17609Re: [tips_and_tricks] property tax case
- Apr 18, 2010
> And what of "Allodial titles"?
Have you ever seen one?
"Allodial. Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassage or fealty; the opposite of feudal." - Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. p. 76.
The only property that comes to mind right off which might qualify is Dartmouth College & somebody who lives in the area might check to see if it pays property taxes. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corp., but (to the best of my knowledge) it's still in the trust created in 1769 & clear back in 1819, the U.S. supreme court held the State legislature had no authority to take over Dartmouth or to change it's charter. See: Trustees of Dartmouth v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819):
"The charter granted by the British Crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 10, which declares that no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter was not dissolved by the Revolution.
An act of the State Legislature of New Hampshire altering the charter without the consent of the corporation in a material respect, is an act impairing the obligation of the charter, and is unconstitutional and void.
Under its charter, Dartmouth College was a private, and not a public, corporation. That a corporation is established for purposes of general charity, or for education generally does not, per se, make it a public corporation, liable to the control of the legislature."
The 1st & most common problem with claiming absolute ownership of property is that unlike Dartmouth, where the land was given by an absolute grant from a sovereign to a private individual (the king of England to a Reverend Eleazor Wheelock) for a specific purpose (to start a charity school), is that today, land is nearly always financed with a mortgage & has changed hands many, many times. In other words, if you were living on property that's been in your family continuously since the American Revolution or even before & nobody has ever borrowed any $$$ on it, you might have a claim.
And what people fail to understand is the reciprocal relationship between citizens & the state, which is summed up well in this statement from the 1776 Constitution of North-Carolina:
"WHEREAS allegiance and protection are, in their nature, reciprocal, and the one should of right be refused when the other is withdrawn:"
See also, Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906), a famous 5th Amendment case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property." (Emphasis added).
In other words, when the state assumes the responsibility of protecting your life and property, you owe the state allegiance & if the state says that includes paying a tax based on the value of your property, then you have to pay it. Or see if you can get elected to the legislature & get enough support to repeal the tax. But as the (1776) N.C. constitution makes clear, if the state withdraws its protection, you should withdraw your allegiance - and on the flip-side of the coin, if you withdraw your allegiance, then the state is within its right to refuse its protection. In other words, call the fire dept. if your house catches fire & nobody comes.
I think where people have gotten so far off track is falling for a belief in the non-existent status of "sovereign" - no one individual in the U.S. is, ever was, or ever will be a "sovereign" entitled to absolute property ownership without gov't. regulation of any kind. In the U.S., "sovereignty resides in the body of the people" - it is the body politic which is the sovereign, not any one individual. So while the body politic can change the laws & even the form of gov't., you as an individual can't & you can't just make up your own rules / laws as you go, which is what so many are trying to do. What you think the law ought to be is irrelevant to what it is, like it or not.
That reciprocal relationship has been in existence for 1000's of years & it's the foundation of gov't. - a gov't. exists to do things the people as individuals cannot do for themselves. If you want to be a "sovereign", then you have to assume the responsibility of paving your own roads, organizing your own police & fire depts., etc. & if you accept the benefits gov't. provides, then you have to support that gov't. - or change it if you don't like it - or move.
Two other cases that come to mind which demonstrate the point I'm trying to make are the VMI & Citadel cases - remember those? Those military schools would not admit women & the courts ruled that as long as you accept $$$ from the gov't. (state or federal) you will do what you're told - but - if you're a totally private school, you can set your admission standards wherever you want. I remember reading that VMI was trying to raise the $$$ necessary to operate without any gov't. funding @ all, but some of the land & buildings belong to the State & while the State said you can buy them if you want, they could not raise enough $$$ to buy those properties outright. So while New Hampshire can't tell Dartmouth what to do, as long as the Citadel gets benefits from South Carolina & VMI gets benefits from Virginia, they have to go by rules those States set & if they get $$$ from the federal gov't., they have to go by federal rules too.
Well, you say you're a private individual who gets no $$$ from the gov't., so all that doesn't apply - yes it does. Do you drive on public highways? Do you count on the fire dept. coming if you need them? Is there a public hospital you can go to the emergency room at even if you don't have any $$$ or insurance? The list goes on & on - some how, some way, you accept "benefits" from the gov't. every single day. Now while it's true that property tax $$$ doesn't go directly to pave roads, maintain fire depts., etc., it does in theory & more importantly, the body politic of the State gave the State the authority to tax. In other words, you gave the State that authority, as you are part of that body politic.
If you don't like it that way, go buy an island somewhere & be a "sovereign". Name yourself king & do whatever you want. But you're not going to be a sovereign in any nation on this planet. Oh, you probably could be in Somalia if you had a good army - there's no functional gov't. over there.
And I think the name of this Group sums up the intent - Tips & Tricks to get things done given the current state of affairs - it's not named Whiners & Crybabies, is it? What's the point of complaining about the current state of affairs? The one who is successful is the one who learns how to deal with them & I think the whole idea is to share what did work in a given situation, not what ought to work in a hypothetical situation.
~ ~ ~
--- On Sun, 4/18/10, E Junker <westernwit@...> wrote:
From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] property tax case
Date: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 12:17 AMAnd what of "Allodial titles"?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>