Articles - Federal Government
comprise or contain as part of a whole
Law a house with outbuildings and land
Law any permanent property, e.g. lands or rents, held from a superior
Law dated any item of property that can be inherited
Law consisting of material objects
Law having no physical existence
(Note: incorporeal = intangible e.g. rights)
a way or track laid down for walking or made by continual treading
the action or process of moving through, under, over or past something on the way from one place to another
(Note: i.e. the owner of the ‘land’ owns the right to control the ‘passage’)
a route or means taken in order to reach, enter or leave a place
the liquid which forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis for the fluids of living organisms.
a brook, stream, or artificially constructed water channel; the bed along which this flows
the power or scope to act as one pleases
a special right or special advantage or special immunity
Law a right to cross or otherwise use another’s land for a specified purpose
an area in which trees have been planted, especially for commercial purposes; a large estate on which crops such as sugar are grown
a piece of ground used for growing flowers, fruit, or vegetables
an excavation in the earth for extracting minerals
a substance obtained by mining
a place, typically a large pit, from which stone or other materials may be extracted
a woody perennial plant typically with a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches
wood prepared for use in building and carpentry
not included (Note: Most Estates in Fee Simple have exceptions such as reservations to the Crown for Crown rights to gold, minerals and petroleum)
Commonwealth v New South Wales
 HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1
(9 August 1923)
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF
THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1
Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-
(1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42
ISAACS J. In Challis's Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218, it is stated with perfect accuracy:—
"In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance
as distinguished from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure as distinguished from an allodium. Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have no meaning. A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.
It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and, for all practical purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject. Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will."
(1920) 33 CLR 1 at 45
With respect to the expression "fee simple," the view enunciated in the joint opinion that "fee simple" indicates the quantum of estate, and not feudal tenure, is confirmed by the observation of Viscount Haldane for the Privy Council in the White Cap Case (Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria), where the learned Lord refers to "an estate in fee" as "the most comprehensive estate in land which the law recognizes." On the same page Lord Haldane also speaks of a case where "the title of the Sovereign is a pure legal estate, to which beneficial rights may or may not be attached." The same learned Lord in Matamajaw Salmon Club v. Duchaine says that in England "there has always been permitted great latitude in splitting up the title to the fee simple." The same learned Lord, again for the Privy Council, had already in Smith v. Vermillion Hills Municipality recognized the principle when he spoke of certain land "the fee of which is in the Crown."
How Does All of This Work to Your Disadvantage?
The above Court Case is NOT recognised in to-day’s High Court, as the Courts Don’t recognise the Lawful Crown and therefore can’t look at your Deed of Grant (Contract with the Crown.) Corrupt Corporate Governments have taken an UNREGISTERED INTEREST in everybody’s land.
These Corrupt Governments are also changing the Lawful Crown (The Defender of the Faith) to their Statutory Instrument Queen of Australia (E.G Whitlam’s invented Paper Queen).
It’s illegal to change Contracts when you’re NOT a signatory to that Contract.
In Queensland the Corrupt Corporate Government, with their taking an UNREGISTERED INTEREST have put their Corporate Seal on the Certificate of Titles. When they have an objection with what you do with the Land, they take you to their TOTALLY CORRUPT COURT which MUST take JUDICIAL NOTICE of their CORRUPT SEAL.
These so called Supreme Court Judges get their Commissions from their Supreme Court of Queensland act 1991: © The State of Queensland and their Supreme Court Act 1995: © State of Queensland, BOTH with the Corrupt Corporate Public Seal of the State.
Under these Supreme Courts you will be told “YOU DON’T HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE LAND.”
In simple words, the Queensland Government has taken by FRAUD and THEFT all land in Queensland. This is backed up by their own PRIVATE so called GOVERNOR; (NOT representing the Crown), CORRUPT COURTS; JUDGES and the POLICE SERVICE.
The Legal Fraternity swear their OATH to these corrupt Courts.
Why do you pay rates when these corporations pretending to Govern have stolen your land?
TREASON; FRAUD; THEFT; and the VICARIOUS LIABILITY lies with the above for their actions against the Private Natural People under Queensland’s Constitution Act 1967.
This Seal below is the corrupt
“Public Seal of the State”
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
The genuine Certificate of Title should show Crown’s Seal with the Lion and the Unicorn. Under this original seal land was purchased in fee-simple.
The Queensland Government takes compulsory acquisition and unregistered ownership of land when it places its corrupt, corporate “Public Seal of the State” on a landowner’s Certificate of Title to an Estate of Fee-simple of land which had been alienated from the Crown within the said State. You lose.
Corporation Public Seal of “the State” of NO authority = FRAUD and THEFT !
REAL PROPERTY ACT OF 1861
8. Seal of office.-The Registrar-General shall have and use a seal of office bearing the impression of the Royal Arms of England and having inscribed in the margin thereof the words “Registrar-General Queensland” and the imprint of such seal shall be valid whether made in wax ink or other substance.
The Queensland Government by FRAUD and THEFT using their Corporation Seal have taken ownership of peoples Land. This is Backed up by Corporate Judges and their security agency (Police Service).
Written by Dick Yardley
This Seal below is the
lawful Royal Arms
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Current example of Queensland Certificate of Title
(Note “Easements, Encumbrances and Interests”)
06b The Death of Fee Simple - Part 2
Search this website