You are on page 1of 60

1

MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING PROPERTY TAXES


Dear Mr./Ms/Mrs------------------------------------------
your name hear

As per your request asking me to conduct law research regarding the subject of property
taxes in our state and nation.
First, let me share some of my law back ground. I have a 48 year history in law, I am
schooled in constitutional law, contract law, mining law, land patent law and many other
areas of law, but my specialty is land law. I am deemed as an expert in land law and have
been called to testify as an expert witness in a number of land related court cases.
Enclosed is the memorandum of law regarding property taxes?
Property taxes, is one of the most misunderstood tax in this nation of ours, Private
Property tax are not within in any lawful law.
Memorandum of Land Property Tax
[Note: this memorandum was prepared to challenge property taxes by the State of Oregon, a for-profit
corporation that abuses its taxing authority in order to plunder the wealth of families so they can have a
nice retirement. The united States Constitution of 1791 was designed to limit the taxing powers of the
state!! But, clever lawyers figured out a way to deceive, lie, twist, distort, and pervert the Constitution
in order to fleece the people. The Constitution does not defend itself. Freemen must defend the Law of
the Land or powerful politicians will rule the earth. Consider your fundamental God-given rights to
own land and enjoy it without state harassment.]

MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON LAND


OWNERSHIP AND PROPERTY TAXES
HISTORY OF LAND OWNERSHIP IN AMERICA
In England, at least until the mid-1600's, and arguably until William Blackstone's time
in the mid-1700's, property was exclusively owned by the King. In arbitrary
governments the title is held by and springs from the supreme head, be he the emperor,
king, dictator, or by whatever name he is known. It was stated and thus a known fact,
that if the King felt it justified, he could just take the land from one baron and give such
land to another prospective baron. The king was the true and complete owner, giving him
the authority to take and grant the land from the people in his kingdom to who either lost
or gained his favor. McConnell v. Wilcox, I Seam (111.) 344, 367 (1837).
The forefathers sought to prevent the government's tyranny over their land when
creating the United States Constitution? If this were what the people in the mid to late
1700's wanted, there would have been no need to have an American Revolution, since
the taxes were secondary to having a sound and complete ownership of the land.
2

When the colonists were forced to pay taxes and were required to allow their homes to
be occupied by soldiers; they revolted, fighting the British, and declaring their
Declaration of Independence (1776).
The colonists came to America to avoid taxation without representation, and to avoid
persecution of religious freedom, to escape government control and virtual
dictatorship over the land, and to acquire a small tract of land that could be owned
completely. Having broken away from the English sovereignty and establishing
themselves as their own sovereigns, and equally important, ownership of land. The
American founding fathers chose Allodial ownership of land for the system of
ownership on this country. Wendell v. Crandall, 1 N.Y. 491 (1848).
"The American people, before developing a properly functioning stable
government, developed a stable system of land ownership, whereby the people owned
their land absolutely and in a manner similar to the king in common-law England. As
"allodium" which means or is defined as man's own land, which he possesses merely in
his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior."
Wallace v. Harmstead, 44 Pa. 492 (1863).
"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority
have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by
the Constitution." Reid v Covert 354 US I, 1957.
Any laws created by government which are repugnant to the Constitution carry NO force of law
and are VOID:

The American people, newly established sovereigns in this republic after the victory
achieved during the Revolutionary War, became complete owners (ALLODIAL) in
their land, beholden to no lord or superior; as sovereign freeholders in the land
themselves. These freeholders in the original thirteen states now held allodial title to
the land they possessed before the war they only held feudally. "This new and more
powerful title protected the sovereigns from unwarranted intrusions or attempted takings
of their land, and more importantly it secured in them a right to own land absolutely in
perpetuity." (without end) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (S.) 419 (1793);
McConnell v. Wilcox, I Seam. (IR.) 344 (1837) as quoted in Leading
Fighter v. County of Gregory, 230 N.W.2d 114, 116 (1975).
The "property tax" on private property is relatively new in American history, and that in
the beginning of this nation, men held property beholden to no one.
This type of superior title was bestowed upon the newly established American people by
the founding fathers. The people were and are sovereigns by choice, and through this
new type of land ownership, the people were sovereign freeholders or kings (WE THE
PEOPLE) over their own land, beholden to no lord or superior. United
States v. Sunset Cemetery Co., 132 F. 2d 163 (1943).
3
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of
law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as
inoperative as if it had never been passed ... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the
general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office,
bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts
performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a
statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is
superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908);
NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v. Vallier,
136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rei Ballard v. Goodland, 159
Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488,489 (1915); State ex rei Kleist v. Donald, 164 Wis 545,
552-553; 160 NW 1067,1070 (1917); State ex rei Martin v. Zimmerman, 233 Wis
16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rei Commissioners of Public Lands v.
Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v. Van Der
Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742,744-745 (1983).
To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon
the one/s involved:
"State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in
their official capacities." Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).
I have a right to question and challenge any taxing activities by government as to their
validity and legal standing:
"The name of the tax is unimportant that it is the substance and not the form which
controls;' that the limitations of the constitution cannot be 'frittered away' by calling a
tax indirect when it is in fact direct." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157
U.S.429,5801,583(1895.
"That decision affirms the great principle that what cannot be done directly (direct
taxation) because of constitutional restriction cannot be accomplished indirectly by
legislation which accomplishes the same result." Fairbanks v. U.S. 181 U.S. 283,294
(1901).
MAXIMS OF LAW
One can only have jurisdiction over that which one creates. COUNTY
did not create the land, nor did COUNTY create me, " a living man."
_ _ _ _ _COUNTY is a for-profit corporation and only has authority to assess
property taxes on property with a taxable situs in COUNTY in the State
of OREGON.
4
"The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world, and those who dwell
therein" (Psalm 24: 1).
The LORD God has given the world to families and not to governments (Genesis 1:26-
28).
Rights come from the LORD God, and not the State; that rights are antecedent to acts of
legislation (Declaration of Independence; Federalist Papers # 46).
_ _ _ _ _ _ COUNTY is a man-made fiction, for-profit corporation with no God-
given rights.
Constitutions are in place to protect the rights of the people and to limit the powers of
government.
"[T]he general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and
administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated powers, which
concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate
provisions of any.- James Madison, Federalist 14, 1787"
The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature
of the powers upon which it is founded. -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33, 1788.
OATH AND BOND LAWS
The Constitution for the United States 6:3 requires all judicial and executive officers of
the several states to take the required oath to execute their duties within the limitation of
Constitutional law, to wit:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and/or Judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States.
The People in OREGON require public officers to take the required oath to support the
Constitution for the United States and to purchase a faithful performance bond as
evidence of their sincere intent to protect the people's rights in the performance of their
duties?
[Oath of Officer]
Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties,
take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the
United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and
impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.
Officers; oath and bond; failure to qualify. ( 1965)
Any officer elected or appointed to any municipal office shall take an oath or affirmation
5
to support the constitution of the United States, the constitution and laws of OREGON
and to faithfully perform the duties of his office.
County officers; oath; bond.
As used in this section, "county officer" means county commissioner, county assessor,
county clerk, county sheriff, county treasurer, probate judge, county flood commissioner
and small claims court clerk etc ..
Before assuming the duties of office, each county officer shall take and subscribe the
oath of office prescribed by the constitution of OREGON and give an official bond
payable to the state and conditioned for the faithful performance of duties, during the
county officer's term of office and until a successor is elected or appointed and is
qualified, and that the county officer shall pay all money received in the county officer's
official capacity to the person entitled to receive it. The bond shall be executed by a
corporate surety company authorized to do business in this state. The amount of the
bond required shall be fixed by the board of county commissioners in a sum equal to
twenty percent of the public money handled by the county officer during the preceding
fiscal year but not to exceed that sum.
Within thirty days after the issuance by the president of the United States of his
proclamation announcing the result of said election so ascertained, all officers elected at
such election, except members of the legislature, shall take the oath of office and give
bond as required by this constitution or by the laws of the State of OREGON in
case of like officers in the territory, state, county or district and shall thereupon enter
upon the duties of their respective offices; but the legislature may by law require such
officers to give other or additional bonds as a condition of their continuance in office.
[Emphasis added]
OREGON State employees are required to obey the law as a requirement of office, the
Plaintiff presents the following:
OREGON requires each employee of the State to acquire faithful performance surety
bonds.
OREGON requires elected or appointed persons are required to be covered by a faithful
performance surety bond .
No public officer is authorized to discharge assigned duties until surety bond coverage is
recorded. Recording as Prerequisite to Discharging Duties of Office, and Note the
requirement was established as an Act of Congress before the State of OREGON came
into existence ..
"This ordinance is irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people
of this state, and no change or abrogation of this ordinance, in whole or in part, shall be
made by any constitutional amendment without the consent of congress."
THE RIGHTS OF MAN
6
We The People's natural, inalienable to protect their property from unlawful tax
assessments-assessment on property the State or County does not
own. Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 143 LEd 2d 882, 119 S. Ct.
(1999): West Virginia State Board of Education et al. v. Barnett et al., 319 U.S. 624,
63 S. Ct. 1178, TITLE 42, Sec. 1983. Mitchel v. City of Rockland.

The United States Government was set up by the consent of the governed, and the Bill of
Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. The
Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the states protects the citizen against the state itself
and all of its creatures. Ones right to life, liberty and property and other fundamental
rights may not be submitted to vote, and they depend on the outcome of no election The
Supreme Court said that if the STATE cannot take away any inalienable right, the
CITY or COUNTY cannot, either! "Where rights are secured by The Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate the."
Miranda v. Ariz. 383 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
Owning property for shelter from the elements is a natural, human right antecedent to
any powers of the state to tax, levy, seize, or sell property.
The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the
state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the
enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, at
819 [1930]
Rights are unalienable and cannot be diminished by acts of the State.
A man has a right to find shelter from the rain, wind, heat, snow, and hail.
Shelter from the element is necessary to sustain and enjoy life.
Rights cannot be taxed; that only privileges and franchises can be taxed.
A family Shelter used for protection from the elements cannot be taxed.
Owning property for the purpose of sleeping and finding shelter from the elements is not
a privilege or franchise, but a basic human right.
The property in question is used for shelter for the claimant and his family.
JOHN MARSHALL Chief Justice, in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v.
Maryland. Webster, 17 U.S. 327 (1819) in arguing the case, said: "An unlimited power
to tax involves, unlimited, power to destroy." Where, when, and by what authority did
the county obtain that power to tax and destroy?
_ _ _ _ COUNTY Corporation does not own private property in the county;
_ _ _ _ COUNTY is not God, nor has the LORD God appointed the county to lead,
guide, decide, supervise, and guard everyman and all that he owns. If all land in the
county is created by, owned by, governed by COUNTY then Claimant
demands a verified claim (TITLE) and proof of claim.
7
The Claimant challenges all presumptions that my land belongs to _ _ _ __
COUNTY or the State of OREGON and that everything is commercial.
A man has a right to own property and live somewhere on this earth without being taxed
by a greedy, overreaching state corporation called " COUNTY." The
property claimed by the Claimant is used for shelter from the wind, rain, hail, snow, and
blistering heat. It is where the Claimant cooks, eats, sleeps, baths, and plays. It is not
used in a manner that subjects it to taxation.
No legitimate government can lawfully tax a man for existing. This brings up the
question, is/are county government legitimate? Not if they violate the law.

The government cannot tax a man's right to live on his property because a man has to
live somewhere. The presumption that the county owns all property and has authority
over every man and his dog, cat, car, wife, children, furniture, tools, shelter, and
badminton set is patently offensive and repugnant to the Constitution for the United
States (1791).
The state's presumption that it created and owns a man's land, the sky above, and the
water below is not only conspicuously false but obnoxiously arrogant. Besides placing
an undue burden on the people, it is a power grab characteristic of tyrants. King George
comes to mind.
A man has a right to live, dwell, and have protection from the elements without it being
taxed (loth Amendment). Also See, Article 1 Sec. 10, Clause 1., U.S. Constitution.
A man has a right to hold land in Allodial title beholden to no one. (See, General Land
Office Book, pages 28-29, Dated 1870.
Waltz et. al., Barlow v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, (1925), quoting
Matthews v. Ward, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 443 (1839); "after the American Revolution,
lands in this state (Maryland) became Allodial, (Owing to no one) subject to no tenure,
nor to any services incident thereto."
An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him,
transmissible to his heirs absolutely and simply, such an estate is an absolute estate in
perpetuity (without end) and the largest possible estate a man can have, being, in fact
Allodial title. This type of fee simple, as thus developed, has definite characteristics: (1)
it is a present estate in land that is of indefinite duration; (2) it is freely alienable; (3)
it carries with it the right of possession; and enjoyment and most importantly (4) the
holder may make use of any portion of his freehold without being beholden to any
person. Stanton v. Sullivan, 63 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839).
The Constitution for the United States of America prohibits slavery; and, that if a man or
his shelter I property can be taxed merely for existing, it is a form of slavery (13th
Amendment).
8
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction."
If COUNTY can tax the private property and home not used in commerce,
that man and his family is held in servitude all the days of his life or until the
_ _ _ _ _ _ COUNTY Assessor either releases the property from the tax rolls or
seizes the property to steal it from the man. (TAX FORECLOSURE SALE)
AUTHORITY TO TAX PROPERTY
All law must be written or it is not law.
The Revolution against England was because King George "erected a multitude of New
Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass the people, and eat out their
substance." (Declaration of Independence)
A nation of limited government means that the taxing power of the State is limited and
few (to direct and indirect taxes). A tax on Private Property is a direct tax, which is
unconstitutional. Private property cannot be taxed without the property owners consent.
The Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 clearly defines the limitation of taxation
to duties, imposts and excises to be the only form of taxation to pay debts of and to
provide for the needs of the government.
The real property tax falls under the category of "indirect" taxes or "excise" taxes which
is a tax levy on business activities and corporations.
An excise is defined as a tax levied on certain goods and commodities produced or sold
within a country and on licenses granted for certain business activities. Not private
property.
The property in question is not owned by a corporation with a license to produce
commodities that are sold for certain business activities.
In order for property to be taxable you must be conducting some kind of business
upon it or making some kind of profit that would be considered to be a privilege.
This is only under license. How can it be taxable if you don't have a sign up, a
license, or if you are incorporated?
The United States Constitution does not grant power to any State to tax land owned by
the people where they seek shelter from the elements. People, after all, have to live
somewhere. Federalist No. 33 Concerning the General Power of
Taxation. Alexander Hamilton.
Though a law, therefore, laying a tax for the use of the United States would be supreme
in its nature, and could not legally be opposed or controlled, yet a law for abrogating or
preventing the collection of a tax laid by the authority of the State, (unless upon
imports and exports), would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of
power not granted by the U.S. Constitution.
9
The Thirteen Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids involuntary servitude.
The U.S. Supreme court has ruled on many occasions that all taxation is voluntary which
means there must be an agreement such as a contract to conduct the privilege of
incorporating or doing business as a corporation within the state between the bona
fide property owners (taxpayers) and the county or state. In this case no contract exists!
Nor has it ever existed.

[Note: of all the property taxes, the most egregious and abusive is the property tax.
Let's look at what property tax really is.
WHAT PROPERTY TAXES REALLY ARE
Another aspect of most people's financial lives that's been made overly confusing in
order to obfuscate what it really is and it's real purpose.

Having done a ton of research into the Property Tax. This has included research to
determine its origin which, in tum, has led to Land Grants, Land Patents, the origins of
the State Property Code, as well as into the UCC and Federal Banking & Securities
Laws.

I've come to the conclusion, all supported by the various Federal and State laws, as well
as court cases, that Warranty Deeds and other Deeds for 'Real Property' (a term of art),
filed in County Clerk Offices (or other Government recordation offices) become
Security Instruments no different than a Stock, or Bond, or Promissory Notes,
etc. This makes Deeds tradable and negotiable just like Stocks, Bonds, Promissory
Notes, etc. The key to converting an ordinary Deed into a Security Instrument is
twofold: 1) it must contain certain LEGAL DESCRIPTORS ofthe underlying
property, i.e., Lot A, Block 23, Section 43 of the Benson Subdivision of the City of
Anywhere, and 2) its recordation must be in a Government Office suited to that
purpose. Scroll down to see the definition of 'recordation'.

I've also found that property taxes are merely a form of the income tax, which explains
why one may deduct one's property taxes from one's income taxes--otherwise it would
amount to double taxation. The actual legal verbiage I found is that "income tax liens on
property are merely an extension of the property tax lien, which lien automatically
attaches to a property on January 1 of every year". How 'bout them apples, eh?

Now here's the kicker: What the property tax actually taxes is not the underlying land
or structures to the Deed; what the property tax taxes is THE SECURITY
INSTRUMENT, THE DEED ITSELF!! The United States Tax Code, as well as State
Tax Codes (all 50 of them), are super clear and consistent that Security Instruments are
10
taxable. Further, the Texas Property Tax Code states that both 'tangible (personal) and
intangible (personal) property' is subject to taxation. Security instruments fall under the
category of 'intangible personal property'. Private property cannot be subjected to/as
a security instrument without the owner's knowledge and consent!

So every year when you get your 'Property Tax Statement' from your 'County Appraisal
District' (CAD), your being told what the present value of your Security Instrument is,
aka your 'Deed'. This is why you're never sent a 'Bill' from the CAD but only a
'Statement'. It's the same as if you held a Stock from, say, Apple Computers. Apple
would never send you a yearly bill but they might send their stockholders a yearly
statement disclosing the current value of the stock. The State of Texas does the same
thing every year through its CADs. CADs are merely the administrative agencies of all
States authorized to administer the Security Instruments known as 'Deeds'. This is an
intent to commit fraud in the first instance and by doing the unlawful tax is an actual
fraud in the second instance. Title 42 Sec 1983 (RICO).

You might say, "Yeah, but I've never heard of a company which requires yearly
payments to hold its stock. Yet, the States does it through the yearly property tax!" The
answer to that is simply this: Those are the terms of the contract you've (albeit
unwittingly) entered into when you filed your Deed or accepted the Deed, as buyer of
the property, which the Seller conveyed to you. (FRAUD BY FAILURE TO
DISCLOSE)! Fraud negates any and all contracts! Also, many investment
companies such as mutual funds and hedge funds charge their clients a yearly
'management fee', usually 1%-2% of the value of the client's portfolio, for administering
their clients' accounts. The State through its CADs is doing the exact same thing. BTW,
property taxes typically amount to 1%-2% of the value of the property, just like the fees
private mutual and hedge funds charge. Do you think that's a coincidence?

Finally, if the Deed is a Security Instrument, and it's value is based on the value of the
underlying physical assets, those being the land and the structures upon it, then a Deed is
not only a Security Instrument, but it's a Derivative! And we all remember how well
those did--they caused the Market Crash of 2008! Derivatives are all a con-game!

The county tax department steels our money by way of property taxes then markets the
deeds as securities and derivatives and receives monies (unjust enrichment) and we the
property owner receive nothing in return! Another fraud!
PS: For those of you who are more advanced in the area of study of the Federal Reserve
and how money is actually created in THE UNITED STATES, try this one on for size: Is
filing a Deed, which is converted to Security Instrument, with a government agency
(County Clerk) as a condition for getting a mortgage (FRNs) any different from using
the Fed Window to exchange another type of Security Instrument, say a Promissory
11
Note, in order to get FRNs? Another fraud!

Definition of 'recordation':
The act of giving legal status to a document by making it an official public record.
Nothing in law allows the conversion of private property to allow the county/state to
benefit from unjust enrichment . This is called unlawful conversion! Another criminal
act!
States only have the power to tax businesses with a "situs" in the State. They have no
authority to tax a man's shelter where he seeks refuge from the sun, snow, wind, and rain.
County assessors get away with it because people don't know the law, the limitations
of a State's taxing authority, and the "word games" State tax assessors play to in order to
make families poorer and county's richer. The county's authority to tax this man's
property was challenged, and this memorandum prepared for that purpose. Simply put,
we stop these criminals from their over reach of authority.

MEMORANDUM ON PROPERTY TAX, _ _ _ _ COUNTY is a for-profit


corporation registered with Dun & Bradstreet DUNS. It is not sovereign. It has no
rights.
All law must be written or it is not law.
The Constitution is the highest law in the land. All statutes repugnant to the Constitution
are null and void, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
The Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 classifies the taxing power of the state
under "excise" taxes, which, in the case of property tax, is a tax on certain business
activities, privileges, and franchises. NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY!
The imposition and levy of tax is made upon "income" derived from business property,
to wit: A tax is imposed at the rates specified in the Income Tax Act upon the net income
of every resident individual[1]_and upon the net income[2] of every nonresident
individual employed or engaged in the transaction of business in, into or from this
state, or deriving any income from any property or employment within this state.
The Secretary and all county assessors must follow the law.

PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAX


Deduction: Property not used for a "business" or that is not "engaged in the
transaction of a business" or from which not "income" is derived, cannot be subject
to any kind of tax.
The county assessor has authority for "valuation of all property" used "in the conduct of
the following businesses to wit, railroad, communications systems, pipeline, public
utility; and airline. Furthermore, the rest of the statute includes valuation of "electricity
12
generating plant," "commercial property," "machinery," "equipment" for construction of
roads, highways, bridges, parking areas, building, fence, stadium, airport, subway or
similar tacitly, park, trail, athletic field, golf course .
The property owned by the Claimant is engaged in none of these businesses.
"Situs: location or place of crime or business" (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th
Edition). The Latin term "situs" refers to where one conducts his business.
Property has a taxable situs in the state if "it is real property and is located in the state.
The conjunction "if' places a condition on the event of taxation.
An ad valorem tax can only be place on the sale of commercial property. "Ad valorem
tax" (Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition).
According to value. A tax levied on property or an article of commerce in proportion
to its value, as determined by assessment or appraisal. Callaway v. City of Overland
Park, 211 Kan. 646, 508 P.2d 902, 907.
The People of OREGON created a government of limited powers and did not give them
universal, global, totalitarian power over their bodies, minds, papers, effects, families,
and property.
The state may not tax persons, property or interest which are not within its territorial
jurisdiction and subject only to applicable and controlling federal law. State taxation
authorized and limited and regulated by the State's constitution, and the state's statutes
and acts thereunder.
Personal property which is moving in interstate commerce through ... the state of
OREGON ... shall be deemed not to have acquired a situs in OREGON for
purposes of taxation .. .shall be exempt"
Notice the term "interstate commerce" because it identifies the "taxable activity" over
which OREGON has jurisdiction-commerce. Second, notice the phrase "situs" as it
applies to a commercial business for "purposes of taxation;" that is, the state ONLY has
authority to tax businesses with a situs in the state!
It is an conspicuous overreach to assume all property in the state is used for commerce.
Not so!
Argumenta for a moment: If property must have a business situs in the state to be taxed,
then tax assessors cannot lawfully require all property within the state to be construed as
having a situs within the state for the purposes of raising revenue.
Such presumption would lead to theft under color of law, ORS 164.075, Theft by
extortion, a violation of the Command, "Thou shall not covet (desire, scheme, plan,
plot) thy neighbor's house (and the land on which it sits) ... " (Exodus 20: The
Tenth Commandment).
13
The property in question is not the situs of a business within the State. It is not in
commerce, nor is it used to produce commodities, oil, gas, crops, etc., and the like. It is
where the Claimant seeks refuge from the rain, heat, and snow.
The situs required for tax purposes is for the taxpayer who carries on business in the
state, more or less permanent in its nature. The situs arises from notes, mortgages, tax
certificate sales and the like that are brought into the state for more than a
temporary purpose and are devoted to some business use there and thus become
incorporated with the property of the state for revenue purposes.
A situs arises where possession and control of a property right has been based in some
independent business or investment away from the owner's domicile so that it is
substantially used to produce a product and the value primarily attached to it, and it
becomes an asset of the outside business. State v. Atlantic Oil Production Co,
Oklahoma.
The Claimant does not use the property in question for a "trade or business."
The Claimant uses the property in question for shelter from the wind, sun, rain, and
snow!
The term "residence" and "nonresident persons" is slippery as snake oil, and in the
context of property tax can only refer to properties engaged in commerce or business-
properties such as apartment complexes, nursing homes, shelters for the homeless, etc.
We the People did not give any government right to tax our shelter.
Any attempt by the county assessor to enlarge the commercial definition of "residence"
to include private property used for shelter is hereby rejected as government overreach
and power grab for commercial gain at the expense of individual rights and liberties. The
whole context is railroads, industrial development, pollution control, metropolitan
redevelopment, enterprise property zones, and improvements of "surface and subsurface
structures, pipelines, and "low-income resident in a housing project." Further, to read
into the term "residential housing" to include private property non-government housing
or private property is a government overreach in violation of the rights of man, and it
violates the intent of congress.
A place where people seek shelter from the elements is not a place where they conduct
business, manufacture goods, hire employees, and sell products.
"Because an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not
qualify as property 'used in' commerce or commerce-affecting activity, such a dwelling
is not subject to ... prosecution ... " Jones v. United States, 529 U.S., 146 LEd 2d 902,
120 S. Ct. (May 22, 2000).
AD VALOREM. According to the value. (Bouvier 1856, 6th Edition).
This Latin term is used in commerce in reference to certain duties, called ad valorem
duties, which are levied on commodities at certain rates per centum on their value.
14
See Duties; Imposts; Act of Cong. of March 2, 1799, s. 61 of March 1, 1823 s. 5.
The legislative intent is for persons exercising a taxable privilege who engages in the
business of renting, leasing, letting, granting, or license for the use of any real property
unless such property.
The property subject to taxation in includes the following businesses with a "situs" in
the state: nursing facility, a skilled nursing facility, an adult residential care facility, a
care facility for the disabled, property owned by a charitable nursing retirement, or long
term care organization, oil and gas property, copper mineral property etc.
The shelter on the land in question does not conduct any of these activities and are
simply not the object of this "situs" tax.
The person involved in a franchise or business within the tax, for taxation purposes is
called a "taxpayer"-some kind of legal entity, partnership, or corporation with a license
to practice some trade or business.
The allocation of value of property can ONLY be made upon commercial property that
has a "taxable situs in the state" and that such taxable property concerns commercial
activities such as "purpose of storage, manufacturing, processing or fabricating"
property in "transit to a final destination outside the state; and, that the "property" listed
is "wool, mohair, hides, pelts, farm crops" owned by the manufacturer. The term "real
property" has to do with non-movable property owned by corporation, entities,
businesses, and individuals "in the state."
The shelter on the property in question is not "state owned property."
The term "person" means "an individual or any other legal entity;" and, that the term
"person" in this definition must be distinguished from a human being or "Person" in the
Constitution for the United States of 1791 ,Article 1.2.2 ..
The object or target of property tax laws do not include private property where people
live out of necessity.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ COUNTY can only tax what it owns, creates, or enfranchises.

METHODS OF EVALUATION
The rules for evaluation of Property Tax is formulated at 1% to 2.5% Valuation of
Property.
OREGON bases its evaluation in part upon "income" from taxable property," income
from "affordable housing program(s)," "affordable housing subsidy," "residential
housing," "residential housing" for the homeless persons and common health care,"
kitchen, dining, recreational and other "facilities" primarily used for residents.
The county assessor's authority is limited to "all property subject to valuation for
property taxation purposes. Further, if all property is subject to levy, then there would be
15
no need to set up rules to define what property is "subject to valuation for property
taxation purposes." But, because private property without a situs in the state corporation
apparatus is outside the jurisdiction of the COUNTY Corporation, rules
are in place to prevent abuse of the County's corporate taxing power.
The owner of the shelter property in question is not a "person" subject to the property
tax nor is the owner involved in any of the activities supra.
The property classified as property subject to taxation purposes is "classified as either
residential property or nonresidential property. Both of these terms are commercial
terms connected with a business that has a situs in the state.
The property managed by the Claimant is neither "residential property" or
"nonresidential property." It is the Claimant's home used for shelter from the wind, rain,
sun, heat, cold, and snow. Any artifice, trick, double speak, double talk, legalese by BAR
attorneys that attempts to classify the Claimant's property as "residential property" is an
unethical, unchristian practice with malice aforethought hereby rejected without a
verified claim and proof of claim, made under oath, under pains and penalties.
NOTICE; _ _ _ _ _ COUNTY AGENTS, ASSESSORS, AND ASSIGNS that
any assessment,
made against the claimant must be verified under pains and penalties.
The Claimant is not a "person" to wit:
The term ""person" means an individual, a club, a company, a cooperative association, a
corporation, an estate, a firm, a joint venture, a partnership, a receiver, a syndicate, a
trust or other association, a limited liability company, a limited liability partnership or a
gas, water or electric utility owned or operated by a county or municipality and, to the
extent permitted by law, a federal, state or other governmental unit or subdivision or an
agency, a department or an instrumentality thereof. Person: "person" means any
individual or any other legal entity".
( 1) Person, The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual,
(2) a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation- 26 U.S.C. §
7701-Definitions
The owner of the shelter property is not a "department," "employee," "employer,"
"payee," "payor," "person," "wagerer" receiving or supplying "wages" or "winnings,"
"withholdee," or "withholder," or other such legal, commercial, business thing. The
shelter property in question is involved in none of these activities and is therefore not the
"subject to property taxation purposes". If this statement is denied, you are instructed to
provide a verified claim with proof of claim.
Imposition of property tax is upon "residential" property "subject to the tax. It cannot
lawfully be imposed on private property of the people using the property for shelter.
16

It is unknown how the county assessor or the court would have jurisdiction over a
private person (human being) absent a contract in place requiring the production of
records; that is, this "person" over whom the county has subpoena authority must be a
business with a "situs" in the state.

CIVIL ACTIONS, PRISON, AND FINES FOR FRAUD


When a county assessor, a "person," violates a man's natural, unalienable rights by
levying an unlawful tax upon personal property that he acts in his personal capacity
outside the law, the board of county commissioners of the county of a tax assessor's
noncompliance with the law and to take action to remedy the noncompliance. If the
failure has not been corrected, the county assessor shall be suspended.
When a county assessor violates the law that he is subject to a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
lawsuit to wit:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,
of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an
act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be
granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the
District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Title
18 U.S.C. Sec. 241 & 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242.
Levying a property tax on a man's shelter is a scheme and artifice to defraud and to
obtain money in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341.
Using the mail to send false, property tax bills to obtain money is a crime of mail fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341.
Reclassifying a man's private property used for shelter as "real property" or a "residence"
for the purpose of raising revenue through the falsifying of records is in violation of, 18
u.s.c. §2071.
Creating fictitious obligations and presenting them as bills is a violation of, 18 U.S.C. §
514.
Putting property on a tax roll that is not supposed to be there the creation of a counterfeit
security in violation of, 16 U.S.C. § 513.
Turning a right into a privilege under color of law a conspiracy against right in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §241 & 342.
Crimes of this nature are subject to fines and not more than twenty years of
17
imprisonment, or both per, 18 U.S.C. §1341.
It is a crime for a powerful corporation like JACKSON County to abuse the process and
attempt to overpower the individual with swarms of officers and a huge war chest. Anti-
trust laws at 15 U.S.C. Articles 1-7, The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Clayton Anti-
Trust Act, are in place to protect the individual from power tactics used by the state. Any
attempt by the county or state to convert the Claimant's property into a commercial asset
for the benefit of municipals corporations without just compensation is a tort condemned
in City of Monterey v. Monte Dunes, LTD. et al.
The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and
control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533
US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. _(2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause
for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting
the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US
1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). (butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot
restrict development of the man's private property unless they lawfully acquire the land
FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte
Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct. (1998).
NOTICES this agency and all signators, FAIR WARNING, NOT AS A THREAT,
pursuant to United States v. Lanier on Certiori 95-1717, hereby informs this agency,
its corporation, staff, and personnel, that any violation of the Claimant's God-given
rights will be enjoined in a lawsuit as "Conspiracy Against Rights" by action under color
of law according to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law"
and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242, "Conspiracy Against Rights" which is punishable by fines and
or imprisonment.
NOTICE; This agency that the presenter values his rights in the millions of dollars, and
charges 1,000 dollars per hour that he has to spend to defend his rights in a court of law.

COUNTY SAYS YOU OWE US


WE THE PEOPLE, are grieved by the report that STATE ACTORS has been sending
private property owners a "YOU OWE US" Notice, I am God's Servant and an
Ambassador of His Majesty in Heaven. I recommend that you pay every com tax that
you owe, and do not become a victim of every com-grabbing scheme concocted by your
FOR-PROFIT STATE CORPORATION; that is, study the law and pay the com you owe,
but don't cower to commercial schemes to defraud you of the com God has given you!
You must feed your family before feeding the ALWAYS HUNGRY
STATE. Remember, The FOR-PROFIT STATE and COUNTY CORPORATION is
limited by fundamental law!
Now, to the questions.
18
Yes, you should give "unto Caesar, what belongs to Caesar, "but what belongs to
Caesar? Do you belong to Caesar? Does your wife belong to Caesar? Does your labor
belong to Caesar? The answer is closer to NOTHING than SOMETHING. "The earth is
the Lords and the people thereof" (Psalms 24:I). Nothing you have or own or
harvest belongs to Caesar! You are God's free man and he forbids you to be a slave of
men (1 Corinthians 7:23). But, ifyou use Caesar's Toll Road to take your corn to the
market, pay the fee. And, don 't forget. Even Caesar owes to God what is God's!
Moreover, in this country WE THE PEOPLE are Caesar, and the STATE is a servant!
The STATE owes You truth and service; You have no duty to the State (See Hale v.
Henkle).
Second, about those STATE "You Owe Us" letters you and your flock has been
receiving. The STATE is a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION and will do everything in its
power to plunder your corn field out and to shift corn to STATE harvesters. They are
involved in a fraud, in violation of the Tenth Commandment, to deprive men of their
property. But, these pirates are limited by law. Your task is to know the law and make
sure STATE HARVESTERS are not overreaching and plundering your corn under color
of law, color of process, color of office, and color of authority.
The best you can do is exposing the legal deficiencies of these "YOU OWE US" letters
and force the de facto officers to verify and validate their claims under oath. An un-
validated, unverified claim has no force in law. If I were in your sandals, the property
owner would "refuse for cause" every claim, and demand they the
STATE ACTORS validate and verify their plunder-you campaign letters; that is, the
property owner would demand "proof of claim" and not succumb to paper terrorism.
The best you can do is be a law-abiding farmer, have a clear conscience, and resist the
overreaching, covetous STATE commercial schemes. You cannot force the STATE
CORN HARVESTERS to obey the law, but you can challenge their unlawful, illegal,
unenforceable activities in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ by using God's laws and
their Laws to keep them out of your corn field.
In the precious Name of Christ, Your Brother, and Fellow-Servant,
Practicing law per Matthew 22:39; 28:19-20; Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 11:27; Isaiah
1:17; Romans 2:13; James 2:12; 1 John 3:4; 5:1-3.
19

AFFIDAVIT

Declaration of Non-Private Property Taxpayer


Status
I, Michael Stanford and Melody O'Donnell Claimant, is a living breathing man and
woman with a soul, mature in age, competent to testify, makes the following statement
based on his own personal knowledge:
This is a MEMORANDUM OF NON PRIVATE PROPERTY TAXPAYER STATUS
rebutting _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ presumption that its assessment is correct and
your county
that Affiant is a taxpayer. Be informed His Majesty's servant is under Biblical law and to
his knowledge has no contract with and no duty toward the State; and, therefore, is not a
"taxpayer" as such words of art are regularly posted for propaganda purposes.
It is an established fact of law that "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation
of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers.
The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, and
no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With
them [non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the
subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". [emphasis added] Economy
Plumbing and Heating Co. v. US, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972).
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 incriminate him. He owes no such duty
to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom the state beyond the protection of his
life, rights and property. Hale v. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
If the recipient of this Memorandum disagree with the status of this Affiant, then rebut
with specificity and particularity citing the law. If I do not hear from you, I will presume
my declaration is correct and true.
_______ , - - -
month year
sign
printnrune _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
sign
print name._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Notary;
20

NOTICE OF DISPUTE
Dear _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , Agent or Assigns:
county you live in
It is my policy to pay all my legitimate debts, but this alleged debt with JACKSON
COUNTY property tax assessment is disputed. Maybe, I did not make myself clear in
my last letter. Your statement is conditionally accepted upon proof of claim per
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Part I, Chapter 5, II, § 556 ((d)).
I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,a living man with a soul, mature in age, competent to
your name
testify, hereafter "I" or "Affiant" do state from my own personal knowledge and with
requirement of the following:
1. NOTICES you that I yield none of my God-given rights as preserved and protected
by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, gth, gth, and 10th AMENDMENTS.
2. NOTICES you that you supplied none of the information I requested in my last
letter, and without which, there is no proof of claim; i.e., no proof of liability.
3. Do I have a contract with you? If so, please send me a certified copy of the contract
so I may inspect it. Affiant demands strict proof of liability.
4. Do I have a contract with _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ? If so, please send me a certified copy
county you live in
of the contract so I may inspect it. Affiant demands strict proof of liability.
5. Do I have a tax liability to ? Do you have a sworn assessment,
county you live in
a.k.a property tax form, declaring that I have some tax liability to the Federal
government or an affidavit duly sworn pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6065 that I have a bona
fide tax liability to TAX DEPARTMENT; that I am subject to the
county you live in
tax code; that I am engaged in a taxable activity; that I have a bona fide debt to
21
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ TAX DEPARTMENT? If so, I demand strict proof of claim and
county you live in
your authority to settle a dispute between _ _ _ _ _ _TAX DEPARTMENT and
county you live in
myself.
6. Furthermore, if you think I have some tax liability to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TAX
county you live in
DEPARTMENT, please state your authority to make that determination for me without
lawful assessment. Affiant demands strict proof of liability.
7. Are you not a 3rd party debt collector? Are you not attempting to collect a
presumptive debt or is that a presumptive tax for "another"? Is it not true that you are
subject to the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practice Act to FDCPA at 15 USC as a "debt
collector", then you are required to validate the alleged debt unless of course, you have a
court judgment or sworn statement from proper authority that I have some kind of tax
liability to the debt in question.
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 incriminate him. He owes no such duty
to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life, rights
and property. Hale v. Henkel- 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
8. Please provide the contract that obligates me with some tax liability to the
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ TAX DEPARTMENT; and a sworn statement by a bona fide agent
county you live in
that I have a bona fide liability to the state; and please provide the law in the tax code
that obligates me to some kind of performance, and I will do my best to arrange
payments. Otherwise, you need not contact me again.
9. NOTICES YOU that if you or your company continues to harass me and pressure
me into paying a presumptive debt without proof of claim that this is harassment and
that I am being injured by your collection efforts. See my fee schedule.
10. I do not accept unsigned, computerized form letters. If you disagree with any of
my claims, please rebut with specificity and particularity. If I do not hear from you, I
will assume that my facts and my assessment is correct and that you and

county you live in


11. TAX DEPARTMENT do not have proof of claim and therefore your statement
are merely presumptions.
22
11. If I do not hear from you with specificity and particularity, I will assume that my
conclusions are correct and that I have no liability to TAX
county you live in
DEPARTMENT.
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL;
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT.
SILENCE IS ACQUIESCENCE
NOTICE OF LIEN, IS NOT A LIEN!
"Notice of Lien" lacking any legal force. But, if I were in your shoes, I would mark up
the letter with a red pen listing its deficiencies and send it back to them.
Question to the county "Refused for Cause." The "cause" is that it is legally deficient
and legally unenforceable because it is not in compliance with law.
0 A "Notice of property tax Lien" is not a lien.
0 STATE OF OREGON is a for-profit corporation.
0 Issued without authority.
0 Hearsay!!
0 Not signed!
0 Where is the signed assessment?
0 Not signed by a bonded officer of the state.
0 Not signed with a wet blue ink signature under oath per §6065
0 Not validated with a signature
0 Not verified under pains and penalties.
0 Not a court order.
0 Violation of the 4th Amendment.
0 Violation of the 5th Amendment.
0 Violation of the 14 Amendment.
0 Not signed by a de-jure judge.
0 No law cited.
0 No private property tax law cited.
0 A claim without proof of claim
0 Violation of FDCPA 1692e and Section 809. Validation of debt.
0 Coercion, intimidation, duress.
0 An overreaching Demand by an unidentified public servant.
0 Presumption! Presumption! Presumption!
0 Issued without authority.
0 Who issued this? And under what authority?
0 This presentment lacks a single, complete comprehensible sentence that says recipient owes a
tax.
0 Oregon nor County has no right to property in the private sector!
There are two types of property, (1) latters patent, (2) real estate. Letters patent are true
Allodial titles, (See, General Land Office Book, 1870, p. 28-29) real estate (warranty
23
deed) are color of title, (fake title). A warranty deed conveys no ownership or title, it
only acknowledges a financial interest in a given piece of property.
ALLODIAL TITLE this is Verified in the "General Land Office Book, dated 1870,
page 28 - 29", this is very important because, nothing in our laws can destroy this
FOREVER ALLODIAL TITLE , once it is issued except for clerical error or fraud.
Letters patent are true Allodial titles, (See, General Land Office Book, 1870, p. 28-
29) The following is referenced from the COMMISSIONER OF GENERAL LAND
OFFICE BOOK, page, 28, 29, (1870) Quote, "The individual title derived from the
Government involves the entire transfer of the ownership of the soil and
water. " It is purely ALLODIAL: " With all the incidents pertaining to that title as
substantial as in the infancy of Teutonic civilization. Following in the wake ofthis
fundamental reform in our State land laws are several others which constitute
appropriate corollary. "
"The statute of uses was never adopted in the public-land States, and hence the
complex distinction between uses and trust has never embarrassed our jurisprudence."
I want to give some constitutional back ground regarding land patents, which are
actually called "letters patent". This is found in our U.S. Constitutional land disposal
section, Article 4, Sec. 3, Clause 2,. Letters patent is the means by which our founding
fathers choose as the vehicle to pass land held in trust by the united states government
into private ownership. This means of conveyance is called "letters patent", every patent
issued by the General land office and all state patents issued from the very beginning are
"Allodial Title." ("owing to no one")
Another fact of law is, that letters patent comes by way of treaties between nations. To
devalue or destroy the land patents, one would have to alter or destroy the treaty! No
state or county can alter or destroy any treaty.
American juris prudence, Corpus Juris Secundum Voi.72B, Public Lands sections
235- 261, pages (197-218) states "Neither party can change anything on the
patent/grant contract, either added or detracted , once the contract is executed."
As an Assignee, whether he is first, second or third party etc. to whom title is conveyed,
shall lose none of the original rights. U.S. Constitution Article 1 Sec. 10, Clause 1, No
state shall legislate a bill of attainder, nor pass any ex post facto law, nor a law
impairing the obligation of contract! Any county that imposes a tax on private
property is guilty of all three protective covenants listed above!
In every letters patent it is stated that "to their heirs and assigns forever", this means
24
that a letters patent is what is called in law, a prima fascia evidence document, "it says
what it says and it means what it says". That being the case that the letters patent is
forever, forever is not up yet! In other words what was stated at the time of issue of the
letters patent is still valid today!
It has become very evident that the county personnel that are involved in unlawful
action by the county and their department have absolutely no regard for the law or
private property rights!
The main purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to LIMIT the power of the federal
government and to protect individual rights and property. While Congress and the
Courts have unacceptably expanded that authority, the Constitution spells out
specifically the proper role of government. It is up to "We the people" to oversee that
our government, both state and national stays within constitutional boundaries.
The Founders believed, as we do, that limited authority should rest with local
governments. This is why congress was set up the way it is.

The STATE OF OREGON still has a constitution that states that public servants are
required by law to protect rights and property, for all who live in this state, of which
county departments have failed to do! This is called "breach of fiduciary duty".

ACT OF CONGRESS ADMITTING OREGON INTO UNION,


[11 Stat. 383 (1859)]
Approved February 14, 1859, establishing that the "State of Oregon shall never
interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or
with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to
bonafule purchasers thereof', the Supremacy Clause, Property Clause, Commerce
Clause, or the national Mining Law etc..
PROPERTY TAX IN QUESTION If all public officers have a fiduciaries duty to the
public, then why are material facts being withheld by converting our/my private
property (land patent) to commercial property, from which all counties claim the right
to tax said property.

U.S. SUPREME COURT, Chief justice Marshall stated; Quote; "The power to tax is
the power to destroy". This brings up another compelling question, under what
25
Constitutional authority does the county tax assessor/tax department have to destroy
lives and private property? If the county tax department does not have constitutional
power to destroy, then the state/county would not and does not have authority to tax
private property. "We the people" demand that the county tax department bring forth
evidence and a title superior to that of an Assignee's patent title, that lawfully
authorizes any county that power!

Title 31 USC Sec. 3124 removed taxing powers of every state regarding private
property.

Public personal from the city, county, state and even the courts will say that we don't
recognize land patents any more, that's old stuff, let's look at what federal law says
about land patents, Title 43 USC, Sec. 57 & 83, Section 57. Establishes that duly
certified copies of Federal Land Patents shall be evidence in all cases where the
originals would be evidence. Section 83 of Title 43, covers the evidentiary effect of
Certified Federal Land Patents for all States and all the Courts in the
United States must take Judicial notice of the Federal Patents and
their evidentiary effect under these Federal Statutes. All judges in all States shall
be bound as to the power and validity of the patent.
U.S. v. Debell (CAS SD) 227 F 760. 1915

Title 43 USC, Sec. 57 & 83 being the law regarding land patent, therefore one could
conclude that the county tax personal knew or should have known about Title 43, Sec.
57, 83 being that they are dealing with private property!

Oregon's also has a protective statutes regarding land patents. ORS 93.650 and ORS
93.680.
Oregon's ORS 93.650, 660 and 680, ORS 93.650 says these records (Land Patents)

may be read in evidence. ORS 93.660 says any "abstract of title to real property in this

state certified by any person regularly engaged in this state in the business of preparing

and certifying such abstracts shall be received in all courts as prima facie evidence of

the existence, condition and nature of the record of all deeds ... ORS 93.680(2) The
26
record of any such patent, judgment, approved lists or deeds recorded, or a transcript

thereof certified by the county clerk in whose office it is recorded, may be read in

evidence in any court in this state, with like effect as the original.

The county tax personal have and are committing fraud on "We the People" property
owners for not speaking up and telling us that the county lacks authority to tax private
property. That is why our founding fathers in their great wisdom structured our
constitution the way they did, it was so that the poor man would not lose his land to the
bankers or speculators or to unlawful government actions.

This poses another very compelling question, and that is by what authority and
jurisdiction does the county have that gives the county the lawful right to tax private
property? In order for a county to impose a property tax on a live flesh and blood man's
land the county must have that owner's permission or the county must have a superior
title to that of a land patent, the problem with the question of title is, that there is no such
thing as a title that is superior to a land patent! A superior title to a land patent does not
exist in our laws.

No land can be taken from its owner by way of a tax sale, because it is a violation of the
due process right, (No court judgment), it violates the intent of congress regarding letters
patent, it violates Article 1, Sec. 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution, no state can
legislate a bill of attainder, nor can a state pass a ex- post facto law, nor a law
impairing the obligation of contract. It violates Article 4, Sec. 3, Clause 2, it violates
Article 6, Clause 2, it violates the intent of congress, it violates treaty law, but most
of all it violates GOD'S LAW! The right to own land is an unalienable (GOD GIVEN)
right as so stated eleven ( 11) times in the Bible.

When land title is transferred by patent, Title and rights of Bona Fide claim the
purchaser will be protected. United States v. Debell, 227, F 760 (C8 SD, 1915),
United Sates v Beamon 242 F 876 (CAS Colorado 1917)

Land patents have numerous protective safeguards, (1) the Constitution, (2) the
Supremacy Clause, (3)Article 1 Sec. 10, Clause 1, (4)Treaty Law, (5) Relation Back
Doctrine, (6) Vested rights, (7) 5TH Amendment, (8) Over 180 years of U.S.
Supreme Court cases, Not one single case has lost at the
Supreme Court, Sanford v Sanford 139 U.S., Stone v UNITED STATES 69
U.S., SUMMA CORP. v STATE OF CALIFORNIA EX REL LANDS COM'N
27

466 U.S., Sargeant v. Herrick 221 U.S., Fletcher v Peck 10


NOTE: In Law, You can start by challenging the county property tax collector, who is
merely a third party debt collector Gust like the state and federal income tax agencies
are). Challenge their tax bills (presentments) to you. They are not signed, and fail to
meet the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code. UCCl-304, nor do they meet
the lawful requirements of the Fair Debit Collection Practices Act.
The county is not an original creditor. Nor does the county have title to your land.
The county is not a secured party. The county is not a party in due course. The county
has no bona fide security interest holder in your private land and personal property, or
fixtures or muniments. Nor does the county have a contract with you.
Since you have not knowingly, willingly, intentionally, and voluntarily agreed to any
implied or express, written contract or agreement with the debt collector, you are not a
debtor or obligor to the debt collector. (See, City of Dallas v. Mitchell.
When the homeowner is a qualified free inhabitant, the homeowner is not a registered
voter, because the free inhabitant has no oath of allegiance, or fidelity, or servitude, or
citizenship, or residence to the United States Government, or to any agency or
instrumentality or subdivision thereof.
An unregistered voter does not consent to majority rule encumbrances against the
private land such as taxes, fees, assessments, bonds, and financing by special district
such as Community Facilities Districts (CFD); and certainly does not consent to
document filings or recordings with a corporation doing business as the COUNTY as a
subdivision of the STATE of the second Union of STATES, within America, to pay their
corporate debts.
"A county cannot operate in fields prescribed by organic law." So. Dak. Employer's
Protection Ass'n v. Poage 272 N. W. 806, 809; 65 S.D. 189. Therefore, counties are
restricted from actions relating to private rights which are vested with constitutional
protection. Property tax placed on private property is a trespass breach upon private
rights.
The United States Supreme Court has held that; "A patent is the highest evidence of
title and is conclusive as against the government and all claiming under junior
patents or titles" U.S. v. Stone 2 US 525.

The owner of a Land patent have VESTED RIGHTS, (PROTECTED BY/IN LAW)
This means that patented land cannot be trespassed by the county, only by very limited
police power.

Any ordinance enacted by the county governing board to be a law, in the strict sense of
28
the word, must be backed by a statute; otherwise its jurisdiction extends only to those
deemed to be within the corporation. !fwe am not part of your or any corporation!

"An agency of government is not the government, a department or an officer of it." U.


S. ex rei Salzman v. Salzman & Salant, D.C., N.Y., 41 F Supp. 196, 197.

Time after time I continue to receive a tax bill. I will be seeking all my remedies under
the Federal RICO Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and violation of civil rights, and
violation of Oregon state law, ORS 164.075 Theft by extortion!

The state's "creatures" are "corporations", which term also extends to individuals in a
corporate capacity. This subject is thoroughly defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the
case of Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.1t is recommended reading for all persons
whether in government or private.

Ordinances are not law, they are corporate by-laws regulating those within the corporate
jurisdiction. Bouvier's 1914 legal dictionary.

You should be aware that the undersigned has been financially involved in a major
research study of Basic American Land Law and Jurisprudence.

BELOW IS A JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE - FEDERAL QUESTION IN THE


FORM OF A NEGATIVE AVERMENT.

DECLARATION OF FACT: YEARS OF GOOD FAITH, AND DUE DILIGENT


STUDY OF BASIC AMERICAN LAND LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE HAS
FAILED TO FIND THE SUBJECT CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID LAW OR
AUTHORITY.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE

BASIC, GOOD-FAITH, "JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE" FEDERAL QUESTION,


AND RELATED DEMAND FOR ANSWERS TO BOTH OF THE TWO DIFFERENT
HEREIN AFfER PRESENTED FEDERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BASIC
TYPE AND STILL VALID AND IN EFFECT UNITED STATES LAND PATENTS.
29
FORMAL JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE QUESTION NO. 1.

The undersigned herein timely challenges, on the record, the Subject Matter Jurisdiction
of the [STATE OF OREGON], and ALL of its Political Subdivisions -counties and
cities, with this long and detailed, specific Jurisdictional Challenge Question
regarding over six (6) million UNITED STATES LAND PATENTS that FOREVER
"recognized" a previous French, Spanish, or Mexican LAND GRANT, that originally
transferred those governments Sovereign, Allodial Land Ownership title, Rights,
Interest, Use and Control to their private sector. DEMAND IS HEREBY
MADE, Please provide us with your title that is superior to that of our land patent
issued by the United States General Land Office!

FORMAL JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE QUESTION NO. 2.

The undersigned herein timely challenges, as a matter of record, the Subject Matter
Jurisdiction of the STATE OF OREGON, and ALL of its Political Subdivisions-
counties and cities, with this long and detailed, specific Jurisdictional Challenge
Question regarding the millions of UNITED STATES LAND PATENTS that
FOREVER "TRANSFERRED" all of the Sovereign Allodial Land Ownership Rights,
Title, Interest, Estate, use, and private control of the letters patent from the UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT PUBLIC DOMAIN, LAND TRANSFIER (LAND PATENT)
TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

No reservations to the state or county exists of any kind on our land, located at 144
Humbug Creek Road, Applegate, Oregon , nor any other type of encumbering
designation, not limited to, "Assessable". Inclusion of any such reservation would be to
violate the trust obligations and duties established in the purpose and intention of the
OREGON ENABLING ACT of 1889, the reason the people required the soil be ceded
by the Territorial government in the first instance; No lingering State interest or rights.
SUMMA CORP. v. CAL. STATE EX REL. LANDS COM'N 466 U.S. (1984) and
the Legislative acknowledgment of the obligation and duty to not interfere with the
primary disposal of the soil ceded to Congress for the purpose evidenced by the United
States land patent:
30
Prohibiting any suit to avoid any interference with a patent or more accurately what
Congress granted when it fulfilled its obligations and duties in the Admissions Acts to
each disposed grantee by and through its expressed constitutional power; Ten years
having elapsed since issuance of the Patent regarding the present subject matter
estopping any current challenger.
"IDENTIFY the Constitutional Article, Section, Subsection, Paragraph, Sub-paragraph,
Clause, Sentence, or Amendment - State or Federal, or Constitutionally promulgated
State Statute or Law, or Federal Statute at Large, or Federal Revised Statute, along with
its Implementing Regulation, its Published Date of Enactment, and Published Date of
Implementation, that granted or delegated any type of Allodial Land Ownership Rights,
Title or Interest for any type of "regulatory" or "taxing" jurisdiction, powers or
authority" to the STATE OF OREGON, or any of its political subdivision- counties, or
cities, over the private land located within its boundaries, that was FOREVER
"transferred" from the UNITED STATES PUBLIC DOMAIN to the private sector with
such transfer FOREVER "recognized" by the UNITED STATES [government] via its
own UNITED STATES LAND PATENT procedure which was lawfully administered
by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S, GENERAL
LAND OFFICE, (GLO), and thereafter signed by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, and is now on permanent file in the UNITED STATES NATIONAL
ARCHIVES with Certified copies available from the UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, a.k.a.
the B.L.M., with the superior, highest authority and FOREVER protections of the
SUPREMACY CLAUSE of the CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA?"

PURSUANT TO THE WELL SETTLED PROCEDURES OF AN AMERICAN


"NEGATIVE AVERMENT," DEMAND IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE RECEIVER(S)
OF THIS DOCUMENT TO PRODUCE THE MISSING LAW, OR BY YOUR
FAILURE, REFUSAL, OR NEGLECT TO PRODUCE IT TO THE UNDERSIGNED
AND INTO THE INSTANT RECORD WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS, YOU SHALL BE

31
DEEMED TO HAVE TACITLY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT NO SUCH
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID LAW DOES NOT EXIST. THE BURDON IS NOW
ON YOU.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE

MEMORANDUM OF LAW PROPERTY TAX

No reservations to the state or county exists of anything, such as a "Tax Lot", or other
encumbering designation, not limited to, "Assessable". Inclusion of any such reservation
would be to violate the trust obligations and duties established in the purpose and
intention of the Oregon Admissions Acts of 1859, and reason the people required the soil
be ceded by the Territorial government in the first instance; No lingering State interest or
rights. SUMMA Corporation v. CALIFORNIA STATE EX REL. LAND COM'N
466 u.s. (1984).
The Legislative acknowledgment of the obligation and duty to not interfere with the
primary disposal of the soil ceded to Congress for the purpose evidenced by the United
States land patent:
ORS 12.040, (2) No suit shall be maintained to set aside, cancel, annul or
otherwise affect a patent to lands issued by the United States or this state, or to compel
any person claiming or holding under such patent to convey the lands described therein,
or any portion of them, to the plaintiff in such suit, or to hold the same in trust for, or to
the use and benefit of such plaintiff, or on account of any matter, thing or transaction
which was had, done, suffered or transpired prior to the date of such patent, unless such
suit is commenced within 10 years from the date of such patent,";
Prohibiting any suit to avoid any interference with a patent or more accurately what
Congress granted when it fulfilled its obligations and duties in the Admissions Acts to
each disposed grantee by and through its expressed constitutional power; Ten years
having elapsed since issuance of the Patent regarding the present subject matter
estopping any current challenger.
."Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court (hearing) cannot proceed when it clearly
appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but,
rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026, .Joyce v. US, 474 Fed 215,
"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 Fed 215,
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemont v. Lambert, 469
32
F2d 416
"The burden of proof being upon the person asserting the jurisdiction." Me- Nutt v.
GMAC, 298 US 178, Thomas v. Gaskeil, 83 Led 111, Basso v. UP, 495 F2d 906
"Court must produce on the record, all jurisdictional facts related to the jurisdiction
asserted." Lantana v. Harper, 102 F2d 118, New York v. US, 337 F Supp 150; 344 F
Supp 929
"Jurisdiction must appear as proved on the face of the record." Baer v. USA, 503, F2d
393
"A court has a duty to see to it that its processes are not being used improperly, for
improper purposes, or fraud, etc." Pueblo De Taos v. Archuleta, 64 F2d 807, 813.
"The burden of proving all jurisdictional facts rests upon the plaintiff or person
claiming jurisdiction." Town of Lantana v. Hooper, 102 F2d 118
"In 1980, the US Supreme Court abolished mere "good faith" assertions of jurisdiction,
power and authority of municipalities, states, and the USA and agencies and hirelings
thereof." Owen v. City of Ind., 445 US 622
"Life, Liberty and Property are the three great subdivisions of all civil
rights." McGrew v Ut., 85 P2d 608.
"The right to work, engage in gainful occupation, and to receive compensation therefore
are property rights, and "property" embraces all valuable interests which a man possess
outside of himself, his life, and his liberty, and is not confined to mere tangible property,
but extends to every specie of vested right." McGrew v. Ut., 85 P2d 608.
"Rights guaranteed in constitutions are invaded when one is not at liberty to contract
with others respecting the use of his property or employment of his talents or the
manner in which he enjoys/uses his property." Golding v. Schubach, 70 P2d 871
"The individual owes nothing to the state for he receives nothing therefrom." Hale v.
Hinkle, 201 US 43
"No one is entitled to judicial relief from a supposed or threatened injury until he has
exhausted his administrative remedies." Myers v. Bethlehem, 303 US 41
"Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed to exist." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US
533 n. 5, Monell v. NY, 436 US 633, US v. More, 3 Cr. 159, 172.
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Brady v. Richardson, 18 Ind. 1
Bialac v. Harsh, 436 F2d 1185, cert. den. 93 S Ct. 558, 34 Led2d 512
33
Crater Lake v. Oregon, 26 F.Supp. 363, Beauty Col. V. Hose, 195 W 160, 80 P2d
403.
"Jurisdiction can be challenged in a civil rights suit etc. 42 USC 1983." Owen v. City
of Ind., 445 US 622
"Judgments without jurisdiction are void." Sanders v. Sheriff, 299 NYS 9
"All acts of such a forum or court in want of jurisdiction being completely void and not
just voidable." Sandness v. Sheriff, 200 NYS 9, Kossler v. PS Dev., Cal. Ct. App.,
4d, Div. 2, No Indio 23440 (14 Feb. 83) 83 DJ DAR 405
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have
jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt. 300P. 132; Re
Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
"This, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it
assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the
term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P. 27.
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceeding of a court without
jurisdiction are a nullity and is judgment therein without effect either on persons or
property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
As YOU know, or reasonably should know, Subject Matter Jurisdiction CANNOT be
waived at any time, either by a former appearance, application, petition, request, or
consent to inspect, to wit:

"Subject Matter Jurisdiction cannot be waived by parties, conferred by consent, or


ignored by court." Babacock & Wilson v. Parsons Com., 430 F.2d 531 (1970)
"Subject Matter Jurisdiction may not be waived and courts may raise the issue sua
sponte." FRCP, Rule 12(h).
"Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is a defense that is never waived." FRCP, Rule
12(h) 3.
"Subject Matter Jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time, even
after trial," Zenith Radio Corp. v Matsushita Elect. Indus. Co., Ltd., 494 F.Supp. 1161
(D.C. Pa., 1980)
"Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is not waivable and can even be waived on appeal
after judgment on the merits." Monaco v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 514 F. Supp.
34
357 (D.C. Pa 1981)
"Judgment of court lacking Jurisdiction is void." Barnham v. Superior Court of
OREGON, County of Marin," 110 S. Ct. 2105 (1990)
"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed, and must be decided." Maine v.
Thiboutot. 100 S. Ct. 250.
"One of the hallmarks of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is that it can be raised at any time,
including on appeal. If the District Court lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction, we would
have to vacate its order." Hawley v. Murphy, 1999 ME 127, Paragraph 8, 736 A,2d
268, 271; M.R. Civ P.12,(h)(3).
1/We do not believe there is any admissible evidence to the contrary and there does not
appear to be any admissible evidence to the contrary.

"WE DID NOT CONSENT TO TAXING OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY! "

All administrative actions must have a contract (consent). The county therefore has no
jurisdiction to conduct a hearing nor does the county have jurisdiction to impose a fine!
Therefore the judgment rendered by the hearing's officer in void. Elliot v. Piersol, 1
Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828): * Under Federal law which is applicable to all
states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments
and orders are regarded as nullities.
Subject matter jurisdiction

The state of OREGON cannot by any act it may adopt destroy the property right secure
to Actual Settlers of the public domain. The issuance of a patent for lands is a
recognition by the United States of all the requirements have been met and the
applicant has a right to the property. The letters are made patent by the signature of the
President or his agent and counter signed by the Secretary of the General Land Office
now the Department of the Interior.

A patent once issued creates a contract between the grantee his heirs and assigns
forever, that the government will not assert any claim over the property granted.
FLETCHER v. PECK 10 US 87 (1810). This principle in law also applies to the
county tax department, on what lawful authority gives the county tax department
the right to tax private property?

Not a single proceeding in this tax assessment contains a plain statement of how the
particular tax department acquired lawful "subject matter jurisdiction" upon property
35
the County of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _does not have a vested interest in.

They are not "voidable", but simply "void"; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even
prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons
concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as
trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328,340 (1828)

I want to remind County that the land located at 144 Humbug Creek
Road, Applegate, Oregon Is under a federal land patent.

All land patents have a vested right in law, that means that no county, state or federal
agency can infringe upon the land patent, nor can a land patent be collaterally attacked
by anyone. Patent as foundation of title at law. Fenn v. Holmes, 21 Howard 481.
Immunity from collateral attack.

Land patents are also protected by the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Sec. 10 Clause 1,
also Article IV, Sec. III, Clause II. Treaty law etc., Title 42 Sec. 1983.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 constitutes a waiver of state sovereign immunity
when the state through any of its agencies passes an ex post facto law, or a law
impairing the obligations of contracts.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _County as well as most Counties in OREGON try to ignore or say


that we don't recognize land patents any longer, what does federal law say about the
subject of land patents, Title 43, Sec. 57 and 83, Title 43 USC Section 57. And 83,
Establishes that duly certified copies of Federal Land Patents shall be evidence in all
cases where the originals would be evidence. Section 83 of Title 43, covers the
evidentiary effect of Certified Federal Land Patents for all States and all the Courts in
the United States must take Judicial notice of the Federal Patents and
their evidentiary effect under these Federal Statutes. All judges in all States shall
be bound as to the power and validity of the patents.
U.S. v. Debell (1915 CAS SD) 227 F 760.
Fourth Amendment: invasion of private property without lawful warrant under claim
of violation of statute that cannot apply to private property and which statute preserves
previous rights.
36
Sixth Amendment right to a trial by Jury in a 'judicial court" not an administrative
hearing in a "legislative court" that is designed primarily for the purpose of violating
those constitutional provisions designed for the protection of liberty and property of
the Citizen. The right to counsel of choice who is not beholden to any administrative
officer or agent of the State in its corporate
capacity, such as the BAR Association, which no member has or has ever had a
"license to practice law".

Seventh Amendment right of compulsory production of witnesses and the right to


confront witnesses and cross examine with counsel of choice cannot be compelled
into an administrative hearing unless or until that administrative agency establishes
on the record how the administrative agency acquired "subject matter jurisdiction".
The administrative record of the state action is void of any such statement.

Ninth Amendment, No state has the constitutional power to pass any law that would
convert a right into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. Murdock v.
Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105.

U.S. Constitution Article VI, Clause 2.

Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the land, and law of a state to

the contrary is void of law under the Supremacy clause of Article VI. Article I,

Section 10, Clause 1, creates a Bill of Rights against State action, 'No State shall' is a

direct command against action of the state in its sovereign capacity. As such it is

restrained without consent. See Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 6 Cranch. 87 87 (1810).

The first Ten Amendments are areas marked out where Congress and the States

have no power to Legislate. The rights secured thereunder are deemed fundamental

and supreme over all enactments of the federal and state legislatures. See generally,

Marbury v. Madison, U.S. 137 (1803); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,491.

37

Letters Patent are true title for land.

The Letters Patent are the key evidence that protects private property rights and secured

the right to use the land and its resources for owner's sole benefit

"vested or accrued" on the date the patent was issued.

Any act of the state that impairs the grant is void of law. A void law cannot vest the

state court with subject matter jurisdiction.

State courts must acquire lawful subject matter jurisdiction so every judgment is void

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Oregon Appellate Court in the Estate of Hutchins v. Fargo, 188 Or.App. 462,

72 P.3d 638 (2003);, Burt &Gordon v. Stein, 128 Or.App. 350,354, 867 P.2d

338, rev.den. 320 Or. 270 (1994) held that it was an abuse of discretion for a

court to refuse to set aside a void judgment. In doing so, we quoted Black's Law

Dictionary 1412 (5th Ed.1979), which defined a void judgment as"'[o]ne

which has no legal force or effect, [the] invalidity of which may be asserted by

any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place or collaterally.

38
One which, from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null,

without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal

force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or

enforcement in any manner or to any degree. One that has merely semblance

without some essential element, as want of jurisdiction or failure to serve process

or have party in court."'

But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or

destroy that which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that

effect, it is unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of

property within the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of

one of its essential attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common,

necessary, or profitable use, hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes

of trade, or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously

impairs its value. (Statute) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, Section 369.

Title 18 Sec. 242, Denervation of right under color of law.

Deprivation of rights under color of law, whoever, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to
different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or

. 39
by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if
bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such
acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon,
explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section
or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined
under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that


Government officials shall be subjected to the same rules
of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a
Government of laws, existence of the Government will be
imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.
Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.
For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its

example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a

law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every

man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To

declare that, in the administration of the law, the end

justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution.

Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court should

resolutely set its face."

Under USC Title 42 § 1982. Property rights of citizens ... , further


evidences the above position that the City or State
cannot take land because they DO NOT have Jurisdiction or
ownership. It states that federal or state governments I
40

agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary interest in


your real private property in order to have jurisdiction
over it (if your land has no government grant/funding or 1s
not a subsidized government project, then agencies have
neither). DEMAND must be made against public servant/said
agencies to provide the legal document that allows any
federal, state or county agency to supersede and/or bypass
Title 42 USC §1982 and/or §1441. Mitchell v. City of Rockland.

Title 42 §1983._Civil action for deprivation of rights ... , further protects


Declarant's private property.

The State cannot diminish rights of the people. Hurtado v.


California, 110 U.S. 516.

"To say that one may not defend his own property is
usurpation of power by legislature." O'Connell v. Judnich
(1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

"A state MAY NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a

right granted (sic) by the Federal Constitution." MURDOCK v

PENNSYLVANIA, U.S.319

'Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use and free enjoyment of his

property, or imposes restraints upon such use and enjoyment that materially affect

its value, without legal process or compensation, it deprives him of his property

within the meaning of the constitution••.. It is not necessary, in order to render the

statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must in terms or effect

authorize the actual physical taking of the property or the thing itself, so long as it

affects its free use and enjoyment, or the power of disposition at the will of the owner.'
.
41

(Forster v. Scott,136 N.Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543,32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav.

Co. v. United States,

"Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the Declaration of Rights; thus

emphasizing the importance of those basic and inalienable rights of personal liberty

and private property which are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and

protected from arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter.

The Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of every

department of the state government. State ex rei. Davis v. Stuart. 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97

Fla. 69, 120 So. 335.

"The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either

municipal, state, or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in

every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in/by the

Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily

surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not

derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people.

The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative

encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent

rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. City

of Dallas, et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922).

"Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his


property." Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47
P.2d 474.
.
42
"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right
should have to be surrendered 1n order to assert another".
SIMMONS v US, supra.

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved,


there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona,_384 U.S. 436 p. 491.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be

converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486,489.

The People are the Sovereign!

People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor_of
Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93.

The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to


the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating
authority, do not give their public servants the right to
decide what is good for the people to know and what is not
good for them to know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the
instruments they have created. (Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588,
p.3270, sec. 1.)

The people are the recognized source of all authority,

state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at

last, whether immediately or by circuitous route. Barnes v.

District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p

234.

CONCLUSION
The land in question is not owned by a business or corporation. The owner is not a
corporation, entity, individual, person, or taxpayer as defined in statutory law. Neither
43
the land nor the owner are involved in a taxable privilege; and, therefore, not subject to
_ _ _ _ _ _ COUNTY taxing authority.
Constitutions are not a grant of power as much as a limitation of power; and, therefore,
the state's taxing powers are limited and few.
The land in question is used for shelter and is not a place of business. Consequently, it
has no situs within the STATE of OREGON.
If a man has to pay a tax on the land in which he takes refuge and shelter, then he is no
longer free, but a slave to total government.
_ _ _ _ _ _ COUNTY'S taxing power is limited to businesses in contract with the
State.
The COUNTY Assessor has no lawful authority to tax this man's right to
live somewhere on the land or the land on which he sleeps and finds shelter from the
elements.
Redefining a man's status or the status of land for raising revenue is a crime punishable
by fines and up to twenty years in prison.
[1] Individual: an artificial person in franchise with a state corporation.
[2]Income: gains separated from the capital of a corporation. All income tax is a tax on
privileges. Morse Hubbard, legislative draftsman for the Treasury Department,
admits in Congressional Testimony on March 27, 1943, Volume 89, Part 2, page
2580 that "income tax" is an "excise tax". Private Property tax is a direct tax.
Let's take a closer look at this so called property tax issue.
Note:
Any land description excepting any public contract that may infringe on the
reasonable and necessary rights of relevant landowners. The land description is
excepting infringement on the sovereign rights of the Grantee as a matter of principal
under Common Law. Any such infringement of sovereign unalienable rights as
protected by the Constitution for the united states of America, c. 1787, as amended
by the first ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, c. 1791, is declared excluded,
null and void!
A Land Patent is the only lawful method that Perfect Title can be held in the grantee's
name. See: Wilcox v. Jackson 13 PET US 498, 101 ED. 264. All questions of fact
decided by the General Land Office are binding everywhere, and injunctions
and mandamus proceedings will not lie against it. See: Litchfield v. The
Register, 9 Wall US 575, 19L. ED. 681!. This document is instructed to be attached
to all deeds and conveyances in the name of the Party, and to never be separated
from them. The required recording of this document, in a manner known as: Nunc
44
Pro Tunc, is mandated and endorsed by United States Positive Supreme Law and
cited by case history in this document.

NOTE; FOR ALL TO READ;


Corpus Juris Secundum , volume 73B with the topic of Public Lands and a section on
Patents that covers Sections 235-261 (197-218) pages:
Neither Party can change anything on the patent/grant contract, either added or
detracted, once the contract is executed. That is why the word "FOREVER" is
contained in every land patent.
If nothing in the patent can be changed by either party, and they cannot. If all land
patents are Allodial titles, and they are, If land patents stand forever, and they do,
If an Allodial title is "owing to no one", and it is not, If all land patents are in
perpetuity "Continuing forever" and they are, If in law, land patents cannot be
collaterally attacked, and they cannot, If all land patents are protected by treaty
law, & Supremacy Clause and they are, If a land patent creates an Estoppel against
any and all municipal corporations (City, County etc.), and it does. If the county
has the power to tax private property, it would also have the power to destroy
private property, a county has no such power.
If a county can foreclose on private property byway of a tax lien, that violates due
process, it also violates, Title 42,Sec. 1983, It also violated the intent of congress
which it is mandated to do by constitutional mandate to dispose of said lands with
an Allodial title (land patent), and it does, It also violates the vested rights (In law)
that are attached to the land patent forever, and it does.
When a land patent is issued by the united states government to the grantee, that
land patent stands FOREVER, That is why on every land patent is states to their
HEIRS AND ASSIGNS FOREVER. FOREVER IS NOT UP YET!
In light of all of the case law sighted in this Memorandum of law
regarding property tax, it is very evident that any attempt to tax private property
is a gross violation of law and even criminal!
In light of all that has been stated in this memorandum of law regarding taxing private
property, on what basis does any county think that they have the authority and
jurisdiction to impose upon a tax on his/her private property?
NOTE; It is very evident in law that is so stated above
that SANDERS COUNTY Lacks subject and personal jurisdiction
regarding private property.
POWER OF A PATENT

• 45
These references clearly show the right to dispose of real estate, by will in England,
previous to the statute of Henry the eighth. And it is worthy of remark, that while this
right continued, the tenure by which lands were held in England was Allodial; the
precise tenure by which they are held here.

All tenures of land granted by the people of this state, &c. shall be and remain Allodial
and not feudal. ( 1 R. L. 71.)

Allodium, as defined by Blackstone, is the land possessed by a man in his own right,
without owing any rent or service to any superior. (2 Bl. Com. 104.)

The absolute rights of each individual are the right of personal security, the right of
personal liberty, and the right of private property. (3 Bl. Com. 119.)
It is the last, that of private property, which has been invaded by the exception in the
statute concerning wills.

The very definition of municipal law limits the power of the legislature to commanding
what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong.

If the legislature can restrain us as it respects our charitable donations, they may also
compel us to make them; for whatever is a subject of legislation may be commanded as
well as prohibited.

And if the legislature can declare a devise to the Orphan Asylum invalid, they may, upon
the same principle, make us pay tithes of all we possess.

This is a free representative government; and one of the prominent features by which it
is distinguished from a despotic one is, the preservation and protection of individual
right; for it can make no difference with the citizen what the form of government is that
oppresses him, and deprives him of his right; whether it consists of one tyrant or 160, if
his suffering and deprivation are the same.

It is difficult to conceive on what principle men elected by the people for public
purposes, can limit and restrain individuals in the exercise of their legitimate rights.

If individuals give up any part of their rights by becoming members of society, it is

That they may obtain protection for such as remain; and on the same principle that
allegiance is demanded by the government, protection is claimed by the citizen; and if
not granted, the original compact is broken.

If courts of justice have occasion to advert to first principles, the object should be the

46
protection of individual right; and not to confirm legislative usurpation. And in a
government founded on principle, it is the duty of the judiciary department to decide in
favor of individual right, when it is required to be done, on fundamental principles,
though it should be to declare invalid an act of the legislature. The contest which ended
in the separation of these United States from Great Britain, was a contest for
individual right, intended to be secured by the
constitution of the United States. But of what avail is it, that no law shall be passed
impairing the obligation of a contract, or that private property shall not be taken for
public use, without a just compensation, if the paramount right to dispose of our
property by will is denied us? McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc., 9 Cow. 437, (1827).
(emphasis added).

The people of this state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the
rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4
Wend. 9, 20 (1829). Gaines v. Buford, Judge Nicholas:

The patentee having held the title free from any such condition at the time of the
adoption of the federal constitution, no act of either government, or of both of them
combined, could, thereafter, super add that, or any other new term, to the contract
growing out of the patent, without the assent of the patentee. The federal constitution, at
its adoption, clothed the contract with an inviolable sanctity that could not be infringed
by any legislation of either of the states, or by any compact thereafter entered into
between them. For nothing can be better settled by
authority than that an executed contract, such as a grant, comes as fully within the
constitutional protection, as any executory contract, and that it makes no difference that
a state is one of the parties to the contract. Judge Nicholas, in Gaines v. Buford, 1 Dana
481,31 Ky. 481 (1833). (emphasis added) Gaines v. Buford, Judge Underwood:

I think no inference drawn from the fourth condition of the compact, can sustain the act
in question, when applied for the purpose of forfeiting lands unconditionally granted to
individuals in fee simple. Lands thus granted become the absolute property of the
grantee, in virtue of a contract made with the government, of which the patent is the
evidence. I know of no principle which will allow the government, any more than an
individual, after fairly selling and
conveying land, to take back the land and resume the title, at its own pleasure against the
assent of the grantee.

Neither am I acquainted with any principle which will allow the government to annex
new conditions, unknown at the time of the original contract; and for a violation of them
seize the land, divest the citizen of his title, and retain the consideration which the
citizen paid or rendered, without remunerating him therefor. Those constitutional
provisions, which were intended to secure the inviolability of contracts, apply as well to

47
contracts made between the government of a State and its citizens, as to contracts
between individuals. In the nature of things there is as much reason for providing that a
State shall not impair the obligation of its own contracts, as to provide that it should not
impair the obligation of contracts between individuals.

Indeed, there is greater necessity for putting a State under restrictions in regard to her
own contracts, than in relation to the contracts of individuals; for as it respects the
contracts of individuals, a State may be considered as impartial; but concerning its own
contracts, it may be affected by a principle of selfishness. It is enough, however, that the
constitution of the United States and of this State makes no distinction between contracts
to which the State is a party, and those to which she is not. If, therefore, the grant or
patent to Harvie, should be considered in the
light of a contract, by which Virginia transferred her title to him, Virginia, and
consequently Kentucky, claiming under Virginia, can no more resume the title, without
the assent of Harvie, or those claiming under him, than Harvie could take it from Barrett
and Duvall, to whom he conveyed, or from those claiming under him, without their
assent.

The patent of Harvie, made the subject of forfeiture in this case, was founded on land
office treasury warrants, and these were granted in consideration of money paid into the
public treasury. The patent upon its face is unconditional, and purports to grant or
convey the land in consideration of land warrants. I think the act in question violates that
clause in the constitution of the United States which prohibits every State in the union
from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts, and likewise that clause in our
State constitution which declares that no
law impairing contracts shall be made. That the steps taken by Harvie to obtain the
patent, and the issuing thereof to him, amounted to a contract between him and the State,
can admit of no doubt. The point is settled alike by reason and authority. Fletcher v.
Peck, 6 Cranch, 87; 2 Cond. Rep. 308; New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164; 2
Cond. Rep. 457; Town of Pawlet v. Clarke &c. 9 Cranch, 292; 3 Cond. Rep.
422; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton, 518.

These decisions of the supreme court fully establish the position, that the modes adopted
by the State governments, whether ordinary letters patent, or acts of assembly, for
granting titles to the unappropriated public domain, are contracts within the meaning of
the constitution of the United States. The contract in the present case, as intended by the
parties, was this, that Harvie and his heirs or assigns should enjoy the land granted,
forever, in consideration of so much paid to the State for land warrants. The mode and
manner of enjoyment was not
prescribed; they were therefore left to the volition of the grantee. His dominion was
not limited at the time of his purchase. The use to which he should apply the
property, to administer to his happiness, was not then designated. In these matters

48
he was left, by the contract, free. He had as a free
man, all those rights and privileges which constitute the birthright of an American
citizen.

I do not admit that there is any sovereign power, in the literal meaning of the terms, to
be found anywhere in our systems of government. The people possess, as it regards
their governments, a revolutionary sovereign power; but so long as the governments
remain which they have instituted, to establish justice and nto secure the enjoyment
of the right of life, liberty and property, and of pursuing happiness;" sovereign power,
or, which I take to be the same thing, power without limitation, is nowhere to be found
in any branch or department of the government, either state or national; nor indeed in all
of them put together. The constitution of the United States expressly forbids the passage
of a bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or the granting of any title of nobility, by the
general or state governments. The same instrument likewise limits the powers of the
general government to those expressly granted, and places many other restrictions upon
the power of the state governments. The constitutions of the different states likewise
contain many prohibitions and limitations of power.

The tenth article of our state constitution, consisting of twenty-eight sections, is made up
of restrictions and prohibitions upon legislative and judicial power, and concludes with
the emphatic declaration, "that everything in this article is excepted out of the general
powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary
thereto, or contrary to this constitution, shall be void." These numerous limitations and
restrictions prove, that the idea of sovereignty in
government, was not tolerated by the wise founders of our systems. "Sovereign state"
are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been
instructed in our constitutional schools. It is an appropriate phrase when
applied to an absolute despotism. I firmly believe that the idea of sovereign power in
the government of a republic, is incompatible with the existence and permanent
foundation of civil liberty, and the rights of property.

The history of man, in all ages, has shown the necessity of the strongest checks upon
power, whether it be exercised by one man, a few or many. Our revolution broke up the
foundations of sovereignty in government; and our written constitutions have carefully
guarded against the baneful influence of such an idea henceforth and forever. Judge
Underwood, in Gaines v. Buford, 1 Dana 481, 31 Ky. 481 (1833). (emphasis added)

The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government; but in the people from whom the government emanated,
and who may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then, in this country, abides with
the constituency and not with the agent. And this remark is true, both in reference to the
federal and state governments. Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F. Cas. 939, 943 (1838).
.. 49

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. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the
organization of the state, and can only be taken from him
by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a
refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest
or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he
does not trespass upon their rights. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906).

XV. Prohibition Against Impairing the Obligation of Contracts, and,


The Inviolability of Land Patents Issued by The United States of America
Complainant's private land and private property does not belong to the body
politic of the State of Wisconsin. A Land Patent is an express contract, and when
granted by the United States of America prior to statehood, is
enforceable against the subsequent State.

Any subsequent restriction imposed by the State on the use or possession of said
private property constitutes an absolutely prohibited impairing of the Obligation of
Contracts.

A contract is a compact between two or more parties, and is either executory or executed.

An executory contract is one in which a party binds himself to do, or not to do, a
particular thing; such was the law under which the conveyance was made by the
governor. A contract executed is one in which the object of contract is performed; and
this, says Blackstone, differs in nothing from a grant. The contract between Georgia and
the purchasers was executed by the grant. A contract executed, as well as one which is
executory, contains obligations binding on the parties.

A grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and
implies a contract not to reassert that right. A party is, therefore, always estopped by his
own grant.

Since, then, in fact, a grant is a contract executed, the obligation of which still
continues, and since the constitution uses the general term contract, without
distinguishing between those which are executory and those which are executed, it must
be construed to comprehend the latter as well as the former. A law annulling conveyance
between individuals, and declaring that the grantors should stand seized of their former
estates, notwithstanding those grants, would be as repugnant to the constitution as a law
50
discharging the vendors of property from the obligation of executing their contracts by
conveyances. It would be strange if a contract to convey was secured by the
constitution, while an absolute conveyance remained unprotected.

Whatever respect might have been felt for the state sovereignties, it is not to be
disguised that the framers of the constitution viewed, with some apprehension, the
violent acts which might grow out of the feelings of the moment; and that the people of
the United States, in adopting that instrument, have manifested a determination to shield
themselves and their property from the effects of those sudden and strong passions to
which men are exposed. The restrictions on the legislative power of the states are
obviously founded in this sentiment; and the constitution of the United States
contains what may be deemed a bill of rights for the people against unlawful state
action.

No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the
obligation of contracts. Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810). (emphasis added).
Titles to land cannot be acquired or transferred in any other mode than that prescribed by
the laws of the territory where it is situate. Every government has, and from the nature of
sovereignty must have, the exclusive right of regulating the descent, distribution, and
grants of the domain within its own boundaries; and this right must remain, until it
yields it up by compact or conquest. When once a title to lands is asserted under the laws
of a territory, the validity of that title can be judged of by no other rule than those laws
furnish, in which it had its origin; for no title can be acquired contrary to those laws: and
a title good by those laws cannot be
disregarded but by a departure from the first principles of justice.

Nothing, in short, can be more clear, upon principles of law and reason, than that a law
which denies to the owner of land a remedy to recover the possession of it, when
withheld by any person, however innocently he may have obtained it; or to recover the
profits received from it by the occupant; or which clogs his recovery of such possession
and profits, by conditions and restrictions tending to diminish the value and amount of
the thing recovered, impairs his right to, and interest in, the property.

The objection to a law, on the grounds of its impairing the obligation of a contract, can
never depend upon the extent of the change which the law effects in it. Any deviation
from its terms, by postponing, or accelerating, the period of performance which it
prescribes, imposing conditions not expressed in the contract, or
dispensing with the performance of those which are, however minute, or apparently
immaterial, in their effect upon the contract of the parties, impairs
its obligation.

Having thus endeavored to clear the question of these preliminary objections, we have

51
only to add, by way of conclusion, that the duty, not less than the power of this Court, as
well as of every other Court in the Union, to declare a law unconstitutional, which
impairs the obligation of contracts, whoever may be the parties to them, is too clearly
enjoined by the constitution itself, and too firmly established by the decisions of this and
other Courts, to be now shaken; and
that those decisions entirely cover the present case.

The principles laid down in [Fletcher v. Peck] are, that the constitution of the United
States embraces all contracts, executed or executory, whether between individuals, or
between a State and individuals; and that a State has no more power to impair an
obligation into which she herself has entered, than she can the contracts of individuals.
Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1 (1823). (emphasis added).

In Virginia, the patent is the completion of title, and establishes the performance of every
pre-requisite. No inquiry into the regularity of these preliminary measures

which ought to precede it, is made in a trial at law. No case has shown that it may be
impeached at law, unless it be for fraud; not legal and technical, but actual and positive,
fraud in fact, committed by the person who obtained it; and even this is questioned.

This court said, 'It is not doubted that a patent appropriates the land. Any defects in
the preliminary steps which are required by law, are cured by the patent. It is a title
from its date, and has always been held conclusive against all whose rights did not
commence previous to its emanation.' Stringer v. Young's Lessee, 28 U.S. 320 (1830).
(emphasis added). It is settled law in this country that lands underlying navigable waters
within a state belong to the state in its sovereign capacity and may be used and disposed
of as it may elect, subject to the paramount power of Congress to control such waters for
the purposes of navigation in commerce among the states and with foreign nations, and
subject to the qualification that where the United States, after acquiring the
territory and before the creation of the state, has granted rights in such lands by
way of performing international obligations, or effecting the use or improvement of the
lands for the purposes of commerce among the states and with foreign nations, or
carrying out other public purposes appropriate to the objects for which
the territory was held, such rights are not cut off by the subsequent creation of the
state, but remain unimpaired, and the rights which otherwise would pass to the
state in virtue of its admission into the Union are restricted or qualified accordingly.
Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324,338,24 L. Ed. 224; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1,
47, 48, 57, 58, 14 S. Ct. 548,38 L. Ed. 331; Scott v. Lattig, 227 U.S. 229,242,33 S.
Ct. 242, 57 L. Ed. 490, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 107; Port of Seattle v. Oregon &
Washington R. Co., 255 U.S. 56, 63,41 S. Ct. 237,65 L. Ed. 500; Brewer-Elliott Oil
& Gas Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 77, 83-85,43 S. Ct. 60, 67, L. Ed. 140. U.S. v.
Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 54,55 (1926.)

52 •

Still, we are of opinion the patent would have been the better legal title ... and having
obtained the patent, Robertson had the best title, (to wit, the fee,) known to a Court of
law.

Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from
the United States; and the whole legislation of the federal government, in reference to
the public lands, declares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title;
until its issuance, the fee is in the government, which, by the patent, passes to the
grantee; and he is entitled to recover the possession in ejectment.
All who claim under a patent are entitled to the same rights as the patentee.
Bagnell v. Broderick, 38 U.S. 436 (1839). (emphasis added).

A legislative act, declaring that certain lands which should be purchased for the Indians,
should not, thereafter, be subject to any tax, constituted a contract, which could not be
rescinded by a subsequent legislative act. Such repealing act being void under that
clause of the constitution of the United States which prohibits a state from passing any
law impairing the obligation of contracts.

It is not doubted but that the state of New Jersey might have insisted on a surrender of
this privilege as the sole condition on which a sale of the property should be allowed.
But this condition has not been insisted on. The land has been sold, with the assent of
the state, with all its privileges and immunities. The purchaser succeeds, with the assent
of the state, to all the rights of the Indians. He stands, with respect to this land, in their
place and claims the benefit of their contract. This contract is certainly impaired by a
law which would annul this essential
part of it.

He stands, with respect to this land, in their place and claims the benefit of their
contract. This contract is certainly impaired by a law which would annul this
essential part of it. State v. Wilson, 11 U.S. 164 (1812). (emphasis added).

The decision of the Register and Receiver of a land office, in the absence of fraud,
would be conclusive as to the facts that the applicant for the land was then in possession,
and of his cultivating the land during the preceding year, because these questions are
directly submitted to those officers.

Appropriation of land by the government is nothing more or less than setting it apart for
some particular use.

When so ever a tract of land shall have once been legally appropriated to any purpose,
from that moment the land thus appropriated becomes severed from the mass of public
lands: and no subsequent law, or proclamation, or sale, would be construed to

53
embrace it, or to operate upon it: although no other reservation were made of it.

Nothing passes a perfect title to public lands, with the exception of a few cases, but a
patent. The exceptions are, where Congress grants lands, in words of present grant. The
general rule applies as well to pre-emptions as to other purchases of public lands.

A state has a perfect right to legislate as she may please in regard to the remedies to be
prosecuted in her Courts; and to regulate the disposition of the property of her citizens,
by descent, devise, or alienation. But Congress are invested, by the Constitution, with
the power of disposing of the public land, and making needful rules and regulations
respecting it.

Where a patent has not been issued for a part of the public lands, a state has no power to
declare any title, less than a patent, valid against a claim of the United States to the land;
or against a title held under a patent granted by the United States.

Whenever the question in any Court, state or federal, is, whether the title to property
which had belonged to the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by
the laws of the United States. But whenever the property has passed, according to those
laws, then the property, like all other in the state, is subject to state legislation; so far as
that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested
according to the laws of the United States. Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnell, 38
u.s. 498 (1839).
The subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation;
but those over which it does not extend, are exempt from taxation. McCulloch v. The
State of Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316. The power of legislation, and consequently of
taxation, operates on all the persons and property belonging to the body politic. Citing
Providence Bank v. Billings & Pitman, 4 Pet., 563.

The exemption extends to the lands in controversy, unless the inchoate title acquired by
the applicant for the purchase of them subjects them to taxation.

The patents issued by the United States for the public lands contain the words 'give and
grant.' These words imply a warranty. See, Cai. (N.Y.), 188; 7 Johns. (N.Y.), 258; 8
Cow. (N.Y.), 36; 1 Co., 384 a; 4 Kent Com. (ed. of 1844,) 474, and cases there cited.
If the complainant can be compelled to pay these taxes, he has a right to be
reimbursed by the United States. Carroll v. Safford, 44 U.S. 441, (1845). (emphasis
added).
The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons and
property belonging to the body politic. This is an original principle, which has its
foundation in society itself.

54
The interest, wisdom, and justice of the representative body, and its relations with
its constituents, furnish the only security, where there is no express contract, against
unjust and excessive taxation; as well as against unwise legislation generally. This
principle was laid down in the case of McCullough vs. The State of Maryland, and in
Osborn et al. vs. The Bank of the United States. Both those cases, we think,
proceeded on the admission that an incorporated bank,
unless its charter shall express the exemption, is no more exempted from taxation,
than an unincorporated company would be, carrying on the same business. [A Land
Patent is an express contract, and when granted before statehood, is enforceable against
the State]. Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830). (emphasis added).
It is not material to inquire whether the title of the Shawnees would be correctly
described by the technical term 'fee simple.' The true test is, what was the intention of
the parties, as derivable from the treaty and the provisions of the patent, all taken
together, considered with reference to circumstances existing at the time they were made
and issued.

[Lands held in severalty by individual Indians under patents issued under the treaties of
1854, 10 Stat. 1053, 1082, 1093, with the Shawnee, Miami, and Wea tribes are not
taxable by the state.]

In re Kansas Indians, 72 U.S. 737 (1866). (emphasis added).

The courts of the United States will construe the grants of the general government
without reference to the rules of construction adopted by the states for their grants; but
whatever incidents or rights attach to the ownership of property conveyed by the
government will be determined by the states, subject to the condition that their rules
do not impair the efficacy of the grants, or the use and enjoyment of the property,
by the grantee. Packer v. Bird, 137 U.S. 661 (1891). (emphasis added). WHEELER v.
United States: The Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Company Case and Shively v. Bowlby,
152 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 548,38 L.Ed. 331, are cited with approval in United States v. Holt
State Bank, 270 U.S. 49,46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465, for the holding that: 'It is settled
law in this country that lands underlying navigable waters within a state belong to the
state in its sovereign capacity and may be used and disposed of as it may elect, subject to
the paramount power of Congress to control such waters for the purposes of navigation
in commerce among the states and with foreign nations, and subject to the
qualification that where the United States, after acquiring the territory and before
the creation of the state, has granted rights in such lands by way of performing
international obligations, or effecting the use or improvement of the lands for the
purposes of commerce among the states and with foreign nations, or carrying out other
public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the territory was held, such
rights are not cut off by the subsequent creation of the state, but remain
unimpaired, and the rights which otherwise would pass to the state in virtue of its
... •
55
admission into the Union are restricted or qualified accordingly.' Klais v. Danowski,
129 N.W.2d 414 (1964). (emphasis added).

The question here is what title, if any, the Osages took in the river bed in 1872 when this
grant was made, and that was thirty-five years before Oklahoma was taken into the
Union and before there were any local tribunals to decide any such questions. As to such
a grant, the judgment of the state court does not bind us, for the validity and effect of an
act done by the United States is necessarily a federal question. The title of the Indians
grows out of a federal grant when the Federal government had complete sovereignty
over the territory in question.

Oklahoma when she came into the Union took sovereignty over the public lands in the
condition of ownership as they were then, and if the bed of a no navigable stream had
then become the property of the Osages, there was nothing in the admission of
Oklahoma into a constitutional equality of power with other states which required or
permitted a divesting of the title. It is not for a state by courts or legislature, in dealing
with the general subject of beds of streams to adopt a retroactive rule for determining
navigability which would destroy a title already accrued under federal law and grant or
would enlarge what actually passed to the state, at the time of her admission, under the
constitutional rule of equality here invoked.

It is true that where the United States has not in any way provided otherwise, the
ordinary incidents attaching to a title traced to a patent of the United States under the
public land laws may be determined according to local rules; but this is subject to the
qualification that the local rules do not impair the efficacy of the grant or the use
and enjoyment of the property by the grantee. Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. U.S.,
260 U.S. 77 (1922). (emphasis added).

First, in 1891, the court concluded that title to an unsurveyed 80- acre island in a
navigable river remained in the United States even after the government transferred title
to the adjacent riparian tracts. Packer v. Bird, 137 U.S. 661, 673, 11 S. Ct. 210,213,34
L. Ed. 819 (1891). The court found that state law applies to "whatever incidents or
rights attach to the ownership of property conveyed by the government ... subject to the
condition that their rules do not impair the efficacy of the grants, or the use and
enjoyment of the property, by the grantee."
WHEELER v. United States, 770 F.Supp.1205 (1991). (emphasis added).

It is very clear, that in the form in which this case comes before us (being a writ of error
to a state court), the plaintiffs, in claiming under either of these rights, must place
themselves on the ground of contract, and cannot support themselves upon the
principle, that the law divests vested rights. It is well settled, by the decisions of this
court, that a state law may be retrospective in its character, and may divest vested rights,

56
and yet not violate the constitution of the United States, unless it also impairs the
obligation of a contract. In Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 413, this court, in speaking
of the state law then before them, and interpreting the article in the constitution of the
United States which forbids the states to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts,
uses the following language: 'It (the state law) is said to be retrospective; be it so. But
retrospective laws which do not impair the obligation of contracts, or partake of the
character of ex post facto laws, are not condemned or forbidden by any part of that
instrument' (the constitution of the United States). Proprietors of Charles River Bridge
v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837). (emphasis added).

The patent is the instrument which, under the laws of Congress, passes the title of the
United States. It is the government conveyance.... But, in the action of ejectment in the
Federal courts, the legal title must prevail, and the patent, when regular on its face, is
conclusive evidence of that title .... Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity
and effect of titles emanating from the United States; and the whole legislation of the
Federal government in reference to the public lands declares the patent the superior and
conclusive evidence of legal title. Until its issuance the fee is in the government, which,
by the patent, passes to the grantee, and he is entitled to recover the possession in
ejectment. Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92 (1871). (emphasis added).

The execution and record of the patent are the final acts of the officers of the
government for the transfer of its title, and as they can be lawfully performed only after
certain steps have been taken, that instrument, duly signed, countersigned and sealed,
not merely operates to pass the title, but is in the nature of an official declaration by that
branch of government to which the alienation of the public lands, under the law, is
entrusted, that all the requirements preliminary to its issue have been complied with. The
presumptions thus attending it are not open to rebuttal in an action at law. It is this
unassailable character which gives to it its chief, indeed its only, value, as a means
of quieting its possessor in the enjoyment of the lands it embraces. If intruders upon
them could compel him, in every suit for possession, to establish the validity of the
action of the Land Department and the correctness of its ruling upon matters submitted
to it, the patent, instead of being a means of peace and security, would subject his rights
to constant and ruinous litigation. He would recover one portion of his land if the jury
were satisfied that the evidence produced justified the action of that department, and lose
another portion, the title where to rests upon the same facts, because another jury came
to a different conclusion. So, his rights in different suits upon the same patent would be
determined, not by its efficacy as a conveyance of the government, but according to the
fluctuating prejudices of different jurymen,
or their varying capacities to weigh evidence. Moore v. Wilkinson, 13 Cal. 478; Beard
v. Federy, 3 Wall. 478,492. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co. v. Kemp, 104 U.S. 636
(1881). (emphasis added).
57
It is among the elementary principles of the law that in actions of ejectment the legal
title must prevail. The patent of the United States passes that title.

Whoever holds it must recover against those who have only unrealized hopes to obtain
it, or claims which it is the exclusive province of a court of equity to enforce. However
great these maybe they constitute no defense in an action at law based upon the patent.
That instrument must first be got out of the way, or its enforcement enjoined, before
others having mere equitable rights can gain or hold
possession of the lands it covers. This is so well established, so completely imbedded in
the law of ejectment, that no one ought to be misled by any argument to the contrary.

It is this unassailable character (of the patent) which gives to it its chief, indeed, its only
value, as a means of quieting its possessor in the enjoyment of the lands it embraces.
Steel v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 106 U.S. 447 (1882). (emphasis added).

The case before us is much stronger than the ordinary case of an attempt to set aside a
patent, or even the judgment of a court, because it demands of us that we shall disregard
or annul the deliberate action of the Congress of the United States.

The constitution declares (article 4, § 3) that 'the Congress shall have power to dispose
of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the United States.' At the time that Congress passed upon the
grant to Beaubien and Miranda, whatever interest there was in the land claimed which
was not legally or equitably their property, was the property of the United States; and
Congress having the power to dispose of that property, and having, as we understand it,
confirmed this grant, and thereby made such disposition of it, it is not easily to be
perceived how the courts of the United States can set aside this action of Congress.
Certainly, the power of the courts can go no further than to make a construction of what
Congress intended to do by the act, which we have already considered, confirming this
grant and others.
U.S. v. Maxwell Land-Grant Co., 121 U.S. 325 (1887). (emphasis added).
An act of the state of Maine, which so changes the law of disseisin as to bar a legal title
which was good and valid at the time of the passage of the act, is inoperative as against
such title, since it takes away a vested right.

The Supreme Court of Maine held, that so far as this act attempted to change the law of
disseisin in respect to titles existing when it was passed, the act was inoperative and void,
because in conflict with the constitution of that State .... The result of the decision is,
that the constitution of the State has secured to every citizen the right of 'acquiring,
possessing, and enjoying property;' and that, by the true intent and meaning of this
section, property cannot, by a mere act of the legislature, be taken from one man and
vested in another directly; nor can it, by the retrospective operation of law, be indirectly
58
transferred from one to another, or be subjected to the government of principles in a
court of justice, which must necessarily produce that effect.

According to this decision, the act now in question is inoperative, as respects this action.
Webster v. Cooper, 55 U.S. 488 (1852). (emphasis added).

The cases were then brought here, and this court held that the exemption was a vested
property right which Congress could not repeal consistently with the Fifth Amendment,
that it was binding on the taxing authorities in Oklahoma, and that the state courts
had erred in refusing to enjoin them from taxing the lands. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S.
665, 32 Sup. Ct. 565, 56 L. Ed. 941; Gleason v. Wood, 224 U.S. 679, 32 Sup. Ct. 571,
56 L. Ed. 947; English v. Richardson, 224 U.S. 680, 32 Sup. Ct. 571, 56 L. Ed. 949.

As these claimants had not disposed of their allotments and twenty-one years had not
elapsed since the date of the patents, it is certain that the lands were nontaxable. This
was settled in Choate v. Trapp, supra, and the other cases decided with it; and it also
was settled in those cases that the exemption was a vested property right arising out
of a law of Congress and protected by the
Constitution of the United States. This being so, the state and all its agencies and
political subdivisions were bound to give effect to the exemption.

It operated as a direct restraint on Love county, no matter what was said in local statutes.
The county did not respect it, but, on the contrary, assessed the lands allotted to these
claimants, placed them on the county tax roll, and there charged them with taxes like
other property. . .. The right to the exemption was a federal right, ... To say that the
county could collect these unlawful taxes by coercive means and not incur any
obligation to pay them back is nothing short of saying that it could take or appropriate
the property of these Indian allottees arbitrarily and without due process of law. Of
course, this would be in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, which binds the
county as an agency of the state. Ward v. Board of County Com 'rs of Love County, Okl.,
253 U.S. 17 (1920). (emphasis added).

Claiming title from a royal patent of 1666, plaintiffs, in an attempt to construct a


multifamily apartment house by filling in this approximately 11-acre pond, have brought
a declaratory judgment action to declare the zoning classification permitting one-family
dwellings as unconstitutional as it applies to plaintiffs' property. The City moves for
summary judgment claiming that plaintiffs do not own the fee to the bed of the pond,
either by tracing their title to the royal grant or by adverse possession.

In 1666, King Charles II, through Richard Nicholls, the first English governor of New
York, confirmed Pell's treaty of 1654 with the Siwanoy by issuing to Pella royal patent.
At Pell's death in 1669, the land obtained by royal patent was bequeathed to his nephew,
John, who received a confirmatory grant by patent from Governor Dongan in 1687.

-

..•
.. 59
I
Motion for summary judgment by the City and by the intervenor State on its
counterclaim is denied. Summary judgment is granted to plaintiffs declaring them to
have good and valid title. Romart Properties, Inc. v. City of New Rochelle, 324
N.Y.S.2d 277 (1971). (emphasis added).

We agree with the determination by the learned Justice at Special Term that the subject
property was included within the 1666 Nicholls Patent and the 1687 Dongan Patent to
the Pells and that plaintiffs' chain of title back to those patents gives them good title
to the subject property. And if we were to assume the contrary, we would nevertheless
find that they have good title thereto based upon almost 250 years of adverse possession
by their predecessors in title. Romart Properties, Inc. v. City of New Rochelle, 40
A.D.2d 987, (1972). (emphasis added).

The Northwest Ordinance is a part of the basic organic law of The United States of
America enacted by a national legislative body before the existence of The Constitution
of the United States. The Northwest Ordinance was re-enacted by the First Congress of
the United States and is therefore a part of the federal statutory law which this Court has
jurisdiction to interpret. See 1 Stat. 50, ch. 8 (1789). In re-enacting Article III of the
Northwest Ordinance the First Congress clearly exercised its power under Article I,
Section 8(3) of the Constitution of the United States.

The word "Indians" in Article III of the Northwest Ordinance does not refer merely to
Indian Tribes. The term "Indians" there must be given its plain meaning and construed
liberally.

The immunity conferred by Article III is not limited to Indian Tribes but may, in
appropriate cases, apply to individual Indians as well. There is no strict need to show
tribal relations. The word must be given a racial meaning.

The tax exempt status of the plaintiff is a vested right which cannot be taken by the
State of Indiana or its political subdivisions without just compensation. Choate v.
Trapp, 224 U.S. 665,32 S.Ct. 565, 56 L.Ed. 941 (1912). See also, Carpenter v. Shaw,
280 U.S. 363,50 S.Ct. 121,74 L.Ed. 478 (1930), and Ward v. Board of County
Commissioners, 253 U.S. 17, 40 S.Ct. 419, 64 L.Ed. 751
(1920). Swimming Turtle v. Board of County Com'rs of Miami County, 441 F.Supp.
374 (1977).

The issue does not turn on the interim conveyances after the Crown patents, but solely
on the patents themselves. Kraft v. Burr, 476 S.E.2d 715 (1996).

The constitution does not prohibit a State from impairing the obligations of a contract
unless compensation be made; but the inhibition is absolute. So that all acts coming
.•
60
within the prohibition are unconstitutional. Bank of Toledo v. City of Toledo, 1 Ohio
St. 622, 687 (1853). END!

Ron Gibson Land Law


Researcher

You might also like