Add your Email here to follow EUbrainwashing

Friday, 30 October 2015

Property Title in a Stateless Society - and Royal Prerogative

A stateless society is not by any means, de-facto, a society without a legal system (an arbitration system). Independent arbitration services will be able to offer judgements over matters, and establish a tested common law, which will then allow individuals to act with legal confidence.

Just sticking a flag in to the ground will likely be judged not sufficient, by an arbitration court, to support a claim of ownership of land. Taking good title through inheritance or purchase is probably going to still be the most common means of acquiring property. Usage, or homesteading, will be an other legal means for having a valid claim to land. If land is claimed to be owned by a first party and that ownership is to be challenged by another party, staking a claim, the first claimant is likely going to have to show a court both: 1. good title and 2. exploitation/usage. That usage can be argued to be as a wilderness nature reserve, or some such, but it will likely need to be an evidenced assertion.

Generally property that is not exploited in some demonstrable way could be up for adoption if you can get a court to agree with your claim and defend any further appeals attempted against that judgement. It is not so different in the UK today. If I maintain land or live in a building for ten years, without challenge, I can claim title and, if successful, that title awarded is as good as if I purchased the property.

If some clown wants to pay an Inuit tribal elder for a tract of ice covered land in central Greenland and for thirty years never does anything to care for or utilise that land: does he own it? If between times the Inuit tribe demonstrate they continued to exploit the land in every feasible way: to hunt across the land, live close by, manage wildlife, lead expeditions and assist scientific research; when it then comes about that natural gas reserves are found there the Inuit tribe are going to have a good case that they have the best claim to rights over that land.

If the clown can show he sold the Inuit annual hunting licences, rented the areas to them where they built their settlements, had studies carried out to direct wildlife management programs and paid for the proscribed work to be undertaken, commissioned local services for assistance with leading his client's expeditions into the landholding and requested that any other such activities were duly referred to his offices for permissions, then he will have maintained a good title.

The Royal Family in GB can likely prove better title to the land, rivers and sea bed of the Crown Estates than any other party, (with the exception, perhaps, of holders of freehold titled land within their curtilage). So if it was that 'the state' in the UK ended, the Crown could well argue that: everything still belonged to the Royal Family, as proven by descent. The Royal Family may need to consent to allowing property that was sold with a 'freehold title' was not reasonable to retain; but even so: if there were no heirs to an estate on the death of the freeholder, the Crown could then well argue they had better title to the land then any other party.

It could be argued that Royal Family land was obtained by illegal force but it would have to be proven precisely who the true heirs to the title of the stolen lands then would be, that their original title was true and correct, for those parties to demonstrate better title to a court of arbitration. (An argument just that the Norman Invasion caused 'the people of North Wales' to lose their land on Mount Snowdon would not be sufficient).

It is true that the Royal Family could argue that they did correctly own full title to the land of GB and that they were therefore entitled to dictate the terms of usage for people who chose to operate within the curtilage of their estates (state). Instead of openly 'spelling-out' to the population the true nature of the arraignment they are 'subjects' of, and then risk being violently overthrown by revolution, the British Royal Family have greatly distanced themselves from the process of Government and generally from the working processes of 'the state'.

And what is interesting in respect of America is that title to the land of America is dependent upon that assented in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which means that the tile upon which 'the state' in American depends is only based in that which was granted by the British Royalty - much like the 'freehold title' of privately 'owned' property within GB itself. That means the property of America could prospectively, in the right circumstance, legally revert to the British Crown. So watch it OK!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't just think it - write it!