Most of you in my group are aware of allodial title or "land patents" (referred to "patients" below). The following is written by Big Al. You may not be aware of Big Al but I can vouch for his research. He's been at this A LOT of years.

It is true.., we are unable to own anything.., including our labor. Your children's labor has been sold down 13 generations as we spend further into debt every second with debt instruments we have been dumbed-down into believing is "money". NOT!! They are IOU's to the international money changers.

We claim we are a "Christian nation" and therefore "God's Children" BUT, we live under this system of fraud rather than God's Laws. Most WON'T wake up and learn because they would find out what selfish cowards they are. I sure hope you aren't one of those.

Please see the exposé below regarding our inability to own property. If you REALLY think you own your property.., stop paying "their" use fees called taxes and see who comes and takes "your property" from you. We're so DUMB we don't know what "own" or "free" means.

There is ONLY one way out of this horror. Learn God's Laws (The First Five Books of The Bible), reinstate them and keep them by enforcing them. To get back to that.., there is "THE PLAN" at i.am/jah/plan.htm It is God's Plan.  His Will will be done on earth as it is in Heaven with or without you. If it is without you.., I am very sad for you. You haven't "picked a side" yet if you aren't actively doing what you can to help reinstate Father's Laws. You know that when Jesus comes back (at least I hope you know), He is coming with a SWORD. And you are either with Him or against Him. But I can guarantee you.., He won't be coming to reinstate the CON-stitution or Bill of Rights. He will reinstate Father's Laws.., so if you intend to SURVIVE what is almost upon us.., you'd better start "boning up" on the First Five Books of The Bible and forget all the other junk we've all been fed.

Long live The Fighters for God,
Roland

----- Original Message ----- From: Big Al
To: TvFields [at] aol [dot] com
Cc: fraudbuster ; Ed Lown ; SMTL ; Jack Lancaster ; John Edwards ; Dan
Meador ; Dave Champion ; Art Northrup, Jr. ; Joe Stepard Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:31 AM
Subject: Re: Eminent Domain (2)

While I agree with you in all aspects it is with sad heart that I have to say that all my and others research into this land business is a shocker to most. The eminent domain came about through corporate structure. The US, as a corporation that took over the areas in monetary need like George town, DC, and Alexandria. The eminent domain was then concocted to take the body of people that had taken the position of members and hence property and could claim it any time they wanted. This stems from the period of time in the history of the world that the Pope claimed all land over the entire earth as he assumed the Vicar of Christ.  The tenets of the Vatican was that no man should claim any rights to the land outside the Pope.

That's why, when the pope visits a country, he kisses the soil to show it belongs to him. - JAH.

So when the King claimed all the land in English empire after 1066 was when the Vicar status was used. In 1213 the King turned over all his empire and subjects to the Vatican for recommunication to save his soul. When the colonies were instituted the King then claimed this land in America but the Vatican still had that international contract that was not rescinded by either party. The problem was that even though the Vatican owned American soil while allowing the King to use it the Crown controlled the Vatican through loans it made to the Vatican and the King when they were fighting. So in essence the Crown controlled both and should either default the property was to be turned over to the Crown. So when the contract or treaty was created in 1783 between the King and the American power elite, the founding fathers, to create the territorial corporation in American soil known as the United States and to absorb the separate colonies into this corporation as a Union the stage was set to retake the property through the Exchequer of England, namely the Crown. The Crown consisted of the International bankers and their bed partner the Vatican.  It was soon after the merging of the colonies that eminent domain reared its ugly head. So try as the people today might they cannot escape the reality that the land was never owned by any private man as it was an impossibility. They allowed the man to think he had ownership when he only was a tenant on the land and using it rather than owning it. This is borne out by the quitrent tax the King laid on all the land in America. The Proprietors collected this quitrent tax on land and turned some of it over to the King and kept the rest for themselves as overseers of the property. The King called in all the grants given to the Proprietors and all but one gave the land back except for Lord Granville here in North Carolina. Just before the war of 1776, which was planned like the stock market crash of 1929 was planned, the royal governors were installed in each of the colonies replacing the Proprietors and the quitrent tax was still collected. After the war each of the so called freed colonies Governors removed the quitrent tax and replaced it with todays ad valorum property tax. This is explained in a book called North Carolina through The Four Centuries, by William Power, University of NC , Chapel Hill. So the tenants of the land now had to pay individually the new property tax which was based on worth, where the old quitrent tax was just a flat tax not taking the worth of the property into consideration. So the people still could not own clear title to land that was already held by international contract despite what anyone says today. Some how a myth was started way back when that people had a clear title when they could not be. Hey I hate the system as much as any man today and I tried to fight the system in the land ownership and so did another fellow here in North Carolina but got no where. We found so much history on land patients that proved that all the patients were land grants by either the likes of William Penn and other Proprietors and could be recalled at anytime even from people that had claimed a land patient. You see the colonies Governors directed that each colony become incorporated so that the Colony, which became States under the corporate charter of the United States, would become the caretaker or steward for the land for the Vicar of Christ. So in essence, the state does not really own the land and never did and this is borne out in the case of MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.E. 70. The court had this to say

"* * * definition given by Blackstone, vol. 2, p. 244. I shall therefore only cite that respectable authority in his own words: "Escheat, we may remember, was one of the fruits and consequences of feudal tenure; the word itself is originally French or Norman, in which language it signifies chance or accident, and with us denotes an obstruction of the course of descent, and a consequent determination of the tenure by some unforeseen contingency, in which case the estate naturally results back, by a kind of reversion, to the original grantor, or lord of the `fee.' Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property of the soil within the limits of this State. Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of Paris. But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? Might it not be stated with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King of Great Britain from the Aborigines, when he drove them off, and took and maintained possession of their country? At the time of the revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people had neither right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to, and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great Britain; but they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the people, who had no power to grant any part of it. After the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Constitution, the people may be said first to have taken possession of this country, at least so much of it as was not previously appropriated to individuals. Then their sovereignty commenced, and with it a right to all the property not previously vested in individual citizens, with all the other rights of sovereignty, and among those the right of escheats. This sovereignty did not accrue to them by escheat, but by conquest, from the King of Great Britain and his subjects; but they acquired nothing by that means from the citizens of the State ? each individual had, under this view of the case, a right to retain his private property, independent of the reservation in the declaration of rights; but if there could be any doubt on that head, it is clearly explained and obviated by the proviso in that instrument. Therefore, whether the State took by right of conquest or escheat, all the interest which the U. K. had previous to the Declaration of Independence still remained with them, on every principle of law and equity, because they are purchasers for a valuable consideration, and being in possession as cestui que trust under the statute for transferring uses into possession; and citizens of this State, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and at the time of making the declaration of rights, their interest is secured to them beyond the reach of any Act of Assembly; neither can it be affected by any principle arising from the doctrine of escheats, supposing, what I do not admit, that the State took by escheat."

Escheat defined in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary. "Escheats, n. 2. In the U. States, the falling or passing of lands or tenements to the state, through failure of heirs or forfeiture, or in cases where no owner is found." Escheats, v.i. In England, to revert, as land, to the lord of the manor, by means of extinction of the blood of the tenant. 2. In America, to fall or come, as land, to the state, through failure of heirs or owners, or by forfeiture for treason. In the feudal sense, no escheat can exist in the United States; but the word used in statutes confiscating the estates of those who abandoned their country, during revolution, and in statutes giving to the state the lands for which no owner can be found.

Well Tom the owners can be found and they is the heirs of the King as they still exist to day. That is called "Office Found" and I don't know but that no one knows that ramification except the holders of that property. James Montgomery has gone into the term "office Found " in his articles on atgpress. I could go on for days typing this stuff but I won't. Now comes the Torrens Act, which his country adopted from Australia in about 1870 something or there about. Fraudbuster will correct me if I am wrong for this is all coming off the top of my head now so I may be wrong on the dates. This is what controls land in America today and is too complicated to go into but if one types in Torrens on the net they will get their eyes opened big time. North Carolina, as do all states, operates and controls land under the Torrens act . Now you have to remember who the players are in this land control and it's not the Vatican o the King or the States, it is the Crown and that Crown that could not get a toe hold when the first bank of the United States was created now do control all the money in this country and the contracts dating back to 1213 and also the "office found" is indebted to this conglomerate of money changers through past international contracts. Hey I do not like it one bit and when we lost our property dispute I and the other fellow decided what we should have done first and that is research. Oh we researched but just what the patriot family researched. We believed all the crap about land that has been floating for the last two centuries so we went with that. Boy were we wrong. That's why in 1933 when the US was playing like it was bankrupt when it really wasn't was to play the charade so that the entire land would be pledged to the International bankers, A.K.A. the Crown, so that's where we are today in that eminent domain can be used at will for the corporate profit of the corporate state. Did you notice what the mayor said when she tried to say what the statutory definition was for the eminent domain? She could not and stumbled around because even she did not understand what a term was. Go here to see what she was trying to say but either did not want to let the cat out of the bag or she is still a dumbed down American doing the bidding of the State, http://www.atgpress.com/inform/tx024.htm

Well the people have a rude awakening if they can just let go of the myth that we own our property. The Lord gave the land to man to be a steward and He can take it back when ever he wants to. No one man, like the Pope can claim he is the Vicar of Christ and assume control of the land as has been done and then parcel it out to stewards of his choosing to collect property taxes. Yea it sucks I know but that is reality we are dealing in not myth that we own our property we bought. Of course we all bought it with debt instruments so in just that aspect the debt instrument originator owns the land that was bought with his instruments. Of course we all know the Federal Reserve is a private interest of the Crown, right, and that's why all the property was pledged in 1933. Like I say I could type for two or three days and still not give you all we know on land. Fraud buster can give you even more insight to land control in his case, which by the way is still lingering in the wings as he is trying to force them to tell the truth even if he does not win. It's been near 5 years now in his case. Big Al

TvFields [at] aol [dot] com wrote:

Michael:

You now understand the critical point of these reports: how eminent domain is used. In the case of the Lakewood property, the property was to be ultimately sold to another private entity who would presumably benefit from that sale more than most others in the community.

On the other hand, I am sure that some people will benefit more than others in any case where eminent domain is exercised. Hence, the question seems to be where to draw the line.

It seems to me that if the purchase of the property is so clearly in the public interest, then the public should be willing to raise by special levy the funds needed to meet the owner's asking price.

Furthermore, contracts with the property owners should be signed ahead of the levy, contingent upon the levy's passage, so that there is no doubt as to what amount the levy needs to raise.

In other words, these acquisitions should not be made with taxes earmarked for or available for other purposes ...

What if a property owner refuses to name his price? Then, and only then, would I give the government the right to set the price, with the proviso that the government notify the property owner of that price sufficiently prior to the levy to give the property owner one last chance to set his own price.

What if a property owner sets an absurdly high price, such as $1,000,000,000 for a $10,000 property? What if the property owner insists that he is acting out of a sense of duty that he is protecting the environment, heritage, or sacred land, rather than just greed ... What if the property owner is likely to suffer trauma if forced off his property, even if he is paid several-fold its value ...

I don't have the answer for such worst-case scenarios. On the other hand, I believe I do have answers for curtailing other abuses, especially the kinds of abuse addressed by my website. I feel we shouldn't ignore the abuses we can curtail to focus on those we can't. Unfortunately, it often seems to me that our political leaders often do exactly the opposite, choosing to focus on problems for which they have no real solution.

Sincerely,
Tom Fields
-------------------------------------

The ONLY solution is to enforce The Plan