Landuse at Gunpoint
   
   
   I hope the following to be a useful and accurate analysis of what
standing agreement is already in place between me and the general public
in Eugene, as administered by both the City and County governments. I'm
not in a hurry for a response nor insistent that you take an interest in
this. I ponder this in pursuit of an anchor for my own dignity, not as
political activism. Partly it is an attempt to answer the other sovereign
Citizens who consider me a coward for obeying "colorable" law.
   
   In Defense of Colorable Law:
   Colorable law is the legal term for law that is specific only to the
lives of people accountable to a particular business contract. Common Law
means the law that covers everyone regardless of voluntary agreement. I
think of Common Law as peer pressure, a phenomenon that I have made a point
of dodging all my life. In my old age the two kinds of law look like the
same melodrama seen through different filters. I think the Common Law is
actually an unverbalized contract which over the centuries has gotten
progressively defined into goodhearted written contracts as an answer to
the definer's feelings of anger and estrangement, and as an overt
alternative to the predatory violence that used to totally dominate
masculine cultural focus.
   This is the basis for my respect for colorable law. I find value in
a deliberate attempt to write for my antagonist the contract which at
present exists only in the hate in their eyes. To me the preservation of
common law confusion to compell respect is equally as corrupt as the
creation of impossibly complex and confusing tax law, both inspiring
greater feelings of being trespassed against than a market based orientation
would evoke.
   
   In the following assessment I address the issues of real estate
ownership, building codes, motor vehicle use, and law enforcement.
   I have a Land Patent on my property, an average city lot with a little
house on it. The Patent was the product of a fairly involved legal process
of making a formal claim on property that all others in the County record
had formally released interest in. In the popular sovereign Citizen
tradition the patent makes the land nearly impossible to legally comfiscate,
to pay taxes or a lawsuit.
   In my dictionary a patent is a publicly declared legal document securing
a priviledge or license to exclusive use of something for a defined period.
Likewise, a lease is defined as a grant of permission for exclusive use of
land, usually for a rent, for a defined period. Thus a Land Patent and a
lease differ only in the specifying of a rent.
   The ownership record of my property originated with a Land Grant from
the U.S. Congress to the State of Oregon which the State then "conveyed" to
a man. The document says the State conveys the land to the fellow, as
opposed to conveying ownership of the land. Ownership remains undefined.
The document also states that the period is "forever". I believe that what
the fellow bought was a permanent lease which he was free to sell but not
free to edit (except, apparently, by making additions). The State and local
governments later claimed the right to edit the lease with a rent and
restrictions on permanent construction, and the right to determine who
would get the rent money. From my reading of law, the lease owner and the
governments can only legally edit their own additions to the lease.
   The same dictionary defines ownership as the ultimate exclusive right of
disposal and possession. From my reading of anthropology and history, this
sort of right with regard to land is nearly always obtained by aggression
and released only to an aggressor; that is, a pacifist or a coward only
borrows. I hold the view that rights that are worthy of respect originate
as a voluntary gift from living associates, not from a theoretical supreme
being or from ancestors. Thus I conclude that the wisest course is to
consider land ownership a power obtained by theft, not a right obtained by
law.
   Being inclined to share my house with a long parade of roommates and
street people, I have been often forced by circumstance to reclaim some
aspects of land ownership through aggression. My antagonists invariably
indicate a belief in the presense of some undefined allies who I could call
into the fray. Though I haven't shared their belief I have generally chosen
to let them keep it. I don't claim a right to the house against them, I
take it back as a solitary beligerent without excuses, and by whatever
means neccesary.
   In my old age I begin to think their belief is the voice of their real
experience with undefined public ownership; that unwritten into my land
lease is a guarantee of assistance from the public, both in and out of
government, in thwarting any other claimant to the lease. The Common Law
public even shows an inclination to enforce its own image of trespass with
or without my agreement (for my own good I suppose). Like Yrttle the turtle
the Common Law public is inclined to be king of all it can see, forcing me
to hide my trouble if at all possible in order to promote my ideal of home
being a place where trust of me can happen.
   If I even permit "calling the dogs" on someone then everyone else quakes
in their shoes a little and relates to me more warily for quite a while
afterwards. That I have seen, mob rule scares everyone, including the
members of the mob,regardless of righteous rhetoric or similarity of views;
whereas as a single antagonist, against a solitary man, I have been able to
successfully appeal to my opponent's intelligence and genuine wish for
peace.
   
   Local Government has demonstrated to me unusual nobility, minimizing the
unavoidable terrorist element,in playing referee between me and the public.
Without local government claiming possession I believe I would pretty
quickly be rendered a landless fugitive by self-righteous vandals.
   Many of my neighbors have expressed to me or to the Building Department
some serious misgivings about my preferences about use of my place. I would
rather live with at least 12 low budget, unemployed roommates, none having
a regular bedroom. I much prefer the yard looking as much like a jungle as
possible. I encourage the neighbor kids to risk minor injury with my large
toys and apparatus. I have several unused rough vehicles that I keep for
nostalgia or fooling around. My personal appearance and that of my
associates nearly always has the rough look of a pushy tramp,enough to keep
many neighbors assuming the worst and gritting their teeth when we see each
other.My idea of building maintenance is a minimal style of whatever works;
whoever gets my house next is in for assessing a lot of puzzling repairs.
Though I am spiritually against my own use of recreational food and drugs
or the keeping of dogs, I put little or no censure on my associates. Several
people, some of them government personel, have expressed to me that if they
could they would prohibit my style of cultural expression entirely.
   The Common Law public appears to me to be likewise possessive of public
right of way, and viciously vindictive about being compelled to handle a
controversy or enforce limits of use. Municipal Court in Springfield has
demonstrated to me having evolved into overt armed robbery but,  based on
the remarks of friends and neighbors and the insanely large settlements in
liability lawsuits, I believe a fully informed jury would be as mean as the
Inquisition.
   So to promote greater public tolerance the State government has arranged
to claim possession of all new motor vehicles,releasing title only to other
governments, and giving the user only a certification that a title exists.
Some people have forced private possession of their motor vehicles but I
believe that if the use in cities of such vehicles became common then the
public would advocate a State Constitutional Amendment prohibiting
privately owned motor vehicles on public right of way, and I also believe
that a fully informed jury would have a very harsh view of the matter.
   Since I have described the Common Law public in a manner not importantly
different from a Communist Party I am completely at a loss to guess at a
genuine majority American opinion of this matter.
   Tentatively I conclude that any ownership I appear to hold is dubious
at best and potentially disaster or hypocrisy. While I am quite willing to
release all possessive interest in the land outside my personal Patent,
what I don't undisputable own I can't really give away. On that basis I
have written a contract document for explicit surrender of all land I use
to collective ownership, and ask of the reader, given that they claim
membership in the police enforcement element of the Common Law public, if
this analysis and document adequately answers their demands of me.
   By proposing the following acceptance of lease I intend to raise the
question, in the mind of the person signing as a public representitive,
as to whether the public is willing to grant actual right to sovereign
use and disposal of land to anyone ever. I think the term land ownership
is thoughtless doublespeak and that the original Land Patent should have
been called a lease instead.
   
   
                        Acceptance of Lease
   
   This agreement is hereby established between __________________, lawfully
representing the local electorate, who as a group claim actual ownership of
all local land, and I, _____________________, unencumbered by any other
commercial or government contract whatsoever and thus a threat to that
electorate, being present on land specifically described in a United States
Land Patent or Land Grant, hereinafter called The Lease, agree, in exchange
for permission to occupy part of the described land, to become informed of
and abide by the terms of The Lease specific to said land, as enacted by the
aformentioned electorate, including their assignment of management authority
to the governments of Oregon, Lane County, and the City of Eugene. Further,
if I purchase a controlling interest in the ownership of any Patent Lease
within Lane County, I agree to pay the rent assessment lawfully established
by the aformentioned electorate to the Lane County Assessor.
   
                                     Signed this ___ day of ________, 1998,
                                     without prejudice or implied contract,
                                     _____________________ , declarant and
   
State of Oregon                      _____________________ , lawfully
County of Lane                       representing the local electorate.
   
   On this day and year last above written, before me, a Notary Public for
Lane County in Oregon, personally appeared the two within named individuals,
_____________ and _____________, known or proven to me to be the people
whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me
that they executed the same for the purpose therein contained; for which,
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and my  official seal.
   
                     ___________________________ , Notary Public for Oregon
  My Commission expires:________________________
   
   
   
                          Return to Homepage