In the American system of law, People have substantive rights (common law rights) that existed before, and are protected by the U.S. Constitution.  Substantive rights, as such, are not taxable.  You may not be taxed for the words you say, for the hands on the ends of your arms, or for the property you own.

In order for the government to lay a property tax, it first must be certain that the property being taxed is not owned by the possessor.  

Having title to your property is not full ownership of your property.  Title only proves your right of possession.  To have full ownership of your property you must complete the transfer process by obtaining a land patent.  Having a land patent proves your allodial ownership of the land.  Allodial signifies ownership without limitation.

Once you have allodial ownership of your land, you now can possess it as a matter of common law right.  Remember, common law rights may not be taxed.

The government-controlled schools no longer teach about land patents and substantive common law rights.  Because so few know about it, the government is now free to define "title" as "evidence of right of possession".  The true holder of the allodial title is the government.  And like any owner, is entitled to rent the property to the tenants.  To avoid revealing all this to the public, the rent is called a property tax.

=======================================================================

MEMORANDUM OF LAW HISTORY, FORCE & EFFECT OF THE LAND PATENT

SECTION I

ALLODIAL v FEUDAL TITLES

In America today, there is a phenomenon occurring that has not been experienced since the mid-1930’s. That phenomenon is the, increasingly, rising number of foreclosures, both in the rural sector and in the cities. This phenomenon is occurring because of the inability of the debtor to pay the creditor the necessary interest and principle on a rising debt load, that is expanding across the country. As a defense, the land patent or fee simple title to the land and the Congressional intent that accompanies the patent is hereby being presented. In order to properly evaluate the patent in any given situation, it is necessary to understand
2
 what a patent is, why it was created, what existed before the patent, particularly in Common-Law England. These questions must be answered in order to effectively understand the association between the government, the land, and the people.

First, what existed before land patents? Since it is imperative to understand what the land patent is and why it was created, the best method is a study of the converse, or the Common-Law English land titles. This method thus allows us to fully understand what we are presently supposed to have by way-of actual ownership of land.

In England, at least until the mid-1600’s, and arguably until William Blackstone’s time in the mid-l700’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, potentate; or by whatever name he is known.
McConnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scam (Ill.) 344, 367 (1837).

The king was the true and complete owner, giving him the authority to take and grant the land from the people in his kingdom who either lost or gained his favor. The authority to take the land may have required a justifiable reason, but such a reason could conceivably have been fabricated by the king leaving the disseised former holder of the land wondering what it was that had brought the king’s wrath to bear upon him. At the same time the
3
 beneficiary of such a gift, while undoubtedly knowing the circumstances behind such a gift, may still not have known how the facts were discovered and not knowing how such facts occurred, may have been left to wonder if the same fate awaited him, if ever be fell into disfavor with the king.

The King’s gifts were called fiefs, a fief being the same as a feud, which is described as an estate in land held of a superior on condition of rendering him services. 2  Blackstone’s Commentaries, p.105. It is also described as an inheritable right to the use and occupation of landsf held on condition of rendering services to the lord or proprietor, who himself retains the ownership in the lands, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition p. 748 (1968). Thus, the people had land they occupied, devised, inherited, alienated, or disposed of as they saw fit, so long as they remained in favor with the King. F.L. Ganshof, Feudalism, P. 113 (1964). aThis holding of lands under another was called a tenure, and was not limited to the relation of the first or paramount lord and vassal, but extended’ to those to whom such vassal, within the rules of feudal law,’ may have parted out his own feud to his own vassals, whereby he became the mesne lord between his vassals and his own or lord paramount. Those who held directly to the king were called his TMtenants in ... chief.TM 1 E. Washburn, Treatise on The American Law of Real Proverty, Ch. II, Section 58, P. 42 (6th Ed. 1902). In this manner, the lands which had been granted out to the barons principal lands were again subdivided, 
4
and granted by them to sub feudatories to be held of themselves. Id., Section 65, p.44. The size of the gift of the land could vary from a few acres to thousands of acres depending on the power and prestige of the lord. See supra Ganshof at 113. The.fiefs were built in the same manner as a pyramid, with the King, the true owner of the land, being at the top, and from the bottom up there existed a system of small to medium sized to large sized estates on which the persons directly beneath one estate owed homage to the lord of that estate as well as to the King. Id. at 114. At the lowest level of this pyramid through at least the 14th and 15th centuries existed to serfs or villains, the class of people that had no rights and were recognized as nothing more than real property. F. Goodwin, Treatise on The Law of Real Property, Ch. 1, p. 10 (1905). This system of hierarchical land holdings required an elaborate system of payment. These fiefs to the land might be recompenses in any number of ways.

One of the more common types’of fiefs, or the payment of a rent or obligation to perform rural labor upon the lord’s lands known as socage, was the crops fief. Id. at 8. Under this type of fief a certain portion of the grain harvested each year would immediately be turned over to the lord above that particular fief even before the shares from the lower lords and then serfs of the fief would be distributed. A more interesting type of fief for purposes of this memorandum was the money fief. In most cases, the source of money was not specified, and the payment was simply made
5

from the fief holder’s treasury, but the fief might also consist of  a fixed revenue to be 

paid from a definite source in annual

payments in order for the tenant owner of the fief to be able to

remain on the property. Gilsebert 01 Mons.Chroaique, cc.69 and

115, pp. 109, 175 (ed. Vanderkindere).

The title held by such tenant—owners over their land was described as a fee simple absolute. TMFee simple, Fee coinmeth of the French fief, i.e., praediuxn beneficiarium, and legally signifieth inheritance as our author himself hereafter expoundeth it and simple is added, for that it is descendible to his hairs generally, that is, simply, without restraint to the heirs of his body, or the like, Feodum est quod quis tenet cx quacunqtte causa sive sit tenementum sive redditus, etc. In Domesday it is called feudom.’~ Littleton, Tenures, Sec. ib, Fee Simple. In Section 11, f cc simple is described as the largest form of inheritance. Id. In modern English tenures, the term fee signifies an inheritable estate, being the highest and most extensive interest the common man or noble, other than the King, could have in the feudal system. 2 Blackstone’s Commentaries, p. 106. Thus, the term fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denotes the most and best title a person could have as long as the King allowed him to retain possession of (own) the land. It has been commented that the basis of English land law is the ownership of all realty by the sovereign. From the crown, all titles flow. The original and true meaning of the word “fee” and therefore fee simple absolute is the
6
same as fief or feud, this being in contradiction to the term “allodium” which means or is defined as a man’s own land, which he possesses merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior. Wendell v Crandall, 1 N.Y. 4,91 (1848).

Therefore on Common-Law England practically everybody who was allowed to retain land, bad the type of fee simple absolute often used or defined by courts, a fee simple that grants or gives the occupier as much of a title as the “sovereign” allows such occupier to have at that time. The term became a synonym with the supposed ownership of land under the feudal system of England at cox~aon law. Thus, even though the word absolute was attached to the f cc simple, it merely denoted the entire estate that could be assigned or passed to heirs, and the f cc being the operative word; f cc simple absolute dealt with the entire fief and its divisibility, alienability and inheritability. Friedman v Steiner, 107 Ill. 131 (1883). If a fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denoted or was synonymous with only as much ‘title as the King allowed his barons to possess, then what did the King have by way of a title?

The King of England held ownership of land under a different title and with far greater powers than any of his subjects. Though the people of England held fee simple titles to their land, the King actually owned all the land in England through his allodial title, and though all the land was, in the feudal system, none of the f cc simple titles were of equal weight and dignity with the 
6
King’s title, the land always remaining allodial in favor of the King. Gilsbert  of  Mons, Chonique, Ch. 43, p. 75 (ed. Vanderkindere). Thus, it is relatively easy to deduce that allodial lands and titles are the highest form of lands and titles known to Common-Law. An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, transmissible to his heirs absolutely and simply, is an absolute estate in perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in its nature. Stanton v Sullivan, 63 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839).  "The original meaning of a perpetuity is an inalienable, indestructible interest.” Bovier’s Law Dictionary, Volume III, p. 2570 (1914). The King bad such a title inland. As such, during the classical feudalistic period of Common-Law England, the King answered to no one concerning the land. Allodial titles, being held by sovereigns, and being full and complete titles, allowed the King of England to own and control the entire country in the form of one large estate belonging to the Crown. Allodial estates owned by individuals exercising full and complete ownership, on the other band, existed only to a limited extent in the County of Kent.

In summary of Common-Law England:

(1)	the King was the only person (sovereign) to hold complete and full title to a land (allodial title);

(2) the people who maintained estates of land, (either called