Micheal, I've looked over a diverse handful of your feats. I think that there are a couple things that I generally dislike that you've put into a lot of your feats.
1) Feats that take a non-mechanical element of a character and provide a feat for it.
Ex: Nobility. You provide an odd bonus (the bonus vs. commoners) that really should be a circumstance bonus adjudicated by a DM first off. Second, you are "forcing a niche" on a feat with no pre-requisites. I can take that feat at virtually any level, gain it's benefits, and they just don't make sense.
Ex: Allure. Seems like a totally non-mechanical or circumstance bonus adjudicated by the DM sort of thing. Not a feat.
A couple examples of similar feats that I like (these are from Eberron) are favored in house, the elven ancestry feat (I don't recall it's name), and the inquisitor or investigate feat (don't recall the name). These feats provide a mechanical advantage that makes sense, have sensible pre-requisites, and sort of help flesh out something that would (ordinarily) be entirely non-mechanical.
2) Poor choices of names. The ones that irk me most are those with the word "bounding" in them. Double Weapon Finesse sounds way off for what the feat does. I won't be too painful with these though. An example of one that gets in the way to me is "permanent cantript", which seems to be designed for arcane spellcasting classes only, and thereby excludes a cleric from creating a "permanent orison" despite the almost negligable difference in spell selection.
3) Undescribed easily misunderstood feats. I won't even try and get into the depths of it, but you use a lot of references that I don't get, or that seem difficult to understand at best.
Ex: Duplicity: "Whenever you prepare spells unused spell preparations count as unused spell slots." I think you need a comma in there somewhere. Despite that, even after reading the pre-reqs and trying to guess what those mean, I'm just blind here.
4) Bad rules use. This seems prevelent throughout most of your content. You refer to some specific rules (like the 5 ft. step) as if they were assumptions of the feet.
Ex: With bounding you say "5’ free action move", which I'm sure most people understand what your saying, but I just don't think your saying that correctly. The 5 ft. step that you can take when you take no other movement in the round (allowing you a 5 ft. step with a full attack action, or to take a 5 ft. step, load a crossbow, and fire it), is not referred to as the 5 foot free action move. It is a free action that you can take under specific circumstances (and only once normally, unlike some free actions such as loading a longbow with an arrow). In other words, while I'm sure you understand what your saying, a feat should probably be written in a way that is exceptionally clear to anyone reading it. Your using the rules poorly in a number of places in a similar fashion. While what you say makes sense in lamens terms, you should probably stick to using those terms that the players handbook and dmg describe in their glossaries.
All that negative aside, some of your feats I like in theory because your trying to add obvious missing mechanical implementation of ideas to the game. There are certainly certain archetypes that the core rules don't handle as well as others, and adding a few feats here and there could add to that. I just feel that the implementations are in need of some reasonable tweaking and language changes to help make these workable.
