Common Law Trust Public Notice/Public Record Land Patent KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT This Private

Land is protected through United States Treaty, Land Patent number: 5610 recorded Authorized Act of Congress Enacted April 24, 1820 as United States Federal Law (The Land Act of 1820) in testimony whereof John Tyler President Of The United States Of America, have caused these letters to be made Patent and the Seal of the General Land Office to be hereunto affixed. Given under hand and seal at the city of Washington, the twenty first day of May in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and forty fifty and of the Independence Of The United States the Sixty seventh, Cook County Recorder of Deeds Document number: 1016947141 to have and to hold the same, together with all the rights, titles, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances of whatsoever nature, thereunto belonging, unto said Sui Juris known as Debra of the genealogy of Ward Lawful Owner forever as Declaration of Assignees Acceptance and update. made, executed, sealed, acknowledged and delivered: the eighteenth day June in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, A.D. as Private Land. Primary Disposal of the Soil defined: In acts of congress admitting territories as states, and providing that no laws shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil, this means the disposal of it by the United States government when it parts with its title to private persons or corporations acquiring the right to a patent or deed in accordance with law. See Oury v. Goodwin, 3 Ariz. 255, 26 P. 377; Topeka Commercial Security Co. v. McPherson, 7 Okl. 332, 54 P. 489. Black's Law Dictionary Revised Fourth Edition (page 1354). When this land was originally settled, the colonists brought themselves under the Crown of England. Thereby, all of the land in the colonies was considered to be the property of the Crown. This legal theory meant that the King could let anyone he wished to live on the land and even may have granted an equitable title to such a subject. However, in equity there is discretion, and at the discretion of the King, the equitable title holder could be dispossessed and the land taken back for the Crown. One of the sorest points for the colonists in their decision to throw off the Kings yoke was the Kings propensity to take advantage of his discretionary power to seize lands at his caprice. After the War for Independence, the founders of the new nation of the United States decided to make use of the instrument of the Land Patent to sever the land from the control of the administration of government. This was the main purpose on utilizing the Land Patent in this country. While subsequently settled lands could be patented, the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent peace treaty operated as the original Land Patent for the previously settled land in the original 13 colonies. Because of the early exploits of Americas brave pioneers in the lands west of the Mississippi, it had been realized long before the war that the continent of North America was of considerable geographic size, and it was, thus, greatly desired by the people that the enormous expanse of the Public Lands of the United States be made available for settlement. Congress agreed that that was an excellent idea since the land would be put into productive use and that the whole country would consequently benefit. The individual willing to work the land by and for his own direct benefit, it was thought, would be the best choice to carry out this goal. It was with this belief in mind that Congress passed the statutes granting public lands. See Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483, 487 (1890). In order that this distribution of Public Lands could be carried out expeditiously and according to the desire to prevent the current, or any future, administration of government from invading property rights (as had the King), Congress placed the Land Patent of the United States in positions above all other conveyances of property, by exempting lands granted under the Land Patent from debt incurred prior to the patenting. Ruddy v. Rossi, 248 U.S. 104, 107 (1918). Acting within its discretion, Congress determined that in order to promptly dispose of public lands and bring about their PERMANENT occupation and development, it was proper to create the designated exemption; and we are unable to say that the

1 of 10

conclusion was ill-founded or that the means were either prohibited or not appropriate to the adequate performance of the high duties which the legislature owed to the public. (emphasis added) The effect of this legislation was to give to the patentee, once the patent was perfected via proper procedure, an ability to hold title that is nearly absolute. Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U.S. 447, 454 (1882). As we said in the case of Smelting Company v. Kemp; It is this UNASSAILABLE character [of the patent] which gives it its chief, indeed its only value, as a means of quieting its possessor in the enjoyment of the lands it embraces. (emphasis added) The validity of the patent could not be attacked except under fraud or clerical error and either of these circumstances has to be proven in a court of law, and the challenge must be brought within six months of the granting of the patent. In fact, in a court of law, the patent is the conclusive proof of legal title. Id. 452 It is among the elementary principles of the law that in actions of ejectment the legal title must prevail. The patent of the United States passes that title. Whoever holds it MUST recover against those who have only unrealized hopes to obtain it, or claims which it is the exclusive province of a court of equity to enforce. However great these may be, they constitute no defense in an action at law based upon the patent. That instrument must first be got out of the way, or its enforcement enjoined, before others having mere equitable rights can gain or hold possession of the lands it covers. This is so well established, so completely embedded in the law of ejectment that no one ought to be misled by any argument to the contrary. (emphasis added) See also Johnson v. Christian, 128 U.S. 374, 382 (1888) and Carter v. Ruddy, 166 U.S. 493, 496 (1897). In an action of ejectment (now called eviction or forcible entry and detainer) the right to the possession of the property must be positively proven by a legal title. Fenn v. Home, 21 How. 481, 483 (1858). That the plaintiff in ejectment must in all cases prove a legal title to the premises in himself, at the time of the demise laid in the declaration, and that evidence of an equitable estate will not be sufficient for a recovery, are principles so elementary and so familiar to the profession as to render unnecessary the citation of authority in support of them This legal title the plaintiff must establish either upon a connected documentary chain of evidence, or upon proofs of possession of sufficient duration to warrant the legal conclusion of the existence of such written title. In the case of lands granted under a Land Patent, a connected documentary chain of evidence is on public record at the Recorder of Deeds for the county in which the land is located. Even the sovereign States themselves do not have the power to overturn Land Patents and their effects upon the land, namely, the severance from the interference in them by the administration of government. Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 102 (1871). In the Federal Courts, where the distinction between legal and equitable proceedings is strictly maintained, and remedies afforded by law and equity are separately pursued, the action of ejectment can only be sustained upon the possession by the plaintiff of the legal titlein the action of ejectment in the Federal Courts, the legal title must prevail, and the patent, when regular on its face, is conclusive evidence of that title. So also in the action of ejectment in the State courts, when the question presented is whether the plaintiff or the defendant has the superior legal title from the United States, the patent must prevail. For, as said in Bagnell v. Broderick, Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States; and the whole legislation of the Federal government in reference to the public lands

2 of 10

declares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title (emphasis added) Furthermore, the states may not legislate a superior, or even an equal, instrument to the Land Patent. Bagnell et. al. v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436, 451 (1839). we deny that the states have any power to declare certificates of purchase of equal dignity with a patent. Congress alone can give them such effect. No more can private property be so taken away by judicial decision and handed over, gratis, to the State. The touchstone of due process is the protection of the individual against arbitrary action of the government. Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290, 294-298 (1967); California ex rel. State Lands Commission v. United States, No. 89 Original (June 18, 1982); Waterman v. Smith, 13 Cal. 373 (1859); Chipley v. Farris, 45 Cal. 527 (1873); Cassidy v. Carr, 48 Cal. 339 (1874); Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Thompson, 117 Cal. 594, 49 P. 714 (1897), affd sub nom. Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co., 180 U.S. 71 (1901); Leese v. Clark, 18 Cal. 535 (1861); It [the patent] passes whatever interest the United States may then have possessed in the premises. It operates in consequence as an absolute bar to all claims under the United States having their origin subsequent to the petition. But the patent has a still further operation and effect. It is not merely a deed of the United States, conveying whatever interest they may have held in the premises at the institution of the proceedings before the Land Commission. It is also a record of the Government, showing its action and judgment with respect to the title of the patentees at the date of the cessionThis instrument, as we have stated, is the record of the Government upon the title of the patentee to the land described therein, declaring the validity of that title and that it rightfully attaches to the land. Upon all the matters of fact and law essential to authorize its issuance, it imports absolute verity; and it can only be vacated and set aside by direct proceedings instituted by the Government, or by parties acting in the name and by the authority of the Government. Until thus vacated it is conclusive, not only between the patentee and the Government, but between parties claiming in privity with either by title subsequent. 18 Cal. 571-572 (citation omitted). Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668, 687 (1979). United States v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 (1924). Where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. Such decisions become rules of property, and many titles may be injuriously affected by their change. Legislatures may alter or change their laws, without injury, as they affect the future only; but where courts vacillate and overrule their own decisions on the construction of statutes affecting the title to real property, their decisions are retrospective, and may affect titles purchased on the faith of their stability. Doubtful questions on subjects of this nature, when once decided, should be considered no longer doubtful or subject to change. 265 U.S. at 486-487. (citations omitted) As early as 1898 this Court was able to say: [I]f there is any one thing respecting the administration of the public lands which must be considered as settled by repeated adjudications of this court, it is that the decision of the land department upon mere questions of fact is, in the absence of fraud or deceit, conclusive, and such questions cannot thereafter be relitigated in the

3 of 10

courts. Johnson v. Drew, 171 U.S. 93, 99 (1898). More v. Steinbach, 127 U.S. 70, 83 (1888). Stewart v. United States, 316 U.S. 354 (1942). [ambiguity] Heath v. Wallace, 138 U.S. 573 (1891); French v. Fyan, 93 U.S. (3 Otto) 169 (1876); Steel v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 106 U.S. (16 Otto) 447 (1882); interpretation of a federal land conveyance is determined by federal law. Shively v. Bowlby, (1894) 152 U.S. 1, 9-10; 38 L.Ed. 331. 335; 14 S.Ct. 548. Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 22, [80 L.Ed. 17-18. United States v. oDonnell, 303 U.S. 509. settlement of titles: Knight v. U.S. Land Association, 142 U.S. 184, [35 L.Ed. 982;] Beard v. Federy, 70 U.S. 489, [18 L.Ed.] The patent serves to protect the patentees land from all incursions of administrative power. United States v. Stone, 2 Wall. 525, 535 (1864). A patent is the highest evidence of title, and is conclusive as against the Government, and all claiming under junior patents of titles, until it is set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal [because of fraud or other ministerial impropriety at the time of the patenting]. See also United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103, 111 (1935). Finally, these doctrines concerning the Land Patent are still effective. Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Commission & City of Los Angeles, 466 U.S. 198, 80 L.Ed. 2nd 237, 104 S.CT. 1751; USSC 82-708, US Law Week, 4/17/1984. We hold that California cannot at this late date assert its public trust easement over petitioners property, when petitioners predecessors-in-interest had their interest confirmed without any mention of such easement in proceedings taken pursuant to the Act of 1851. The interest claimed by Californiamust have been presented in the patent proceeding or be barred. The petitioners predecessors-in-interest are, of course, the original patentee of the land and all of the assignees of that patent through the intervening time. In summary, the intent of the Land Patent was to forever sever any control, over the land so patented, by any agency of government. Congress passed legislation on several occasions to fulfill that intent and the courts have concluded that it was well within its power to do so. All other interest, equitable in nature, is presumed inferior to that of a Land Patent and, so, in any action to recover as against patented land, the holder of the patent must prevail. In demonstration of which we refer to the statutes of the State of Illinois as an example, at 110 pp. 8-1208, and 1120 pp. 8-1209 which read as follows, to wit: 8-1208. Official Certificate-Land Office. pp. 8-1208. Official Certificate-Land Office. The official certificate of any register or receiver of any land office of the United States to any fact or matter on record in his or her office, shall be received in evidence in any court in this State, and shall be competent to prove the fact so certified. The certificate of any such register, of the entry or purchase of any tract of land within his or her district, shall be deemed and taken to be evidence of title in the party who made such entry or purchase, or his or her legatees, heirs or assigns, and shall enable such party, his or her legatees or assigns, to recover or protect the possession of the land described in such certificate, in any action of ejectment or forcible entry and detainer, UNLESS A BETTER

4 of 10

LEGAL AND PARAMOUNT TITLE BE EXHIBITED FOR THE SAME. The signature of such register or receiver may be proved by a certificate of the Secretary of State, under his or her seal, that such signature is genuine. Amended by P.A. 83707, pp. 1, eff. Sept. 23, 1983. (emphasis added) 8-1209. Patents for land. pp. 8-1209. Patents for land. A PATENT FOR LAND SHALL BE DEEMED AND CONSIDERED A BETTER LEGAL AND PARAMOUNT TITLE IN THE PATENTEE, HIS OR HER LEGATEES, HEIRS OR ASSIGNE, THAN THE OFFICIAL CERTIFICATE OF ANY REGISTER OF A LAND OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE ENTRY OR PURCHASE OF THE SAME LAND. (emphasis added) Amended by P.A. 83-707, pp. 1, eff. Sept. 23, 1983. Property tax Unconstitutional Land Untaxable by State. The original constitution of Illinois provided that the lands of Illinois are untaxable: The propositions contained in the act of Congress, are hereby accepted, ratified and confirmed, and shall remain irrevocable without the consent of the United States, and it is hereby ordained that this state shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same, by the United States, nor with any regulations congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; AND NO TAX SHALL BE IMPOSED ON LAND, (emphasis added) Sargent v. Herrick & Stevens, 221 U.S. 404, 55 L.Ed. 787; Northern P.R. Co. v. Truitt County, 115 U.S. 600, 29 L.Ed. 477; Town of St. John v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 665 NE 2d 965 (1996). Patent Unassailable Sanford v. Sanford, 139 U.S 642, 35 L.Ed. 290 Right to Possess in Patentee Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534 Evidence of Title U.S. v. Stone, 2 U.S. 525, 17 L.Ed. 768 Patent as Legal Title Minter v. Crommelin, 18 U.S. 87, 15 L.Ed. 279 Johnson v. Christian, 128 U.S. 374, 32 L.Ed. 412 Doe v. Aiken, 31 Fed 393 Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters (U.S.) 408, 10 L.Ed. 264 Patent as Estopple Beadle v. Smyser, 209 U.S. 393, 52 L.Ed. 849 Priority in general, for liens see; 26 U.S.C.A. 6323 S. & S. Gasket Co. Inc. v. U.S., 635 F.2d 568 Mantovani v. Fast Fuel Corp., 494 F. Supp. 72 MDC Leasing Corp. v. New York Property Ins. Underwriting Assn., 450 F. Supp. 179, affirmed 603 F. 2d 213 U.S. v. Hage, 417 F. Supp. 74 Matter of Fisher, 7 B.R. 490 26 U.S.C.A. 7426 Peterson v. U.S., 511 F. Supp. 250 Angelos v. Maryland Cas. Co., 380 A. 2d. 646, 38 Md. App. 265

5 of 10

United States v. Champaign County, Fed. Supp. 474, 1958 For Public Land Cases Cent. Dig. 119, 121, 314, 316, 322, 324, 332-335, 461-465, 481, 720 Cases of attack on United States Land Patents and the land so covered have been appealed to the U.S. S. Ct. 139 times and it has held each time, that, if a claim against the land is not made before the patent is issued, no claim made thereafter may be recognized by a court and no Act of Congress can place such land in jeopardy to the owner. The above case cited is: Summa Corporation v. California ex rel. State Lands Commission & City of Los Angeles. When Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485; 48 S. Ct. 564, 575; 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928) (dissenting opinion). Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 104 S. Ct. 1338, 1354; 79 L.Ed. 2d. --- (1984), (Stevens J. dissenting). Interests by states must have been presented in the patent proceedings or be barred Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481, 21 S.Ct. 690, 45 L.Ed. 963 U.S. v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472, 41 S.Ct. 621, 68 L.Ed. 1110 U.S. v. Coronado Beach Co., 255 U.S. 472, 41 S.Ct. 378, 65 L.Ed. 736, pp. 1755-1758. 31 Cal. 3d 288, 182 Cal. Rptr. 599, 644 P.2d 792, reversed and remanded. Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Commission & City of Los Angeles, 466 U.S. 198, 80 L.Ed. 2nd 237, 104 S.Ct. 1751; USSC 82-708, US Law Week, 4-17-1984 Title 43 U.S.C. 59, established that duly certified copies of Federal Land Patents shall be evidence in all cases where the originals would be evidence. Section 83 of Title 43, covers the evidentiary effect of Certified Federal Land Patents for all States and all the courts in the United States must take Judicial Notice of the Federal Patents and their evidentiary effect under these Federal Statutes. All judges in all States shall be bound as to the power and validity of the patents. U.S. v. Debell, (1915 CA8 SD) 227 F. 760 Patent as foundation of Title at Law Fenn v. Holmes, 21 Howard 481 Immunity from Collateral Attack Collins v. Bartlett, 44 Cal 371 Webber v. Pere Marguette Boom Co., 62 Mich. 6262, 30 NW 469 Surget v. Doe, 24 Miss 118 Pittsmont Copper Co. v. Vanina, 71 Mont. 44, 227 Pac. 46 Green v. Barker, 47 Neb. 934, 66 NW 1032 Neff v. U.S., 91 CCA 241 Paterson v. Ogden, 74 P. 443, 141 Cal. 43, 99Am. St. Rep. 31 Judicial Opinions of Form of Declaration of Land Patent Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U.S. 488, 30 L.Ed. 1039 USCT Scheimer v. Conway, 23 How. 235, 16 L.Ed. 452 (1860) USCT Summa Corp. v. California ex rel., 104 S.Ct. 1751 (1984) USCT Fiedler v. Pipes, 107 So. 2d. 409 (1958) Louisiana Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How 691

6 of 10

Land Patent as prima facie Conclusive Evidence of Unassailable Legal Title Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534 State v. Crawford, 13 Ariz. App. 225, 475 P. 2d. 515 Texas, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 159 U.S. 68, 40 L.Ed. 78, 15 S.Ct. 935 Miller v. Grunsky, 66P. 858, 141 Cal. 441, reversed (1903) 75 P. 48 Ejectment against a defendant in possession cannot be maintained in Federal court on an equitable title, gained by entry made with the register and receiver, though the State statutes otherwise provide. Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 83, 84. 8 S.Ct. 431 Carter v. Ruddy, 56 Fed. 544, 15 U.S. App. 129 or 429 Le Beau v. Armitage, 47 Mo. 139 Johnson v. Christian, 128 U.S. 382, 33 L.Ed. 415, 9 S.Ct. 90 Doe v. Aiken, 31 Fed. 393 Steel v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 106 U.S. 417, 27 L.Ed. 226 Ejectment not maintainable on State Certificate of Purchase Kircher v. Murray, 60 Fed. 52, 23 U.S. App. 214 affirming S.C. 54 Fed. 626 Harrest v. Kinney, 44 Mich. 460, 7 N.W. 64 Moran v. Moran, 106 Mich. 12, 58 Am. St. Rep. 465, 63 N.W. 990 Headley v. Coffman, 38 Neb. 72, 56 N.W. 702 Clagett v. Kilbourne, 1 Black. 350, 17 L.Ed. 216 Wilson v. Fine, 14 Sawy. 35, 36. 38 Red. 790, 791 Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Witherow, 149 U.S. 579, 37 L.Ed. 856, 13 S.Ct. 939 Abbott v. Union, ect., Ins. Co., 127 Ind. 73, 26 N.E. 154 Estoppel has been sustained as against a municipal corporation (county) Beadle v. Smyser, 209 U.S. 393, 52 L.Ed. 849 See Title 43, Sections 83 and 43 USC 57-59 Diversity of Citizenship, 28 USC 1331, 1332, 1343 Treaties, 8 Stat. 80, 8 Stat. 200, 8 Stat. 218, 9 Stat. 869, 10 Stat. 1031 Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 Lead Case Louisiana Purchase States Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (26 U.S.) 511 On ultra vires 1st Nat. Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 69 SE 1123 Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Natl Bank, 144 SE 501 Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L. Herisson, 33 F.2d. 841 Am. Exp. Co. v. Cit. St. Bank, 194 NW 427 Ashley v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 410 F. Supp. 1389 Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co., 175 U.S. 571, 44 L.Ed. 20 S.Ct. 222 Davidson v. Lovett, 446 F. Supp. 1171 Florida Cent. & Pen. R.R. v. Bell, 176 U.S. 321, 44 L.Ed. 486, 20 S.Ct. 399 Hanford v. Davies, 163 U.S. 273, 41 L.Ed. 157, 16 S.Ct. 1051 (1896) Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U.S. 273, 41 L.Ed. 157, 16 S.Ct. 478 (1906) Kirklin v. Ellerbe, 225 F. 168 Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561 Nolan v. Cal. Coast. Comm., 177 Call. App. 3d 719, 722 (1986) 55 U.S.L.W. 5145 First English Evan. Luth. Church of Glendale v. Co. of L.A. 55 U.S.L.W. 4781 Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 Agins v. City of Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d. 266 Davis v. Pima County, 590 P. 2d. 459 (1978) Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 720 P. 2d. 513 (1986)

7 of 10

Fred F. French Investing Co., Inc. v. City of New York, 39 N.Y. 2d. 587 (1976) San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 U.S. v. Pewee Coal Co., 341 U.S. 114 Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) Loretta v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269 (1898) Candid Ent. Inc., v. Grossmont Union H.S. Dist., 39 Cal. 3d. 878, 890 (1985) Trent Meredith, Inc. v. City of Oxnard, 114 Cal. Ap. 3d. 317, 325 (1981) Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal. App. 3d. 110, 128 (1973) Strumansky v. San Diego Co. Emp. Tetirement Assoc., 11 Cal. 3d. 28, 32 (1974) Avco Community Dev. Inc. v. South Caost Regional Comm., 17 Cal. 3d. 785 (1976) Kaiser Aetna v. U.S., 444 U.S. 164, 179 (1979) Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976) Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa, 69 Cal. App. 3d. 74, 78 (1977) PennCentral, 438 U.S. 124 Armstrong v. U.S., 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960) Northern Pipeline v. Marathon, U.S. 102 Reporter, p. 2858, 28 June, 1982. Art. I v. Art. 3 usage, Does not have force of law. V 104, Supra Reporter, 175-1, April 17, 1984. 31 Cal. 3d. 288; 182 Cal. Rptr. 599, 644 p. 2d. 792, 104 S.Ct. 1751 (1984) U.S. Circuit Court will enforce new equity created by State statute Wisconsin etc., R.R. v. Wisconsin, et., Land Col, 71 Wis. 102, 36 N.W. 841 State v. Hewit Land Co., 134 Pac. Rep. 474 Hogan v. Page, 2 S.Ct. 605, 69 U.S. 605, 17 L.Ed. 854 98 Stat. 1671 Wisconsin Central Railroad Co. v. Price County Bagnell et al. v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 450 Raestle v. Whitson, 582 P.2d. 170 Walliker v. Escott, 608 P.2d. 1272 Litchfield v. Register and Receiver, 9 Wall. (U.S.) 575, 19 L.Ed. 681 U.S. v. Steenerson, et al, 50 Fed 504, CCA 552, 4 US App. 332 Jenkins v. Gibson, 2 La. Ann. 203, Louisiana 18 How. 87 Minter v. Crommelin, 18 U.S. 87, 15 L.Ed. 279 King v. McAndrews, 11F 860, 50 CCA 29 Davis v. Fell, 211 P. 30, 59 Call. App. 438 Thompson v. Thompson, 155 P. 1190, 79 Or. 513 Vanderheyden v. Crandall, 2 Denio (N.Y.) 21 Backus v. McCoy, 3 Ohio 221, 17 Am. Dec. 585 Tate v. Jay, 31 Ark. 579 Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492 Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis., 367 Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. (U.S.) 498, 10 L.Ed. 264 Wineman v. Gastrell, 54 Fed. 810 U.S. v. Cherokee Nations, 474 F.2d. 628 (1973) Ruddy v. Rossi, 248 U.S. 104 (1918) Desenroth v. Dodge, 350 Il. App. 20, 11 NE 2d. 575 (1953) Lomax v. Pickering, 173 U.S. 26, 43 L.Ed. 601 Whereas defined pursuant to; [(735 ILCS 5/8-1202) [Sec. 8-1202.] Court records. The papers, entries and records of courts may be proved by a copy thereof certified under the signature of the clerk having the custody thereof, and the seal of the court, or by the judge of the court if there is no clerk. (Source: P.A. 83-707.) Whereas defined pursuant to; [(735 ILCS 5/8-1203) [Sec. 8-1203.] Municipal records. The papers, entries, records and ordinances, or parts thereof, of any city, village, town or county, may be proved by a copy thereof, certified under the signature of the clerk or the

8 of 10

keeper thereof, and the corporate seal, if there is any; if not, under his or her signature and private seal. (Source: P.A. 83-707.) Whereas defined pursuant to; [(735 ILCS 5/8-1204) [Sec. 8-1204.] Corporate records. The papers, entries and records of any corporation or incorporated association may be proved by a copy thereof, certified under the signature of the secretary, clerk, cashier or other keeper of the same. If the corporation or incorporated association has a seal, the same shall be affixed to such certificate. (Source: P.A. 82-280.) Whereas defined pursuant to; [(735 ILCS 5/8-1205) [Sec. 8-1205.] Form of certificate. The certificate of any such clerk of a court, city, village, town, county, or secretary, clerk, cashier, or other keeper of any such papers, entries, records or ordinances, shall contain a statement that such person is the keeper of the same, and if there is no seal, shall so state. (Source: P.A. 82-280.) Whereas defined pursuant to; [(735 ILCS 5/8-1206) [Sec. 8-1206.] Sworn copies. Any such papers, entries, records and ordinances may be proved by copies examined and sworn to by credible witnesses. (Source: P.A. 82-280.) Whereas defined pursuant to; [(735 ILCS 5/8-1207) [Sec. 8-1207. Penalty.] If any officer, clerk, secretary, cashier, or other person authorized to certify copies of any papers, entries, records or ordinances, knowingly makes a false certificate, he or she is punishable in the same manner as if he or she were guilty of perjury. (Source: P.A. 82-280.) About Cook County Government: Cook County was created on January 15, 1831 by an act of the Illinois State Legislature as the 54th county established in Illinois. The unincorporated Fort Dearborn settlement at the mouth of the Chicago River became the new county's seat. On May 7, 1831, Cook County elected its first officials. Cook County is an urban county in the upper northeastern section of the State of Illinois that contains more than 800 local governmental units within its boundaries. With a population of approximately 5.3 million people, it is the second most populous county in the nation and the 19th largest government in the United States (2005 census statistics). It is a home rule county pursuant to Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois State Constitution and is governed by a 17-member Board of Commissioners who are elected from single-member districts. The Commissioners and a County Board President are elected to four-year terms by the citizens of the County. Cook County contains 128 municipalities in its region, the most well known being the City of Chicago which is the County seat where the central offices of Cook County are located. The City of Chicago and the suburban municipalities account for approximately 85% of the County's 946 square miles, while unincorporated areas make up the remaining 15%. The unincorporated areas of the County are under the jurisdiction of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. As mandated by State law, County government has principal responsibility for the protection of persons and property, the provision for public health services and the maintenance of County highways. Illinois General Assembly Constitution of the State of Illinois ARTICLE VII LOCAL GOVERNMENT [SECTION 1.] MUNICIPALITIES AND UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT "Municipalities" means cities, villages and incorporated towns. "Units of local government" means counties, municipalities, townships, special districts, and units, designated as units of local government by law, which exercise limited governmental powers or powers in respect to limited governmental subjects, but does not include school districts. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

9 of 10

Whereas defined pursuant to; [SECTION 4.] COUNTY OFFICERS (d) County officers shall have those duties, powers and functions provided by law and those provided by county ordinance. County officers shall have the duties, powers or functions derived from common law or historical precedent unless altered by law or county ordinance. (Source: Illinois Constitution.) Whereas defined pursuant to; [SECTION 6.] POWERS OF HOME RULE UNITS (d) A home rule unit does not have the power (1) to incur debt payable from ad valorem property tax receipts maturing more than 40 years from the time it is incurred or (2) to define and provide for the punishment of a felony. (e) A home rule unit shall have only the power that the General Assembly may provide by law (1) to punish by imprisonment for more than six months or (2) to license for revenue or impose taxes upon or measured by income or earnings or upon occupations. Sui Juris, In my Private Capacity as: General Administrator, Secured Party, freeborn spiritual being on the land state the facts contained herein are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, to the best of my personal first hand knowledge and belief. Being of sound mind, competent, over the age of 18. This my free will, voluntary act and deed to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver under my hand and seal with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and my specific common law right not to be bound by any contract or obligation which I have not entered into knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and without misrepresentation, duress, or coercion, whereby I did not sign nor consent. I am not now nor have ever been a U.S. Citizen or a Fourteenth Amendment Federal Citizen or Employee, I am not bound by sworn oath or oath of office. Whereas I hereby disclaim Clauses One and Two of Section One to the Fourteenth Amendment, together with Article Four Section Three Clause Two. Rights includes remedies. Nemo, aliens: rei, sine satisdatione, de fensor idonens intelligitur defined: No man is considered a competent defender of anothers property, without security. A rule of the Roman law, applied In part In admiralty cases. 1 Curt. 202. This my free will, voluntary act and deed true and lawful attorney-in-fact to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver under my hand and seal, explicitly reserving all rights without prejudice; By:____________________________________________________________ Sui Juris known as; Debra of the genealogy of Ward Bailor for DEBRA WARD Bailee ______________________________________________________________ Chasity, Jackson Third Party Witness "Sealed and delivered in the presence of us." STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF COOK ) CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this date the individual named above, in his/her stated capacity, personally appeared before me to execute this acknowledgement that this instrument was signed, sealed, and delivered as their free will, voluntary act and deed to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver under their hand and seal verified and authenticated for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. _____________________ DATE AFFIX NOTARY SEAL IF REQUIRED Date Commission Expires __________________ _________________________________ Signature of NOTARY PUBLIC

10 of 10