Why The Bundy Ranch Issue Has So Much Controversy

download (3)Draw a Line

One of the main issues arising out of the Bundy Ranch fiasco, is the underlying issue of allodial title in all states that has been ignored by the federal government and most state governments.

Allodial title is “non-feudal” title.  At America’s founding, this was commonly termed as “fee simple absolute.”  When the Treaty of Paris was signed, there were many meetings with the English Parliament to explain that we would NOT be under a feudal form of land (or other property) ownership where the government, kings or other “nobles” actually held primary ownership of all land.   

At the signing, ALL land was to be turned over to the people directly and not to the individual colonies/states under common law. This was now a fundamental property right that “shall not be infringed.” This was the original meaning of the “Castle Doctrine” and where we got the quote “A Man’s Home is His Castle.”

Most of the western states (including Texas) reinforced this doctrine.  Property taxes are a fairly recent usurpation and most states had no property tax at all until the 1940’s and 1950’s. In most of the United States, we were all open range where “first usage” was applied to rights to water, mineral, and forage rights.  Actual purchase of the land was a completely separate set of rights and could be (and often was).  “Real Estate” refers to everything that is built ON THE LAND and not necessarily anything that either grows on it, or like water or minerals, that are found under it. This is where land patent law comes into play.

The court cases the Bundy’s have been fighting have been ignoring these fundamental principles.

In Texas, there are many instances where people have traced their land back to Allodial title (Mexican land grants) and, since once land is held in Allodial title “it can never be otherwise,” they have had judges rule and no longer pay property taxes. Texas is one of the few states that still recognize allodial title, but it is not common knowledge.  The state would not want that to be very public for obvious reasons.

We can expect that Harry Reid and the BLM (or the Chinese) will not just let this issue go.  They will back up and find a new strategy to get these lands and kick the Bundy family off their ranch.

I would imagine that the Chinese, who are intent on finding a way to convert the massive amounts of U.S. debt they have covered into real, tangible assets, are having long-winded conversations with Reid and the White House.

What this has really exposed is that laws, regardless of how long they have been in force  and “on the books,” when they violate the fundamental tenets of our Supreme Law, the Common Law, and have no moral authority, are null and void (nunc pro tunc as in the verbiage of Marbury vs Madison) from their inception.

As a blatant example, the prima nocte law was in force in England for hundreds of years.  This was the law that allowed nobles to have intercourse with a bride on her wedding night. This was morally and ethically wrong and everyone knew it, but this law continued until it was finally overturned by a massive outcry from the people.

Violations of our fundamental unalienable rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights as “rights the government SHALL NOT INFRINGE UPON, such as our right to property, our freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly, right to travel and, of course, our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, all fit into the same category.

Until we stand up and exercise these rights in the face of immoral, unconstitutional laws, they will continue to be enforced by a tyrannical government and their thugs.

This past week’s standoff at Bundy Ranch is just a stepping stone, a small victory, but it is obviously not over until we actually turn this government and its immoral and unconstitutional laws back to what our founders intended.

http://www.drawaline.org/

3 thoughts on “Why The Bundy Ranch Issue Has So Much Controversy

  1. “Most of the western states (including Texas) reinforced this doctrine. Property taxes are a fairly recent usurpation and most states had no property tax at all until the 1940′s and 1950′s. In most of the United States, we were all open range where “first usage” was applied to rights to water, mineral, and forage rights. Actual purchase of the land was a completely separate set of rights and could be (and often was).”

    Sigh!……man, imagine a free life with no property tax and everything belonged to We the People. Where did we go wrong in the past? Guess it was the slow implementation of Communism and their regulations.

    Anyways, it could be free like that again if we want it bad enough.

  2. Ah, finally someone gets it – Thank you Redhorse – I’ve been a student of Allodial title for years – Actually did research in Texas (which refers to it as “Headrights”) – started with Constitutional law, but was fascinated by the slow, but sure, usurpation by the “elites” of our entire legal foundations –
    Love this article
    STFB, Draftee, Reluctant Vet, & Linguistic sniper

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*