Talk:Allodial title

message: I've added a cleanup tag to this article.  It's really atrocious -- has large sections of confusion punctuated by passages of total nonsense.  I've also deleted a little bit of total tax protester drivel, like the bit about "declaring one's sovereign right."  But, really, I'm not sure this article can be salvaged.  It really needs the attention of someone who knows a lot about the history and philosophy of property and property law (which is not me -- I just know more than whoever wrote it). --Paultopia (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Few citations from the article as it is now: "... free and clear of any encumbrances, including liens, mortgages and tax obligations ...", "... absolute property ... without ... acknowledgement to a superior ...", and "... in the United States most lands are allodial ...".(citation needed)
If someone has a property, is (s)he responsible to the state and is (s)he obliged to pay property taxes or not? Does the property owner have full/complete power over his property, or should obey court orders, search warrants, etc.? Not to talk about mortgages at all.
It would be nice if the complete freedom was walking throughout the U.S.A. but then we would have seen more dukes and less counties there. -- Goldie (tell me) 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a joke or what 

message: Where is allodial title mentioned in the Treaty of Paris?
:According to the Treaty of Paris section of this article, it resulted in the creation of allodial title in the US. I'm not a US lawyer, so I have no really clear idea of whether that is right, but that's what it says here. Francis Davey 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the text of the treaty. There's no reference to allodial title. I'm beginning to wonder about the content of this article as a whole. Alan 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that what is stated in the article sounds rather unlikely, anyway: England [sic] agreed to give up any Crown rights to the land, and agreed that all land in the American colonies was held in allodial title.  It rather goes without saying that "Crown rights to the land" would be given up, as this is virtually inherent in the notion of conceding independence.  And the notion that the treaty would stipulate the nature of property title seems absurd even before reading the text of the treaty; what would be the point?!  Silverhelm 16:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd propose deleting references to the Treaty of Paris and the section on equitable tenures. Alan 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am only speculating on this and know nothing about law and what actually did happen. Maybe allodial came as a consequense that all land was previously owned by the crown and after the treaty lost ownership of it. Either the states would become the new owners or the people themself as any other kind of private property hence enjoy the same rights as anyone of royal heritage. Lord Metroid 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Paris 

message: "However, "To say that land is owned 'allodially' is a fiction. For land is subject to expropriation by way of eminent domain." [1]" What does this mean? Is it inalienable or not? Mammalian 13:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously because the state can just take your property without legal consequense the state owns it. Lord Metroid 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that the state owns your property, just that the state creates your rights, and one of those is the right to property; ergo, the state can create (and has created) a limited right. bd2412 T 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be the theory in some places, but some formulations of rights (e.g. US Bill of Rights, Declaration of the Rights of Man) assert that rights exist independently of the state.  A more generally applicable myth theory, I think, would be that we partially surrender some of our rights through the social contract.  —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: States do not create rights. Rights belong to people intrinsically, and we delegate powers to states in order to secure our rights.  This delegation is not a surrender of our rights. 24.6.157.14 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing part about eminent domain

message: An inalienable right is one that cannot be transferred to another; that means, among other things, that it cannot be sold.  Is that true of allodial titles?  If not, the word ought to be changed.  —Tamfang 18:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. My jurisdiction has no allodial land (as I would understand the term), so I can only guess. Sadly, this article has given me no more clue. Francis Davey 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The word is unalienable, and the concept would be that the right to own property in allodium or title in allod (aka title in allodium) would be the right of the people to be free of tax, duty, or impost, when purchasing and owning land. It doesnt mean an allodial title is unalienable, as unalienable rights only are for men and women, not property. But the right to own property outright is unalienable, however people with gavels and guns will argue otherwise, and since they outnumber you, they are right.
All this so far seems to have done was create a fifedom with an oligarchical political class forcing everyone to subsidize their parasitism, and it was from the inception of the country.  The literal first two amendments of the bill of rights were going to be pay for representatives, and their numbers.  It seems like very little had to do with freedom, and all it was was a creation of a quasi autonomous parliament in the United States, from my limited, but worldly perspective.
[Anonymous]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B02D:226F:D117:855A:7686:5CF5 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  alienation 

message: In the US, does a person have allodial title over their own body? Or is this addressed in another section of law? DiprotiumOxide (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The US seems to have no problem issuing Intellectual Property rights in respect to various mechanisms by which life maintains itself. The putative implication is that if I wish to continue living I must pay those copyright owners a licence fee for the use of the techniques they have sequestered unto themselves!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.143.179 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allodial Title over your own body? 

message: Greetings, I am concerned about the veracity of this article. While the term allodial undoubtedly exist[ed], I have serious doubts that true 'allodial' or absolute ownership even exists in the United States presently, at least not beyond fee simple (notably, the word "title" doesn't seem to appear at all in the Treaty of Paris.) If it does, it must not be particularly prevalent. Can someone cite a modern treatise, or modern case law that supports its importance -or need- for such a lengthy discussion? If not, I'm going to remove uncited portions of this text, pursuant to WP:CITE after some time has passed. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, the concept of "inalienable" property  seems quite contrary to the Common Law system which seems to frown on significant restraints on alienability. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only a first year law student, but from what I've learned so far it is considered against public policy for land to have a restraint on alienability. Some implicit restraints are allowed to stand for various reasons, but explicit prohibitions are typically voided as a matter of common law within the United States. KenBest (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  apparently, wp:soap of Ron Paul set, and tax resisters, notwithstanding .  i would like to see more about France and Germany for which there are historical examples: Count palatine; Franche-Comté; Freiherr; Brunswick-Lüneburg, etc. cheers Accotink2 talk 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need real legal citations on this 

message: If this is just about a type of possession why is the article so long? I would suggest the answer  is given in the first sentence "Allodial title is a concept" - so it is not just a legal definition it is a concept. Well, what is that concept and whose concept is it? I would propose that the basic themes to structure the article should be:
*Origins of the system in Germanic law, what it actually meant during that period
*Why it disappeared/changed in some parts of the Germanic world, such as England
*The history of the political interpetation, i.e. as part of development of concept of supposed early Anglo-Saxon liberty
*Subsequent political use as a concept, such as in newly established USA 
--Utinomen (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i added some history from the german wiki article Accotink2 talk 15:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i added refs to nevada section, but it is a cut a paste job from ; it needs a copyedit. Accotink2 talk 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about? 

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: This article makes very little sense, and is poorly sourced. See 80% of this talk page for proof. Accordingly, I have added the  template. --Alx xlA (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm considering a nomination for deletion. I am unsure if "alloidal title" (as an alternative to fee simple) really exists. I have been unable to find a reference in any legal treatise. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The Thomas Jefferson reference above suggests that the idea of "allodial title" to land was something that he employed. I suspect - though I do not know - that it must have had some currency in US jurisprudential discussions at some time, even if not now. That suggests to me that the term is of some importance, if only we could get a reasonable authoritative source for it. Jefferson is, as far as I can tell, applying a good deal of spin to the reality of the pre-conquest situation in England, so he can't be taken as a source for that period of legal history, but he is a good source for the way that (some only maybe) US lawyers thought about it. Francis Davey (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Right now, this article says, "In fact, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a New Hampshire law that attempted to revoke the land grant to Dartmouth College from King George III was unconstitutional." But that is not at all the ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that the state did not have the right under the Constitution to change the charter of the charitable corporation that owned Dartmouth College. This was an issue regarding the contract between the original donors of the land and the private charitable corporation established to own and operate Dartmouth college. The following sums up the real issues in this case.
"This is plainly a contract to which the donors, the trustees and the crown (to whose rights and obligations New Hampshire succeeds) were the original *parties. It is a contract made on a valuable consideration. It is a contract for the security and disposition of property. It is a contract, on the faith of which, real and personal estate has been conveyed to the corporation. It is, then, a contract within the letter of the constitution, and within its spirit also, unless the fact, that the property is invested by the donors in trustees, for the promotion of religion and education, for the benefit of persons who are perpetually changing, though the objects remain the same, shall create a particular exception, taking this case out of the prohibition contained in the constitution."
So, I am going to change that original sentence to, "Although in Dartmouth College v. Woodward the United States Supreme Court rebuffed New Hampshire's attempt to convert Dartmouth College from a private college into a public university, the Court decided this based on the Constitution prohibiting states from impairing the obligations of the contract that created the private corporation that owned the land, and not based on any principle that the land was somehow immune from state control." DavidForthoffer (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dartmouth College

message: I agree with the above comments that this article is a bit of a mess and the title rather odd. I therefore propose to create a separate article entitled "allod" which will confine itself mainly to the medieval term covering freehold property, leaving this article to focus on the legal term "allodial title". --Bermicourt (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allod as separate article 

message: I have removed the two merger tags at allod and allodial title for the following reasons:
* The merger proposal was not set up properly; each tag points to a different talk page and no reason for the merger is given
* There is a long-running factual dispute at "allodial title" which ought to be resolved before any merger is proposed
* Their coverage is different and so the proposal fails WP:MERGE criteria. "Allod" focusses on the medieval term in Europe; "allodial title" mainly on modern US practice. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger tag 

message: I have never heard of this term FYI.  I looked up some RS on Lexis. Below are the first titles that come up.  It looks like the greatest interest in this has to do with Australia.
* 10 Int'l Legal Persp. 39:   ABORIGINAL TITLE: "AN OVERGROWN AND POORLY EXCAVATEDARCHEOLOGICAL SITE"?, Julie Cassidy*, Oregon, Jan 01, 1998.  Conclusion:
::From the above discussion of aboriginal title it is hopefully apparent that the relevant legal principles continue to be uncertain, particularly in Australia. Many important questions remain unanswered. Is the Crown bound by a fiduciary duty to safeguard aboriginal interests? Can the aboriginal title be extinguished without the consent of the traditional owners and without any compensation? Other statements made by the Courts in Mabo and Wik have yet to be critically examined by the Australian courts. These include whether aboriginal title may be extinguished by implication and whether statute of limitations or laches may be pleaded in defense to aboriginal claims. It is hoped that when these matter come to be reconsidered in Australia, the courts will take greater heed of the United States, Canadian and New Zealand jurisprudence which, as the above discussion indicates, will provide invaluable guidance.
* 29 Melbourne U. L.R. 1, DISINTERESTED TRUTH: LEGITIMATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF TENURE POST-MABO, SAMANTHA HEPBURN , Apr 01, 2005. 
::The allodial land system was introduced in the United States by Thomas Jefferson as a vital component of the move towards republicanism. The allodial system was intended to fully and completely abolish not just the feudal infrastructure, but the entire feudal narrative. The rationale for this was simple: feudal tenure had outlived its ideological usefulness.    The emergence of the republican movement coincided with the developing acceptance within the new world' of property rights as a societal construction, capable of representing and reflecting changing community perspectives.   The shift from tenure to allodialism in the United States encouraged a more culturally sensitive approach to Native American rights. The discovery title' retained by American colonists effectively gave the discovering nation' absolute title over the land, despite the fact that it was still in the possession of the  [34]  natives'.    Nevertheless, Marshall CJ noted that the rights of the Native Americans were not entirely disregarded.'    His Honour held that the original inhabitants retained a right of occupancy -- that is, a title which was good against all but the sovereign and could be terminated only by sovereign act.
* Articles:  Towards a Reconsideration of the Doctrines of Estates and Tenure, 1996 APLJ LEXIS 6.  1996
--David Tornheim (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS to consider 

message: Allodial land title, now rare, is absolute title and not "held of the Crown," e.g., not in fee or in feu as in the feudal system or derived legal systems.  In pure form, no "service" to any lord (including the sovereign) is required, either knight-service or, later, rates (land tax).  There is little or no allodial land remaining in England or Wales, which were brought into the feudal system after William the Conqueror, and more recently land registration, nor was any ever recognised in the feudal Channel Islands.  In Scotland there is allodial land title in parts of the Shetland Islands and the Orkney Islands, mostly in the weakened form of Udal title, and it is an ordinary form of land title in the Isle of Man.  These areas came to the U.K. from Norse sources, not Anglo-Saxon or Norman.  In the United States, all states and the District of Columbia have most private land "in fee simple" (or its variants) which is not allodial and is subject to land tax, escheats and eminent domain, as in the feudal precursor.  Some American states like Nevada enacted statutes that created limited forms of allodial title (whether or not under that name) that is exempt from rates/land tax.  See main article.  Exemption of such statutorily allodial land from eminent domain is theoretical and has not been litigated in American courts.  Certain United States Minor Outlying Islands in the Pacific Ocean arguably have allodial title (private land that is not subject to land tax, escheat, adverse possession or eminent domain) such as Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef (legally disputed), and approximately 80 parcels of "freehold" land in American Samoa, outside traditional Samoan tenure, that were grandfathered after its acquisition from Germany in the 1899 Tripartite Convention.  Possibly-allodial title was abolished in 2000 at Pitcairn Island by expropriating all private land; see Pitcairn Islands LAND TENURE REFORM Ordinance http://www.government.pn/Laws/Land%20Tenure%20Reform%20Ordinance.pdf (None of these examples have anything to do with American "Sovereign Citizen" legal theories.) 2605:6000:ED0D:9E00:6DFD:C207:1B3A:1B55 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allodial title in Shetland & Orkney Islands, Isle of Man, Nevada, and perhaps in the Pacific 

message: Article lede says "In the United States, the land is subject to eminent domain by federal, state and local government, and subject to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local governments, and there is thus no true allodial land."
I think of some possible exceptions:
Land owned by the federal government is not subject to eminent domain or to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local government.
State governments also lack the power of eminent domain over railroads.  However, because Amtrak has the right to run its trains on their tracks, which is essentially a federal right of partial eminent domain to use the property even if not to take it (Amtrak is nominally an public corporation but effectively an agency of the federal government), I would not consider them allodial.
Diplomatic installations (embassies, consulates, missions to the UN, etc.) might also be an exception, but they are technically foreign soil, and therefore don't really count as "in the United States".
Guantanamo Bay is a somewhat unique situation in that the U.S. has "jurisdiction" but not "sovereignty" (the treaty specifies that Cuba retains sovereignty), so I'm not sure what rights a private landowner would have, but since the federal government owns the land anyway, it's somewhat of a moot point. 47.139.41.212 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible exceptions to statement in lede that "In the United States...there is thus no true allodial land." 

message: is presumably the same idea? — LlywelynII 14:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lord paramount]]

message: Does anybody know why an Allodial title can not be put on a property in Florida? Dee.lite (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are properties in Florida with that status. for example Trump properties. 23.24.167.1 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not in Florida 

message: Most of the section was "how to" instructions (WP:NOTHOWTO), constructed from a single ecommerce source and a series of primary sources (Nevada Revised Statutes). The ecommerce source, Nevada Corporate Planners, is a company which sells Nevada incorporation products. As such, they are not a reliable source for this information (WP:VENDOR). However, researching further out of curiosity, it seems NCP posted this entry by 2001. In 2012 they had marked the page "You Must Have Applied Before June 13, 2005", and by the following year (2013) the page had been scrubbed from their website (per Wayback Machine). As it turns out, in 2005 Nevada revoked the "allodial title" provisions. In other words, the "how to" information is irrelevant to the reader today, and we have no reliable source to leave any remaining content about "what was" (from 1997-2005).    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  22:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevada section removed 

message: Feel free to use this content if you come up with some reliable sources/citations.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  05:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced sections