he isnt laying claim to anything.. he is doing the same thing his family has done for over 100 years.. i feel quite sure if others did the same he would consider it their right as it is "PUBLIC" land..
he pays his fees to the state,the state owned the land before government seizure.. more of his stance..
quite frankly i WISH some native americans would stand along side him and make the same claim..
why do you seem to think that would ruffle his feathers? because it would yours?
nemophilist.
It is about time sideliners quit making excuses against those few with the fortitude to stand for land rights.
Those of us making this fight will win or die, all well and good.
The rest will live long lives in a cage with a PROPERTY OF THE UN label stamped on their forehead, if the war is lost.
Incidentally, for those interested in how equitable title to land was snuck out from underneath the Americans who bled for it.....
I posted this as a response in another forum, to a friend who asked some good questions about legal title vs. lawful (equitable) title.
**************************
"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense - perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire - that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other."
-- Alan Greenspan, "Gold and Economic Freedom", 1966
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world. Fiat money in extremis is accepted by nobody. Gold is always accepted."
-- Alan Greenspan, May 20, 1999
"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."
-- Alan Greenspan, "Gold and Economic Freedom" i
"Although gold and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver."
-- Karl Marx,
"We looked into the abyss if the gold price rose further. A further rise would have taken down one or several trading houses, which might have taken down all the rest in their wake. Therefore at any price, at any cost, the central banks had to quell the gold price, manage it. It was very difficult to get the gold price under control but we have now succeeded. The US Fed was very active in getting the gold price down. So was the U.K."
-- Eddie George, Governor Bank of England
"I warn you that politicians of both parties will oppose the restoration of gold, although they may outwardly seemingly favor it. Also those elements here and abroad who are getting rich from the continued American inflation will oppose a return to sound money."
-- Howard Buffett, Warren Buffett's father
Further, Shine referenced a taxing liability distinction between the use of precious metal vs. the federal reserve note.
He is 95% correct.
The informal use of the note carries no liability, in and of itself, save perhaps in the matter of sales tax. It is the use of the note being taxed in the common purchase of every day items.
However, signing oneself into the jurisdiction via bank signature card, mortgage application, insurance application, etc., is binding upon the individual and creates a more permanent liability to the creators/principles of the system and issuers of the notes.
Further, capital purchases should be executed with lawful money, rather than legal tender, and a firm record made and filed of the transaction.
But that brings us to the next point, who has equitable title for sale, today ? To whom does one offer the gold or silver in exchange for land or automobile ?
Therein lies the bulk of the mystery and the obstacle we face, not to mention the fact that, for US citizens, only, it remains illegal to use gold for currency. Perhaps now one might recognize why.......
But I digress.
Where do we find remedy for the predicament Americans are in, today ?
From the link; http://presys.com/~ekklesia/movma.htm#R234
BRIEF SUMMARY of Money vs. Mammon
Everything that is purchased with a note has not actually been paid for with present value. A person merely offers [tenders] the note [bill] for legal payment in order to discharge a portion of the debt. The one who has promised, under seal, to pay the debt holds in trust the equitable title while the person tendering his note obtains a mere legal title. This process is called equitable conversion and arises out of a construction of law. In order to obtain a true and actual title and equitably reconvert the property one must pay present value to the one holding the equitable title.
. An individual must pay present value and have the capacity to own property. Citizens of the United States still can not use gold as currency. Individuals cannot reap the benefits of the trust while claiming to be immune from the debts of the trust. An individual must be sui juris.
If an individual pays present value for property with gold or silver to someone else who is a citizen in the trust but only has a legal title, can he claim to have broken off the equities? Or should he do more?
"But the doctrine of constructive trust has an important limitation: it is not enforced against a transferee who had both paid value and received title before notice of the trust or other equity." but "A purchaser from a known trustee who has the authority to sell need not see the proper application of the purchase money."234
Delivery cannot and ought not to transfer to him who receives more than was in possession of him who made the delivery.235
There still may be a value to directly pay the holder of the equitable title, because a known trustee may not have the authority to sell.
No one can grant or convey what he does not own.236
Those federal reserve notes are still under seal (1996). The treasury no longer has the gold to pay out for those notes at face value but they do have substance. They have the equitable title to all the property you hold the legal title to. If they change the nature of this merely constructive trust from a three party trust to a two party trust or change the equation or relationship of any of the parties involved in the trust then it is only reasonable that beneficiaries also have a right to change their relationship with the trust.
Shall I count [them] pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? (Mic 6:11)
"One who gives up a pre-existing claim against T in exchange for trust property should be and is considered as having given up present value; and the tendency is toward protecting one who merely accepts trust property as collateral security for a pre-existing debt, the value being found in the forbearance to sue."237
These notes under seal and the agreement that allows them to come into existence preexisted the trust. Therefore the claim for payment existed before the trust and the tendency is toward protecting the preexisting claim.
An example of this mechanism on a national level was seen after October 28, 1977 when it was clear that the United States was no longer going to pay out gold to sovereigns in exchange for the Federal Reserve notes. Almost every country in the world had already established their own federal reserve type monetary system of debt notes and were in as bad a shape or worse than the U.S. They were in no position to put any real pressure on the U.S. and were willing to make concessions and agreements to maintain some sort of economic stability.
Panama used Federal Reserve notes of the United States and coined some money. They had a large supply of those notes and could continue to demand payment in substance with relative economic impunity. If the United States agreed to transfer the Panama Canal to them they would waive any right to demand such payment. A treaty was promptly written up and signed, granting them the canal.
This principle of waiver as payment is similar to what individuals can do in America today. If they waive their right to the preexisting value owed them it must be considered as having given present value. But this trust has extended to almost every aspect of the lives of the citizens of the United States. An individual must waive rights to all the privileges offered by the United States government to its subjects. They must become free and natural individuals.238 They must waive their right of redemption in one system and be redeemed in another in order to seisi239 the land they wish to truly posses under that heavenly (libertarian) government they wish to live in and of."
Furthermore, under the precepts of international law, there is a remedy for making determination as to whether there are claimants in existence who might possess a better title to any portion of land one may seek to inhabit.
Three separate notices, given with 30 days to respond, containing brief common location specifics and legal description, including a mailing or physical location whereby the giver of notice may be reached.
No response in the 30 day time frame gives one that portion of a clear title.
Were we taught any of that in the public schools ?
Well, I guess you can fight about anything on the internet. I know almost nothing of "states rights" in this context, however my wife is Aboriginal First Nations and this concept of "I was here first" is something she and hers is quite familiar with hearing, needless to say. Again, my only point and I'm truly sorry for bringing the subject up. Carry on.
you bring this up all the time..
you know,,i must say,, being the dreadheaded hippie type i am i am quite familiar with the injustices being committed on the indigenous people of your own country.. how they are being exploited not just for their lands resources,but their children are being sold into the sex trade etc..
one would think with a wife of aboriginal heritage you would spend all your time on canadian sites,fighting against very real problems involving your wifes blood..
but no,,you spend hours upon hours a day here,rattling on about things that for the most part dont concern you..like this topic..
says a helluva lot about what you are all about..
nemophilist.