:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hope you enjoy your experience here.

We hold free conference calls every Monday through Thursday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).
Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our conference calls;

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

hunting rights on private property

Contracts, Trusts & the corporation sole; what they are & how they relate with one another.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

User avatar
Magnum7918
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 5:45 pm MDT

hunting rights on private property

Postby Magnum7918 » Tuesday August 23rd, 2005 2:44 pm MDT

Hello I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with hunting on properly secured land (land patent)? I live in Illinois and will soon have a hunting property which I will be doing the land patent process with. Here in Illinois even if you own land you must still have a hunting license and any appicable stamps and/or tags for the type of hunting your doing. My problem is even as the land owner I must still enter a lottery type process to get a deer tag issued from my county to hunt on my property. If I do not get selected in the lottery I am forbbiden from harvesting any deer on my property. I have not been selected for 3 years and am highly frustrated.
Has anyone run into the same type of situation? If so could you detail your experience and what you did to remedy it?

Also if I have a land patent (properly recorded) and a secured land boundary notice (properly recorded) can the Conservation Officer come onto my property without my permission or a warrant? I found him on it the other day.................
interested in talking/chatting with like minded people

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: hunting rights on private property

Postby Admin » Tuesday August 23rd, 2005 5:07 pm MDT

:h: Magnum7918,

We always find such situations amazing. It is amazing the people of our nation have tolerated such ridiculousness to this point. Oh well. We are quite pleased that there are people like yourself that are willing to learn what is going on and to resolve such difficulties.

On review, we know we do not have all of the facts regarding this matter—so, let's look at what we do know. Again, as we keep repeating throughout this Open Forum, whenever we want to review a relationship we follow the Standard for Review found in Open Forum topic Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole. And, again we are not going to do a full review here of the relationship requested because it would require a repeat of what we already did in the Open Forum topic Owning a business; which topic covered both the nature of the contracting party (man or Corp. U.S. created agency) and the nature of the Corp. State (in that case the State of Colorado). That is exactly the same review we would normally do for the question you asked (as it would apply to the corporate entity called State of Illinois) to discover the basis for the relationship and the authority said Corp. State had for their allegation of control. Those elements would give us a basis for then reviewing the environmental conditions of the relationship, which would allow us to finally understand the terms of the relationship (statutory controls if allowed by law). Then we could answer the questions you asked.

The steps through the review presented above and exemplified in our response to Owning a business give the absolute answer to your first question and the tools necessary to win a battle to secure your rights in court. We have helped others fight similar cases regarding fish and game controls in other states. Wisdom says, proper preparation (minimally completing a review such as the one shown above) is necessary to win.

The Bottom Line: Law plainly shows fish and game that come onto private Land are the private property of the landowner. If the Corp. State never acquired your right to limit and control your private land and or property from you, they cannot lawfully limit you from using your private property on your private land as you see fit.

If we were aware of a statutory allegation that the Corp. State had such a right we would make a formal challenge to that allegation before we started openly hunting on our Land. The results of a properly brought suit to that end would clear up the matter.
magnum7918 wrote:If I have a land patent (properly recorded) and a secured land boundary notice (properly recorded) can the Conservation Officer come onto my property without my permission or a warrant?
As per the presupposition of your question it's obvious the officer can do it, the question is, “can he do it lawfully?” We seriously doubt it if you take reasonable legal measures to stop such trespasses.

We had a similar situation a couple of years ago, where an assessor came onto completely fenced and posted private land. Once there he began taking pictures of the buildings etc. He was caught and warned that he had no rights there and that he should leave. He left. The ‘No Trespassing’ perimeter signs (available on our order form) also notified the agent of the Land Patent secured nature of the private land and warned him that he could not enter without permission. As a result of the agent’s trespass, the landowner sent the Corp. State a bill for $1,000,000.00. The Corp. State responded with case cites and codes alleging they had the right to so trespass. On review of the cites shown it was even more obvious, the Corp. State knew full well they had no such authority. The agent came back a week latter, again taking pictures; again he was caught. The landowner sent another notice of the cost for the second trespass added to the first. The cost for such trespass was noticed on the perimeter signs. After an appropriate billing cycle, the landowner sued. Though the case has not yet completed its circuit through the court system the Corp. State has voluntarily removed their allegation of any rights related to the property. They now completely recognize the private Land Patent secured nature of the Land.

When reading case law regarding Corp. States’ allegation of rights to trespass on private land, it is recognized, the landowner must have secured the private nature of the property with reasonable privacy fencing such that the landowner can reasonably expect privacy. Such is the case of the 40 plus acres of the case we referenced here. Their reasoning without the fencing is the public has access, so they do too. The cases that deal with such matters almost invariably deal with an officers alleged right to investigate known criminal activity viewable from outside the property or discovered while otherwise on the private property investigating some other cause for their presence there. Purely civil cases regarding government agent trespasses are amazingly sparse. We expect this is because until recent times such agents simply obeyed the law or people otherwise worked out their difficulties with such trespasses. The old maxim of law, “Trespassers will be shot!” is still active today and there are many places where such agents would simply never go for that very cause. That is not our way though. We believe in the command, “Thou shalt not kill.” Then again, the old maxim is often considered the result of self defense. We still find the legal solution that follows is an appropriate and sufficient response.

As to any allegation that they have a right to patrol private property with no other cause, we are aware of no such cases or authority granted to any state officials in any Corp. State or any original jurisdiction State, and the Land Patents, State Enabling Acts, State Constitutions and the Constitution of the United States of America forbid such authority from simply being claimed by them.

We would use a legal solution to stop such activity. We would take them to task: first by direct communication, then by civil action if their actions did not stop. We would continue until we won. We would not want to have to take on such a task without support from a source like Team Law.

We hope this information is helpful to you; if you find it so. Please tell your friends about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

george from new york

hunting on private property

Postby george from new york » Tuesday October 25th, 2005 1:08 pm MDT

Magnum7918:
I went through a 4 year court battle of 2 conservation officers and a state trooper arresting me on my neighbors property for allegedly hunting without a license. I was standing next to my p/u truck when they came unto the private property and wanted to see my hunting license. My whole premise was I was not hunting at the time they illegally tresspassed unto the private property. I refused to show them anything and was thrown up against my truck and arrested and taken to jail. Getapo at its best. I won the case at a considerable cost and I felt it was time and money well spent and thanks to Yaweh i learned a lot since. I spend a lot of time studying law and thrive on going against corrupt lawyers, judges and cops etc. I belong to a group called Rochester LAW.
It turns out that in new york conservation law there is a statute that clearly states there is such a thing as private property and the establishment is not ready to go into court and fight the illegal tresspass and hunting on private property without a license. The normal person reading the statutes will get the idea they cannot hunt on their own land without a license. When you undertand the constitution and the real law they will not go against you. You will probably lose in the town court but you will win in the county supreme court if you stay in the battle. In most cases if you check way back in the legislating of your states conservation laws you might just find out a conservation officer does not even have jurisdiction to summon you into a court. Without getting into detail think about the fact that a police officer etc is employed by the executve branch of gov. and in order to give a summons you have to be in the judicial branch.
John and Hosea say's" My childre will perish for the lack of knowledge and My children will be saved through knowledge".
We have to understand that we as private human beings we are not involved in commerce, and government is commerce and when government actively involves themselves with you they are dealing with a created artificial person because in commerce those are the only PERSONS that can play.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: hunting on private property

Postby Admin » Wednesday October 26th, 2005 12:36 am MDT

:h: George:
Good job on the research and on the win, even if you did miss an extremely empowering element of what you shared. You consistently called what you were dealing with “government”; however, from the descriptions you used it is obvious that you were dealing with that private Corp. State called THE STATE OF NEW YORK, not with the government of the Republic State called simply, New York. One of the biggest problems people seem to have is once they recognize that they are dealing with a private corporation they go back to calling it and treating it as if it were their government. We think it is important to call a spade a spade, and if the Corp. State is not your government, we wouldn’t call it government.

Further, it is just as important to realize that in most cases today, the property owner of the alleged "private land" (where the people may live/hunt/etc. is the social security cardholder [for clarification of that fact, review the real estate loan agreement, purchase agreement and property tax records to see if the source of those funds was not the cardholder]. Then, realize that cardholder is Corp. U.S. created trust, not a private person (one of the people). Thus, you must ask yourself: “is such a landowner a private landowner/person?”

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

Kingrollo
Registered
Posts: 4
Joined: Thursday February 4th, 2010 10:52 am MST

Re: hunting rights on private property

Postby Kingrollo » Tuesday October 12th, 2010 3:36 pm MDT

The fundamental question I would want to ask is, "Why would I ever ask permission for a right I already have?"

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: hunting rights on private property

Postby Admin » Thursday October 14th, 2010 12:22 pm MDT

:h: Kingrollo:
The problem is not one of asking for permission for a right you already have; rather, it is one of knowing the difference between your rights and your privileges. In this case the concern is over whether hunting is a right or a privilege. It is like the old case of Robin Hood hunting deer in the Sherwood Forest. In that case, the forest was most certainly the King’s forest and respectively the King’s deer. Thus, without permission from the King, such hunting would be theft. In the case of Robin Hood, he knew the deer belonged to the King and stood against the law due to its tyrannical application while the people starved. But, this topic is not about deer that belong to the State; rather, it is about deer that may rightfully belong to the landowner; and, thus your question is quite appropriate.

In the case in point, the State alleges it can compel a hunting license for hunt deer regardless of whether the deer is on your land or on State land; generally, they would be right if the property in question is actually owned by a United States government agency and not privately owned by a private man, woman or family.

Though an understanding of Land rights should make it obvious that deer on private land belongs to the private landowner, the State Statute indicates the State has claimed control over that right and requires a license in spite of the landowner’s rights.

Here then is where your question comes:
Kingrollo wrote:Why would I ever ask permission for a right I already have?
Of course, the reasonable response is: “Because if you don’t and you hunt without such a license; the Sheriff or the Game Warden will come and take you off to prison and take your property.”

So, who is right? Is it the landowner’s right to hunt the deer on his own private land; or, can the State lawfully require a license to so hunt on your own private land?

The answer to those questions is definitely found in the law; however, the real question is, do you have sufficient understanding, knowledge, evidence and backing in law to stand for your rights.

Sadly, for most people the answer to that question is either: “No”, or, “It’s easier to just get the license.”

And, that is the real problem.
Too many people think that just doing what you are told is “easier” than learning the law and standing to preserve their rights. That is exactly why most of the people in the United States of America today travel in licensed cars with driver’s licenses when the constitutions, state enabling acts and laws of this land were made to secure that such controls over people’s Liberty could never be lawful. It is also why the ancient biblical prophets told their story and warned against being numbered for a tax (see: Genesis 13:16; 2 Samuel 24:10; and, The Seduction).

Of course, there is still a remedy to these problems: “Learn the law from your own firsthand study of the law itself and its history; then apply it”; which, is exactly why Team Law exists. We help people learn how to do just that—learn how to learn the law firsthand so that you can apply it to preserve your rights and save our nation.

Accordingly, people ask us: “How do I join Team Law?” [Click the link to learn our answer.]

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.

User avatar
Zane
Beneficiary
Beneficiary
Posts: 68
Joined: Wednesday February 4th, 2009 5:29 pm MST

Re: Private Property Rights

Postby Zane » Monday November 22nd, 2010 10:16 am MST

It would be nice to just have the record(s) amended so that the Corp State and Corp US know who they are dealing with before they actually deal with them. Now, that's preparation.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6)

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Private Property Rights

Postby Admin » Tuesday December 14th, 2010 2:36 pm MST

:h: Zane:
Of course, as you know, the answer to that very desire is one of the best reasons have in their desire to become a Team Law beneficiary; as a Team Law beneficiary people learn how to do just that.

The biggest problem with that is, most people learn about Team Law only after they have some problem that would have been solved (or more easily solved) by having secured both their own nature as well as the distinctively different nature of the taxpayer.

The problem with that necessity is: until people run into such problems they often have no idea that there is a distinction between them and the taxpayer identified by what they have been thought to think of as “their social security number”. In fact, today, the peoples’ common failure to so distinguish between those two distinctive capacities (their private nature and the nature of the taxpayer) is likely the single most dangerous problem in our country see The Seduction and Myth 22).

Of course, that Seduction is most easily remedied by anyone if they will simply repent of the things that caused them to be seduced, return their allegiance to the source of their sovereign authority and properly distinguish that private nature from their relationships with Corp. U.S. and the corporate state.

Of course, Team Law pioneered that process and continues to help its beneficiaries learn how to properly secure those distinctive natures in law; so, they can both distinctively operate while we reseat our original jurisdiction government and save our nation from the various raiders that are attacking it today. In fact, the processes we have helped people learn to accomplish those tasks appears to be the only viable way to accomplish the task while not interrupting the necessities that provide food on the table and fuel in the tanks and peace in our land through the process of saving our country and through it possibly the world.

Make no mistake, the only way that can all be accomplished is the people must first individually repent and return their allegiance to their Creator as they begin to be accountable for the governing authority they granted government; which accountability comes by learning and applying the law (Team Law can help). It is the only way!

For a more complete and direct step-by-step process for securing that reality, please continue to the here linked companion article on the Beneficiary’s Private Forum.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Contracts, Trusts & the Corp. Sole”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest