Click on the following link to access Dr. Dan's Freedom ForumClick Here to access Dr. Dan's Video Presentations
There is an important way that the federal government may have acquired title, although only as a proprietor, to the land in question: If retention of title was agreed as a term of admission of the state. That would provide the consent of Art. I sec. 8 Cl. 17. If that was not agreed to, and the state was admitted, then title would pass to the state.
So the key to resolving this dispute is to determine whether title retention was part of the act of state admission. That is what has to be determined.
I have examined the congressional act of March 21, 1864, which can be found at http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/013_statutes_at_large.pdf starting at page 30, and it does indeed provide for retention of title by the U.S. government of "unappropriated public lands", Sec. 4, Third:
That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United states residing without the said state shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States.
The only question, then is whether the specific land in question in the Bundy case was "unappropriated public land" or appropriated private land in 1864. That is not clear without examination of evidence of prior appropriation. However, there does not seem to be an option of it being state land. Either the Bundy family or someone they acquired it from owned it prior to 1864, which it does not appear they claim, or the federal government owns it. A title search is in order.
Nevada was admitted October 31, 1864, on the basis of the above statute.
Here is the response of the State of Nevada http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2013/chapter-321/statute-321.596
Jon. I have found your responses to several articles very informative...I'm learning a lot from you. I have a burning question about the idea that the Constitution was dissolved in 1871, and thus, the united states became the UNITED STATES.....A corporation....What do you say to this? I'm suspicious of this information much like the so called suspension of the constitution in 1933..
Nonsense. What happened in 1871 is that Congress set up a municipal charter for the District of Columbia. Had nothing to to with the rest of the country or government.
All governments are corporations. Always have been, since a few villages elders gathered under a tree. Now they are supposed to be non-profit corporations, for the benefit of their member-citizens. We can argue that it has been subverted by for-profit corporations that have put their own people into key positions, and are now running the government for their benefit, but that is not turning the government into a for-profit corporation, at least not formally.
What happened in 1933 was only the suspension of two provisions of the Constitution, that required compensation for the taking of privately held gold, and that required gold and silver to be legal tender within the states. It didn't affect the rest of the Constitution.
Thank you for the information....I knew the 1871 issue was suspect. Everyone is running around saying the constitution was dissolved into a corporation in 1871.... It looks as if the State of Nevada is arguing that they have a legal claim for land based on the link you provided.....A title search in the Bundy case will be interesting....It seems that with the present Government, proof of ownership means nothing. Somehow they invent a law that blind sides your rights to ownership.
The village Elders as you put it, set up CO-OPERATIONS not corporations. Look at the agreement of Iroquois Indian Tribes for reference to this kind of co-operation I speak of.
Your legalese un-interpretation is askew. You fall back to the words written BY GOVERNMENT, FOR GOVERNMENT and the government CANNOT own land. Land can be CEDED to them and can be Seceded away just as fast. Read the new post for April 15th I just sent you. Then tell me your precious laws mean a thing to freedom loving Americans.
Wrong. You have an uneducated lay notion of what a "corporation" is in law, a concept that goes back more than 2000 years to ancient Roman law, and has a long legacy in Anglo-American common law.
In somewhat more modern terms, a corporation is just a kind of trust with replaceable beneficiaries and replaceable trustees, usually more than one, but that can be just one. If just one, it is called a corporation sole.
We have long had the Iroquois constitution on our website with some analysis. Every constitution of government sets up a public corporation. It corresponds to the bylaws of a private corporation.
And contrary to what some lawyers will say, a private corporation is generally not "created" by government, although it can be. It is created by its incorporators (which could be government officials or private persons, but usually the latter). What chartering a corporation with government does is establish a monopoly on the name (which would otherwise have to be identified by listing the incorporators and specifying the date and location of the act of incorporation), and the service of enforcing its bylaws if there is a dispute among its members.
Government can hold title to (not "own") land like any other legal person, including individuals, trustees, partnerships, or whatever. In the other thread I will explain what ownership of land is all about as a matter of law.
Jon is absolutely right.
It damages everything positive that people are doing when they are hypnotized (acceptance without critical analysis) by these myths.
A lie, repeated often enough, is still a lie -- except to those who are invested in the lie.
I read the Snake Oil for Sale explanation of the original 13th Amendment. This is a quote I found interesting:
I've spoken with the TONA Committee earlier this year as a result of other research that I was doing. I have to admit, the TONA Committee's presentation of its findings and its arguments are quite compelling. In my opinion, it's on a par with the historical research and conclusions on which the The DaVinci Code was based.
I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be a subtle insult or did the author truly find the TONA committee's findings and arguments to be quite compelling by comparing it to the research and conclusions of The Davinci Code.
Excellent research, Jon.
Great, concise video Keith. I sent it out to my list and everyone else should also.