Info from Hailstone Episode 196 January 10, 2013
sixteen pages or so. Thanks to Russ for his credit card!!!
Remember we were talking about this... I think it will be well
worth your peoples time if they have any extra to read this and find their
The 1857 Calif. General Revenue Act authorized a excise tax stamp on
notes or negotiable instruments.,
The 1857 General Revenue Act as Amended 1859 is where they created
property tax of all kinds owned by corporations… the State by this Act
started collecting property tax on FICTIONS, person, corporations,
company's, property of all kinds furniture animals property and owned
land and instruments....
The 1857 Act is on the first page of the act, the stamp tax… its
required on negotiable instruments, it is a stamp tax on paper and
look at the date its pre 14 amendment...
person!!! NOT Natural persons or their property!!!!
We have to remember this as we read this, and look at those little
Some may think this is not current law but the on line manual for the
California Board of Equalization states in one of its first paragraphs
In its current online manual that it derives its authority from the
1857 as amended 1859 Calif. General Revenue Act...and I’ve seen it
quoted in other places as well.
And I have that case Site from that 1920 Calif Code book that
mentions... People v Mcreery, that stated property tax as related to
private property is not constitutional and then sites the Calif 1857
as amended in 1859 General Revenue Act.
As you will in the 1859 Amendment they applied the tax on the backs of
interest...and negotiable paper, the stamp tax on paper instruments...
Of special interest, see the first page bottom on the 1857 Act… Attorney License
tax....I’m sure you will find the same application in your state...
Why did your fiduciary trustee real estate agent/broker Title
Company, Real Estate Attorney fail to properly transfer the land with
a proper Acceptance and Acknowledgment in the original deed and never
accepted the patent or land grant...this is why the county applied
property tax because they assumed because of the omitted A & A on the
Deed that you
were registering corporate owned property...and also left it open so
the bank could steal the real estate.
The Acceptence and Acknowledgement for Deeds for corporations and
private people are diffrent.
Now also you may need to look at all your mortgage paper work to see
if in fact they did not pay this Excise Tax... it may be in certain
cases they included the tax in all the fees associated in the
I think people need to think about making a affidavit of status, this
shows that you are a real live Natural person man, not a corporation
fiction subject to taxation, with an acceptance and acknowledgement of
the patent/land grant and a acceptance and acknowledgement Grant
Deed Allodial Title Free of Fee.
The Excise Tax is only if you bought the land by a negotiable
instrument, a note.
The trustees failed to inform you that you were reasonable for this
Stamp Tax, surely the montage instrument stated you were responsible
for the taxes, but did they mention this excise tax.?
Now plan on a little trouble at the County Recorders Offices, be kind,
be polite they are not going to want everyone to correct the title...
they stand to lose all the revenue on all this private property Tax
they have been getting for a very long time.
Why this fella Paul in the Washington State just by paying the excise
tax did his lender remove the lien? He stated it was about two weeks
after paying the excise tax that he recived two letters from his
lender romoving the liens... and I assume he was able to record a new
deed as that was what started his quest at the county clerk/recorders
What do you think?
California 1857 General Revenue Act with 1859 amendment pdf
Sacramento County Public Law Library
609 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Hours of Operation
8am - 8pm Monday - Thursday
8am - 5pm Friday
9am - 4pm Saturday
Starve the Beast into submission!!!
I've been talking to some people about this excellent book! I emailed a link to Bill Thornton and asked him also the following question...
I think possibly, the problem we have been having, is that we have been demanding a Common Law Court of Record in the Wrong Form of
pleadings...Yes the Courts were combined Law and Equity however the
two are like night and day apart.
So, in FORM, we have still been using Equity Civil Legislative
Pleadings, Demanding Common Law Court of Record. When in Common Law you only use in FORM of Pleadings, "Declarations" and depending on the classifaction of the action, the injury, determinded what Form of action filed. such as Tresspass, Case, etc. And then all the proper elements required in a proper Common Law Pleading Declaration, the Elements/Substance of the claim, such as, date, injury, whos involved, where the injury took place, the damages sustained, the restutition. The whole Common Law Action is in the Declaration.
So when we plead and demand a Common Law Court Of Record... we must use the proper FORM of pleadings and the proper SUBSTANCE..."the elements" of a proper pleading by Declaration. I think that the problem is that we have been demanding Common Law Court of Record Claims in Equity Civil Legislative in FORM Pleadings which make them "unintellagable" to the Equity Legislative Court, and they proceed in Equity Civil Legislative Law in FORM and not Common Law Court of Record. as Demanded and promised in the Constitutions to the People
Of course the Attorney are Statute Merchants, so they need us to stay
in the equity civil legislative form and substance of pleading side as
they would have no Statutes/Bonds to sell !
I've brought this issue up and sent the link to the book to several
people that do pleadings... and they are very intrigued. I think you may want to post the link to this book. look at the Table of Contents, its spilt into the Forms of Common Law Actions and then Chapter 4 is the Elements Required in the Declarations. Very Interesting. and all shown by example, case law up to 1914
Thank you for your time, energy, the web site, talkshoe call and all you do.