Covenants Part VII, A Quest for Freedom
In the
previous lesson we discussed the binding effect and prohibition to taking Oaths and Swearing.
A Quest for Freedom
Liberi. In Saxon Law - Freeman; the possessors of allodial lands.
The ownership of land meant freedom. It meant you were not a serf or bound to rent. To actually have the 'ownership of land' meant you were a freeman and is defined as such still to this day in the Oxford dictionary. How can a man be king of his own home if he does not own it? If you did not own land, untaxed, as an allodial then you were not by definition a freeman. You were not even eligible to sit on a jury with the power to judge law.
Liber homo. A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to act as juror.
An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudatory.
For over a thousand years the Jury was the only one who could decide fact and law. You picked the jury if you were brought into court by the complaint of your neighbor. You could not stack the jury because both sides could exclude men who were prejudice or you believed to be prejudiced or incompetent. Both sides would have to agree upon the jury and then your peers would judge both fact and the law of the case. Men were answerable to their neighbors and community and the people who they worked and lived with. The Norman king, William, believed he was the fountainhead of justice and imposed his own courts upon the people of England. Again justice filtered down through a ruler who exercised authority and appointed judges, an office not allowed in England since the last of the Roman legions.
"Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066 the people were the fountainhead of justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen and the law which they administered, was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these non professional courts the Norman king, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers who... gradually all but displaced the popular, nonprofessional courts."
The idea of having such a king displeased Samuel the prophet when the people asked for such a king. in 1 Samuel 8 where he warns the people of what would come from turning away from God and calling upon a king or central government.
Any opposition to William the Conqueror or his successors was quickly squelched or stamped out. Survivors were required to take and oath of fealty just to get back a "legal title" to their property. A legal title did not include the beneficial interest which was now held by the King. Taxes could now be imposed on that land. With the loss of clear and good titles to land, through the encroaching registration of William and his Doomsday Book, "competent" jurors were hard to find and the top down courts of the king became prominent. They were relatively just at first and when they weren't the strong arm of the king muffled the dissent.
Under the feudal system he required fealty and allegiance.
FEALTY. Fidelity, allegiance.
"Under the feudal system, every owner of lands held them of some superior lord, from whom or from whose ancestors, the tenant had received them. By this connexion the lord became bound to protect the tenant in the enjoyment of the land granted to him; and, on the other hand, the tenant was bound to be faithful to his lord, and defend him against all his enemies. This obligation was called fidelitas, or fealty."
By 1500 there were no more Freemen in England, but there were men and women who wished to be free. Now there was new land in America. Men wished to stand again on their own soil, ruling over their own lives. Those who truly wished it were willing to take a great risk in America to obtain that goal.
"Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom."
Civil and religious freedom had become difficult to find in Great Britain. The people were willing to brave tremendous hardships and even death by the thousands in order to find that freedom.
Those people felt that there was civil and religious freedom to be found here in the Americas. They new freedom was not comfort and it was not always safe. Their desire for freedom was not the same as a desire for riches. It came from deep within their hearts, minds and souls. Like Abraham, Moses and the Israelites they were willing to set out into the unknown in hopes of possessing their own land and to be freemen again under God alone with no other gods ruling over them.
Possession is, as it were, the position of the foot.
(Possessio est quasi pedis positio. 5 Coke, 42.)
Did the king of England set his foot on American soil?
The king sent his representatives with their "subject feet". Like Armstrong on the Moon they claimed the land for others. He not only allowed His Representatives to come, but others as well. Did some others come to claim some land in their own interest?
All men are freemen or slaves. "We are not contending that our rabble, or all unqualified persons, shall have the right of voting, or not be taxed; but that the freeholders and electors, whose right accrues to them from the common law, or from charter, shall not be deprived of that right."
If you only had a "legal title" you could be taxed on that land. A freehold title to land accrued rights not available to serfs and transients. With ownership of land you were a freeman, your home was your castle.
Without the "ownership" of land there could be no civil freedom. Earlier Americans knew this and they also knew that "legal title" did not include the ownership of thst land as an estate. Americans understood this so well that men like Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys were willing to burn any business or home where the people were willing to settle for a mere "legal title" to property.
"Many small farmers, traders, liberated servants, and newly arrived immigrants agreed ... landholding became in practice (and in settler expectations) ever less tenurial, slowly more allodial." Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather. (1Co 7:21)
Freeman; the possessors of allodial lands.
"The first farmer was the first man, and all historic nobility rests on possession and use of land."
A "legal title" is "one cognizable... in a court of law."
"Judicial cognizance" being "judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence." Even more important a legal title is "one which is complete and perfect so far as regards the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of 'equitable Title.'"
BENEFICIAL INTEREST is the "Profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract, or the ownership of an estate as distinct from the legal ownership or control."
BENEFICIAL USE is "the right to use and enjoy property according to one's own liking or so as to derive a profit or benefit from it...
First, we see that a legal title, although it may appear to be a "right of ownership" it "carries no beneficial interest." If a legal title does not include a right to the beneficial interest then it does not include a right to the "profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract," nor does it include "the ownership of an estate." After all, a beneficial interest is "distinct from the legal ownership."
In the simplest of terms a legal title only appears to be a right to ownership but it is not the "ownership of an estate."
By definition, a legal title is the opposite--- or at least the antithesis--- of an "equitable title." An equitable title as opposed to a legal title "is a right in the party" rather than only appearing to be a right. More important it is "the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another."
"The Principle distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of the law, the latter the form of law.... A contract... might be said to be ... Illegal, but would not be described as unlawful..... A further distinction is that the word 'legal' is used as the synonym of 'constructive' which 'lawful' is not.... Again, 'legal' is used as the antithesis of 'equitable.' Thus we speak of 'legal assets,' or 'lawful estate,'".
How did this happen? That is best discussed elsewhere.
Conversion vs. Reconversion
http://www.hisholychurch.info/study/gods/cog10cvr.php
Money vs. Mammon
http://www.hisholychurch.info/study/gods/cog11movma.php
This division of true title into a legal title on one hand verses an equitable title on the other is called equitable conversion. equitable conversion is a "Constructive conversion." CONVERSION is an, "alteration, interchange, metamorphosis, passage, Reconstruction...."
Clear and good titles "are synonymous; 'clear title' meaning that the land is free from incumbrances, 'good title' being one free from litigation, palpable defects, and grave doubts, comprising both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record." .
Is it any wonder that you are required to get a permit to build on what you think is your land? You have to get permission, a license, to operate what you believe is your car. If you do not pay the use, tribute or excise tax on your land, auto or labor you will loose them all. A 200,000 dollar home can be taken for taxes and sold with only a fraction of the value of the property owed in taxes. When it is sold all the money goes to the county, not just what is owed. A 20,000 dollar car can be taken by police because you have no stickers on your plate. Why? Haven't you lost ownership already if you do not own the beneficial interest or use of the property or thing? Does anyone have a lawful title? Who has the true title and for what purpose do they have it? The County tax man is simply collecting rent. Yes, under most conditions. We do not own what we think we own. What we have a legal right to is not our lawful possession or lawful estate. We must continue to pay for their use unless we actually own the land we live upon.
There is much more to all this and the essay:
"Law vs. Legal" may help people understand.
http://www.hisholychurch.info/study/gods/cog2lvl.php
"Employ vs. Enslave"
http://www.hisholychurch.info/study/gods/cog4eve.php
"Are men the property of the state? Or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world." Cecil B. DeMille in "The Ten Commandments."
Can we own land as an estate with clear and good title? Can we be freemen again under the perfect law of liberty with honor and grace, without violation of the law of God or man? In Part I People were "not a party" to the United States Constitution and the vast majority opposed it.
Footnotes:
|
Share this
page 
