the purchase of automobiles with bank loans. Because the bank “owns” the “money” (actually, credit) that you borrowed to purchase the car, the bank also owns title to the car—at least, until you repay the loan used to purchase the automo­bile.

(But did the bank really own the “money”?)

At first glance, most people would say the relation between title and rights seems fairly clear. But that relationship is actually quite subtle and confusing since every property contains two titles: legal title (right of ownership and control) and equitable title or interest (right of use or possession). While most of us understand whether or not we have a “title” to a particular piece of property, few of us know to ask what kind of title we have.

Determining the kind of title is critical since our rights “flow from title” and therefore our rights relative to a particular property vary hugely depend­ing on whether we have: 1) legal title; or 2) equitable title; or 3) both titles (“perfect title”) to that particular property.  The kind of title we have determines the kind of rights we have.

The difference between legal and equitable titles can be superfi­cially illustrated by comparing the rights of a father who presumably “owns” his car to the rights of his teenage son who wants to “use” dad’s car.

If the father has legal title, then he owns the car and can do what­ever he wants with it, whenever he wants. While he may give his son “equitable title” to use the car for his Friday night dates, that equi­table title is always subject to Dad’s legal title and consequent right of absolute control.  If dad says no cigarette butts in the ashtray, Junior had better do as dad says if he wants to use dad’s car again.

The person holding legal title always holds superior, control­ling rights; the person holding equitable title has inferior and condi­tional rights. Dad can regulate or stop Junior from using Dad’s car anytime Dad wants, for any reason Dad thinks is appropriate—and Junior has virtually no recourse.

Figuratively speaking, the guy with legal title is always the “man”; the guy with equitable title is always the “boy”.

The man who owns the money . . .

If you read the text on the Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) in your wallet, you’ll see, “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.”  Some people still regard this statement as an assur­ance that our paper “money” is as “good as gold”. They couldn’t be more mistaken.

I’m sure that pre-1933 gold coins were lawful “tender” with which people could buy both legal and equitable titles to property.  When you held a gold coin in your hand, it was presumed that you owned that one ounce of gold and therefore held both legal and equitable titles to that one-ounce coin.  Because you held both legal and equitable titles to the coin, you could use that coin to buy both legal and equitable titles to whatever good or product that you wanted to buy.

However, today, our currency is not “tender” (the term seen in Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of the Constitution and refers to gold and silver coin).  Instead, we have pieces of paper (Federal Reserve Notes; “FRNs” and digital units of credit on our credit cards) that are labeled as “legal tender”.  “Legal tender” is not equivalent to constitutional “tender”.  With “tender” (gold/silver) you can buy both legal and equitable titles to property.  With “legal tender” you can only acquire equitable title.

I’m convinced that “legal tender” (a kind of legal fiction that’s enforced by law) is a disability since the person using this inferior form of currency can only “purchase” equi­table title to property. (The distinction between “buy” and “purchase” is enormous. You “buy” or “exchange” legal title, but you can only “purchase” or “transfer” equi­table title.)

The “legal tender” statement on every FRN is the government’s/Federal Reserve System’s way of providing legal notice (just like the warnings on packages of cigarettes) that FRNs are not as “good as gold” and should not be used unless you’re willing to accept the “legal tender” disability.

FRNs are an inferior form of currency (not true money) because the Federal Reserve System loans FRNs into circulation. Being loaned into circulation, FRNs are similar to cars purchased with bank loans. I.e., so long as the money used to purchase the car belongs to the bank (until you completely repay the loan), title to the car remains with the bank. That may be part of the reason why the bank can repossess your car if you fall behind in your payments without even taking you to court. Until the original bank loan is completely repaid, you have no unaliened title to “your” car and thus no right to resist a taking by the bank that holds superior title. The bank can repossess your car just like a daddy can repossess a bicycle from his misbehaving child.

As another illustration, suppose I bought a very distinctive pen that was worth $200.  Suppose I loaned my pen to Bob.  Although I owned both legal and equitable titles to the pen, by loaning my pen to Bob, I would figuratively give equitable title to the pen to Bob.  I would retain legal title to the pen (actual ownership).  Bob would enjoy equitable title to use the pen so long as I agreed to lend it to him.

Bob’s friends and family would notice the distinctive pen Bob was using and, after a while, would begin to refer to the pen as “Bob’s pen”. People would routinely confuse Bob’s equitable right to use the pen with the legal right to own and control the pen.

But, if I loaned the pen to Bob, that’s my pen.  Bob might be entitled to use that pen for years, but I can take my pen back anytime I please so long as I hold legal title.  Hypothetically, I might even be able to argue in a court of law that, because Bob used my pen and my ink to write his latest novel, I’m therefore entitled to a percentage of the profits earned from selling that book.

Similarly, because FRNs are loaned into circulation, until the original loan that placed some particular FRNs into circula­tion is repaid, legal title to the physical pieces of green paper you carry in your wallet remains with Federal Reserve System. You may have equitable title to “use” those green pieces of paper, but you don’t own them.  You don’t have legal title to the FRNs in your wallet.

That’s probably why police can seize (“repossess”) any sum of cash over $10,000 without going to court. In truth, the person holding all that cash has only equitable title to that $10,000 and thus no legal title and no legal right to resist the government’s seizure.  Even though they may have honestly earned the $10,000, they can’t own legal title to that “currency”—any more than you own legal title to the FRNs in your wallet.

Thus, you and I may get to “use” (have equitable title to) the FRNs in our wallets (just as Bob can “use” my pen to write his novel), but legal title to those FRNs remains with the Federal Reserve System (just as legal title to my pen remains with me after I loaned the pen to Bob).

Bizarre implications

If this chain of conjecture is valid, we’re led to the seemingly bi­zarre implication that whenever we “purchase” property with FRNs, legal title to that property goes to the Federal Reserve System. (Re­member? The party that owns the money, owns whatever that money is used to buy.) As a result, by making a purchase with FRNs, we may divide the title to that property such that the Fed receive legal title and we only receive the inferior equitable title (right to possess and use) to that property.

If so, legal title to everything we’ve ever “purchased” with FRNs (our homes, cars, boats, clothes, etc.) may belong to the Federal Reserve System. And although we get to “use” all that property and presume it to be our own, we have no more legal rights to “our” property than the teenage boy has to his father’s car. Yes, the boy’s equitable right to use that car will stand up against all other boys—but it will not stand up against any controls imposed by his dad. By virtue of his superior title, dad wins every time.

Legal exchange vs. equitable transfer

True “money” (generally, gold and silver) is known as a “medium of exchange“.

The word “exchange” is significant, since any transaction includ­ing legal title is described as an “exchange” while transactions involv­ing only equitable title are called “transfers“. I.e., you “exchange” le­gal titles to property.

You can also simultaneously “exchange” legal and equitable title to property.

But when the title that’s chang­ing hands between the seller and purchaser is only “equitable,” the trans­action is a “transfer“.

In an actual “exchange” of legal titles, the parties are called the “buyer” and the “seller”. In a transfer of equitable title, the parties are identified as the “transferor” (corresponding to “seller”) and “transferee” (purchaser).

In a transfer there may be no true “buyer” since that term (and also “buy”) normally signals the “exchange” of a legal title. Instead, in a transfer of equitable title there’s a “seller” and a “purchaser“—one who merely receives equitable title to property. While the terms “buy” and “buyer” imply the exchange of legal titles to property, “purchase” indicates only the “transfer” of a property’s equitable title (and thus only the right to use—but not truly own and control—the prop­erty).

Certificates of (which?) title

The distinction between legal exchanges and equitable purchases is illuminated by Article 6687-1(24)(a) of Vernon’s Texas Civil Stat­utes (1994). That article declares that an automobile’s Certificate of Title must include:

“The name and address of the purchaser and seller at the first sale or transferee and transferor at any subsequent sale.” [emph. add.]

The “first sale” refers to the transaction between the new car’s manufacturer (seller) and the first person to “purchase“—not “buy”­ the vehicle.  All subsequent “sales” of the (now) “used car” will be between “transferor” and “transferee“.

Why does the manufacturer “sell” his newly-manufactured auto to a “purchaser”?  Because the “purchaser” pays in FRNs and therefore can’t personally acquire the legal title to the new automobile.  Because FRNs are loaned into circulation, the Federal Reserve System retains legal title to the FRNs.  The purchaser who holds FRNs in his wallet is only entitled to equitable title (right of use) to those FRNs.  Thus, when FRNs are used to purchase property, the purchaser can only acquire equitable title.  Legal title to the property purchased defaults to the owner of legal title to the FRNs—the Federal Reserve System.

All subsequent sales of the (now “used” car) will not affect the legal title since the original “purchaser” only acquired equitable title and, thus, has no legal title to sell.  Therefore, all subsequent sales will be “transfers” of equitable title to the “used” car from the current owner (transferor) to another “purchaser” (transferee) who will only acquire equitable title to the “used” car.

Conjecture Applied

Let’s assume the previous conjecture is roughly correct.

And let’s assume that Bob is paying $20,000 for a new car today plus additional fees for “tax, title and license”.

I guarantee that when Bob pays an additional fee for the “title” (in “tax, title and license”), Bob believes he’s buying perfect “title” to his car from the STATE.

But Bob is a public school graduate and therefore ignorant.  Bob doesn’t understand that when he paid $20,000 for the car, he didn’t buy the physical car, he purchased a title to that car.   Bob doesn’t understand that the actual perfect title to the car is the MSO—the Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin.  Bob doesn’t understand that when the car dealer sends the MSO to the STATE, that the STATE acquires legal title (ownership and control) over “Bob’s” car.  Bob doesn’t understand that the “Certificate of Title” that the STATE sends back is not the actual “Title”—it’s merely a document that “certifies” that a title exists, that the STATE holds legal title (true ownership) to the car, and Bob holds equitable title (right of use).

Later, Bob might wonder why the STATE gave him a traffic ticket for not fastening his seat belt, not having a Drivers License, or not having insurance on “his” car.  After all, if Bob hasn’t hurt anyone by having a accident with his car, where’s the injured party to complain about no seat belt, license or insurance?

But Bob doesn’t understand that by virtue of discharging his debt for the car with FRNs, he only acquired equitable title to the car—and the STATE acquired legal title.  Bob doesn’t understand that by donating the MSO to the STATE, the STATE became the owner of the car and can set any rules and regulations it likes concerning the operation of its property.

I.e., if the STATE/owner of legal title to the car says the person driving the car must have a drivers license, the driver better have one.  If STATE/owner of legal title to the car says the operator must fasten a seat belt and have insurance, the operator better comply—just as Bob once had to comply with his dad’s requirements, when Bob used his dad’s car to take his girlfriend to the Junior Prom.

The owner of legal title to the car has every right to set the terms under which its car can be used/“operated” by the holder of equitable title.  All those traffic tickets aren’t really based on “law” so much as who holds legal title to the automobile.

Same principle applies to home and land.  The STATE can tell you how high your grass can grow or how much junk you can have in the back yard because the STATE holds legal title to your land.  You may have purchased equitable title your property, but that only entitles you to “use” that property on whatever terms are set by the STATE/owner of legal title to that property.

So long as you only hold equitable title to any of your property, you may think you “own” that property, but you don’t—you only have a right of use.

So long as you purchase property with FRNs, you’ll never purchase more than equitable title.


Posted by on March 9, 2013 in Money, Rights, Title


Tags: , , , , ,

68 responses to “First Principle: All Rights Flow From Title

  1. Paul M

    March 9, 2013 at 11:49 AM

    Do you have any reference to getting back the MSO from the ‘state’?

    • Adask

      March 9, 2013 at 12:04 PM

      I’ve been told that the MSO is destroyed when it’s acquired by “this state”. I don’t know that that’s true. That MSO is worth some money ($20 to $50K each?). It’s similar to a mini-mortgage and thus might be bundled along with other debt instruments to be sold to foreign financial institutions.

      But whatever happens, I’ve never heard of anyone recovering the original MSO from the state gov-co.

      Let’s suppose the original title is lost or destroyed. Then what?

      How ’bout we consider making a new one? Like a bill of sale? If I sell my car to you and I make a bill of sale that indicates you are buying full legal and equitable title to the car, will the government stand up in court to deny that I hold perfect title to the car? Will they produce evidence to refute my claim that I sold you the “perfect title” to the car or deny your claim that you bought perfect title to that car?

      Inquiring minds . . . .

      • Paul M

        March 10, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        I am in the process of getting the MSO for my Commando. The title was from Nevada and I got a copy of the previous title and it had come from Colorado, so now I will try to get the MSO from Colorado. The DMV from Nevada was reluctant to provide any info till I told them that I wanted the info as I was not going to use the car on the street but as my classic car for restoration. Will send more info as it comes

    • Uncle Milton

      March 11, 2013 at 9:49 AM

      The only way I know of is to pay cash at the dealership and demand the MSO

      and you will get it………or the deal is off !!

  2. Christian

    March 9, 2013 at 11:49 AM

    I have been thinking about this also for quite a while. Here is a mind twister. What happens if you purchase gold and silver with FRN’s and then exchange them for land? I would guess you enter the twilight zone.

    • Adask

      March 9, 2013 at 11:59 AM

      I agree. You enter a twilight zone. Technically, I think the gov-co may be able to defeat you in that “zone”. But I also think that the government will extremely reluctant to enter that “zone” on the record. If they see you coming, far enough in advance, they may be reluctant to challenge your claim and therefore make the case “disappear”. Maybe.

      But if you don’t give them early notice of the “twilight zone” arguments you intend to advance, they may take you to court and once they do, you can bet that the judge will be brought in to conspire with gov-co to see that 1) you can’t introduce much of your evidence or argument into the record; and/or 2) make sure you lose, no matter what.

      • Sparky

        March 9, 2013 at 3:58 PM

        @ > You enter a twilight zone.
        We are in a Gray area for sure. Maybe it’s a Grey area, with a mixture of Black & White people.

    • doug

      March 11, 2013 at 6:47 AM

      There hasn’t been any real money since 1964. Everything purchased (hahahaha) since LBJ debauched the currency for good is for sure debt ladened and likely liened.

      I’d like to say that continuing to utilize the current FED RES System insures debt slavery and violates the Biblical principle of equal weights and measures. Every time I start to think I know something it dawns on me that “God’s right” and I’m ill informed.

  3. owlmon

    March 9, 2013 at 11:57 AM

    r u daft?? Rights flow from men!! Freedoms originate with God….stop squawking about rights as you obviously have no clue what your talking about..You call yourself and expert??

    • Adask

      March 9, 2013 at 12:19 PM

      Not exactly. Liberty flows from God. Freedom (as in “free the slaves”) flows from man. Some rights (unalienable) flow from God, other rights (civil) flow from men. Titles can flow from man. They are recognized evidence of rights. If you have a title issued by man, you have a document that can be used as a basis to claim certain rights against a particular piece of property.

      As for “You call yourself and expert??” No–I don’t think I’ve ever called myself “and expert” (or even “an expert”) at anything. I call myself a man who is made in our Father YHWH ha Elohiym’s image and who is endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

      Incidentally, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that our “unalienable Rights” to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness flow from our Creator–not from man. Thus, your implied contention that all rights flow from man alone is refuted by the Declaration of Independence. Some rights clearly flow from God.

      Therefore, I ask “r u daft?” and “You call yourself and critic??”

      I would also say to you, “stop squawking about rights as you obviously have no clue what your talking about”. Some rights flow from God; others flow from man. Your belief that all rights flow from man alone iss stoopid.

      • Sparky

        March 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

        As for “You call yourself and expert??” No–I don’t think I’ve ever called myself “and expert” (or even “an expert”)
        FUN— NEE !!. I caught it too & started to ask the wise ol owl about it but thought I would read your response first. Glad I waited. BUT, you are and expert and in a lot of ways. and I know that and that’s a fact and now I’m outta here

      • Pete

        March 11, 2013 at 12:28 AM

        Freedom of choice comes from God, do not eat the fruit of the forbidden tree.

    • Richard Robb

      March 9, 2013 at 4:18 PM

      You sir, are excused from the conversation.

    • Sparky

      March 10, 2013 at 4:44 PM

      2 >r u daft 2
      No doubt about it.

  4. Anthony Clifton

    March 9, 2013 at 12:11 PM

    when Jesus said…”Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters
    of the law, judgment, mercy and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel….

    Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

    Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one ***proselyte**** {freemason/baptist deacon} – [jew worshipper], and when he is made,

    ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves….how “Jewish” !!!

    now seriously….why does anyone on Earth HAVE to believe LIES ?

    just because a cabal of rectal orifices print currency ?


  5. Anon4fun

    March 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM

    This type of theoretical work is where the Adask School outclasses the competition.

    All rights flowing from title seems very plausible. It is at least close to something fundamental, even if it should need a bit of tweaking.

    “The party that owns the money, owns whatever that money is used to buy.”

    Okay, but this principle seems to also apply to a purchase made with gold coins, if they are on loan.

    • Adask

      March 9, 2013 at 12:30 PM

      But the gold coins were almost never on loan–at least not from the government or from some central bank. Unlike FRNS–which are always LOANED into circulation–gold coins were normally SPENT into circulation. The result was that gold and silver coins were “tender” rather than “legal tender” and were a medium of exchange rather than transfer. If you held a gold coin in your hand, it was presumed that you owned perfect title (legal and equitable) to that coin and could therefore buy both legal and equitable titles to whatever product or property you chose to buy. On the other hand, if you transact with FRNs, I believe it is presumed that since the FRNS are LOANED into circulation, the legal title to the FRNS remains with the Federal Reserve and you only have equitable title to those pieces of paper and can therefore only purchase equitable title to those things purchased with FRNs.

      The great value of gold coins is not that they were made of gold. The great value was that they carried both intrinsic equitable and intrinsic legal titles.

      Thanks for the compliment.

    • Sparky

      March 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM

      I believe “this State” gives an equitable interest to “us” in their car we think is “ours.” Yes you/I can sell it, that’s part of the equitable interest. “This State” only wants the “TAX” for/per the amount of the sale. The unfairness as I see it is,e.g., if that car is sold 3 times in one day & let’s say for the same amount each time, “this State” collects the tax 3 times. I use this only for an example.Once the tax is paid, once should be enough. Then again, we can’t “pay” for anything. I think it’s called a “discharge” in equity, isn’t it? I call it extortion. I don’t care what they call it

    • Sparky the dullard

      March 12, 2013 at 3:16 AM

      @“The party that owns the money, owns whatever that money is used to buy.”

      Well RATS Anon4fun. Then this means I cannot even give you a gift because I cannot give you something that somebody else owns, can I? I apparently have never given anybody anything.Also, the “Good LORD” can rightfully say I have never given any tithes or offerings which I believe we are required to do. So,I am not obeying him either. I’m in a trap here.But it seems I could say I never freely received anything to freely give in return.We may not be able to give but we sure can take, regardless of who is the owner. I think Satan likes that. This mess is even worse that I thought it was. Hey, I’m serious.

    • greg

      March 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM

      go buy food, eat it, wait a day or 2, collect the waste give it back to the fed. sounds like a great deal to me

  6. Dude

    March 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM

    I believe you are on to something.
    Lets just take foreclosure for example.
    Most people who actually fight end up losing and it isn’t because they are wrong.
    Why then?
    The courts operate with assumptions (that the bank is telling the truth and operating lawfully).
    Is there a way to cure this problem?
    Apparently, if a Quiet Title action is enacted correctly, this can solve the issue.
    This brings us back to the discussion… it is all about the title.

    I also want to bring up that since the Federal Reserve System is not lawful (only mere “legal”) then doesn’t any “legal” claim give way to a lawful claim? I say this because you introduced the term “valid”. To say that the Fed Reserve has all claims to everything because they own the FRNs seems to be a stretch because the FRNs in itself are an invalid means of constitutional/lawful payment. Are they actually “loaning” anything? I say no. They give up no assets nor take any risk other than being discovered for the fraud.

  7. palani

    March 9, 2013 at 1:47 PM

    A government constructed of paper, with a paper foundation, paper currency, paper ID, paper title, paper trail. The notion is called ‘reification’. The paper ‘represents’ the thing. Tall buildings don’t fly into planes but instead all the 911 damage was caused by a little scrap of paper called an ‘airworthiness certificate’. Guns don’t exist (on paper) until they are registered. Your birth was not an event at all until a ‘birth certificate’ was issued. Gold does not exist until a ‘warehouse receipt’ is issued proclaiming it exists. A motor vehicle is nothing until a CERTIFICATE OF TITLE is provided.

    The litmus test and antidote for reification is to test the object with a scissors. If scissors won’t touch it then most probably it really exists.

    The governments of the world have really taken this ‘benefit of clergy’ thing way too far.

    • Ross Masbaum

      March 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM


    • Sparky

      March 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM

      @ >Tall buildings don’t fly into planes.
      Wow, I didn’t know that. (:

    • Sparky

      March 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM

      @ > A government constructed of paper, with a paper foundation, paper currency, paper ID, paper title, paper trail.
      Yes, and I just got through using some of it from a roll. It does have one useful purpose.

  8. FrankM

    March 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM

    What about the old saying of “Possession is 9/10ths of the law ??

    • Sparky

      March 9, 2013 at 11:23 PM

      What about the old saying of “Possession is 9/10ths of the law ??

      My experiences say it’s 10/10ths IF it’s between people & not a man or woman v. gov-co. Let someone “borrow” anything from you & then if he/she decides not to return same,as promised, this is the only way I know for anyone to understand what I’m trying to say.There IS away to get the item back by going to Court, but sometimes that costs more than the item is worth. But even if you do go to Court because of the “principle” involved,and you win, the item is returned “severely damaged.” You can just imagine,I hope, what you’re up against next.

  9. palani

    March 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM


    Lat. In the civil law. Title ; the source or ground of possession ; the means whereby possession of a thing is acquired, whether such possession be lawful or not. In old ecclesiastical law. A temple or church; the material edifice. So called because the priest in charge of it derived therefrom his name and title. Spelman. Titulns est justa causa possidendi id qnod nostrum est; dicitur a tuendo. 8 Coke, 153. A title is the just right of possessing that which is our own; it is so called from “tuendo,” defending. TO. This is a word of exclusion, when used in describing premises; it excludes the terminus mentioued. Montgomery v. Reed, 60 Me. 514.

  10. Richard Robb

    March 9, 2013 at 4:14 PM

    Although, eloquently spoken, it would seem that you have taken this hypoyenuse past anything that the common man could put to daily use. Notwithstanding, my own un-stable understanding. Your explanations need to be distilled down so that the ones you hope to have any understanding
    might at sometime, ( in the near future ), begin to digest your information, and what it might hold in store for them on a individual basis’. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Has anyone ever given any credence to the influence of the European banking system, and it’s desire for world dominance. And the acquisition of the American system, as well? Which was eliminated with the assassination of President Kennedy and his program, labeled, ” The New Frontier” ? Which wanted to dismantle the Federal Reserve? And there-by distance us from the old ruling classes of Europe? Sheep lead to the slaughter… damn.

    • Sparky

      March 9, 2013 at 7:56 PM

      Although, eloquently spoken,
      By the above words, there’s no doubt about it, your message was meant for me, & no one else.(:

  11. pop de adam

    March 9, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    If I actually labor and create wealth, exchange it for whatever currency is being used as a placeholder, then trade that for something else, the title that I had in my very own labor becomes spoilt? I don’t think it would be very difficult from the above example to show constructive fraud. If they hold these currencies out simply as placeholders and even if they hold “title” to these pieces of paper, I could be rather ambivilant to this concept, but to cloud titles to labor and things exchanged there of reaks of fraud and slavery. Yes they may sieze their papers that I labored for, but not without some form of recompense, other wise I will have labored and its fruits seized or stolen. This would meet a rather liberal definition of slavery.

    If our use of FRNs is somehow intrinsically “bad” and the government being charged as a power to mitigate all that might be deemed “bad”, why do they themselves actually loan and spend this fugitive currency out? Remember wealth is not those pieces of paper, it is the real things we work and create, when they spend these fictions into the economy and recieve our real labor and property in exchange, and then simply declare that some how the title in your labor and property is either imperfect or of no concern they are blatantly stealing from you.


  12. palani

    March 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM

    “This would meet a rather liberal definition of slavery”

    Biblical requirement of slavery is to stand in a doorway and have a hole bored into an ear. You may view a photo at the url below that suggests that people take this principle to extreme and that current law requires holes bored in parts of the body neglected by the bible.

  13. Timmy

    March 9, 2013 at 7:11 PM

    Beautifully wrought, Al. Seems at least 90% right to me. I think there might be a relationship here to the ALL CAPS name, which is primarily an indication of diminution of rights or standing. That is, they covered all the material property with “title” and then covered all the people with “standing.” Diabolically smart really…. like their master. If the object and the individual are both caught in the web, extrication is a challenge indeed.

    I suspect the many foggy areas and unknowns arise from the fact that this is spiritual war. There are dark sorceries and secrets which are mostly abstract, hidden deep among the controlling bloodlines and their nefarious activities.

    They conduct the core of their affairs in deep secrecy, and the functionaries are simply told what to do and how, with no clue what it really means, or even how it really works. Let alone the root source of these things.

    Few are those who will question, let alone challenge the hand that feeds them.

    Nice work.

    • Sparky

      March 9, 2013 at 8:13 PM

      Hi Timmy
      @ > Few are those who will question, let alone challenge the hand that feeds them.
      But who is feeding who here?? I feel like I am at least part of the fodder.

  14. Lyndon

    March 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM

    Alfred, I can’t believe you got this wrong.

    You wrote: “If the father has legal title, then he owns the car and can do what­ever he wants with it, whenever he wants. While he may give his son “equitable title” to use the car for his Friday night dates, that equi­table title is always subject to Dad’s legal title and consequent right of absolute control.”

    Since when, ever, was legal title superior to equitable title??? The maxim “equity is king” disproves this. Whoever puts the equity in title has the superior position in law. That is what a court of Chancery (a court of Equity) tries to determine. The “Use” of something is not superior to having put the original value into that something. In the example you wrote, the Dad is the equitable holder, the superior holder, and his son has legal title, legal “use” of the car.

    The difference, as far as I know from my research, dates back to lord-landowners leaving their property in “Use”, while they retained equitable title, so as to avoid paying taxes to the King of England.

    Whoever buys the car has the equity in the car. The State just holds legal title (if you allow them to). The registry of vehicles is there so YOUR servants, the public servants called the state, have a record of who holds the equity in case of dispute, Putting a vehicle on a registry does not mean you transferred the equity to the State. Registration does not convey equity. Registration does not convey equity. Registration does not convey equity. Registration is just a list! Even in your wildly corrupt US/USA, your States do not usually just take unregistered vehicles off private land under the ruse that the State has the equity in the vehicle.

    • Adask

      March 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      I won’t say that legal title is superior to equitable. But it is other than equitable title and allows for CONTROL rather than mere USE of a property. Given the choice between legal and equitable titles, the average person would probably prefer to have the equitable right to USE an automobile rather than “control” it. They just want to get in that car, turn on the radio and drive.

      But John D. Rockefeller said “own nothing; control everything”. The divided titles found in trusts offer him that opportunity. He doesn’t really own the property held in trust, but by acquiring legal title he can control that property. What do you give the man who has everything? Power. Control. Trust relationships allow for that sort of Power/Control.

      If you want to live your life like a teenager joy-riding in his dad’s car, equitable title is for you. If you want to live your life like a father–or even a dictator–then you want legal title.

      I’m not arguing that “legal” title is necessarily superior to “equitable” title, but I am arguing that neither title constitutes real “ownership” (use and control) of a particular property. Neither the fiduciary (who hold legal title) nor the beneficiary (who holds equitable title) truly “own” the property in question. If either party truly owned, say, an automobile, there’d be no trust relationship because only one party held perfect (legal + equitable) title to the automobile.

      We can debate whether equitable title is superior to legal title and vice versa, but no matter who wins that debate, it doesn’t change a fundamental fact–you don’t truly own any property that registered as res of a trust. How can we maintain a “free enterprise” system without private property? How can there be private property if most property is registered as res in a trust and the perfect title to that property no longer exists?

      The point I’m trying to make is that both titles, legal and equitable, by themselves are hazardous to the right of “ownership” that most Americans assume they acquire whenever they purchase a car, a home, some land. Ohh, you get to use that property, but you don’t really own it. Your home is no longer your castle–instead, it’s a kind of “rental”. The terms of that rental include keeping the grass mowed, no junk cars in the backyard, keeping the house freshly painted, and, of course, paying your property taxes. Who sets those terms? The man or entity holding legal title to “your” house. If you don’t meet those terms, you will be evicted from “your” house. And you’ll be astonished and shocked that “they” could take “your” house from you. But they can because, thanks to trust laws, it’s not really your house.

      I am trying to communicate the hypothesis that, based on trust law, you don’t really own your house, car, clothing, tools, etc. I’m trying to communicate the opinion that there are some people (like John D. Rockefeller) who don’t want to live in (use) “your” house, but they do want to “control” your house and thus control your access to “your” house. Are you really a free man if someone else has control over virtually all of “your” property?

      There are people who want control. Trust laws are conducive to that objective. If you want to be free from such control, I believe you have to understand trust law–not so you can choose between equitable and legal titles, but so you can begin to regain perfect title to your property.

      • Sparky

        March 10, 2013 at 1:21 PM

        For Alfred
        @ > But John D. Rockefeller said “own nothing; control everything”.The divided titles found in trusts offer him that opportunity.

        There was a “Group” (<?) that had a company called "Commonwealth Trust" who used the John D. Rockefeller philosophy and several people purchased the Trusts from Commonwealth Trust including wealthy & famous people,e.g. Wesley Snipes. They all went to prison. From what I can understand, it's "ok" for Rocky to do the same thing the Commonwealth Trust holders did, but the "Fed gov-co" saw it was getting out of hand because of the "number" of people becoming aware of "own nothing, control everything" knowledge. I don't know "everything" about Commonwealth Trust but it's strange that all these people that purchased these trusts had lawyers who "approved" of these Commonwealth Trust purchases & many lawyers ALSO purchased them & gave Publicly advertised seminars re: the Trusts.They were not hiding anything. This much I do know.

        So, I guess the question is, how does Rocky get away with doing what "Commonwealth Trust holders went to prison for?

      • Sparky the dullard

        March 11, 2013 at 9:28 PM

        @ >Either I need to learn how to write or you need to learn how to read.
        It’s wonderful to be on a Blog where I can learn so much & laugh my hindquarters off while I’m in the process of learning. It makes the learning process so much easier. The only drawback is, it has taken me over 5 minutes to write this because I cannot type & be laughing at the same time, not the way I laugh when something is said that is hilarious, & yet thought provoking too.

  15. Lyndon

    March 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    I don’t know the true context of what Rockefeller was commenting on, whether he truly said that, or what he truly meant by it. But Equity is everything. The equitable owner of a trust is the controller. If I have a Bill of Sale as proof of something I own, who has facts to disprove my claim? No court can overrule me.

    Who owns a trust (corporation)? He who has the most equity in it. Who could overrule that?

    Legal title only exists when a title is split. The real owner, the equitable owner, has the grantor’s title, and the legal title goes to the trustee. Yes, I trust ye with my proper “T”. “T” means title. I am owner proper.

    I own my vehicles ABSOLUTE FEE SIMPLE. I have NEVER split the title. I have noticed the Province which serves me. The chief servant agrees with me.

    I, and several others, form an association and OWN our land property. We can prove we put equity into the land. The public servants cannot prove anything. The public servants do not dispute these facts. We OWN the land ABSOLUTE FEE SIMPLE. When I say OWN, I mean I have rights to enjoy the land without let or hindrance. No one can truly OWN land because it never extinguishes like personal property, but many may stop tax collection on land. I have not the time today to explain all of this. But I will say this, if the State demands that you pay property taxes on the land you put equity into, and if you do not know how to rid yourself of their claims, you may demand that they pay you for your maintenance and upkeep of the property. No one should work for free.

    I say to all: wave your equitable title like a banner on a staff. Let he who claims otherwise take his chance in equity!

    • Adask

      March 10, 2013 at 12:10 PM

      I disagree. As I understand it, the only purpose of a court of law is to determine legal rights. If it’s true that all rights flow from title, then it would seem to follow that all legal rights flow from legal title. If so, it appears to me that without legal title to any item of property that’s being contested, you have no standing in a court of law. I.e., if you don’t have legal title to a car, home or land, you have no standing to claim a legal right to those properties and thus no standing to access a court of law.

      There is a disadvantage to courts of law. They are hard, harsh and unforgiving. Whoever hold legal title wins. Imagine an woman and her six children living in poverty in a home in winter-time who is behind on her rent. The man holding legal title to that home can eject her and her six kids into the snow to freeze and die. Law can be a s.o.b..

      But courts of law also have an advantage–everyone, including the judge, are bound by the law. There is no leeway for “discretion”. If the law says the man holding legal title can toss that woman and her kids out into the snow, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

      Courts of equity are for people who do not hold legal title to property. They are for people who hold express or implied equitable title/right to whatever property is in question.

      Courts of equity have the advantage of being much less harsh. Here the judge is not bound by the law. Instead, the judge rules strictly according to his own alleged “conscience”. He can follow relevant law if he chooses to do so, or he make “new law” to deal with unusual situations. Seeing the plight of the impoverished woman and her six children, the judge can rule that the purported property owner must give the woman another 60 or 90 days to catch up on the rent.

      But courts of equity have a great disadvantage: the judge is not bound by the law. Because the judge is bound only by his alleged “conscience,” he can rule any way he wants, any time he wants with any plaintiff, prosecutor or defendant. The result is the plethora of “judge-made law” we’ve seen over the past 40 years. The result is judicial activism and even judicial decisions that seem irrational and absurd. In equity, the judge has nearly unlimited “discretion”. Therefore, if the judge doesn’t like your politics, your attitude, the color of your skin, your gender or your sexual proclivities, he can rule against you and justify that ruling as an act of his “discretion”. For example, if you’re trying to defend against the government and you’ve mounted an excellent defense, the judge can still rule against you–“just because [in equity] he can.”

      In equity, we don’t have rule by law, we have rule by man (the judge).

      That’s dangerous.

      You go to courts of equity because you don’t have legal title to the property in question. You only have equitable title, or perhaps no title whatsoever.

      I believe this is consistent with the federal government new “rule of procedure” (circa A.D. 1948?) when they combined the formerly separate and distinctly different procedures of law and equity into a single uniform procedure. The result of this combination was supposed to provide simpler process. But this simpler process no longer clearly revealed if a plaintiff was suing at law or in equity.

      Result? Many defendants who think they’re going to a court of law don’t realize that their case is actually being heard in a court of equity. They put a defense together that relies on law, but neglect to claim or produce legal title to the property in question. REsult? They are shocked and amazed when they lose. Why’d they lose? Because, without reference to legal title, the case was actually heard in equity and the judge had “discretion” to rule against them for any reason, or no reason, that the judge liked.

      If you want to wave the flag of equity, I suggest you make that flag pure white for it usually constitutes a flag of surrender and for defense ultimately based on nothing more than the “mercy of the court”.

      If you’re willing to trust your fate to a judge, equity is the way to go.

      Good luck with that.

      • Lyndon

        March 10, 2013 at 12:45 PM

        Alfred, I’m still in disbelief that you claim legal title is complete and superior. This is a very old doctrine of Law. Whoever has the equitable title has the LEGAL right to have the title transferred back. The equitable owner is the real owner. Period.

        The Court of Equity is not completely without Law. It is merged with the Common Law. The Court of Equity always defends Equitable Title when it is clear and expressed. It has no choice but to.

        Courts of Law defend Equitable title. They have to. Whoever paid for something is the real owner. Period. This is an old doctrine.

        In the example you created, the mother was a tenant, a sub-titlist of either the Legal Owner or Equitable Owner. She has no standing and would lose in a Court of Law or Court of Equity. The mother breached her contract. Now, she may obtain a stay of execution of a warrant or writ until such a time as she is able to pay arrears or move in better weather. But ultimately ANY court will order her out.

        “Legal Title” does not imply complete title at Law, but moreover he who possess. Possession is not always proof of ownership. The Law is very clear on these points. I do not need to trust anyone is I can prove with expressed documents that I paid for something in full. Who can possibly claim otherwise? As arrogant as some judges can be, or as ignorant as some juries can be, I have never been in, or read about, a judge or jury unwilling to recognize Unconditional Equitable Title. Once the jury knows who paid for something the question IN RES is over.

        There really is not much to dispute here, I am surprised you argue otherwise.

      • Adask

        March 10, 2013 at 1:15 PM


        Either I need to learn how to write or you need to learn how to read. I’ve been writing about trusts for most of 20 years and, so far as I know, I have never once knowingly suggested that legal title is the “complete” title. Therefore, just as you are “still in disbelief” that I’ve claimed that “legal title is complete” title, I am “still in disbelief” that you think I ever wrote anything to promote that opinion. If you can find any instances of anything I’ve written in the past 20 years that suggests “legal title is complete title,” those instances will be few and far between and mistakes rather than expressions of my understanding of trusts.

        The whole idea of trusts is to take perfect title a property and divide it into equitable title (which goes to the beneficiary) and legal title (which goes to the fiduciary). By definition, neither legal nor equitable title is “complete”. “Complete” title is the “perfect title” that consists of a single individual holding both the legal and equitable titles to a particular property. Both “legal” title and “equitable” title are, by definition, incomplete.

        Insofar as you’re “still in disbelief” that I think “legal title is superior” to equitable title–well, it is superior for some purposes. If you want control, you want legal title. If you want use, you want equitable title. For example, if you and your family are homeless, you want a home that you can live in an USE. Therefore, for your purposes, equitable title to a home is “superior” to legal title. On the other hand, if you’re rich and you and already own three or four homes in the US or around the world, you probably don’t want equitable title to some hovel that homeless people count as a blessing. Being rich, you don’t want equitable title to some $150,000; you don’t want to live in that home; you don’t want to USE that home. But, being rich, you might want legal title to that same home since legal title would entitle you collect rent on that home.

        Either title can be superior to the other for particular purposes.

        But both titles are inferior to “perfect” title which constitutes true, undivided ownership of a property. “Perfect” or “complete” title is superior to both legal and equitable titles since it includes both of them.

        My object is to try to teach people to recognize the dangers and disabilities for both legal and equitable titles and to try to help folks recognize the value of “perfect” title and then seek to acquire that form of title.

        However, I’m busy, I have things to do, and–given that either I need to learn how to write or you need to learn how to read–I’ll say no more at this time.

        You keep your opinion and “disbelief” and I’ll keep mine.

    • Yartap

      March 10, 2013 at 8:29 PM


      I would like to hear from you upon your take on the subject of property taxation.

      • Jerry Sparks

        March 26, 2013 at 11:12 PM

        @ >property taxation.
        Hi Big YartapI
        ‘m not Lyndon,but here is my 2 cents worth anyway. Property tax is really an annual rental fee. I found this out painfully & the hardest way possible.

  16. Sparky

    March 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM

    To Lyndon & Alfred,
    Either I (<Alfred) need to learn how to write or you (< Lyndon) need to learn how to read.

    Wow !!! My problem is, you both make sense. But, I do know that this merger of Law & equity is STILL merging & STILL developing, & the law today is whatever the development has arrived at. And, it will be forever developing, We never really know where we stand, "for sure." This is due to the merger of law & equity & the development of the law, at this time. What will the newer "development" be tomorrow? Why do we have 5 to 4 Supreme Court decisions ?

  17. jaiseli

    March 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM

    Very good!
    Has somebody been reading Edwin Viera?

    • Sparky

      March 10, 2013 at 5:36 PM

      March 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM
      Very good!
      Has somebody been reading Edwin Viera?

      jaiseli, I would like to know who your “very good” comment is directed to so I can read his or her comment to see if I would be interested enough to possibly check this Edwin Viera out. In other words, somebody said/wrote something you understood as being very good. Who was it, if I may ask???

  18. Sparky

    March 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM

    Paul M
    March 10, 2013 at 12:17 PM
    Re:I am in the process of getting the MSO for my Commando. ,,,, Will send more info as it comes

    I sure hope so & Thank you in advance !!!!

  19. Jerry Lee

    March 10, 2013 at 7:37 PM

    I am in the process in “claiming Legal Title” to Our Real Estate through paper soldiers. I have put up Our home and Life to fight the Beast. The will be a “Legal Battle” I plan to win. I just had it with the criminals that “RUIN” Our Country. Here is a few things from Our complaint.

    Whereas: We did not give permission to ANYONE whatsoever to pledge Title to Our Life, Body, Liberty, Property and Labor for someone else’s benefit, i.e., the United States DC debt obligations through its citizen-resident to any and all Foreign Interest. We are not your private Peons.

    Whereas: All citations of Codes be they US, OH or Foreign in this Notice are for your inspection and review to reveal their strict application to your jurisdiction. Law definitions, court cases and other material source evidence are to help further your Knowledge that you have no power or authority over any Title[s] of Jerry Lee and Donna Jean, Family of XXXX; The forgoing use of these facts do not enter Us into any agreement, contracts or foreign jurisdiction.

    Whereas: The use of “FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT”…is an Unconscionable act against Jerry Lee and Jean, family of XXXX; We will not give life to your Fraud and Words Of Art that would bind Us to Private Corporation Public Policy.

    This is just a small part of the Affidavit to be place into the “System”. We are not trying to evade anything We just want to make sure We have Our Status corrected to be free of obligation not exempt as a exemption would be a privilege or benefit.

    • Sparky

      March 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM

      Jerry Lee,
      @ >Our Status corrected. be corrected< implies it is not correct at this time otherwise it would not need "to be corrected."

      • Sparky

        March 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM

        Jerry Lee, Only part of my message went through. Why I don’t know. This is strange. I’ll try again.
        I said before that I believe you have the key to success IF your status IS correct & your affidavit proves it. But there is not any Court who is going to correct it (status) for you. You said “be corrected”. If it is correct it doesn’t need to be corrected. BUT I believe having the “correct status IS the key, I truly do.

      • Jerry Lee

        March 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM

        Greetings, you are correct that is not the courts duty to correct Our Status it is up to My wife and I. But you have to remember paper work with signature in blank put Us ‘Under’ their jurisdiction and the same will take Us out.
        Of course one lest not forget these criminals do not follow ‘their’ own law, ie rules and regulations.
        Maxim in law…How things are bound so should they be unbound. And No action can arise from fraud. It is with this affidavit a commercial instrument We can only pray it will take Us out of ‘their’ commercial venue, private law and place Us under Christian common law upon the land not paper.

        Jerry Lee

  20. Sparky

    March 11, 2013 at 7:10 AM

    Thanks Jerry Lee,
    I said also on the message to you that only posted in part & not all, that I wish I could see your affidavit. I cannot say for sure why no one ever shows up in court to proceed against me anymore other than because of an affidavit I made a matter of public record that proved my status & a few “other things” In other words, everything stated in an affidavit is presumed to be true until & unless it is overcome by counter evidence. I am still stopped by gov-co agents every now & then, AND I am still “presented with traffic violation tickets.” I send them back to the alleged so called court along with a certified true copy of the affidavit & I still go to the “court” on “Appear date” but the case is dismissed either for failure to prosecute or for non appearance of the “citation presenter.” Don’t know for sure if I’m just lucky or not but this has happened time & again & it never happened before I “changed, let’s say,my “procedure.” I’m not going to knock on wood I’m just going to continue to thank YHWH & Yahshua.
    It is still an inconvenience but nothing as bad as it used to be.IF your affidavit is a matter of “Public Record” would you mind posting it, because if it is, the public has access to it anyway,right? HOWEVER, if you think by posting it, this may or will cause “problems” for you, then by all means,don’t post it.Some Public Record documents are cleverly concealed by, you know who.
    Jerry D>> D for dullard aka Sparky for laughs.

    • Jerry Lee

      March 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      Ref: Sparky
      March 11, 2013 at 7:18 AM
      @ >Either I need to learn how to write or you need to learn how to read.
      I need to learn both,a lot bettern I do

      Use the “Mark Twain Doctrine”; I never did give a damn for a man who could spell a word only one-way. lol

      Our Affidavit has yet to be placed into the ‘Private side” We still have to remove the color of title ie Warranty Deed from the ‘Public side.’ And place it in unregistered land.
      Yes I know Ohio Revised Code is color of law for those who have a ‘trade or business, employees, officers, agents and ‘suckers’ who contract to be placed within the System. Just like gov-co, yes means no as no means yes. Last pages are on the way to close Our affidavit. Would We share? Yes but posting thirty-three plus pages is a bit much.

      Then this, ORC states ‘money’ one way and then ‘they’ try to collect with UCC ‘money’, of course there are many more irregularities in their process.

      The powers to be like to change ‘law’ stating one then operating in another form of ‘law’.

      I have been fighting on the West Coast too with Paper Soldiers – Affidavits, these guys just want to such you dry of life.

      Whereas: It is held that it is essential to the validity of such a tax, under the due process clause, that the property shall be within the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing state. This rule receives its most familiar illustration in the case of land. The application to the states of the rule of due process arises from the fact ‘that their spheres of activity are enforced and protected by the Constitution, and therefore it is impossible for one state to reach out and tax property in another without violating the Constitution.’ (See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Also Art IV, Sec 3 Clause 2 of Federal Constitution

      Whereas: Ohio Revised Code
      1.59 Statutory definitions
      (G) “State,” when applied to a part of the United States, includes any state, district, commonwealth, territory, insular possession thereof, and any area subject to the legislative authority of the United States of America. “This state” or “the state” means the state of Ohio.
      (H) “United States” includes all the states.
      Whereas: Nice try; legislative authority of the United States of America; is not
      “The United States of America” as styled as the several states of the Union but just another Private company under the United States DC.
      As for “This state” or “the state” means the state of Ohio, is the state of Ohio DC, Thank you very much I too read “legalese”.

      A misnomer is that the ‘District’ is ten miles squared,
      The area of 31 square miles (80 km2) that was originally ceded by Virginia was returned to that state in ****1847.
      ****July 9 1846 an Act of Congess; passes law to return the city of Alexandria and Alexandria county to Virgina.
      The District’s current area consists of the remaining 69 square miles (179 km2) of territory originally ceded by Maryland.

      • Sparky the dullard

        March 11, 2013 at 6:18 PM

        Jerry Lee
        Your well versed teaching message of March 11, 2013 at 9:57 AM
        FANTASTIC !!! WONDERFUL !!! GREAT !!!!
        I am going to my word pad & respond to a few things you said & will send it later.

        Since your affidavit consists of 33+ pages,I am convinced you have the whole 9er yards covered. My reason for wanting to read it was to “hopefully” see if there might be something I could add that might be of help since you are letting your TALK WALK,but I’m positive now & especially after reading your “wonderful reply” there is nothing I could have helped with.It’s a shame that we are not aware of “everything” anyone else is already aware of. Sometimes in trying to be helpful our wanting to help, is taken to be an insult. Naturally,If I was aware of what you or anyone already knows, I would not attempt to make you or anyone else aware of it. When somebody sends me something I have been aware of,for years, I still thank him/her because he/she did not know that I already knew it.But I think it’s about right to say that what I am aware of came through good people like you,Jerry Lee.

        When I first saw, in your reply >This state” or “the state” means the state of Ohio, I thought, NOW this is something Alfred will be interested in but you cleared that up too,Jerry Lee. The State might not mean “The State” as.most of us think it means.

        I salute you Jerry Lee. Instead of writing about all you are knowledgeable of, you are letting your “talk WALK.” You are a man after my own heart.I too not only try to “stand firm” I do my best to let my talk walk also. This a part of standing firm too. One of my MAJOR problems is, I am by myself & I need at least two witnesses but everybody I talk with are so scared out of their britches they don’t even want me coming around them because of being fearful that I might be “being observed” as to where I go & who I talk with. It’s really sad. Later Gater !!! I think me,you & Huey could tear um up.

    • Jerry Lee

      March 12, 2013 at 9:27 AM

      Sparky, A little bit off subject matter and I do not know your state of domicile or if it has implemented the Real ID Act…OHIO DC, March 11 2011 Real ID Act
      I do believe you are well versed in the ‘Traffic Court scheme’
      Most freeborn know about USC Title 18 sec 31 but few use and know Title 49 as it pertains to HR 418

      Real ID Act of 2005 HR 418 109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 418


      SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
      In this title, the following definitions apply:

      (1) DRIVER’S LICENSE- The term `driver’s license’ means a motor vehicle operator’s license, as defined in section 30301 of title 49, United States Code.

      (2) IDENTIFICATION CARD- The term `identification card’ means a personal identification card, as defined in section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State.

      (3) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary’ means the Secretary of Homeland Security.

      ****(4) STATE- The term `State’ means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.

      I cannot find the Ohio republic within this ‘State’.

      This you may also find this in Title 49….

      49 USC § 395.1(j)(1) and (2)
      Moreover, no license or registration
      is required to exercise the Right of Way,
      the Liberty of the Common Way,
      the Right of Free Passage
      by any conveyance whatsoever for personal,
      private recreation or travel purposes

      • Sparky the dullard

        March 13, 2013 at 12:09 PM

        Jerry Lee,

        @ >49 USC § 395.1(j)(1) and (2)
        Moreover, no license or registration
        is required to exercise the Right of Way,
        the Liberty of the Common Way,
        the Right of Free Passage
        by any conveyance whatsoever for personal,
        private recreation or travel purposes

        All that came up in my “search” was, 49 CFR, not 49 USC. I cannot find what you posted,above. Do you know why? THANKS !!! I am having odd computer problems. Maybe this is why,when I type in 49 U.S.C. 49 CFR is all that comes up.

      • Jerry Lee

        March 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM

        Sparky. Scrape U S C Sec. 395.l(j)(1)(2) is not valid, I just came across that about a week ago and broke one of My own rules-verify-verify-verify. So I be dumb.
        One thing I do in My Points of Authority I will verify all references used in any document before use. Thanks for the heads up.

      • Jerry S

        April 23, 2013 at 1:06 AM

        Jerry Lee,
        What is the latest info on your paperwork? I’m using a different ID.

  21. Sparky

    March 11, 2013 at 7:18 AM

    @ >Either I need to learn how to write or you need to learn how to read.
    I need to learn both,a lot bettern I do.

  22. Kelly MacInnis

    March 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM

    You guys may want to check out the One Peoples Public Trust (OPPT) this is all changing now.

    • Jerry Sparks

      March 17, 2013 at 12:28 AM

      Shalom Kelly MacInnis,
      @ > March 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM
      Thank you for the link. Are you new on this Blog?

    • Prissy

      March 28, 2013 at 7:10 PM

      Kelly MacInnis
      March 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM
      @ > not so new, just quiet.
      Is this a subtle hint……………. for me? (: I think I need to take your hint to heart. ):

  23. Jerry Sparks

    March 17, 2013 at 12:25 AM

    Jerry Lee
    March 14, 2013 at 2:32 PM
    You’re most welcome my dear friend, & thank you.
    Re: So I be dumb.
    Exchanging messages with a dullard does have a tendency to wear off to some degree on anyone who is not dense or dull. This is why I am starting to use my real ID instead of Sparky the dullard. Now it will not have the negative effect it might have on sharpies,etc. Thanks to Timmy who gave me this idea. So Jerry Lee, if you or anyone doesn’t like my new ID, blame Timmy, not me (:

  24. toy

    May 17, 2015 at 11:04 AM

    can I transfer my purchase agreement to another owner if dealer allows it.I’m paying a car note and I want to transfer it to somebody can I legally do that I have no title.

    • Adask

      May 17, 2015 at 5:12 PM

      The premise of this article is that you must have “legal title” to have “legal rights”. If you don’t have legal title, you would seem to have no legal rights. However, if no one else can produce “legal title” to the automobile, and no one else holds “equitable” title, you might be able to claim “equitable” by virtue of merely having possession of the vehicle. You might even be able to claim legal title by something like claiming legal title, posting your claim in legal notices in the newspaper for a correct period of time. If no one else claims legal title perhaps you could claim legal title to the automobile as something that had been “abandoned” by the previous owner. Maybe.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s