Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2016)
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books





Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

20 years



Since the left thinks Article IV of the Constitution gives the White House carte blanche to steal not only the land but the waterways of the United States, logic suggests we should at least take a peek at what Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 actually says. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful rules and respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

First, there's nothing in Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 that says Congress has the right to grab all of the mineral rights, oil, water rights and valuable lumber, as well a the scenic lands. The first President of the United States to begin stealing America's land from the American people was Theodore Roosevelt. Second was his cousin, Franklin. They became as the known as National Park Roosevelts. But Teddy was the still the first land thief.

Each year Teddy hunted buffalo, elk, bighorn sheep, deer and other game species in the Badlands. All of Teddy's banker and industrialist friends hunted in North Dakota's badlands, too, because they were...well...Ameria's last badlands, and it was cool to be able to hunt where most of the old coonskin cap hunters fought and lost their last battle with a grizzly, or were scalped and left as animal fodder. In 1902 Roosevelt created 230 million acres of "public lands," which theoretically, were 230 million acres of what was to become very private land. What was being protected was...well...everything from everyone except the princes of industry, the barons of banking and business and, of course, the rapidly growing rich politicians that lived inside the hip pocket of the ultra-rich.

Roosevelt liked being known as the "Conservation President." His first Executive Order creating a National Park was in 1902. His choice? Crater Lake, Oregon which became Crater Lake National Park. Crater Lake is the deepest lake in the United States (1,945 feet deep, followed by Lake Tahoe at 1,645 feet deep. Interestingly, Lake Tahoe is fed by 63 tributaries while Crater Lake is not fed by anything except, perhaps subterranean fissures). A year later, Teddy signed an Executive Order creating a national park from a hidden valley lying beneath an expansive prairie in South Dakota, called Wind Cave National Park. Wind Cave is the longest and most complex caverns in the country, beautified by a variety of boxwood plants throughout immense cavern. Each of them were worthy to be national parks.

On April 27,1904, Teddy Roosevelt created the 1,647 acre Sully's Hill National Wildlife Refuge to protect a specific species of buffalo which grazed there. Someone in the Dept. of Agriculture did not want those buffalo cross-breeding with ordinary prairie buffalo. Hunting them was not allowed. That's why in 1921 the Wildlife Refuge was transferred to the Dept. of Agriculture—which was created in 1839 as a division of the Patent Office—where it became a "big game preserve" so Roosevelt's rich friends would have a private hunting preserve of their own. Somewhere on his journey to privatize public lands someone reminded Roosevelt that presidents have no authority to seize public lands since those lands belong to the American people—all of them, not just a rich few. The Constitution reserved that right to Congress—to the States specifically through the U.S. Senate, and to the People directly through the House of Representatives.

Have you ever wondered why specific verbiage was needed in Article IV to give Congress the authority to dispose of lands and property theoretically owned by the United States (and not the other way around) when Article IV, Clause 3, Paragraph 2 was added. America 's problem when the first settlers arrived wasn't with the politicians. That would grow rapidly after the nation was born. America's initial problems, in the late 1600s and early 1700s was with the manor born. The ultra-rich, most of whom were related to the royals of Europe—not close enough to ever gain a throne, but close enough to assassinate the heir or start a revolution.

The European kings and queens of England, France and Spain decided because they invested much of their royal treasuries to find them, they owned all of North America down to the Ismus by the right of discovery, by conquest and due to the vast land grants provided to the "lords of the manor houses" the peerage class (the sons who would never inherit their father's estates). You will recognize many of their names since many became the governors of the colonies for which they were deeded the titles, giving them power equated to the royals of Europe. It was those land grants that cemented the loyalty of American to their homelands on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean In the Virginia colony you had the names of vast landowners like the Lee family: Richard Henry Lee, the diplomat, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Robert E. Lee who commanded the Confederate troops when the South seceded from the nation because the North violated the Constitution, over-taxed the South, and used all of the tax revenues to build the infrastructure of both the North and the West, but spent none in the South.

An example of at least one other prominent, extremely wealthy family was: Cecil Calvert, the 2nd Baron of Baltimore who was granted a proprietary colony of 12 million acres. Keep that number in mind for just a minute. Now remember that the current State of Maryland contains 7,940,480 acres.

The Fairfax Grant, doled out to English, Dutch and American colonial loyalists by the Dutch King William of Orange (William III of England with his wife, Mary, as co-regent), bought scores of "paid" allies in what became known as the Anglo-Dutch War. In the end, the royals and peers received even more land grants in the New World. When you study the old charts detailing the boundaries of the land grants, you quickly realize there was more "land" on paper than there was on the ground.

Whew...it took a long time to chew that one up enough to swallow it. But we finally got there. That's why Article IV, Clause 3, Paragraph 2 was added to the Constitution. Anyone who knew how to survey a plot of land while holding a handful of adjoining land grants might discover that the land grant he received for financing the resettlement of hundreds of people to a new land, or as a bounty for fighting the the redcoats and redskins during the Revolutionary War from 1775-1787, might have been simply guesswork by someone about just how big the land on both sides of the boundary marker really was. If so, you might survey your grant and discover your neighbor's outhouse on an adjoining land grant (you know—the one with the "sanded" splinter-free toilet seat instead of a hole in a 2" X 12' hoard)—is now in your bathroom—or your outhouse is now his toilet..

Did you finally figure it out? If you didn't, let me explain it this way. Civil forfeitures have been used by the federal government in the United States since Prohibition in the 1920s and 30s. It's use increased expeditiously during the drug wars in the 1980s when the FBI and DEA "arrested" every item that drug money may have paid for. During the Clinton Administration US Attorney General Janet Reno used Cary Copeland, the Justice Department's Director of Asset Forfeiture to "arrest" whatever it viewed as contraband even though the government may not have had any evidence that an individual or group of individuals had done anything illegal. *That's how the government applied Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2. What is yours is their's for the taking if you can/t instantly establish irrefutable evidence that what you possess actually belongs to you. The reason for that law goes back to the Lords of he Manor House. If you are born with nothing, raised with nothing, how can you come into wealth without anything?

During the Bush-41 years, Customs Service officials confiscated a small, privately-owned Lear Jet after discovering the plane's owner had made a typographical error on the paperwork he was required to submit to the Federal Aviation Administration before every flight. It was an insignificant error. If it had been caught by the FAA, they would simply have required the plane's owner or pilot to correct the error before starting the flight. But the FAA official doesn't get a 25% bounty on contraband. The Customs official does.

The government's fidelity to the Constitution of the United States died in 1933 when socialism grasped America by the throat. Once government discovered it could legislatively abrogate the rights of the people without an armed rebellion marching on the nation's capital, it did so—and it has continued to do so for decades simply by coupling two amendments to erase two rights instead of protecting either. As the federal bureaucracy has proven time and again, it actually believes that under Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2, there are no restraints on the rights of government to enact whatever laws it wishes—even when the laws they enact or the executive action they employ, violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For example, when the federal government turned its back to the fact that British East Africa (Kenya) born Barack Obama, an adopted citizen of Indonesia named Barry Soetoro wanted to become an American citizen, he arbitrarily restored his birth name and traveled from Indonesia to Honolulu as Soetoro. Once there, he became American citizen Obama. Today, the socialists who are attempting to safeguard Obama's communist legacy and the destruction he accomplished to America's financial system at the behest of his campaign benefactor George Soros, claim the verbiage of the 14th Amendment, which gave slaves the right to vote, gave non-citizens the right to sit in the White House although Amendment 14, Sec. 5 makes it clear for that to happen, Congress would have to legislate specific language with reference to Article II's natural born male status, and, today, 67 States would have to ratify it. Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 provides Barack Obama no special rights not constitutionally possessed by any other illegal alien in this country—the right to be extradicted back to his country of birth or citizenship.

The point is simply this: Sixty-seven US Senators.are needed to either remove a President from office or amend the Constitution. For example, on Jan. 16, 1919 the United States Senate ratified the 18th Amendment making the manufacture or consumption of alcoholic beverages unconstitutional. Using the 14th Amendment as the "magic eraser" the high court could have declared it was their right to vacate a law where the bad effects are worse than the good.. Recognizing that Prohibition created the Gangster Era, on Dec. 5, 1933 the Senate repealed the 19th Amendment. Every amendment used to repeal, in part or in total, any other amendment must specifically spell out in its entirety—stating emphatically what rights are being granted or rescinded.

In other words, saying that "...All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..." didn't grant a woman the right to run for President since women were not granted the right to vote until Aug, 18, 1920. (And it still doesn't because granting the specific right to vote without the specific right to seek the office of the President violates Article II of the Constitution which is gender specific. Twenty times in Article II the office is President is male-gendered.) The Office of Congressman, in Article I is not is not gender-specific, although the two references to the presidency are.) The Founding Fathers weren't plumbers or ditch diggers. They were well educated leaders in the colonies who chose their words carefully, and wrote that document in layman's language. In other words, it doesn't take a lawyer to understand it. Any American with a 6th grade education could understand what rights they possessed, and that those rights were inherent.

Congress always knows when its gone too far. But, as long as you don't know when they've overstepped their legal boundaries, they will continue to steal the wealth, assets and property of the taxpayers whenever possible by whatever means are at their disposal.

By 1992, with the House Judiciary Committee examining the ramifications of civil asset forfeiture, the Justice Department realized it had to reign in its own law enforcement agencies—or at least make it appear they were doing so. In its 1992 annual report on asset seizures, the Justice Department declared that "...[n]o property may be seized unless the government has probable cause to believe that it is subject to forfeiture." That clarification arose from the fact that far too many federal seizures were being made based on "hearsay" information—rumors and neighborhood gossip based on "suspicions" about private neighbors from anonymous sources. Hearsay evidence cannot be admitted into a court of law, but it's being used daily by the DEA and the FBI to seize the assets of American citizens—with few of those Americans ever being arrested for the crimes they were suspected of committing.

Police agencies routinely refuse to identity "sources" who finger specific targets for seizures. In some cases, the rumors are made up by the police themselves because someone in the department or the city government wanted a particular home, vehicle, or other asset that was suddenly targeted for seizure.

The Fort Lauderdale, Florida police seized the $250 thousand riverfront home of a man who had just died from cancer. The reason for the seizure? A confidential informant told the police that, two years earlier, the owner of the house had taken a $10 thousand payment from some drug dealers who used his dock to unload a shipment of cocaine. The informant did not know who the drug dealers were, didn't know the name of the boat that supposedly transported the drugs to Florida, nor did the informant have any idea of the approximate date when the incident supposedly took place. With nothing more than a vague rumor that the owner was involved in a drug transaction some years earlier, and with absolutely no evidence that drugs had ever been offloaded on the man's dock, the police seized the home from the man's heirs.

But that incident is not as bad as the one in which a Malibu, California heir to a European chemical fortune, Donald Scott, was shot to death on October 2, 1992 by LA County sheriff's deputies in a forfeiture raid on his plush ranch.

When the story broke in October, 1992, reports leaked out that an official in the US Forest Service wanted the house and believed he could buy it "cheap" in a forfeiture sale. The claim, identifying the official, appeared once in print. The story quickly died and did not resurface. It had "lawsuit" written all over it.

Two US Park Service employees—Ranger Mike Alt and Special Agent Laurel Pistel—were asked to attend a meeting with the LA Sheriff's Rampart Division to discuss marijuana cases. Pistel told the media that she heard Scott's Trail's End Ranch mentioned during the meeting, but added that she did not recall asset forfeiture being discussed by anyone. A raid was planned for that evening. In the meeting aerial photographs of Scott's land were displayed, purportedly supporting the contention that the millionaire was growing marijuana on his land. However, no one could identify anything that resembled the 4,000 cannabis plants that were supposed to be there. The only thing the photos showed was an irrigation system on the property that appeared to have been channeled from a nearby National Park that, according to Alt may or may not have been illegal. There was certainly nothing there that would allow anyone to raid Scott's ranch, let alone seize his property.

Late that night 31 sheriff's deputies and federal agents from no less than five agencies broke down their door and stormed into the house. Frances Scott heard the initial crash and bolted from her bedroom, heading down the stairs only to be greeted by a horde of armed, masked men charging up the stairs—right at her. She screamed. This brought 68-year old Donald Scott—who had cataract surgery earlier that day—out of the bedroom with a gun in hand. Half-blind, Scott ran to the sound of voices to defend his wife. He got as far as the stairwell and was shot dead. Other than as blurs, he likely never saw the men who killed him.

The forfeiture warrant allowed the DEA, FBI and Sheriff's deputies to search his home and property for evidence of marijuana. None was found. No signs of any form of illegal activity was found on the Scott ranch—except the diverted water from the National Park. And that certainly was not a capital offense. Since Scott's ranch was primarily located in Ventura County and not LA County, the Ventura Sheriff's Department claimed jurisdiction to investigate the shooting. After a thorough investigation, Ventura County District Attorney Michael Bradbury concluded that the LA Sheriff's Department had lied to a judge to obtain the search warrant that brought them to Trail's End on the night of Oct. 2, 1992. Bradbury further stated that there was no evidence that there had ever been any marijuana grown anywhere on Scott's property, and that the raid was instigated by someone whose intent was to forfeit the multi-million dollar ranch. Frances Scott filed a $100 million lawsuit against the LA Sheriff's Department and the deputies who actually killed her husband.

The lawsuit was resolved. Scott's Trail's End home caught fire a few months after his death. Park Service officials refused to allow Ventura County fire engines near the home. It burned to the ground. Ultimately, the Internal Revenue Service seized the property for nonpayment of taxes. The US government assessed a Death Tax on the estate, computed on the value of Scott's foreign inheritance. Not paid as Frances Scott struggled to pursue her lawsuit against Los Angeles County, the penalties and interest on the IRS lien pyramided until the IRS seized every asset possessed by Donald Scott's estate—which, of course included everything in the world the widow possessed. Left virtually penniless, she could no longer pursue her lawsuit against the deputies who wrongfully killed her husband.

The Scott killing created national headlines. One of those who read the headline was Congressman Henry Hyde [R-IL]. Civil asset forfeiture had been a reform in the center of Hyde's plate for almost seven years. In 1992 federal law enforcement agencies seized $500 million in personal assets from American citizens using civil asset forfeiture proceedings that pretty much leave the human defendant penniless and unable to fight the forfeiture in court.

Robert Bauman, a former Republican US Congressman from Maryland who now serves on the Board of Directors of FEAR [Forfeiture Endangers American Rights], a Washington, DC advocacy group, said conservatively, $10 to $12 billion in seized asset bonuses have been split between the various federal, state and local police agencies over the past three decades. Since the evidence was "arrested" and not "seized," until the accused (the seized assets) face a jury, the contraband remains safely in the hands of the State or federal authorities.

Again, one more time, we need to be reminded again precisely what Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 says. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful rules and respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

See, we keep thinking that Congress gave government the power to control the lives of the common workers keep, and.or make all needful rules to keep all of their property the common man accumulates on life leases, but that perpetually, all that we own actual remains the property of the well born lords of the manor house. That is the reason that Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 gives Congress (We the People) the power to write the laws and make the rules and regulations more respectful of society as a whole because American was created as a nation of equals.

The common working class people who crossed the ocean in steerage to find success in the New World came with nothing, and possessed little more than nothing to leave to their children when they died, owning—finally—just a one small plot of ground about 7' X 4' for each family member where they would be buried.

The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure those steerage Americans whose sweat equity built the greatest nation on Earth were able to share in its dream and its prosperity. That's why the verbiage in Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 gave Congress the authority to end the chattel way of life which guaranteed that the Lords of the Manor House remained the princes of industry and the lords of the chattel—and that when a man sold a neighbor land upon which to build his home, the deed to that land went to the buyer. Which is why the verbiage of Article IV says: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful rules and respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." In other words, Congress—not the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business—determined under what terms the contract between the lords of the manor and the steerage class buyer was a rental agreement and when it was a sale. When it was added to the Constitution of the United States by men or integrity, Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 was a good thing. When the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who bribe politicians with millions of dollars in campaign donations bought the right to amend Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 to suit them, it became a bad thing.

The reason? To overrule the county-size, or State-sized, or even larger land grants from foreign kings who never owned the land, and which made perpetual millionaires from distant relatives of the royals of Europe, the US Congress enacted The Land Patent Act of April 24, 1820 by creating the Bureau of Land Management to settle land disputes with foreign land owners gifted by kings with no ownership claims to foreign lands, particularly those who disputed US law with respect too owning and selling property. The Land Patent Law of 1820 also prohibited the borrowing or use of "credit" for the purchase of what was now construed to be public land.

During the debates in Congress during the passage of The Land Patent Act of 1820, Federalist Sen. Rufus King of New York said, in March 1820, that "...it's calculated to plant in the new country a population of independent unembarrassed freeholder that it would place in every man, the power to purchase a freehold."(Keep in mind, the Federalist Party were the 19th century equivalent to socialists, which is why the party died so quickly. The last Federalist president was John Adams who served only one term after making it a federal crime to speak out against his policies. (Betcha a buck Barack Obama would like to get away with that stunt without the States nullifying first that edict and then, once they realized it was constitutional, obliterating Obamacare.)

When the Dutch colonized what became New York they brought their patroon system of governance with them in 1660. It quickly spread to Rhode Island, Maine, New Jersey and Connecticut. The poor paid the rents of a tenant and the taxes of an owner. And the patroons were lords of all they could see. You could say the tenant occupying the dwelling or the farmland had a generational lease with no payout unless the tenant went broke, or died and stopped making the "rent" payments. Then the real owner, the Lord of the Manor, simply repossessed the property and "sold" it again.

In 1839 they rebelled. The civil unrest, originally called the Dorr Rebellion started in Rhode Island when over 10 thousand farmers and shopkeepers decided to overthrow the civilian government and end the patroon system. As the rebellion spread to New York and then south to Massachusetts, Delaware, Vermont, and Connecticut, 3,000 State troopers put an end to the renters' rebellion. For the moment, peace reigned. In December, 1839 a New York sheriff with a mounted posse of 500 deputies pulled a late night raid on a farm community which apparently owned the patroon unpaid rent. Much to the dismay of the sheriff and his posse, 1,000 heavily armed farmers greeted them face-to-face while another 600 cut off their line of retreat.

It seemed even though redneck farmers don't dress to the "nines," they apparently can count way past nine—and stay up well past midnight. And, they were smart enough to outfox the fox who was trying to chase the chickens out of the hen house. It was just the beginning of the anti-rent war since, by this time, those redneck farmers who could add 2 + 2 could read a federal court decision and understand that, under the The Land Patent Act of April 24, 1820 it superceded land tendency.  

The theory of the land patent is based on two facts. First, in the original rent-to-own land transaction, that was granted, let's say, in 1660, and the land patent document itself says that the patent is granted to the original party as well as to their heirs and assigns.. While most of us are not heirs, anyone who assumes the liability of the lien in an assignee.

Since land patents were originally issued, nearly all conveyances of title were done by the use of deeds, like Quit Claim Deeds and Warranty Deeds. However, the money lenders found a way around land patents by creating a deeds of trust through your mortgages, which conveys an equitable interest. However, the land patent remains the highest title at law. Stupidly, almost no one ever hires a lawyer updates their deed of trust to a land patent in their name. Where a land patent exists, no lien can be ever placed on the land. (And since about 99.999% of all real estate lawyers work for the banks who will hold your deed of trust, or the principle who sells their home to you on a land contract, so it may be that 0.001% of the lawyers you consult when you buy a home will ever mention the term 'land patent." Or, if they do, they will tell you land patents are no longer used by anyone.


Just Say No
Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved