Page 189 - Fruits from a Poisonous Tree

Mel Stamper 173
MEMORANDUM OF LAW

ON ALLODIAL v. FEUDAL TITLES

In America today, there is a phenomenon occurring that has not been
experienced since the mid 1930s. That phenomenon is an increasing number
of foreclosures, both in the rural sector and in the cities. This is occurring
because of the inability of the debtor to pay the creditor the necessary interest
and principal on a rising debt load that is expanding across the country. As
a defense, the land patent title to the land and the congressional intent that
accompanies the Land Patent Act is hereby being presented. For the Court
to properly evaluate the Land Patent, in any given situation, it is necessary
to understand what a Land Patent is, why it was created, what existed before
the patent, particularly in common-law England. These questions must be
answered to effectively understand the association between the government,
the law, 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 the People” are presently supposed
to have by way of actual ownership of land as envisioned by our founding
fathers.
In England, at least until the mid-1600s and arguably until William
Blackstone’s time in the mid-1700s, the King exclusively owned
property. 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, I Seam (111.) 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 the king, leaving the dis-seised former holder of
the land wondering what it was that had brought the King’s wrath to
bear upon him, could conceivably have fabricated such a reason. At the
same time the beneficiary of such a gift, while undoubtedly knowing
the circumstances behind the gift, may have been left to wonder if the
same fate awaited him if ever he 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