Recording requested by (name):

____________________________________________

When recorded mail to:

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________ Recorder’s Use Only

QUITCLAIM GRANT DEED WITH ALLODIAL

TITLE IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE
– Established that judicial authority is required in disputes over private property,
emphasizing that prior attachments can be
disaffirmed without judicial sanction.
United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)

THIS QUITCLAIM GRANT DEED, made this ___ day of ____________, 202_, by and between:

Grantor(s):
[Name of Grantor(s)]
[Grantor(s) Address]

Grantee(s):
[Name of Grantee(s)]
[Grantee(s) Address]

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the Grantor, being of lawful age of the majority and the rightful holder of allodial title in fee
simple absolute, affirms the conveyance of the subject matter private property as not "real estate" under
statutory definitions, but as private property in its “non-core” form as secured by the Constitution of this great
State/Territory, and the United States of America, such private property is outside and or without jurisdiction of
legislative regulatory authority as defined by those sacred instrument.

The conveyance herein acknowledges that prior contracts, liens, or encumbrances do not attach to this property.
As United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, affirms, Judicial Branch of Government and Power, the authority
required to settle disputes over private property, thus acknowledging the Grantor constitutionally secured right
to disaffirm all prior attachments. Similarly, Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, limits
the power of agency courts in private property matters, reaffirming the right to disaffirm liens when property
rights are violated.
WHEREAS, the Grantor has attained the age of majority and affirms their right to disaffirm all contracts made
during infancy or minority, exercising the natural right to ownership and control of private property, free from
any governmental encumbrances or prior agreements. The principle that "no man is bound by an agreement
made during infancy" is supported by Dodson v. Shrader, 824 S.W.2d 545, affirming the right of individuals to
void contracts upon reaching adulthood. The maxim "the burden of proof lies on him who asserts, not on him
who denies," as noted in In re Johnson Estate, 73 Pac. 242, and Mountain Copper Co. v. Van Buren, 123 F. 61,
establishes that any prior claims or liens must be proven by those who assert them, and not by the Grantor.

I the above named and listed Grantor do hereby affirm, attest, ascribe, proclaim, declare, elect, state the
following facts as self-evident, undeniable and inalienable:

1. That I have attained the age of the majority as of my eighteenth anniversary of life!
2. That I am the owner of the certificate of live birth on the certificate of birth attached to this presentment!
3. That I am competent, sentient, and do hereby forever take possession of all of my property!
4. That I do terminate any and all fiduciary relationships associated with my property and/or estate!
5. That my account has been held in trust as is evident via the Social Security number!
6. That a legal and/or constructive and/or otherwise trust has been created to circumvent these rights!
7. That my right to my property is held in private and is absolute!
8. That I am a member of the posterity of the people known as “The People of the United States Of
America”!
9. And that I disaffirm any and all contracts made while in minority/infancy!
10. And that I exercise each of the aforementioned rights in perpetuity reserving them as well as retained
them with prejudice!
11. That this is done with full knowledge and awareness of the right secured and protected via due process,
equal protection, unalienable rights secured my person by nature’s God and the laws of nature as
expressed in the document known as “A DECLARATION”, declaring independence in 1776!

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY:

[Insert legal description of the property, as defined in previous property deed or constitutionally secured
description, only list meets and bounds, this information can be obtained from the county recorder]

Also, commonly known as: [Property Address absent a ZIP Code]

The property conveyed herein is recognized as private property, not "real estate" under statutory terms. This
property is “non-core” in nature and thus does not align with the legal classification of real estate, as codified
by statutes created by Congress. As emphasized in United States v. Lee and supported by Horne v. Department
of Agriculture, 576 U.S. 350, private property disputes, particularly those involving takings, require judicial
oversight, further ensuring that this property is free from any government interference.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS with PREJUDICE:

The Grantor expressly reserves all rights in perpetuity, disaffirming any and all prior contracts or encumbrances
attached to the property. These contracts, if any, were personal to the previous parties and bear no relevance to
the property being conveyed. As clarified in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, the
Grantor maintains the right to reject any liens or encumbrances improperly applied to the property without
consent. In addition, Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. ___, reinforces the principle that property owners
can seek redress without exhausting state remedies, further securing the Grantor's ability to exercise full control
over the property. My property is for private use, personal use, household use, not for profit or gain,
noncommercial use unless I choose our expressly document otherwise. I am a member of the group known as
the people, and there is no regulatory authority for Congress to regulate the people. My rights, my property, and
my interest are “non-core” matters!

The property is transferred free of liens or encumbrances, with the Grantor's intent, as supported by Roberts v.
Landeck, 1 Cal. App. 2d 13, 16, and In re Cook, 83 N.Y. Supp. 1009, being that the property remains
unencumbered by any debts or attachments made by prior owners or creditors. The Grantor is under no
obligation to bind the property to any previous agreements.

“Non-Core” PROPERTY STATUS:

The property described herein is “non-core” in its entirety. It does not conform to statutory definitions of real
estate and, as such, cannot be subjected to statutory liens or encumbrances placed by administrative agencies via
ministerial clerks without due process of law via constitutional jurisdiction. In Bank of America, N.A. v.
Caulkett, 575 U.S. 790, the court confirmed the limited authority of agency courts over property rights, ensuring
that property classified as “non-core” is fully protected from external claims. The maxim "what is mine cannot
be transferred without my consent" affirms the Grantor's sole right to determine the fate of the property and
reject any claim lacking proper authority.

This principle is further reinforced by Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___, where excessive government interference
with private property was found unconstitutional, aligning with the Grantor’s right to transfer the property free
of any overreach. The disaffirmation of contracts relating to “non-core” property is codified in the Restatement
(Second) of Contracts § 14, which acknowledges that contracts entered into during infancy may be disaffirmed
upon reaching the age of majority.

RIGHT TO DISAFFIRM CONTRACTS MADE DURING INFANCY OR MINORITY:

Having attained the age of majority, the Grantor hereby disaffirms any and all contracts made during infancy or
minority. This right is supported by the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 14 and Dodson v. Shrader, 824
S.W.2d 545, which affirm the ability of individuals to void contracts made while they were minors. The maxim
"no man is bound by an agreement made during infancy" governs this principle, ensuring that all agreements
entered into during minority are void unless affirmed upon reaching adulthood.

Furthermore, the burden of proof regarding any claims or contracts made during infancy lies with the party
asserting such claims, as noted in Grubbs v. Houston First American Sav. Ass’n, 730 F.2d 236. The burden is
not on the Grantor to prove the existence and/or non-existence of such contracts. In re Marriage of Cloney, 91
Cal. App. 4th 429, further supports the Grantor’s right to disaffirm contracts entered into before attaining
majority.

DISAFFIRMATION OF PRIOR LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES:

The Grantor, exercising the rights to private property in allodial title and fee simple absolute, hereby
disaffirms all prior liens, encumbrances, or claims attached to the property. As recognized in Louisville Joint
Stock Land Bank v. Radford, the disaffirmation of liens improperly applied to private property is a
constitutional right. The maxim "the burden of proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies" holds that
any party claiming an interest in the property must provide irrefutable evidence of such claims, as reinforced by
United States v. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 678.

In Duntz v. Granger Brewing Co., 83 N.Y. Supp. 957, it was established that disputes over property and chattel
involve a clear separation of rightful ownership. The Grantor maintains that no attachments to this property
remain valid unless lawfully proven and that prior contracts or agreements are personal to the parties involved
and are disaffirmed by the Grantor.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the Grantee(s), their heirs, successors, and assigns forever, this property in
fee simple absolute and allodial title, free from any encumbrances, liens, claims, or assertions by any
governmental or, entities. The Grantor, in full control and ownership of the property, reserves all rights as stated
herein and makes no warranties or guarantees, express or implied, as to the title or condition of the property.

and

I as Grantor do hereby affirm, declare, proclaim, decree, attest, prescribe, and acknowledge the aforementioned
and hereby accept the terms stated herein as indicated. The aforementioned is based on firsthand knowledge
and/or information and witness by and before God as such under penalty if held otherwise, on this day, so help
me God!”

[Grantor’s Name]

SIGNATURE OF GRANTOR:

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of ________________ )
County of ________________ )

On this ____ day of _______, 20, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
__________________________, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the
person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature: ___________________________________
[Notary Public]

(Seal)
 the principle that administrative (core) liens like tax liens are not automatically superior
to non-core liens, especially when judicial action is required:

Key Legal Principles

Constitutional Protection of Property Rights
Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford established that property rights, particularly
in bankruptcy contexts, are constitutionally protected and cannot be overridden without
due process. This case emphasizes the need for judicial oversight when administrative
actions threaten private property rights.

Priority of Liens
United States v. New Britain clarified that tax liens do not automatically take priority
over other secured claims. The court affirmed that lien priority depends on the specific
nature of the lien and how it was attached to the property.

Distinction Between Statutory and Judicial Liens

United States v. Snyder highlighted the difference between statutory liens (like tax liens)
and judicial liens. It reinforced that administrative liens require judicial review for
enforcement and cannot automatically supersede other liens.

Timing and Perfection of Liens

United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank ruled that federal tax liens do not take
precedence over previously perfected liens. This supports the principle that judicially
established liens may have priority over administrative liens in certain circumstances.

Procedural Requirements for Lien Enforcement

United States v. General Motors Corp. reaffirmed that administrative liens must comply
with procedural requirements and cannot be considered superior to judicial liens without
proper legal enforcement.

Implications
These cases collectively establish that:
1. Administrative liens are not automatically superior to non-core liens.
2. Judicial action is often necessary to enforce rights associated with administrative liens.
3. The priority of liens depends on various factors, including timing, perfection, and the
specific nature of the lien.
4. Constitutional protections for property rights limit the power of administrative actions to
override established property interests.
This legal framework ensures that property rights are protected against arbitrary
administrative actions and that proper judicial processes are followed in determining lien
priorities.
SUPPORTING CASE CITATIONS

1. Disaffirmation of Contracts Made During Infancy or Minority:

1. Craig v. Van Bebber, 18 Cal. 337 (1861) – Established the right of a minor to disaffirm contracts made during
infancy upon reaching the age of majority.

2. Dodson v. Shrader, 824 S.W.2d 545 (Tenn. 1992) – Confirmed that once a person reaches the age of majority,
they can disaffirm any contract made while they were a minor.

3. Ferguson v. Blood, 152 N.Y. 204 (1897) – Affirmed that a minor can disaffirm contracts made during infancy,
regardless of whether the other party has fulfilled their obligations.

4. Watkins v. Mowry, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 122 (1803) – Established that a minor has the right to disaffirm a contract
entered into during minority upon reaching the age of majority.

5. Womack v. Stegner, 58 Cal. App. 660 (1922) – Recognized disaffirmation of contracts by a minor upon reaching
majority as a legal right upheld by the courts.

6. Leake v. Isaacs, 158 Ga. App. 148 (1981) – Confirmed that contracts made during infancy can be disaffirmed
upon reaching majority, with no remaining obligations.

7. Crescent Chevrolet Co. v. Lewis, 230 So. 2d 451 (La. App. 1970) – Reinforced that a minor has the right to
disaffirm contracts made during minority after reaching the age of majority.

2. Authority of Grantor to Disaffirm Prior Contracts or Encumbrances on Property:

1. Holland v. Hotchkiss, 162 Cal. 366, 373 (1912) – Addressed the discretion of the grantor to disaffirm prior liens
and contracts when conveying property in fee simple absolute.

2. Roberts v. Landeck, 1 Cal. App. 2d 13, 16 (1934) – Stated that the form of a deed is at the discretion of the
grantor, and prior contracts do not attach unless intended by the grantor.

3. Patti v. Western Pac. R.R. Co., 70 Cal. 550, 551 (1886) – Held that the grantor's intent governs whether any
encumbrances or prior agreements follow the property.

4. Morrison v. Wilson, 13 Cal. 494, 497 (1859) – Permitted the disaffirmation of previous agreements by the
grantor when such agreements do not affect the current conveyance.

5. Bowers v. Cottrell, 15 Cal. App. 2d 89, 92 (1936) – Concluded that prior encumbrances or agreements do not
bind future conveyances unless explicitly stated.

3. Additional Case Citations from Various Jurisdictions:

1. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) – Asserted that judicial authority is required for disputes involving
private property, further emphasizing the right to disaffirm prior attachments.
 2. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935) – Limits bankruptcy courts' powers over private
property rights, reaffirming the grantor's ability to disaffirm prior liens.

3. Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929) – Clarified the distinction between judicial and administrative
functions in matters of property rights.

4. Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972) – Private property rights are subject to judicial review
under Article III, affirming that prior claims must be constitutionally valid to remain.

5. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) – Non-Article III courts are limited in their powers over property
rights disputes, protecting the grantor’s right to disaffirm.

MAXIMS OF LAW

1. "The law regards the intent rather than the form."

– Maxim: Intent governs all actions, especially in the conveyance of property.

2. "What is mine cannot be transferred without my consent."

– Maxim: No prior encumbrance or attachment may transfer with the property unless explicitly consented to by
the Grantor.

3. "He who does not prevent what he can, seems to consent."

– Maxim: The Grantor expressly disaffirms all prior contracts and liens that would otherwise attach to the
property.

4. "A thing which has no foundation fails."

– Maxim: Any prior agreement that lacks the foundation of the Grantor's consent or that does not attach to
allodial property is null and void.

5. "No man is bound by an agreement made during infancy."

– Maxim: Contracts made while the Grantor was in infancy or minority may be disaffirmed upon reaching the
age of majority.

6. "The burden of proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies."
– Maxim: Any claims or encumbrances on the property must be proven by those who assert them, and are
disaffirmed by the Grantor unless proven otherwise.

7. "No one is presumed to give more than he has."

– Maxim: The Grantor cannot be held liable for agreements made by previous parties unless the Grantor has
explicitly accepted those obligations.