Intro to Laws of Property

---

1. Introduction

The laws of property govern every effort to own, control, or transfer property. Every aspect of the income tax is touched by the laws of property. There are two great classes of property:

1. PUBLIC property: Absolutely owned and/or controlled by the government. May be POSSESSED and used by others WITH EXPRESS civil statutory permission only. That permission is usually conferred by issuing a LICENSE of some kind.
2. PRIVATE property: Absolutely owned and/or controlled by you. Not subject to civil control unless someone is injured. May be POSSESSED and used by government actors WITH EXPRESS permission only. That permission is usually conferred by noticing the government in every form or correspondence that might affect property ownership. Once constitutionally required notice is given to the government, if they accept or use your PRIVATE property beyond that point, they must obey the conditions you set.

The main job of establishing a government is to protect PRIVATE property. The Declaration of Independence calls the PRIVATE ownership of property “the pursuit of happiness”. The first step in that protection is to ensure that it does not get converted to PUBLIC property without your express and informed consent. After all, if the government won’t protect you from ITSELF, why should you feel obligated to fund them to protect you from OTHERS? Would you hire a thief to guard your valuables or property?

2. Ownership

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “property” as follows:

Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man’s courtesy.

The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal, everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises, and incorporeal hereditaments, and includes every invasion of one’s property rights by actionable wrong. Labberton v. General Cas. Co. of America, 53 Wash.2d. 180, 332 P.2d. 250, 252, 254.

Property embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership. or whether beneficial, or a private ownership. Davis v. Davis. TexCiv-App., 495 S.W.2d. 607. 611. Term includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes. Hoffmann v. Kinealy, Mo., 389 S.W.2d. 745, 752.Property, within constitutional protection, denotes group of rights inhering in citizen’s relation to physical thing, as right to possess, use and dispose of it. Cereghino v. State By and Through State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d. 694, 697.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1095]

It then defines “ownership” as follows;

Ownership. Collection of rights to use and enjoy property, including right to transmit it to others. Trustees of Phillips Exeter Academy v. Exeter, 92 N.H. 473, 33 A.2d. 665, 673. The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or claim. The entirety of the powers of use and disposal allowed by law.

The right of one or more persons to possess and use a thing to the exclusion of others. The right by which a thing belongs to someone in particular, to the exclusion of all other persons. The exclusive right of possession, enjoyment, and disposal; involving as an essential attribute the right to control, handle, and dispose.

Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it, and may use it or dispose of it according to his pleasure, subject only to general laws. The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. Calif. Civil Code, §§678-680.

There may be ownership of all inanimate things which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery; of all domestic animals; of all obligations; of such products of labor or skill as the composition of an author, the goodwill of a business, trademarks and signs, and of rights created or granted by statute. Calif. Civil Code, §655.

In connection with burglary, “ownership” means any possession which is rightful as against the burglar.

See also Equitable ownership; Exclusive ownership; Hold; Incident of ownership; Interest; Interval ownership; Ostensible ownership; Owner; Possession; Title.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1106]

The essence of ownership over property is divided into two great categories:

1. The right to exclude others from using or benefitting from a thing.
2. The right to CONTROL the use of the property. For instance, to license its use or issue a “permit”.

Absolute ownership means complete control over the property without any limitations. Ownership over a physical or intangible thing can also be shared, in which case the ownership is called:

1. Qualified: Ownership that is time limited or restricted in its use.
2. Moiety: If 50% or more of a thing is owned by one of the owner where ownership is shared.
3. Lease or rental: One owner retains the right to exclude others while the lessee has the right to possess and use the property subject to conditions specified in the rental agreement.
4. Usufruct: Allows a person to use and enjoy the benefits of someone else’s property without owning it.

A usufruct is a legal right that allows a person to use and enjoy the benefits of someone else’s property without owning it. This right includes the ability to derive income or other advantages from the property, such as renting it out or harvesting crops from it. However, the usufructuary (the person holding the usufruct) cannot alter, damage, or destroy the property.

Usufruct is a concept found in civil law jurisdictions and is often used in estate planning and property management. It combines two property rights: usus (the right to use the property) and fructus (the right to enjoy the fruits or profits from the property).

The main difference between a lease/rental v. a usufruct is who retains the right to take away the property without the consent of the other owner. If the government can take something away without your express consent prior to the taking, then its a rental and not a usufruct. Most of the time, the government is the usufructory by virtue of taxing and regulating the property without actually holding legal title.

3. Private Defined

The following definition after the horizontal line derived from:

Website Definitions, 3. Private
https://ftsig.org/advanced/definitions/#3._Private

---

FTSIG Website Definitions

3 Private

The word “private” when it appears in front of other entity names such as “person“, “individual“, “business”, “employee“, “employer“, etc. shall imply that the entity is:

1. In possession of absolute, exclusive ownership and control over their own labor, body, and all their property. In Roman Law this was called “dominium“.
2. On an EQUAL rather than inferior relationship to government in court. This means that they have no obligations to any government OTHER than possibly the duty to serve on jury and vote upon voluntary acceptance of the obligations of the civil status of “citizen” (and the DOMICILE that creates it). Otherwise, they are entirely free and unregulated unless and until they INJURE the equal rights of another under the common law.
3. A “nonresident” in relation to the state and federal government.
4. Not a PUBLIC entity defined within any state or federal statutory law. This includes but is not limited to statutory “person”, “individual”, “taxpayer”, “driver”, “spouse” under any civil statute or franchise.
5. Not engaged in a public office or “trade or business” (per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)). Such offices include but are not limited to statutory “person”, “individual”, “taxpayer”, “driver”, “spouse” under any civil statute or franchise.”PRIVATE PERSON. An individual who is not the incumbent of an office.”
   [Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1359]
6. Not consenting to contract with or acquire any public status, public privilege, or public right under any state or federal franchise. For instance, the phrase “private employee” means a common law worker that is NOT the statutory “employee” defined within 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) or 26 C.F.R. §301.3401(c )-1 or any other federal or state law or statute.
7. Not sharing ownership or control of their body or property with anyone, and especially a government. In other words:
   7.1 Ownership is not “qualified” but “absolute”.
   7.2 There are no moities between them and the government.
   7.3 The government has no usufructs over any of their property.
8. Not subject to civil enforcement or regulation of any kind, except AFTER an injury to the equal rights of others has occurred. Preventive rather than corrective regulation is an unlawful taking of property according to the Fifth Amendment takings clause.
9. Not “privileged” or party to a franchise of any kind:“PRIVILEGE.
   
   “A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law. [. . .] That which releases one from the performance of a duty or obligation, or exempts one from a liability which he would otherwise be required to perform, or sustain in common [common law] with all other persons.  State v. Grosnickle, 189 Wis. 17, 206 N.W. 895, 896. A peculiar advantage, exemption, or immunity.  Sacramento Orphanage & Children’s Home v. Chambers, 25 Cal.App. 536, 144 P. 317, 319.
   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 1359-1360]
   ___________________________________________________________________
   
   “Is it a franchise? A franchise is said to be a right reserved to the people by the constitution, as the elective franchise. Again, it is said to be a privilege conferred by grant from government, and vested in one or more individuals, as a public office. Corporations, or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known to our laws. In England they are very numerous, and are defined to be royal privileges in the hands of a subject. An information will lie in many cases growing out of these grants, especially where corporations are concerned, as by the statute of 9 Anne, ch. 20, and in which the public have an interest. In 1 Strange R. ( The King v. Sir William Louther,) it was held that an information of this kind did not lie in the case of private rights, where no franchise of the crown has been invaded.
   If this is so–if in England a privilege existing in a subject, which the king alone could grant, constitutes it a franchise–in this country, under our institutions, a privilege or immunity of a public nature, which could not be exercised without a legislative grant, would also be a franchise.”
   [People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65, 1859 WL 6687, 11 Peck 65 (Ill., 1859) ]
10. The equivalent to a common law or Constitutional “person” who retains all of their common law and Constitutional protections and waives none.
    
    “The words “privileges” and “immunities,” like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law.  Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. “
    [The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10;
    SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pdf]
    See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

Every attempt by anyone in government to alienate rights that the Declaration of Independence says are UNALIENABLE shall also be treated as “PRIVATE BUSINESS ACTIVITY” that cannot be protected by sovereign, official, or judicial immunity. So called “government” cannot make a profitable business or franchise out of alienating inalienable rights without ceasing to be a classical/de jure government and instead becoming in effect an economic terrorist and de facto government in violation of Article 4, Section 4.

“No servant [or government or biological person] can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [government].” 
[Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV]

4. Ability to write definitions that affect the possession, control, or use of property

The following rulings deal with a U.S. Supreme Court Doctrine called “The Public Rights Doctrine”, which deals with any litigation involving ANY and ALL civil statutory rights (privileges) that obligate the government to do anything. These obligations include the obligation of a federal court to even hear a dispute to enforce the privilege. Note in the following rulings the term “create” is an act of DEFINING a PUBLIC right with a civil statute and therefore OWNING it as PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property. Note also that a right “against itself” meaning against the GOVERNMENT OWNER includes a right against anyone VOLUNTARILY ACTING as a government agent or officer by virtue of pursuing a tax status to which such a privilege or obligation attaches, such as “U.S. person” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).

“The distinction between public rights and private rights has not been definitively explained in our precedents.  Nor is it necessary to do so in the present cases, for it suffices to observe that a matter of public rights must at a minimum arise “between the government and others.” Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 451, 49 S.Ct., at 413.  In contrast, “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined,” Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 51, 52 S.Ct., at 292, is a matter of private rights. Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. See Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U.S. 442, 450, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1261, 1266, n. 7, 51 L.Ed.2d. 464 (1977); Crowell v. Benson, supra, 285 U.S., at 50-51, 52 S.Ct., at 292. See also Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930).FN24 Private-rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power.”

[. . .]

Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created [DEFINED and therefore OWNED] by Congress [PUBLIC RIGHTS] and other [PRIVATE] rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell’s and Raddatz’ recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution.    Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates [DEFINES and therefore OWNS] a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress’ power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress’ power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.

[Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17768408304219861886]

---

These general rules are well settled:

(1) That the United States, when it creates [DEFINES new and therefore OWNS as property] rights [statutory PUBLIC PRIVILEGES] in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195; DeGroot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431-433; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212.

(2) That where a statute creates [DEFINES new and therefore OWNS] a right [statutory PUBLIC PRIVILEGES] and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35. Still the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 498; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374; United States v. Laughlin, 249 U.S. 440. But here Congress has provided, “That any claim which shall be presented and acted on under authority of this act shall be held as finally determined, and shall never thereafter be reopened or considered.” These words express clearly the intention to confer upon the Treasury Department exclusive jurisdiction and to make its decision final. The case of United States v. Harmon, 147 U.S. 268, strongly relied upon by claimants, has no application. Compare D.M. Ferry & Co. v. United States, 85 Fed. Rep. 550, 557.

[United States v. Babcock, 250 US 328 (1919); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13911914425951042261]

CONVERSELY, if you aren’t invoking a CIVIL STATUTORY PUBLIC PRIVILEGE but a PRIVATE CONSTITUTIONAL or COMMON law right, PUBLIC CIVIL STATUTES do NOT apply! The Constitution is “self-executing” and needs no civil statutes or even court rules to enforce:

The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal’s threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, “provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature”); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it “was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens”). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.

[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8746804851760570747]

If you are PRIVATE and not in receipt or benefit of public property, only the constitution (Bill of Rights) and NOT civil statutes protect you. If you are PUBLIC then ONLY the CIVIL statutes protect you and NOT the Constitution. It’s a BINARY choice. This is what the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes.

The OWNER is the only one who can determine the “choice of law” in deciding disputes involving the property. The fact that federal property is involved is the origin, in fact, of the authority to REMOVE a case from state court to federal federal court. If the case does not involve property of the national government and you filed the case, then the removal is improper. These facts are explained in:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

The purpose of writing definitions and assigning RIGHTS to the definitions is to control property. Who the absolute owner is determines who gets to write legal definitions or contracts that CONTROL the possession or use of the property. When ownership is shared or qualified, the one owner retaining the right to exclude the other owner is the absolute owner and the only one who can write definitions that affect the use or control or possession of the property.

From a commercial perspective, only the OWNER can sell or rent the property:

1. The absolute owner is the Merchant SELLING their property and setting the terms of the sale or transfer or use under U.C.C. §2-104(1).
2. The person receiving temporary possession or partial control of the property is the Buyer under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).

When government tries to write legal definitions that affect the possession, use, or custody of something in their CIVIL statutes, they in effect are asserting an OWNERSHIP interest over the property that is affected. Control and ownership are largely synonymous in this scenario. Thus, if they claim you or your property are “included” in the thing affected by the definitions they write, they have the burden of proving HOW that ownership interest was acquired. If they can’t prove how they lawfully obtained ownership and you didn’t consent to GIVE them ownership, then they are a thief and you and your property are EXCLUDED from their CIVIL definitions as being the lawful target of the CIVIL statutes the definitions implement.

5. Property cannot be BOTH PRIVATE and PUBLIC at the SAME TIME

WARNING: Property can NEVER be PUBLIC and PRIVATE at the same time. It is ALWAYS and ONLY one or the OTHER. The CREATOR of the property/RIGHT or definition establishes who the ONLY owner is. The Constitution is not written by the Legislature, so they don’t own the rights documented therein. The PEOPLE do as private property in the case of the Bill of Rights.

As an example of the above warning, consider an 8 U.S.C. §1401 POLITICAL/TERRITORIAL citizen* created by act of Congress. Since it was legislatively created by Congress, it’s PUBLIC property and a privilege OWNED by Congress. Thus, it CANNOT rationally include Fourteenth Amendment citizens as well who are PRIVATE. PUBLIC and PRIVATE cannot mix:

Quando duo juro concurrunt in und person, aequum est ac si essent in diversis.
When two rights concur in one person, it is the same as if they were in two separate persons. 4 Co. 118.

[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: https://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

As a confirmation of the above principle, look at what the D.C. Circuit Court said about such PRIVILEGED POLITICAL/TERRITORIAL citizens*:

“Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE!], and not a constitutional, right. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes would have been unnecessary. While longstanding practice is not sufficient to demonstrate constitutionality, such a practice requires special scrutiny before being set aside. “

[Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88, 98 (2013);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13634380254399422803]

6. Private v. Public Diagram

The table below compares PRIVATE and PUBLIC rights:

#	Description	Private Right	Public Right
1	Creator/Origin/Owner (grantor)	God	The State
2	Your ownership	Absolute	Qualified (under conditions set by grantor)
3	Attach to	Land	Voluntary civil status of consenting people or otherwise private property
4	Unalienable?	Yes	No
5	Can be taken away without your consent?	No (unless you injure someone)	Yes (without any injury)
6	Vindicated in	Constitutional court	Legislative franchise court
7	Created in	Bible	Civil statutes or franchises
8	Synonyms	Unalienable rights	Privileges
9	You pay for  enforcement by	Court fees	Income taxes
10	Enforce inequality between you and government?	No	Yes
11	Surrender constitutional protections when invoked?	No	Yes
12	Must join the government as an officer to invoke?	No	Yes
13	Implemented by	Common Law, Equity	Civil Law

You can find the diagram below at:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

7. Rules for Converting PRIVATE to PUBLIC

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations:

[1] First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and   that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”];

[2] second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and

[3] third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

The above case can be itemized as follows:

#	Description	Requires consent of owner to be taken from owner?
1	The owner of property justly acquired enjoys full and exclusive use and control over the property.  This right includes the right to exclude government uses or ownership of said property.	Yes
2	He may not use the property to injure the equal rights of his neighbor.  For instance, when you murder someone, the government can take your liberty and labor from you by putting you in jail or your life from you by instituting the death penalty against you.  Both your life and your labor are “property”.  Therefore, the basis for the “taking” was violation of the equal rights of a fellow sovereign “neighbor”.	No
3	He cannot be compelled or required to use it to “benefit” his neighbor.  That means he cannot be compelled to donate the property to any franchise that would “benefit” his neighbor such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.	Yes
4	If he donates it to a public use, he gives the public the right to control that use.	Yes
5	Whenever the public needs require, the public may take it without his consent upon payment of due compensation (within the constitutional limits of their territorial exclusive jurisdiction).  E.g. “eminent domain”.	No

A THEFT of property has occurred on behalf of the government if it attempts to do any of the following:

1. Circumvents any of the above rules for converting PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
2. Tries to blur, confuse, or obfuscate the distinction between PRIVATE property and PUBLIC property.
3. Refuses to identify EXACTLY which of the FIVE mechanisms identified in the preceding table was employed in EACH specific case where it:
   3.1. Asserts a right to regulate the use of PRIVATE property.
   3.2. Asserts a right to CONVERT the character of property from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
   3.3. Asserts a right to TAX what you THOUGHT was PRIVATE property.

Is your ignorance of law and the rules for converting property causing you to:

1. Unknowingly donate property to the government?
2. Condone and further government theft or identity theft?  The only difference between THEFT and a DONATION is CONSENT.
3. Aid and abet conspiracies by public servants to:
   3.1. Deceive you about what the law permits and requires?
   3.2. Deprive you of Constitutional rights?

8. Implications of the laws of property

In the context of the subject of property, REMEMBER the following important legal concepts:

1. A single piece of property cannot be BOTH PRIVATE and PUBLIC because it can only have ONE absolute owner.
2. Rights are property.
3. Anything that CONVEYS rights is property.
4. Contracts convey rights and are therefore property.
5. All franchises are contracts, and therefore property.
6. Civil statuses (Form #13.008) convey and enforce PUBLIC rights and are therefore PUBLIC property.
7. The Constitution conveys mainly PRIVATE rights, which are PRIVATE property in the case of the Bill of Rights.
8. Those who OFFER property to you are a Merchant (Seller) under U.C.C. §2-104(1).
9. The person RECEIVING the property is the Buyer under U.C.C. §2-103(1)(a).
10. The MERCHANT always prescribes ALL the terms of the offer and can withhold the property if those terms are not met. The withholding of the property is an exercise of the “right to exclude” aspect of ownership.
11. You should always strive to be the Merchant in every business transaction to give yourself the upper hand. 
12. You should NEVER allow the GOVERNMENT to act as a Merchant in relation to you. Here is what happens when you do.
    
    “People of all races, genders, political beliefs, sexual orientations, and nearly all religions are welcome here. All are treated equally under REAL “law”. The only way to remain truly free and equal under the civil law is to avoid seeking government civil services, benefits, property, special or civil status, exemptions, privileges, or special treatment.  All such pursuits of government services or property require individual and lawful consent to a franchise and the surrender of inalienable constitutional rights AND EQUALITY in the process, and should therefore be AVOIDED.  The rights and equality given up are the “cost” of procuring the “benefit” or property from the government, in fact.  Nothing in life is truly “free”.  Anyone who claims that such “benefits” or property should be free and cost them nothing is a thief who wants to use the government as a means to STEAL on his or her behalf. All just rights spring from responsibilities/obligations under the laws of a higher power.  If that higher power is God, you can be truly and objectively free.  If it is government, you are guaranteed to be a slave because they can lawfully set the cost of their property as high as they want as a Merchant under the U.C.C.    If you want it really bad from people with a monopoly, then you will get it REALLY bad. Bend over.  There are NO constitutional limits on the price government can charge for their monopoly services or property.  Those who want no responsibilities can have no real/PRIVATE rights, but only privileges dispensed to wards of the state which are disguised to LOOK like unalienable rights.  Obligations and rights are two sides of the same coin, just like self-ownership and personal responsibility.  For the biblical version of this paragraph, read 1 Sam. 8:10-22.  For the reason God answered Samuel by telling him to allow the people to have a king, read Deut. 28:43-51, which is God’s curse upon those who allow a king above them.  Click Here for a detailed description of the legal, moral, and spiritual consequences of violating this paragraph.”[SEDM Opening Page, http://sedm.org]
13. The CREATOR of a civil statutory privilege/public right/franchise is ALWAYS the owner and the Merchant granting or selling PUBLIC property. See:
    13.1 United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328 (1919)
    13.2 Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax
14. A statutory civil right (which is PUBLIC PROPERTY) exercised against a fiction of law (straw man, Form #05.042) such as a “person” is a right exercised against the GRANTOR/CREATOR of the OFFICE, and not the human(s) FILLING the office. This is an outgrowth of the law of agency. Thus, a civil statute used as a remedy in court against someone else is a remedy against the GOVERNMENT GRANTOR/CREATOR of the right, and not the OFFICER filling the office to which the PUBLIC right attaches. The CREATOR is the OWNER, and the OWNER of the right is the person legally RESPONSIBLE for its effect on others.
15. If you use a civil statutory fictional office for private gain, the creator of the office is the owner of all income and property attached to the office through the use of the franchise mark, the Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number. They must reward you with a portion of the PUBLIC property attached to the office to induce you to volunteer for the office to begin with. Thus, a “trade or business” partnership is established to remit the “kickback”. This is called a “return”.
16. Rules of Evidence relating to property interest are described in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(14) and 803(15).

Authorities supporting each of the items in the above list can also be found in the following article:

Authorities on Rights as Property, SEDM

9. Laws of property in the context of income taxation

Income taxation is always upon PROFIT or GAIN, and never the underlying property, which the courts call CAPITAL. A “gross receipts” tax is a tax on property and not a tax on profit.

“We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed.–), the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts—everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.  Certainly the term “income’ has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416, 417 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 136), and for the present purpose we assume there is not difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.”
[Southern Pacific Co., v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, 38 S.Ct. 540 (1918)]

For instance, taxes on LABOR are upon PROFIT from labor, not the underlying labor itself, which is property. That means NEVER can the ENTIRE amount (“gross receipts”) earned from selling one’s labor for compensation of EQUAL value be classified as “income” from a constitutional perspective UNLESS you consent to it.  That consent must come in a place not protected by the constitution such as on federal territory or abroad, because otherwise government is making a profitable business out of alienating rights that the Declaration of Independence says are UNALIENABLE, which is a criminal financial conflict of interest. Doing the OPPOSITE of what governments are created to do makes them not only NOT a government, but an ANTI-government.  See:

Proof that Involuntary Income Taxes on Your Labor are Slavery, Form #05.055
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ProofIncomeTaxLaborSlavery.pdf

Obligations under the Internal Revenue Code only attach to PUBLIC property. This property is classified as DOMESTIC in the Internal Revenue Code. PRIVATE property in the Internal Revenue Code is referred to as FOREIGN and is not taxable. PRIVILEGE is a synonym for this PUBLIC property. All rights conveyed by the Internal Revenue Code are PRIVILEGES and PUBLIC property legislatively granted by Congress. If you ask for or invoke and statutory right, you are asking to receive the BENEFIT of such property.

The Internal Revenue Code functions essentially as a property rental or bailment agreement over PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property. The public property being rented are called “privileges”. The rent is called “income tax”. Public property being rented consists of CIVIL STATUSES assigned either to you or your property or both.

1. If the privileged public status is assigned to human, it’s called a “U.S. person”.
2. If the privileged public status is assigned to a specific piece of property only and not the owner, it is called “effectively connecting” the property.

A bailment agreement is a legal arrangement where one party (the bailor) temporarily transfers possession of personal property to another party (the bailee) for a specific purpose, while retaining ownership of the property. The bailee is responsible for the safekeeping and return of the property once the purpose of the bailment is fulfilled. This is why tax returns are called “returns”: You have to “return” government/public property at the end of the year that was “cut” (excised) from your otherwise PRIVATE property by your voluntary act of consent in some form.

The laws of property are mentioned in the Bill of Rights (Fifth Amendment) within the Constitution in the context of PRIVATE property ONLY. The goal of our website is identify tools and techniques to keep your status and that of your property exclusively PRIVATE at all times, which means you can never be taxed or regulated by the government. As long as you retain ABSOLUTE, PRIVATE ownership of all your property, you have the right to control the government with it instead of the other way around.

10. Further reading

For a description of the above concepts, see:

1. Property View of Income Taxation Course, Form #12.046 (OFFSITE LINK)-simplified explanation of laws of property in the context of income taxation.
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf
2. Laws of Property, Form #14.018 (OFFSITE LINK)
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/LawsOfProperty.pdf
3. Authorities on rights as Property, Form #14.017 (OFFSITE LINK)
   https://sedm.org/authorities-on-rights-as-property/
4. Hot Issues: Laws of Property*, SEDM (OFFSITE LINK)-requires free Basic Member Account
   https://sedm.org/laws-of-property/
5. Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 (OFFSITE LINK)-general description of the laws of property.
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
6. Private Right or Public Right? Course, Form #12.044 (OFFSITE LINK)-criteria for deciding whether property is PRIVATE or PUBLIC?
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PrivateRightOrPublicRight.pdf
7. Property and Privacy Protection Topic, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/PropertyPrivacy/PropertyPrivacy.htm
8. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: Property
   https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/property.htm
9. 26 U.S. Code Subchapter O – Gain or Loss on Disposition of Property-NOTE that they NEVER identify your own LABOR as property in these rules, so the GENERAL rules for property apply, which means the Fair Market Value of your labor is the BASIS for the labor under United States v. Cartwright, 411 U.S. 546 (1973).
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-O