If we deny the hadiths, how do we know that the Quran we are holding in our hand
-
They are not unfounded claims. The group which attempts to implement anarchy will be overrun by another group which does not comply with the choice of no governance. As long as instinctive, weak-minded human exists, there will be no peace. If you have a solution to all the instinctive humans in search for dominion, materialism and hierarchy then your idea may work.
The kind of societies we have is a mess, but we would not want anything even worse.
I know about anarchy and I have had anarchist friends, but even if we dream of the perfect world, it has to be realistic under given premises.
The biggest problem in itself is not the governing systems of the developed world, but the exploitative people in it.
Using a monetary system, individual ownership of property, are both parts of the community which leads to exploited people. The underlying issue is the instinct, that people are territorial, self-preserving and in search of social status (hierarchy) and domination of others.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
There is nothing to over run "man of faith" there is no hierarchy to take over, and the model does not require compulsion, it is a free choice, it works on advantage.
you do not know anarchy, i have not seen these models applied since they were end by the vatican a 1000 years ago, so what you think is anarchy is not.
-
There is nothing to over run "man of faith" there is no hierarchy to take over, and the model does not require compulsion, it is a free choice, it works on advantage.
you do not know anarchy, i have not seen these models applied since they were end by the vatican a 1000 years ago, so what you think is anarchy is not.
At what point of history did these 'anarchic' models exist, who (which nation or tribe) enjoyed them and how do you know about it, if Vatican destroyed it? Is there any recorded evidence of these systems at work or at least hints that indicate that these models ever worked? And why Vatican? Why not Persian Empire or the Rome (Eastern Roman Empire or Babylon)? Or Chinese Empire? You seem to form your theories on the fly, without any plausibility. You can't just say it worked because it worked. Such explanation will only attract slaves or religious people, and slaves DO need rulers and hierarchy, but what they don't need is explanation. You can't teach men fishing because they will come back and bring you a pack of fish for protection or worship.
-
These models existed from at least 758 in Albien, after the meteor hit the north sea in 652 and lay the population low, it seems they took up the Islamic models or they simply developed them, Albien after the genocide of the Vatican around a 1000 years ago was named Angle land after the German tribe that had previous to the genocide resided in the southern regions on and off.
However only the advantages of the models are really the relevant factor.
I can also say it worked as it makes reasoned and logical sense, and the advantages are self evident.
It seems you are struggling to grasp a system without hierarchy, and keep thinking as if some hierarchy were there to contaminate the model.
-
These models existed from at least 758 in Albien, after the meteor hit the north sea in 652 and lay the population low, it seems they took up the Islamic models or they simply developed them, Albien after the genocide of the Vatican around a 1000 years ago was named Angle land after the German tribe that had previous to the genocide resided in the southern regions on and off.
However only the advantages of the models are really the relevant factor.
I can also say it worked as it makes reasoned and logical sense, and the advantages are self evident.
It seems you are struggling to grasp a system without hierarchy, and keep thinking as if some hierarchy were there to contaminate the model.
Albien as England (because there is the only place mentioned like it centuries ago, as my brief search shows). Map of Britain was split into tribes for centuries before it could be united under the single language and the Queen. There is no indication that these people lived under alternative system when in fact the saxons fought each other their whole history.
I don't care about social systems any more. I don't hire workers, do not exploit anyone and I refuse to serve in the army in my own country, and you probably fail to understand my core worldview. But I am realistic. So your conclusion is wrong.
-
The history of Britain is a fabrication almost entirely before the 13th century; it was written by the priests of the Vatican, they have expunged the evidence of the true history as much as they may over the past 1000 years. But the old systems are still known, and do not allow the Vatican history to be accepted in any way.
If you wish to believe the Vatican history it's your choice, as I say the models are self evidently advantageous on their own merit.
My conclusion is not from knowing you but purely from your posted comments. Re-read what you have written.
You are also mistaking the people of Albien for the Germans, the Angles and Saxons are German tribes men not the indigenous of Albien.
-
But the old systems are still known, and do not allow the Vatican history to be accepted in any way.
If you wish to believe the Vatican history it's your choice, as I say the models are self evidently advantageous on their own merit.
There is no textual evidence, if there are present them.
My conclusion is not from knowing you but purely from your posted comments. Re-read what you have written.
And which posts of mine exactly indicate that I support hierarchic models or that I am too hirarchy-centric?
You are also mistaking the people of Albien for the Germans, the Angles and Saxons are German tribes men not the indigenous of Albien.
So did Angles' tribes.
-
Look there is no point discussing the model if you keep claiming things without any support, have you read the history books, have you read the oxford land law book, have you read anything on the subject at all? Yet for some unknown reason you are a world expert, do you want to learn the model?s or do you want to repeatedly state nonsense, what is the issue with these models existing in the past to you? Why is it such a big issue that they existed, so much so you feel a compulsion to repeatedly state they did not, if they did not, why did they use anarchic models, in any case, circular arguments have zero benefit.
I have better things to do with my time if this is the attitude. I wasted time giving a seminar I am not open to wasting my time further with repetitive circular arguing.
-
If you do not understand ownership you cannot understand the allodial, you would be confused, you claim to know and refute that what i say is correct, then explain ownership, if you are going to argue that you know, then explain ownership. i will wait.
-
If you do not understand ownership you cannot understand the allodial, you would be confused, you claim to know and refute that what i say is correct, then explain ownership, if you are going to argue that you know, then explain ownership. i will wait.
You're pathetic at presentations, sorry. I wonder if your presentation failed because you simply can't present it in a logical and respectful manner without saying that people don't understand anything and calling them out based on plausible theories.
I know what ownership is, it is non-existent, you do not own anything which you think belongs to you. It is an illusion based on fear and false belief of belonging.
But I don't care as long as I am mature enough to not pursue utopian ideas, I know how the world works, but it is a temporary platform and I know there is nothing you can propose (outside of your questions and calling people out based on lack of integrity of your own personal belief) to change it.
-
you cannot pursue any ideas, as you are a glass already full, you clearly do not want to learn the anarchic, and instead argue as if you were informed, you clearly do not know what ownership is, and now claim i am a poor presenter, I however do know what ownership is and can explain it clearly, if you want to pretend to be informed, get informed first.
-
you cannot pursue any ideas, as you are a glass already full
Then I guess your best bet is to propagate your ideas among the 5 year old. These are not yet too brainwashed, are not skeptical, and will be probably willing to learn new concepts since they barely know their present situation either.
-
No I need to present the concept to people who have the ability to reason and learn, if you cannot do these things then it is best others chat about the anarchic, if their is any interest, which is the point of posting the thread, I have little time for people who arrogantly state things without knowing the subject, it is not helpful to anyone. peace
-
No I need to present the concept to people who have the ability to reason and learn, if you cannot do these things then it is best others chat about the anarchic, if their is any interest, which is the point of posting the thread, I have little time for people who arrogantly state things without knowing the subject, it is not helpful to anyone. peace
I haven't read anything from you which would be even slightly useful. All your posts are focused on a) telling people they don't know anarchy when they point at obvious flaws of your ideas by merely asking simple suggestive questions / b) failing to answer coherently any of the above questions you proceed with telling that your system or whatever it is is a self-regulating body which requires nothing and / c) not revealing anything in essence which would at least partly explain what you propose. Instead you tell me that I have no ability to reason and learn. What is this? A joke?
-
For those interested in understanding ownership
The Nature of Ownership
What is ownership?
Ownership is the key building block in the establishment and advancement of the modern capitalist socio-economic system, now utilised to enslave mankind, pollute the earth and drain all resources, under the control of a comparatively small number of people, but what is ownership?
Ownership is title, which is separated and held by different parties, which means, when you buy immovable resources it is always under the idea of 'Sharing gains'; gains that are expected to be generated from the owned resource such as land or the natural resources land holds. The land and permanent structures upon the land are immovable resources, but even other types of resources can be held under similar shared gain ownership (control) systems.
'Ownership' (meaning to have control over) this is the original Norman feudal preference for land utilisation. In the British feudal system the crown is the owner (legal possessor) of all land, and every citizen (slave) who occupies land pays the crown rent directly or indirectly; the Crown imposes ?benefits? for the tenant to justify the extortion of taxation, labelled ?Property tax?, ?Rates?, ?Council Tax?, etc., paid to the state. So everything under ownership is held by the (corporate) crown (UK or corporate state in other countries) and they require a share of the gain from that title, which is there (legal) en?title?ment; additionally as they hold second (after the Church) title they can take possession of the land whenever they require from the tenant who purchased the tenancy on those immovable resources. The Roman Catholic Church holds title to the entire planet under this fraud and all corporate states are ?chartered? by the Church.
A Charter - a superior granting an inferior man/woman a right or privilege (privilege - a right to steal)
The manmade concept of ownership was constructed as a legal fiction and applied through imposed trust law (positive law, is positively imposed through the threat of use of force of arms, and is exclusively applicable to slaves), the ?simple trust?.
Once ownership is constructed as a legal fiction the authors have authority over that construct; from ownership is derived sovereignty and constructed inherent power held in fictions, and from that construct the imposition of legal codes (known as positive law or slave law). Through the creation of a ?simple trust? all become the property of the land, and the constructed legal fiction of citizen is imposed upon each owned soul, binding all through force of arms to the author upon that citizenry, imposing their authority to constructed legal codes, in which all resources are simply held completely, permanently, and inalienably in the legal ownership of one constructed legal fiction, using this encroachment, the one who controls a thing, makes the laws (dictates of the landlord) that govern it.
The term ?law? is a solemn expression of the ?legislative power?. It orders and permits and forbids. (Black?s law dictionary page 700)
Law is a term exclusively defined as imposed authority of corporate policy, in direct opposition to inherent power, which function upon protective axioms free of orders, permits and prohibitions. The landlords ?word? was law, a superior over an inferior man; the true term, that law is used in place of, is ?Axiom?, meaning a self-evident truth that requires no proof, a universally accepted principle or rule. The axioms of the land, the natural axioms, that all of mankind are bound by, are unalienable and immutable across the entire earth.
The corporations of (E)State claim ?Jurisdiction? as the power and authority (labelled ?constitutionally? established) with respect to the "act of settling, settled condition, anything arranged or settled upon, regulated, ordered, or in ordinance," being the imposed policy of the corporate State or feudal lord in control of the land, that conferred authority upon a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of their Lord (feudal superior).
This is why if you leave the area held by a landlord, you are outside of their jurisdiction, as they impose through their control of the land, upon all slaves within or upon it.
Why are the axioms of the land unalienable and immutable?
The courts function as mediums of arbitration between a complainer (plaintiff) and a defendant, the complainer must ?prove? their claim. The fictions of ownership, legislation, statutes, charters, acts, constitutions, corporation and contract must be ?proven? to stand as fact in the court. The court will ?presume? that all un-rebutted claims are accepted as fact by the defendant.
A ?defendant? means - ?against whom a claim or charge is brought in a court? and is a term based in granted rights. This term is further exposed with the term ?defender? meaning ?to serve as attorney for (a defendant)?.
As a living soul you are ineligible to use any legal court for arbitration, as all legal courts are based in constructed fictions, such as corporation, and a living soul is substantive, the court must get you to consent to be re-presented as a constructed legal fiction before any arbitration can commence. This is achieved through the living soul accepting any one of the following, to be represented either by a lawyer or other fraudster, or by accepting to represent themselves, accepting a legal name, accepting a fiction placed before their name if not legal, such as Mr, Doctor, Mrs etc., or accepting the authority of the court in action or word.
By if you are fool hardy enough to consent to be the representative of a constructed legal fiction on the sea of commerce, then you would best rebutting all claims founded on the fiction of ownership, by doing so you strip away the presumed authority of the fictions built upon it. When challenged the complainer must prove the fiction their claim is based upon, it is impossible to ?prove a legal fiction as fact through evidence? as all fictions by definition are lies; therefore if the ?legal fiction' of State, corporation, church, legislation, etc., cannot prove their claim of authority it cannot stand.
The constructed fiction of the citizen that is adrift on the sea of commerce, when consented to by a living soul to re-present them, is based upon granted rights from a superior (owner ? only title can own), to an inferior (slave), rights are exclusively for slaves. This model is feudal going back to fealty, meaning fidelity, sworn to the feudal liege lord who was then ?entitled? to allegiance and service from his vassal.
In contrast the axioms of the land are the natural innate reality of all living souls; they can be proven and so stand as unalienable, immutable and indefeasible truths of the equitable reciprocal obligation and responsibility through the inherent power each soul possess.
Due to modern courts functioning as commercial trusts for profit, they are no longer limited to arbitration, but actively impose fictions through un-rebutted presumption of law (legal codes) and un-rebutted fact, removing the burden of proof from the complainer (plaintiff); therefore the defendant must counterclaim to activate the eye of equity upon the plaintiff and require proof of all claims, assertions or declarations.
Counterclaim is a direct claim from the defending party against the party who initiated the lawsuit for concurrent claims, including being wrongfully sued.
The answer to this is through establishing arbitration without using the corrupt court system, but through the independent creation of witena-gemot?s to arbitrate terrente (meaning - the peace of the mind threatened) relief which you can read here
Part One - The Writ
Part Two - How a Substantive Gemot of Axiological Inherent Power Functions through Axioms of the Land
Part Three - Gemot Administrators of Terrente Relief
Part Four - Wite and Binding Surety
Part Five ? Tort - Duty of Care ? Outcast
Part Six - Relief, Recourse and the Jury
Part Seven - Constructive versus Substantive?Legal? Representation is Exclusively for those Not Mentally Competent.
Those acting as merchants for the landlord are known as
Attorney - ?attorn? the land to their Lords. The word attorn means to acknowledge the relation of a tenant to a new landlord.
? Solicitor ? who ?solicit?, they entreat or petition or beg the landlord for those who are not mentally competent.
? Lawyer means law trader, the ?landlords? trader.
These parasites act for constructed fictions of status, for example a ?Human Being?, also known as ?Human?, is a term deliberately created in the 16th Century to update the naming of perpetual slaves to the Lords of the Land from the 13th Century term ?Serf?. Human is derived from two Latin words humi meaning ?land, soil, country, on the ground? and anus meaning ?rectum, (marriage/pledge) ring, old?. Hence the word Human literally means ?married/bound to the land/earth? and Human Being legally means ?land creature? also known as chattel ? the idea mankind are cattle upon the ?land? of the ?owner?.
Once a criminal holds the land by force of arms those upon the land are slaves, and so the owner (controller) of the land imposes legal codes founded on five impositions. All resources would be
- Subject to the right of the imposition of servitude from those on the land in shared gains (taxation)
-
Subject to the right of the imposition to repossess the land and resources from tenants (expropriation)
-
Subject to the right of the imposition to inherit the land, resources and tenancy of those without heirs (escheat)
-
Subject to the right of the imposition of regulation of all upon the owned property. (Positive laws known as Legislation are contrived legal codes placed upon the immutable axioms of the land to prevent equitable protection for the individual)
-
Subject to the right of the imposition of termination of tenancy without recourse. (Eminent domain)
The modern ?Trusts? are based on the Roman Catholic Templars model, were the ?Father? is the grantor of the trust, he invests the substance, being the real physical value, so he is the executor, the ?Son? is the administrator of the trust he is the trustee, who can gain no benefit himself, the ?Holy Ghost? is the incorporeal entity that holds the substance in a legal instrument.
The Church makes the first claim from which all subsequent claims flow, as within the axioms of the land we can only own what we ourselves create, this means the creator of the Earth and the resources of the Earth belong in their entirety to the Creator. The religious parasites realised that if you could make the Creator a man, from that fraud you could claim ownership of the entire Earth and her resources, the Pope is the substitute for Christ (God) on Earth, and the spiritual adviser to Christ (God) within their fraud.
One?s Own
Based on the natural inherent power concept of ?you can only own what you yourself create?; you ?own? only your labours, you cannot ?own? the substance itself, only the labours invested within it.
It's a different frame of mind, once you grasp that idea you will be able to see the foundations of control of your 'own' labours.The word ?own? has two opposite meanings one is internal one is external.
The internal ?own? is real, the external 'own' is a constructed fiction.
?I 'own' this land.? This is the external idea of ownership; in whom is vested (clothed in the robes of) ?ownership?, title of property, a title granted externally by a superior, a grant claimed, registered, taxed, and regulated; A ship of commerce; ?ownership?.
?This is my 'own' land.? This is the internal idea of allodial utilisation; to acknowledge as one's own, recognize within your-self, as having full inherent power, through custodial dominion.
What you truly 'own' is all you have earned, the skills of the mind and hand, the memories of experience and study, the words you speak and the thoughts you harbour; you ?own? the efforts you have invested and the fruits of those efforts, beyond that you can only justify equitable utilisation.
The true utilisation of land you hold, binds you to full accountability, making you fully liable, as no other can own the land you utilise, that is fraud or slavery.
What is Real Estate?
Real (the word 'real' relates to a thing (Latin. res, "matter, thing") - Estate is all interests in land held by a deceased person at death, or a body of men/women united or combined into one body, to make a legal corps (dead body), known as corporation whose holdings are known as mortmain, 'the dead mans hand'. The corporate state owns all property 'legally' as inalienable, but that is directly against the axioms of the land.
All estate is ownership (control) of resources by a corps (dead body).
Estate from Old French ?estat?, from Latin meaning status - condition ? state. So the state, condition, status of ?death?.
Many corporations exist from church, state, police, banks to colleges, universities and schools, etc. all function as a legal corps (dead body).
So to own immovable resources through estate as tenant you have to represent your own corporation, or corps, this requires a straw man, and so the certificate of natural birth becomes the owner, and you represent the fiction becoming the head of the corporation titled 'Mr' (if your a man).
From this fiction, new legal frauds can be imposed - Tenement (holding as a possession) ? immovable resources, such as land, rents, or franchises, held by one person leasing it from/to another.
Under the axioms of the land a dead man or woman cannot possess immovable resources, in truth they can possess nothing, their dead, and it immediately falls to their inheritor/s.Ignorance of the axioms of the land allows the fiction of title of estate; it's a document that lays claim over the land in colour of law, a title is a grant from a superior to an inferior man or woman. It is proper, only when no equitable possession and utilisation of a living man or woman to the land exists. Banks and corporations like Real Estate because they can own it when under the axioms of the land they cannot. They and others can use the fiction of title to seize land under the colour of law.
The colour of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right", the "pretence or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under colour of law colours (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said legal action repudiate the axioms of the land.
What is a Land Patent?
A land patent is the legal codes rights to a tract of land, which was acquired by treaty (a legal contract (fictional) between two legal fictions of corporate states to manage immovable resources) held by the corporate state, through which the government grants an individual or corporation entitlement of control.
A land patent serves as a legal (not equitable) proof of land ownership (control). Land patents have more power than any other 'legal' (not equitable) document in establishing proof of land ownership (control).
A land patent is perceived to be a 'legally' indisputable document. Additionally, legislation mandates that land gained through a land patent is not liable for taxation, so corporation like the Roman Catholic Church Corporation, or the Banking Corporations, holding land patent pay no rent upon it to the state. The land stays in their ownership forever. If a legal straw man (individual) acquires a land patent, their legal heirs are granted ownership of the land after their death.
Corporate State government, local courts and the Supreme (High) Court have no 'legal' power to remove land from a person's ownership (control), and the land patent trumps all other 'legal' documents. Nobody can 'legally' dispute ownership (control).
Which has benefit, Control or Utilisation?
Ownership is not equitable just as control of a thing is not equitable, slavery is control (ownership) over the actions of a man or woman, ownership is control over the land, no one has a ?right? to ?control? land, so hoarding it to deprive those who labour upon it from receiving the fruits of their labours; ownership is control over resources, no one has the right to hoard the resources of the earth, to monopolise, exploit and restrict.
We each of us can only justify equitable utilisation, we came into the world with nothing and we leave with nothing, the labours of our lives we leave behind for the future, the inheritance of our birth to utilise the land and her resources is unalienable, that is The Innate Natural Unalienable Equity of Every Living Soul.
-
The Nature of Ownership
All this can be summarized in a single sentence.
Ownership is a fictional act of legal extortion or theft, used to accumulate and share resources (among share holders) which are gained by the labour of those who work on the land (serfs) but who do not own the land they work on and are limited to only a small portion of produced resources (enough to survive, procreate and then pass the work to the next geneation), unless they themselves become share holders in other enterprises.
As I said, it is fictional, it does not exist. People buy into the idea of ownership and share holding. But only because of the nature of man. Hierarchy and ownership is natural, so there is no point in writing novels about ownership, simply because many agree with it, and far not just psychopaths. Therefore, it is best to develop yourself.
-
Possible after you had read the full explanation but not as an explanation alone. But that is the explanation of ownership.
The alternative is the allodial model.
Equitable Allodial Utilisation
The basis of allodial utilisation is a foundation of all creation, which states you can only have or hold as one's own, that which you create yourself, the fruits of your labours, otherwise you only have its utilisation as a reciprocal obligation and responsibility as it existed independently; this means the Earth cannot be bought and sold, only the labours invested can be traded, as you came into the world with nothing and you leave with nothing tangible
"In a property dispute, in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner.
The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not" (S Rutledge (2000), Government's defence of the Status Quo Advocating a shift in applying presumption theory in intercollegiate parliamentary debate) This quote applies the fictions of constructed legal terms such as ?owner?, ?property?, and ?person?, however it presents the reality that the one utilising the land directly is the true custodian, not the one who applies constructed legal fictions to hold it as property, estate, or landlord, and most especially refutes the fiction a incorporeal entity can utilise resources through inference.
Each of us has an unalienable inherent custodial utilisation in allodium of all the abundant resources of nature, based upon stronger equitable utilisation than any other tangible living soul, we have a reciprocal obligation and responsibility to be the custodian, holding resources in our custody, meaning a defender, protector, nurturer; the land is held in the care of the one working or living on the land, in reality the construct of ownership masks this truth with violence and force, simply to allow a small group to dominate and extort over a huge group.
The natural resources of the earth are also allodial, as we did not create those either, for example
If I plant a field of watermelons, the watermelons are the bounty of the Creator, grown from the earth and out of the seed, and from the design of the Creator, but the physical labour you invested in the planting of the seed, the preparing of the land, the harvesting and marketing of the watermelons, is what you have honestly earned and deserve in reward of your labour, so when you sell the watermelon, the watermelon itself is free, as it is the bounty of the Creator, but the labour it took to reach its end consumer must be paid by the end consumer.
The animal life upon the earth is also allodial, as again we did not create it; animals need only one ?right? although we now suffer inequitably a culture of entitlement based upon rights; animals cannot establish equity against man?s actions, therefore man must grant, unattested, the right from a superior to an inferior, as an extension to believe without witness a superior will give a benefit or privilege of protection of the right not to be ?property?, animals are unable to enter into a written witnessed agreement or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights that can be defended or established by them independently, any living man or woman has the inherent power to champion the causes of the weak, defenceless, oppressed, or tortured.
Like the watermelon the animal is not owned, only the labour invested in the animal has value, the animal is the property of the Creator, the right of the animal not to suffer from the hand of man is unalienable to all life, we have a duty of care.
Structure
Allodial utilisation of land is unalienable, in that it cannot be taken by any operation of a court for any reason whatsoever (beyond the single intentional actions of manifesting long term damage to surrounding land through a unilateral bond of behaviour, in written agreement with those surrounding your land).
You cannot hold a declared utilisation of land beyond that you utilise yourself.
Without ownership, you cannot rent, be tenant, or landlord, you cannot mortgage, lien, or leverage upon your land, no other can ?claim? a duplicate account or share gains, especially trusts, corporations or State. Allodial witnessed declaration is the absolute resource of their custodian as allodarii, and not subject to any service or acknowledgement to a superior; this concept denies any legal municipal power and cannot be alienated by seizure by a creditor.
An allodarii custodian can through written agreement, abandonment or death, give up allodial land as custodian and that allodial land can be restored back to natures care, or the added value only, that has been invested within the land can be passed on to an heir. Allodial utilisation of land cannot be exchanged by deception (for example a gambling debt), only by equitable written agreement with the unilateral bond of behaviour passing to any inheritor for their witnessed signature.
Allodial resources without a custodian are held in the care of nature and as such have common utilisation by the local community, and are also available to individuals when they are needed for their exclusive utilisation, as long as no objection is declared by the men and women that neighbour the desired land utilisation, and they seek to determine no other living man or woman has a stronger prior exclusive custody of that land.
Allodial utilisation contains no legal fiction of rights of dominion being transferred through title, grant, claim, deed, charter, property, estate or any other fictional delivery, nor through registration or tenancy, but simply recorded in unilateral bond of behaviour witnessed by those neighbouring the allodial land. The unilateral bond gives protection through written bond of the behaviour the custodian will adhere to for all parties holding local custody neighbouring the new area of the adjuration of utilisation. The bond is only established once all are given opportunity to be made aware of the desire of the man or woman to make exclusive utilisation of that area of land, to make certain no other has stronger prior custody.