A Remedy for the Ill. Update… still researching!

I wanted to tell my readers that I am still actively researching things such as tax law, trust law, and property interest.  Some recent moments of clarity:

In the NC code under “Land registration”:

“Chapter 43.

Land Registration.

Article 1.

Nature of Proceeding.

§ 43-1.  Jurisdiction in superior court.

For the purpose of enabling all persons owning real estate within this State to have the title thereto settled and registered, as prescribed by the provisions of this Chapter, the superior court of the county in which the land lies in the State shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all petitions and proceedings had thereupon,  under the rules of practice and procedure prescribed for special proceedings except as herein otherwise provided. (1913, c. 90, s. 1; C.S., s. 2377.)

 § 43-2.  Proceedings in rem; vests title.

The proceedings under any petition for the registration of land, and all proceedings in the court in relation to registered land, shall be proceedings in rem against the land, and the decrees of the court shall operate directly on the land, and vest and establish title thereto in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. (1913, c. 90, s. 2; C.S., s. 2378.)”

It is important to read this with an open mind- I believe that when the word “settled” is used, it means something other than “finalized” or established”.  Look at this:

“Settlor

One who establishes a trust—a right of property, real or personal—held and administered by a trustee for the benefit of another.”

Also, Article 9 under that same chapter says:

“Article 9.

Removal of Land from Operation of Torrens Law.

§ 43-56.  Proceedings.

Any land brought under the provisions and operation of this Chapter before April 16, 1931, may be removed and excluded therefrom by a motion in writing filed in the original cause wherein said land was brought under the provisions and operation of said Chapter,…”

Notice the phrase “provisions of this chapter”…

“provision (Act of supplying), noun accommodation, arrangement, catering, donation, endowment, furnishing, preparation, procurement, providence, purveyance, serving

This can be read as an offer for government services, aka privilege. It is a contract with the county, as evidenced here:

“§ 43-20.  Decree and registration run with the land.

The obtaining of a decree of registration and the entry of a certificate of title shall be construed as an agreement running with the land, and the same shall ever remain registered land, subject to the provisions of this Chapter and all amendments thereof. (1913, c. 90, s. 26; C.S., s. 2395.)”

The land is presumed under contract eternally after registration, until that presumption is rebutted. That’s what the “Removal of Land from Operation of Torrens Law” section referenced above is for.  It prescribes the method of breaking that agreement and presumption.

Once removed from Torrens registration, the land can very easily be placed into/under your own trust:

“Chapter 36C: North Carolina Uniform Trust Code.

Article 4.

Creation, Validity, Modification, and Termination of Trust.

§ 36C-4-401.  Methods of creating trust.

A trust may be created by any of the following methods:

(1)        Transfer of property by a settlor to a person as trustee during the settlor’s lifetime or by will or other disposition taking effect upon the settlor’s death including either of the following:

a.         The devise to the trustee of the trust as provided in G.S. 31-47.

b.         The designation of the trust as beneficiary of life insurance or other death benefits as provided in G.S. 36C-4-401.1.

(2)        Declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds identifiable property as trustee unless the transfer of title of that property is otherwise required by law.

(3)        Exercise of a power of appointment in favor of a trustee.

(4)        A court by judgment, order, or decree, including the establishment of a trust pursuant to section 1396p(d)(4) of Title 42 of the United States Code.

 I believe we’ve already done “(1)” when signing a deed of trust, and “(2)” is how we initially take it back, and claim private ownership.  Look up the legal definition of “Declaration”– it is not just a statement, but a formal written statement in the nature of an affidavit. This declaration gets recorded, not registered.

It just gets more and more interesting.  So, at this stage, you are trustee AND beneficiary of the land. Legally speaking, you are the holder of the legal title, while the beneficiaries are privately known.

But wait… the deed of trust conveyed full legal title to land that you didn’t know you owned (how else could you convey title?), and the lender is listed as beneficiary to that trust.

How can two people, the named trustee on the deed of trust, and yourself, subsequent declarant of trusteeship of the land, both hold legal title?  The deed of trust hasn’t even been cancelled yet…

Or maybe it has…

“Chapter 45.

Mortgages and Deeds of Trust.

Article 4.

Satisfaction.

§ 45-36.4. Definitions.

As used in this Article, the following terms mean:

(15) Satisfy. – With respect to a security instrument, to terminate the effectiveness of the security instrument.”

Is an instrument that gave a trustee legal title still valid, when the same grantor of legal title records a declaration claiming back that legal title? What do you think?

I say that the D of T is no longer effective, and thus satisfied/cancelled/good riddanced.

Fascinating stuff. No wonder the law always refers to “payment OR performance of the obligation…”:

“(1a) Borrower. – A person primarily liable for payment or performance of the obligation secured by the real property described in a security instrument.”

(17) Secured obligation. – An obligation the payment or performance of which is secured by a security interest.

There are no less than fifteen instances of the phrase “payment or performance” within Chapter 45 Mortgages and Deeds of Trust.  Why can’t they use the word “payment” alone?  Is putting the title back in your own possession and care the “performance” needed to satisfy and cancel the D of T? I don’t know, but I intend to find out.

We are being screwed.

How does the information that I’ve been mining help us?

I am constantly trying to grasp the big picture as new information keeps being put into place.

A general statement one could make is “Corporate America/big business constantly shifts the burden onto the people while minimizing the amount of benefit received by the people.”

Corporate America strives to pay less tax upon their gains, while we treat the money we are using to scrape by as profit— the real meaning of income.

American culture is tweaked and subverted to make the rich into demi-gods, and to make the people think they will someday be demi-gods as well.  “Be patriotic– don’t let the government take the money from businessmen!”

When you see what is really happening, you can only feel disgust.

“Businessmen” get rich through the privileged activities of acting through a corporation and gaining from investment of money. Both of those things are sanctioned/enabled by the government, and are TAXABLE.  This is, in fact, the basis of our internal revenue system; once a business is INCORPORATED, it has been “brought into the body”. We have seen references to “body politic” and “body corporate”.  To receive that benefit is to fall under the jurisdiction of the government.

These corporations’ activities, arising from privilege, are taxable.

Our activities, such as earning a living, and taking shelter in a house are done as a matter of right.

By claiming our house and land to be real property, we are declaring it to be owned as a privilege and used for business purposes, and not a permanent, private living space.

By claiming our pay to be income, we are submitting the figure as profit, which purports to be gained through the privilege of “employment”, defined in Title 26 as working for the federal government.

Meanwhile, the real beneficiaries of privilege receive tax cuts, subsidies, what-have-you.

Friends may talk about moving to another country to escape the greed that is so entrenched in American leadership. Here is the ideal scenario: the burden gets shifted back upon big business (whose leaders make more money than even they know what to do with, and seem addicted to acquisition) to pay a healthy tax on their gains, because they are making amounts above and beyond what would be deemed proportionate to their time and investment.

People NOT involved in any privileged activity (living in a house, working for pay) do NOT pay a tax on those activities. Activity is indeed what is being taxed when an income tax or property tax is enforced… but only “activity-on-paper”.

The authorities know that we are not all using our homes and land for business; they also know that we are not all receiving hourly pay via connection with government.

However, legally, they have a leg to stand on because we offer them the presumption that these things are happening. We do not rebut their assertion that we are living on “real property”, or that we are “employees” receiving “income”.

If my use the terms “employment” and “income” are not clear to you, and their meanings for you are still “working” and “pay”, respectively, you need to read “Cracking the Code” by Pete Hendrickson. While I do not espouse everything the man says (and wouldn’t it be strange if I did?),  he has done a remarkable amount of research on the income tax and all of the court decisions and history surrounding it. I read it 6 times to soak it up, and would probably benefit from another read.

Do we need to stop receiving benefit from the government?

Hell no. we need to know which activities are privileged and which are not.

Back to that “ideal scenario” I mentioned: you are working for pay, getting paid generally what your time seems to be worth, are not in debt as a matter of course, and have some money left over as a cushion. You invest that money in some sort of stock thingy I know little about. That is a privileged activity, and you will pay tax on that. Essentially, you are making money off extra money you do not absolutely need. This will set you up in later years during an emergency or retirement/unforeseen circumstances.

What I am getting at is that, because the Federal and local governments can only tax certain activities under their jurisdictions, we can all be very clear on whether we are involved in those activities.

As it is, we the people are paying an “unfair share” of the budgetary burden; we are paying it due to having the wool pulled over our eyes. Explicit, above-board application for benefits when we know exactly what we are giving up for what we are getting, is the only future path that is acceptable for us. To obfuscate this relationship gives power to those in charge of the coffers, essentially making the money trail untraceable, or at least untraced.

The burden keeps getting heavier upon us, while obscene dollar amounts are being hoarded by those bent on having as much wealth as possible.

It makes me sad, and then angry when average/below-average workers support the idea that “big business should not be taxed”, and that to do so is bad for the economy. The opposite is true. You do not have a right to exploit the system and not pay a tax upon that. You do have a right NOT to be in the system. If you can become rich through private endeavors, without corporate powers and conveniences, more power to you. None of the rich are doing that.

I have tried before now to minimize the editorial aspect of this blog, but the more I read and research, the more the implications become central to my mind.  We are being screwed.

Freedom of Speech

It’s hard to imagine an everyday way that freedom of speech is not infinite. Uncommon, rhetorical scenarios include: the old “Yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater”, publicizing the name of a covert operative like Valerie Plame, putting her life at risk– probably many others.

If a particular expression of this freedom is merely in poor taste, hateful, or otherwise off-putting, it is STILL protected.  It HAS to be.

If the standard for deciding whether free speech is protected were only that it is offensive, even to myself, then eventually any type of sentiment could be in danger.

I wonder how up-in-arms those that are defending “Duck Dynasty guy”became when Occupy protestors were arrested, or blocked at every turn? Is assembling and criticizing government not more basic and valuable than the freedom to criticize someone’s race or sexual preference? I say it is.