Possession versus Utilisation of the Land
Written by Abdun Nur   

Version 2 – 17th October 2013

Possession versus Utilisation of the Land

 Active Image

Controlling land is power, if that control is consolidated through violence, treachery and monopoly that power is concentrated, if that monopoly is continuously sustained through violence or the threat of violence then it can be exploited through the many forms of usury; such as ownership, debt economics and slavery, administrated through the construction of legal fictions codified as positive law; if you can govern the minds of those enslaved never to rebut those constructed fictions, then you can own the Earth, the life it contains, and all souls.


The constructed legal fiction of ‘possession’ is a term that describes the relationship in status of a ‘person’ and their legal interest in an ‘estate’ in land, therefore substantively you cannot ‘possess’ the land, or ‘own’ the land or ‘use’ the land, you can only ‘utilise’ the land as a living soul. The legal terms are defined as:


·        Estate – the tenants ‘interest’ in land; and the state of those resources held in limbo after the death of the soul who had control of them.


·        Interest – entitlement to a share.


·        Possess – to occupy in ‘person’; to be ‘entitled’.


·        Own – in title of ‘property’ as owner; in whom is vested ownership.


·        Property – a right imparted to an owner as a granted right or granted dominion in title.


·        Use – A confidence reposed in another, who has being made tenant of the land. A right in one person, called the ‘cestui que use,’ to take the profits of the land of which another has the legal title and possession, together with the duty of defending the same, and making estates thereof according to the direction of the cestui que use.


·        Utilise (Latin - utilis) – equitable; available.



The constructed legal term 'possession' is entirely fictional and describes a 'relationship' in estate and not one of substantive isolated utilisation, there are two elements in that 'relationship', one of 'right' granted from a superior possessing the fictional interest in the land who grants that right of use to an inferior, the granted right is possession in fact.


In a 'relationship of right' no private individual or person can own land absolutely in isolated advantage, as a right is a grant, and the granter gives use, retaining interest in the land, the resource is merely lent from the granter, and the 'possessor in fact' must share the gains generated with the superior  'possessor in interest', the granter.


The possessor of the constructed fiction of possession 'vested in interest' carries no right of the 'enjoyment' of the land, the term 'enjoyment' means the 'exercise' of a right, privilege or incorporeal hereditament (things capable of being inherited by a constructed fiction); so without the grant of the colour of title, descending the right of 'possession in fact' there is no enjoyment from the benefit of gains extracted from the labours of the soul who is granted the ‘right’ of the actual use of the land.


There is nothing to 'enjoy' (Latin- fruor) for the possessor in interest if the land is not possessed in fact, as no soul is labouring upon the land to generate wealth in which to take a share (interest), therefore there is nothing to possess of those shared gains, until the right to the estate becomes 'vested in possession', as until the exercise of the right of use is granted with full benefit (advantage, profit, privilege for the granter), the land is not possessed in fact, only in interest.


All possession then is created within some relationship between the granter and the possessor in fact; created through a lease from a superior possessor in interest; meaning the resource of land is lent out and the owner demands an interest in the gains generated through that physical utilisation.


Possession is in reference to title, the status of the land is granted in the title of an estate, all estate is in possession, ‘reversion’, and ‘remainder’ or in right. A constructive possession is the legal fiction of possession; the possession by an incorporeal entity who possess without utilisation, but from a 'legal' claim that is constructed to allow duplicate possession, being both fictional possession and actual possession, this construct only allows actual possession when land is descended to a living soul from a superior possessor, the right granted before they may enter into the use of the land through the colour of estate, not in substantive utilisation; this is in contrast to a substantive possession, when the land naturally descends to the soul from the fact of its utilisation. The legal terms are defined as:


·        Reversion – if the tenancy is abandoned, defaulted or a death estate without inheritor, the property reverts back to the granter.


·        Remainder – the granting of a limited period of a right of use of estate, the remainder is returned back to the granter after the term expires.


·        Right - an extension of a grant (unattested), a grant is to believe without witness a superior will give a benefit or privilege.

The two constructed fictions forming the ship of commerce referenced as ownership are the doctrine of ‘tenures’; which means no private person can own land absolutely; and the doctrine of ‘estate’; which invents possession through a tenancy with the hierarchy of status, vested in colour of title in shared gains with another or a number of other ascending parties.


To establish allodial utilisation then you must have the intent to exclude all other from having a relationship with the resources you are utilising in that custodial declaration, no soul or fictional construct can have interest in the land beyond the soul declaring substantive utilisation, actual utilisation is not 'rightful' possession, as no title, grant or claim has been established to give 'right' from any invented hierarchical superior possessor of the land.


A squatter is one who settles on another’s land without granted title or right, and without establishing the strongest assertion of utilisation through un-rebutted declaration.


There is no un-owned land in England and Wales and hasn’t been since the murderous legacy of William the Bastard, as before the imposition of feudalism, expressed through the constructed legal fiction of ‘ownership’ all land was utilised in allodium, this substantive situation was removed through violent invasion and genocide upon the allodarii inhabitants by the agents of the Vatican corporation, completed with the creation of the doomsday book in 1086. This criminal theft is the basis of estate and tenure declared through the demesne of the Crown Corporation, and has existed from its origin only in colour of law, so having only the appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, of validity as distinguished from that which is real, substantive, actual, or true.


If the constructed legal fiction of ownership were taken away from the Crown Corporation by a living soul, through the rebutting of constructed legal fictions, and by inviting ‘all the world’ to prove a stronger declaration of utilisation of the land than has been declared through utilisation in allodium, it would divest the Crown of sovereignty over that territory. To retain the fiction of sovereignty the Crown must sustain it position as ultimate feudal overlord. (Possession of Land- Mark Wonnacott. Page 38)


The Crowns original absolute acquisition is a constructed legal fiction openly declared, as such it is a claim impossible to defend, and exists only if un-rebutted, so exists in colour only.


The Crown bases all granted title upon prior possession, beginning after the theft of the land through the genocide of the agents of the Crown Corporation, however prior to that theft there was an absolute allodium upon the land, and so prior to the theft is the true position to declare inherent utilisation.


To seek any legal fiction, such as ownership, property, owner, possession, claim, use, holder, grant, title, right, tenancy, private, estate, permission, registration or interest in the land will result in maintaining the constructed legal fiction and allowing the colour of law to maintain its inventions, as you cannot remove a fiction by declaring a fiction.


To declare allodial utilisation you cannot give a status as a citizen, person, human, man, incorporeal entity or any other constructed status that is recognized as constructed legalese in a court, as constructed legal fictions are authored and the author can impose authority over that which they have authored. An allodarii is a living soul, you are inherently anima not persona; for example all judgements of debt that attached to the land are determined as judgements in personam, not substantively in anima, so rebut the fiction of person.


A living soul must establish a declaration through the innate inherent power exclusively and independently of any perceived superior, as a substantive inherent action, which is both unalienable and immutable, not through any divested or vested rights, titles, privilege, grant or any other legal construct.

Active Image