What You Need To Know About Land Patents: Ron Gibson
- Thread starter M.E.G.
- Start date
OP
OP
M.E.G.
Hero Member
- Apr 25, 2014
- 500
- 876
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
snoop4truth
Newbie
- Sep 14, 2020
- 3
- 6
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
A LAND PATENT WILL NOT MAKE YOUR LAND EXEMPT FROM FORECLOSURE OR TAXES
REPLY TO RON GIBSON'S CLAIMS ABOUT LAND PATENTS AND ALLODIAL TITLE
Ron Gibson claims that creating a land patent and issuing to yourself will render your land exempt from foreclosure, property taxes and emminent domain. But, this is not so.
The Law:
1. "Allodial title" means a "government-owned title" and only the sovereign government can have "allodial title". A private person can not.
2. "Allodial title" is not (and cannot be) conveyed to a private person by a land patent or otherwise.
3. The highest title a private person can be conveyed in land is "fee simple" title (which is subject to foreclosure, property taxes and imminent domain).
4. A land patent is no defense to foreclosure, property taxes or emminent domain.
WHAT EVERY COURT HAS HELD ON WHETHER A "LAND PATENT" IS AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE TO FORECLOSURE, PROPERTY TAXES AND IMMINENT DOMAIN
HILGEFORD v. PEOPLES BANK, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir.1985).
In this case, the Hilgefords filed a "land patent" which they sought to use in defense of a foreclosure action. The court wrote as follows:
(BEGIN QUOTE)
• 4. ...SOVEREIGN TITLE, which is absolute and encompasses on the part of the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY both ownership of the land and the right to govern the inhabitants thereof, IS "ALLODIAL" TITLE. This term is used IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO the term "FEE SIMPLE TITLE," which contemplates THE HIGHEST TITLE WHICH MAY BE PRIVATELY HELD. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) FEE SIMPLE TITLE MAY BE FREELY ALIENATED BY CONVEYANCE, MORTGAGE, OR DEVISE BUT STILL BE SUBJECT TO SOME CLAIM OF THE SOVEREIGN. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) In current usage, THE HOLDER OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS STILL SUBJECT TO DISPOSSESSION BY THE GOVERNMENT, through due process of law, for nonpayment of REAL ESTATE TAXES and by EMINENT DOMAIN proceedings.
The only correct premise supported by authority in the Britts' 613*613 brief is that land held by the Federal government is not subject to the acts of the States. (Cf. Gibson v. Chouteau (1871), 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534; Oregon v. McKay (D.C. Cir.1955), 226 F.2d 343.) WHAT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IS THE implicit foundation of the Britts' POSITION THAT THE LAND PATENT issued to "James Evans" and "Francis Evans" in 1841 CONVEYED THE ENTIRE TITLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH THAT NO INTEREST ARISING BY OPERATION OF STATE LAW CAN ATTACH TO THE TITLE.
• 5 A LAND PATENT IS MERELY THE DEED BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT PASSES FEE SIMPLE TITLE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS TO PRIVATE PERSONS. (63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 70 (1984).) ONCE FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS PASSED TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT, BY LAND PATENT OR OTHERWISE, CLAIMS ARISING FROM CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE BY THAT HOLDER MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST HIM. (Cf. Stark v. Starr (1876), 94 U.S. 477, 24 L.Ed. 276; United States v. Budd (1891), 144 U.S. 154, 36 L.Ed. 384; see also 63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 92 (1984).) Where, as here, a decree of foreclosure and sale has divested title from the former mortgagor, the mere fact that the mortgagor's claim of title may run directly back through his family to a 19th-century patent IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
THE ASSERTION IN THE BRITT'S BRIEF THAT THEY HOLD "FEE SIMPLE ALLODIAL TITLE" IS UNTENABLE. THE BRITTS HAVE NEVER HELD SOVEREIGN TITLE and now have been divested of their fee simple title by due process of law in the foreclosure action.
The purported "PERFECTED PATENT" filed by the Britts matches the description of similar documents filed in other States. In Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir.1986), 782 F.2d 670, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described these "NEW LAND PATENTS" in the following terms:
"People saddled with mortgages may treasure the idea of having clean title to their homes. The usual way to obtain clean title is to pay one's debts. Some have decided that it is cheaper to write a `land patent' purporting to convey unassailable title, and to file that `patent' in the recording system." 782 F.2d 670, 671.
• 6 The "NEW PATENT" or "PERFECTED PATENT" theory asserted on appeal, as it relates to the original patents, is also defeated by the estoppel effect of the foreclosure judgment. To the extent that the new theory may be construed as a separate and independent claim, it will be accorded the same treatment by this court that it has been accorded by the district courts of Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. IT IS FRIVOLOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS and should not be raised in the circuit courts of this State.
(QUOTE ENDS)
More case law available which says the same thing.
(Deleted for rule violation, no links to other forums with topics found here)
REPLY TO RON GIBSON'S CLAIMS ABOUT LAND PATENTS AND ALLODIAL TITLE
Ron Gibson claims that creating a land patent and issuing to yourself will render your land exempt from foreclosure, property taxes and emminent domain. But, this is not so.
The Law:
1. "Allodial title" means a "government-owned title" and only the sovereign government can have "allodial title". A private person can not.
2. "Allodial title" is not (and cannot be) conveyed to a private person by a land patent or otherwise.
3. The highest title a private person can be conveyed in land is "fee simple" title (which is subject to foreclosure, property taxes and imminent domain).
4. A land patent is no defense to foreclosure, property taxes or emminent domain.
WHAT EVERY COURT HAS HELD ON WHETHER A "LAND PATENT" IS AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE TO FORECLOSURE, PROPERTY TAXES AND IMMINENT DOMAIN
HILGEFORD v. PEOPLES BANK, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir.1985).
In this case, the Hilgefords filed a "land patent" which they sought to use in defense of a foreclosure action. The court wrote as follows:
(BEGIN QUOTE)
• 4. ...SOVEREIGN TITLE, which is absolute and encompasses on the part of the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY both ownership of the land and the right to govern the inhabitants thereof, IS "ALLODIAL" TITLE. This term is used IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO the term "FEE SIMPLE TITLE," which contemplates THE HIGHEST TITLE WHICH MAY BE PRIVATELY HELD. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) FEE SIMPLE TITLE MAY BE FREELY ALIENATED BY CONVEYANCE, MORTGAGE, OR DEVISE BUT STILL BE SUBJECT TO SOME CLAIM OF THE SOVEREIGN. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) In current usage, THE HOLDER OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS STILL SUBJECT TO DISPOSSESSION BY THE GOVERNMENT, through due process of law, for nonpayment of REAL ESTATE TAXES and by EMINENT DOMAIN proceedings.
The only correct premise supported by authority in the Britts' 613*613 brief is that land held by the Federal government is not subject to the acts of the States. (Cf. Gibson v. Chouteau (1871), 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534; Oregon v. McKay (D.C. Cir.1955), 226 F.2d 343.) WHAT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IS THE implicit foundation of the Britts' POSITION THAT THE LAND PATENT issued to "James Evans" and "Francis Evans" in 1841 CONVEYED THE ENTIRE TITLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH THAT NO INTEREST ARISING BY OPERATION OF STATE LAW CAN ATTACH TO THE TITLE.
• 5 A LAND PATENT IS MERELY THE DEED BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT PASSES FEE SIMPLE TITLE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS TO PRIVATE PERSONS. (63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 70 (1984).) ONCE FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS PASSED TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT, BY LAND PATENT OR OTHERWISE, CLAIMS ARISING FROM CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE BY THAT HOLDER MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST HIM. (Cf. Stark v. Starr (1876), 94 U.S. 477, 24 L.Ed. 276; United States v. Budd (1891), 144 U.S. 154, 36 L.Ed. 384; see also 63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 92 (1984).) Where, as here, a decree of foreclosure and sale has divested title from the former mortgagor, the mere fact that the mortgagor's claim of title may run directly back through his family to a 19th-century patent IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
THE ASSERTION IN THE BRITT'S BRIEF THAT THEY HOLD "FEE SIMPLE ALLODIAL TITLE" IS UNTENABLE. THE BRITTS HAVE NEVER HELD SOVEREIGN TITLE and now have been divested of their fee simple title by due process of law in the foreclosure action.
The purported "PERFECTED PATENT" filed by the Britts matches the description of similar documents filed in other States. In Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir.1986), 782 F.2d 670, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described these "NEW LAND PATENTS" in the following terms:
"People saddled with mortgages may treasure the idea of having clean title to their homes. The usual way to obtain clean title is to pay one's debts. Some have decided that it is cheaper to write a `land patent' purporting to convey unassailable title, and to file that `patent' in the recording system." 782 F.2d 670, 671.
• 6 The "NEW PATENT" or "PERFECTED PATENT" theory asserted on appeal, as it relates to the original patents, is also defeated by the estoppel effect of the foreclosure judgment. To the extent that the new theory may be construed as a separate and independent claim, it will be accorded the same treatment by this court that it has been accorded by the district courts of Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. IT IS FRIVOLOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS and should not be raised in the circuit courts of this State.
(QUOTE ENDS)
More case law available which says the same thing.
(Deleted for rule violation, no links to other forums with topics found here)
Last edited by a moderator:
snoop4truth
Newbie
- Sep 14, 2020
- 3
- 6
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
A LAND PATENT WILL NOT PROTECT YOUR LAND FROM FORECLOSURE OR TAXES
A "LAND PATENT" DOES NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH ALLODIAL TITLE AND DOES NOT EXEMPT YOUR REAL PROPERTY FROM MORTGAGE PAYMENT OBLIGATION, FORECLOSURE OR PROPERTY TAX LIABILITY.
Ron Gibson falsely claims that if you create, re-create and file a "land patent" such will render your real property exempt from foreclosure law and absolve you of the obligation to pay property taxes, etc. But, none of this is so.
A "land patent" is a document reflecting the VERY FIRST (THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY) transfer of real property from a sovereign government (only) to a private person or entity. No subsequent transfer of that same real property involves a land patent, because no further transfer of that same property will come from a sovereign government. All subsequent transfers of that real property involve an ordinary deed or bequest, not a land patent. The maximum amount of land patents for the same parcel of real property is ONE. No land patent or deed transfers real property to any private person or entity free from the risk of eminent domain (governmental taking of private property for a public purpose in exchange for "just compensation").
Likewise, no land patent or deed transfers real property free of the obligation to pay real property taxes to pay for governmental services which greatly benefit the real property owner (like the building of roads and bridges, road maintenance, and providing drainage, fire protection, police protection, public schools, water and sewage treatment, etc.). Finally, no land patent or deed makes it impossible for the owner to voluntarily encumber his/her own real property with a mortgage transferred to a lender as security for a loan that the lender makes to the owner. So, no land patent or deed can protect real property from the risk of imminent domain or exempt the real property owner from the obligation to pay property taxes and no land patent or deed can exempt real property from foreclosure laws
This is because no land patent ever conveys "allodial title" to a private person. Allodial title is the name of the type of title that ONLY A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE and a private person is not a sovereign government. A private person may only obtain fee simple title, which is ownership subject to eminent domain, property taxes, and mortgages. This is so even if the private person obtain his/her real property by a land patent direct from a sovereign government which actually does have allodial title. This is because allodial title is non-transferable to any private person. A private person cannot create, re-create or issue a land patent to anyone, much less to himself. Only a sovereign government may create and issue a land patent.
BELOW IS WHAT EVERY U.S. COURT EVER RULING ON THE SUBJECT HAS SAID ABOUT "LAND PATENTS" AND "ALLODIAL TITLE"
(BEGIN QUOTE)
• 4 THIS SOVEREIGN TITLE, which is absolute and encompasses on the part of the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY both ownership of the land and the right to govern the inhabitants thereof, IS "ALLODIAL" TITLE. This term is used IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO the term "FEE SIMPLE TITLE," which contemplates the HIGHEST TITLE WHICH MAY BE PRIVATELY HELD. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) FEE SIMPLE TITLE MAY BE FREELY ALIENATED BY CONVEYANCE, MORTGAGE, OR DEVISE BUT STILL BE SUBJECT TO SOME CLAIM OF THE SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENT]. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) In current usage, the holder of FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS STILL SUBJECT TO dispossession by the government, through due process of law, for nonpayment of REAL ESTATE TAXES and by EMINENT DOMAIN proceedings.
The only correct premise supported by authority in the Britts' 613*613 brief is that land held by the Federal government is not subject to the acts of the States. (Cf. Gibson v. Chouteau (1871), 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534; Oregon v. McKay (D.C. Cir.1955), 226 F.2d 343.) WHAT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IS THE implicit foundation of the Britts' POSITION THAT THE LAND PATENT issued to "James Evans" and "Francis Evans" in 1841 CONVEYED THE ENTIRE TITLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH THAT NO INTEREST ARISING BY OPERATION OF STATE LAW CAN ATTACH TO THE TITLE.
• 5 A LAND PATENT IS MERELY THE DEED BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT PASSES FEE SIMPLE TITLE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS TO PRIVATE PERSONS. (63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 70 (1984).) ONCE FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS PASSED TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT, BY LAND PATENT OR OTHERWISE, CLAIMS ARISING FROM CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE BY THAT HOLDER MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST HIM. (Cf. Stark v. Starr (1876), 94 U.S. 477, 24 L.Ed. 276; United States v. Budd (1891), 144 U.S. 154, 36 L.Ed. 384; see also 63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 92 (1984).) Where, as here, a decree of foreclosure and sale has divested title from the former mortgagor, the mere fact that the mortgagor's claim of title may run directly back through his family to a 19th-century patent IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
The assertion in the Britts' brief that they hold "fee simple allodial title" IS UNTENABLE. THE BRITTS HAVE NEVER HELD SOVEREIGN TITLE and now have been divested of their fee simple title by due process of law in the foreclosure action.
The purported "PERFECTED PATENT" filed by the Britts matches the description of similar documents filed in other States. In Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir.1986), 782 F.2d 670, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described these "NEW LAND PATENTS" in the following terms:
"People saddled with mortgages may treasure the idea of having clean title to their homes. The usual way to obtain clean title is to pay one's debts. Some have decided that it is cheaper to write a `land patent' purporting to convey unassailable title, and to file that `patent' in the recording system." 782 F.2d 670, 671.
• 6 The "NEW PATENT" or "PERFECTED PATENT" theory asserted on appeal, as it relates to the original patents, is also defeated by the estoppel effect of the foreclosure judgment. To the extent that the new theory may be construed as a separate and independent claim, it will be accorded the same treatment by this court that it has been accorded by the district courts of Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. IT IS FRIVOLOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS and should not be raised in the circuit courts of this State.
(END QUOTE)
Obviously, Ron Gibson never read the foregoing law on whether land patents and allodial title can be used as defenses in cases of imminent domain, property taxes and foreclosures (AND THAT IS ALL THAT COUNTS).
CONCLUSION: Land patents are completely useless and irrelevant as defenses in cases involving imminent domain, property taxes and foreclosure. A land patent is only relevant to the very first party in the chain of title. A land patent merely assures the very first private owner of the real property that no other private party has a prior or superior claim to the real property.
A "LAND PATENT" DOES NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH ALLODIAL TITLE AND DOES NOT EXEMPT YOUR REAL PROPERTY FROM MORTGAGE PAYMENT OBLIGATION, FORECLOSURE OR PROPERTY TAX LIABILITY.
Ron Gibson falsely claims that if you create, re-create and file a "land patent" such will render your real property exempt from foreclosure law and absolve you of the obligation to pay property taxes, etc. But, none of this is so.
A "land patent" is a document reflecting the VERY FIRST (THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY) transfer of real property from a sovereign government (only) to a private person or entity. No subsequent transfer of that same real property involves a land patent, because no further transfer of that same property will come from a sovereign government. All subsequent transfers of that real property involve an ordinary deed or bequest, not a land patent. The maximum amount of land patents for the same parcel of real property is ONE. No land patent or deed transfers real property to any private person or entity free from the risk of eminent domain (governmental taking of private property for a public purpose in exchange for "just compensation").
Likewise, no land patent or deed transfers real property free of the obligation to pay real property taxes to pay for governmental services which greatly benefit the real property owner (like the building of roads and bridges, road maintenance, and providing drainage, fire protection, police protection, public schools, water and sewage treatment, etc.). Finally, no land patent or deed makes it impossible for the owner to voluntarily encumber his/her own real property with a mortgage transferred to a lender as security for a loan that the lender makes to the owner. So, no land patent or deed can protect real property from the risk of imminent domain or exempt the real property owner from the obligation to pay property taxes and no land patent or deed can exempt real property from foreclosure laws
This is because no land patent ever conveys "allodial title" to a private person. Allodial title is the name of the type of title that ONLY A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE and a private person is not a sovereign government. A private person may only obtain fee simple title, which is ownership subject to eminent domain, property taxes, and mortgages. This is so even if the private person obtain his/her real property by a land patent direct from a sovereign government which actually does have allodial title. This is because allodial title is non-transferable to any private person. A private person cannot create, re-create or issue a land patent to anyone, much less to himself. Only a sovereign government may create and issue a land patent.
BELOW IS WHAT EVERY U.S. COURT EVER RULING ON THE SUBJECT HAS SAID ABOUT "LAND PATENTS" AND "ALLODIAL TITLE"
153 Ill. App.3d 605 (1987)505 N.E.2d 387GEORGE M. BRITT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL LAND BANK ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 86-0248.
Illinois Appellate Court – Second District.
Opinion filed March 11, 1987.
v.
FEDERAL LAND BANK ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 86-0248.
Illinois Appellate Court – Second District.
Opinion filed March 11, 1987.
(BEGIN QUOTE)
• 4 THIS SOVEREIGN TITLE, which is absolute and encompasses on the part of the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY both ownership of the land and the right to govern the inhabitants thereof, IS "ALLODIAL" TITLE. This term is used IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO the term "FEE SIMPLE TITLE," which contemplates the HIGHEST TITLE WHICH MAY BE PRIVATELY HELD. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) FEE SIMPLE TITLE MAY BE FREELY ALIENATED BY CONVEYANCE, MORTGAGE, OR DEVISE BUT STILL BE SUBJECT TO SOME CLAIM OF THE SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENT]. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) In current usage, the holder of FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS STILL SUBJECT TO dispossession by the government, through due process of law, for nonpayment of REAL ESTATE TAXES and by EMINENT DOMAIN proceedings.
The only correct premise supported by authority in the Britts' 613*613 brief is that land held by the Federal government is not subject to the acts of the States. (Cf. Gibson v. Chouteau (1871), 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534; Oregon v. McKay (D.C. Cir.1955), 226 F.2d 343.) WHAT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IS THE implicit foundation of the Britts' POSITION THAT THE LAND PATENT issued to "James Evans" and "Francis Evans" in 1841 CONVEYED THE ENTIRE TITLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH THAT NO INTEREST ARISING BY OPERATION OF STATE LAW CAN ATTACH TO THE TITLE.
• 5 A LAND PATENT IS MERELY THE DEED BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT PASSES FEE SIMPLE TITLE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS TO PRIVATE PERSONS. (63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 70 (1984).) ONCE FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS PASSED TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT, BY LAND PATENT OR OTHERWISE, CLAIMS ARISING FROM CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE BY THAT HOLDER MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST HIM. (Cf. Stark v. Starr (1876), 94 U.S. 477, 24 L.Ed. 276; United States v. Budd (1891), 144 U.S. 154, 36 L.Ed. 384; see also 63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 92 (1984).) Where, as here, a decree of foreclosure and sale has divested title from the former mortgagor, the mere fact that the mortgagor's claim of title may run directly back through his family to a 19th-century patent IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
The assertion in the Britts' brief that they hold "fee simple allodial title" IS UNTENABLE. THE BRITTS HAVE NEVER HELD SOVEREIGN TITLE and now have been divested of their fee simple title by due process of law in the foreclosure action.
The purported "PERFECTED PATENT" filed by the Britts matches the description of similar documents filed in other States. In Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir.1986), 782 F.2d 670, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described these "NEW LAND PATENTS" in the following terms:
"People saddled with mortgages may treasure the idea of having clean title to their homes. The usual way to obtain clean title is to pay one's debts. Some have decided that it is cheaper to write a `land patent' purporting to convey unassailable title, and to file that `patent' in the recording system." 782 F.2d 670, 671.
• 6 The "NEW PATENT" or "PERFECTED PATENT" theory asserted on appeal, as it relates to the original patents, is also defeated by the estoppel effect of the foreclosure judgment. To the extent that the new theory may be construed as a separate and independent claim, it will be accorded the same treatment by this court that it has been accorded by the district courts of Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. IT IS FRIVOLOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS and should not be raised in the circuit courts of this State.
(END QUOTE)
Obviously, Ron Gibson never read the foregoing law on whether land patents and allodial title can be used as defenses in cases of imminent domain, property taxes and foreclosures (AND THAT IS ALL THAT COUNTS).
CONCLUSION: Land patents are completely useless and irrelevant as defenses in cases involving imminent domain, property taxes and foreclosure. A land patent is only relevant to the very first party in the chain of title. A land patent merely assures the very first private owner of the real property that no other private party has a prior or superior claim to the real property.
snoop4truth
Newbie
- Sep 14, 2020
- 3
- 6
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
A COMPETITOR OF RON GIBSON JUST GOT 20 YEARS FOR SAYING WHAT RON GIBSON SAYS NOW
WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT LAND PATENTS. (PROOF THAT NO ONE HAS EVER SHOWN YOU BEFORE)
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/m...ison/509-fa5933ca-b548-4043-bcca-56216712d77e .
https://www.complaintsboard.com/lar...red-to-protect-homes-from-foreclosure-c426807 .
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...ail-for-contempt-of-court-20131126-story.html. ...
BEGIN AT 65% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c1efadd7b049347bc655. ...
BEGIN AT 40% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ak-supreme-court/1730202.html. ...
BEGIN AT 50% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://casetext.com/case/flores-v-wells-fargo-bank-5. ...
BEGIN AT 40% THROUGH THE TEXT.. https://stc.mo.gov/legal/ray-baldwin-v-jody-paschal-assessor-callaway-county/. ...
WASHINGTON STATE. https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions...ion-allodial-ownership-property-tax-liability. ...
OHIO. https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/56f887ab-6fed-43d0-8189-ffe4c59711c7/1986-006.aspx. ...
FLORIDA. https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/D1F29E1BB8E97359852578B10078216F. ...
ARKANSAS. https://casetext.com/case/opinion-no-21092. ...
LAW REVIEW ARTICLE. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/pub...from-foreclosure-36-drake-l-rev-561-583-1988/. ...
CROSS-REFERENCED CASE LAW. https://www.casemine.com/search/us/"land+patent". ; ...
WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT LAND PATENTS. (PROOF THAT NO ONE HAS EVER SHOWN YOU BEFORE)
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/m...ison/509-fa5933ca-b548-4043-bcca-56216712d77e .
https://www.complaintsboard.com/lar...red-to-protect-homes-from-foreclosure-c426807 .
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...ail-for-contempt-of-court-20131126-story.html. ...
BEGIN AT 65% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c1efadd7b049347bc655. ...
BEGIN AT 40% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ak-supreme-court/1730202.html. ...
BEGIN AT 50% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://casetext.com/case/flores-v-wells-fargo-bank-5. ...
BEGIN AT 40% THROUGH THE TEXT.. https://stc.mo.gov/legal/ray-baldwin-v-jody-paschal-assessor-callaway-county/. ...
WASHINGTON STATE. https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions...ion-allodial-ownership-property-tax-liability. ...
OHIO. https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/56f887ab-6fed-43d0-8189-ffe4c59711c7/1986-006.aspx. ...
FLORIDA. https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/D1F29E1BB8E97359852578B10078216F. ...
ARKANSAS. https://casetext.com/case/opinion-no-21092. ...
LAW REVIEW ARTICLE. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/pub...from-foreclosure-36-drake-l-rev-561-583-1988/. ...
CROSS-REFERENCED CASE LAW. https://www.casemine.com/search/us/"land+patent". ; ...
At least one land owner used a land patent to prevent the State of Ca. from taken their land under eminent domain.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/466/198.html
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/466/198.html
If you read the case Joseph you will see that the patent was granted by Spain in 1831 and the State of California was trying to overturn the terms of the patent grant after having neglected to challenge it when it had the ability to do so during the patent adjudication process by the United States in 1853.
The Summa case was not about eminent domain. The State of California was claiming a right to a "public trust easement" because it encompassed a portion of the coastal waters. They specifically did so to avoid raising the issue of eminent domain (you will find that fact in the first paragraph of the Supreme Court opinion you linked to).
Normally California would have a right to that public trust easement but the Spanish patent grant did not recognize that set of rights. When California could have retained that right was during the U.S. patent adjudication but they never bothered to respond or show up for the hearing so the patent adjudicator left the right to easements with the Spanish grant.
Here's the thing. The Spanish laws, which the patent was created under, specifically reserved the right to control easements to the patent owner (Summa Corp). If your patent grant from the United States specifically granted you the right, over the state, to control easements or be exempt from eminent domain unlike other private property it would say so on it's face (some do). But U.S. issued patents don't normally have that provision, in fact U.S. issued land patents immediately become private property in the State in which they are situated, on the same footing and the same legal status as other private property. Those land patents are based on U.S. law - not Spanish law.
Think for just a moment where all the private property outside of the original 13 colonies came from. That's right - nearly all of that private land was created by land patents issued by the U.S. - more than 99% of non federal lands that are now privately owned were once managed by the U.S. as public lands. In excess of 6 million land patents created the private and state land ownership we have today.
The thing about land patents is there can only be one patent for each parcel of land. There is no way to recreate or "bring forward" that original patent. Either you are a direct successor or assign to the original patent or you have no legal right to the patent. Often house "owners" under this system actually only own the rights to a portion of the beneficial use of the property. Although your beneficial uses may be described in part by a legal land description this in no way means you own all the rights in the land. For instance seldom are mineral or water rights included in the sale of attachments to the land (attachments are legally known as "real estate").
In the case you cite Summa Corp never sold or relinquished their rights to control easements across their patent. That's what the case was about. That's why Summa won. It had nothing to do with eminent domain and everything to do with California missing the deadline (by 130 years) to assert their rights as a state. With patents, once they are granted, there are no do-overs even for the State of California.
And that is why the Supreme Court ruling in Summa was:
Heavy Pans
russau
Gold Member
If only he had done a little more "research" into this document ! Thankyou again Barry !
Family Farmer
Newbie
- Dec 18, 2022
- 4
- 0
I'm curious, have you read Ron Gibson's book and researched the case law that he references? I'm also wondering about the 'supposed' County process to always have taxes paid one year late, such that the County can place a lien on the property which provides 'legal' leverage. The issue of sovereign ownership and usage is so critical at this time because of the evidence that people are being stripped of their rights of connection to land. I would like to hear more opinions of law that balance the opinions of the legal society (think BAR judges and attorneys). If the Law of Mankind is supreme to the BAR legal society, how does that effect this debate of rights of the sovereign living man or woman?
Once a real property is registered with the tax authority you really have no complaint. Purchasing real estate that has already been registered with the tax authority will always result in taxable property. If you didn't know that when you purchased the real estate it's because you didn't read the deed restrictions. It's clear in the deed and the mortgage docs that you are purchasing an ongoing tax liability.
I do know of land thst is not registered with any tax authority and not a subject of property tax. Once you sign up for the benefit of taxes that tax obligation attaches to the property (not the owner). You can't have it both ways.
I do know of land thst is not registered with any tax authority and not a subject of property tax. Once you sign up for the benefit of taxes that tax obligation attaches to the property (not the owner). You can't have it both ways.
Family Farmer
Newbie
- Dec 18, 2022
- 4
- 0
If what you state here is fact, why are banks reluctant to finance land purchases, or property that is held by a land grant?
If you read a land grant document that is registered with the Bureau of Land Management, it states that the title is attached to the heirs and assigns of the original named individual. Why do you claim that the patent only applies to the original individual?
It seems that there is a lot more to this situation then you are revealing?
Family Farmer
Newbie
- Dec 18, 2022
- 4
- 0
Is it land or is it 'real estate' that is registered?
Where is the code, acts, or statutes that support the un-reversible adhesion of taxes to property? I'd like to research this legal claim.
And, are these claims sourced just from the legal society (BAR) , or do they apply to the law of mankind as well?
Thanks for sharing your time and wisdom.
Real estate is what's being taxed. Real estate are the attachments to the land. The land itself is never taxed but the value of beneficial use of the land, including real estate, is taxed.
Banks can't finance land purchases without equal collateral because with bare land there is no property or real estate to foreclose on. Land itself is not appraised for taxes, the potential beneficial use of the land is appraised and taxed. Imagine a bank trying to finance the potential for beneficial use of land much less trying to repossess the beneficial use. That's not gonna happen.
These laws are clear and available to the public. The obligation is also clearly spelled out in your deed. This isn't a secret. So research the "legal claim" as you call it. The law is available to all, it's free and it's republican in nature. If you ever want proof of a law just look it up.
p.s. Most states have a voluntary BAR association. It's a voluntary club for lawyers in most states. Not much different than any other professional organization. Some states have mandatory BAR associations and a few states have put their BAR association in charge of approving legal liscensing . Every state has different rules. Before you ask - NO I have never belonged to any BAR association.
Banks can't finance land purchases without equal collateral because with bare land there is no property or real estate to foreclose on. Land itself is not appraised for taxes, the potential beneficial use of the land is appraised and taxed. Imagine a bank trying to finance the potential for beneficial use of land much less trying to repossess the beneficial use. That's not gonna happen.
These laws are clear and available to the public. The obligation is also clearly spelled out in your deed. This isn't a secret. So research the "legal claim" as you call it. The law is available to all, it's free and it's republican in nature. If you ever want proof of a law just look it up.
p.s. Most states have a voluntary BAR association. It's a voluntary club for lawyers in most states. Not much different than any other professional organization. Some states have mandatory BAR associations and a few states have put their BAR association in charge of approving legal liscensing . Every state has different rules. Before you ask - NO I have never belonged to any BAR association.
Last edited:
Family Farmer
Newbie
- Dec 18, 2022
- 4
- 0
Thanks so much for your reply.Real estate is what's being taxed. Real estate are the attachments to the land. The land itself is never taxed but the value of beneficial use of the land, including real estate, is taxed.
Banks can't finance land purchases without equal collateral because with bare land there is no property or real estate to foreclose on. Land itself is not appraised for taxes, the potential beneficial use of the land is appraised and taxed. Imagine a bank trying to finance the potential for beneficial use of land much less trying to repossess the beneficial use. That's not gonna happen.
These laws are clear and available to the public. The obligation is also clearly spelled out in your deed. This isn't a secret. So research the "legal claim" as you call it. The law is available to all, it's free and it's republican in nature. If you ever want proof of a law just look it up.
p.s. Most states have a voluntary BAR association. It's a voluntary club for lawyers in most states. Not much different than any other professional organization. Some states have mandatory BAR associations and a few states have put their BAR association in charge of approving legal liscensing . Every state has different rules. Before you ask - NO I have never belonged to any BAR association.
This distinction is important in light of your prior comments. I have witnessed people believing statements that don't provide distinctions, i.e. they collapse all the facts into one mess and thereby confuse the truth of the matter.
With deeds, there are many forms and various rights, privileges, and responsibilities are contained in each, so I profoundly agree with your 'suggestion' to read one's deed.
As with many debated issues, most of the 'debate' can be settled with due diligence and good scholarship.
On another note, have you pursued the issue of titles and jurisdiction?
And finally, thanks for not being a member of the legal society BAR.
Hello,
I am new here and appreciate this thread of conversation. My question: Can you please clarify what you mean by knowing "of land that is not registered with any tax authority and not a subject of property tax"? Is it possible to purchase this kind of land? If so, how? Thank you so much!
So to clarify... do you mean: When purchasing raw land (no water well, electricity), this is not considered real estate and so the raw land is never taxed? But when adding a beneficial use, like a well or electricity, then it would be taxed? Would adding a house or some sort of dwelling or an RV be considered a beneficial use if there is no well or electricity there? Thank you!
The beneficial use of land is in your local tax code. Raw land is not taxed but it's potential for beneficial use is taxed. The fact that you have not developed any of the beneficial uses does not change the potential. Many beneficial uses are not taxable as property but some are so taxes are lowest on "undeveloped" land.
Your local tax authority relies on this theory - If the land could be used for raising goats or growing corn or building houses (zoning) there is a potential for beneficial use. The tax authority taxes you on the basis of what could be since the land has the potential to produce. The fact that you are not using the land for those uses doesn't change the fact that they consider there to be a potential for use.
Real estate are the attachments to land. Growing goats or corn is not an attachment to the land and is only taxed on the end sale of the goats or corn and doesn't change your Real Estate value. Just goats or corn and the taxes remain the same. However if you build a goat barn that is an attachment to the land and is taxed as real estate. What you are calling "improvements" are actually the attachment of real estate to the land. Real estate is taxable, there is a full schedule of how real estate of various sorts is taxed at your local tax authority.
There are many tax authorities associated with a single piece of land. A state, county or city may tax your beneficial potential or actual real estate but other tax authorities rely on bonding for their tax authority. Creations like fire, water, sewer, school and community improvement districts all get their tax authority from the bonding authority authorized through local elections.
When the land owners in a district vote for a school bond, for example, they are providing a lien on their real property as collateral for the bond (loan). That bond has to be paid back with interest or your real property may be seized by the bond issuer.
When you buy land or real estate, whether improved or not, the various bond liens and tax arrears are spelled out in your title. These taxes are all collected in arrears so there is no way to pay them off on your property alone. When you buy property in a tax district you are committing to pay those taxes for as long as you own the land or until the bonds are paid off. It's all right there in your title.
p.s. This talk of land and real estate gets confusing but it might help if you realize that most real estate sold in the United States only includes the beneficial residential use of the land and does not transfer title to the subsurface land. When you buy a house, in most instances, you have no right to the soil or water within your residential boundary. You only have a right to what is called subsurface support - the use of the land to hold up your house and other attached real estate. Often those subsurface rights are owned by an individual or are held by the developer.
Your local tax authority relies on this theory - If the land could be used for raising goats or growing corn or building houses (zoning) there is a potential for beneficial use. The tax authority taxes you on the basis of what could be since the land has the potential to produce. The fact that you are not using the land for those uses doesn't change the fact that they consider there to be a potential for use.
Real estate are the attachments to land. Growing goats or corn is not an attachment to the land and is only taxed on the end sale of the goats or corn and doesn't change your Real Estate value. Just goats or corn and the taxes remain the same. However if you build a goat barn that is an attachment to the land and is taxed as real estate. What you are calling "improvements" are actually the attachment of real estate to the land. Real estate is taxable, there is a full schedule of how real estate of various sorts is taxed at your local tax authority.
There are many tax authorities associated with a single piece of land. A state, county or city may tax your beneficial potential or actual real estate but other tax authorities rely on bonding for their tax authority. Creations like fire, water, sewer, school and community improvement districts all get their tax authority from the bonding authority authorized through local elections.
When the land owners in a district vote for a school bond, for example, they are providing a lien on their real property as collateral for the bond (loan). That bond has to be paid back with interest or your real property may be seized by the bond issuer.
When you buy land or real estate, whether improved or not, the various bond liens and tax arrears are spelled out in your title. These taxes are all collected in arrears so there is no way to pay them off on your property alone. When you buy property in a tax district you are committing to pay those taxes for as long as you own the land or until the bonds are paid off. It's all right there in your title.
p.s. This talk of land and real estate gets confusing but it might help if you realize that most real estate sold in the United States only includes the beneficial residential use of the land and does not transfer title to the subsurface land. When you buy a house, in most instances, you have no right to the soil or water within your residential boundary. You only have a right to what is called subsurface support - the use of the land to hold up your house and other attached real estate. Often those subsurface rights are owned by an individual or are held by the developer.
Thank you Clay. So to clarify, 1) When purchasing a property that is foreclosed or otherwise and there are back taxes not payed on it, I would have to pay those back taxes? 2) How does one find out if bonds are instilled and not payed off? This might be a decisive factor in purchasing or not. 3) When you say, "School bond" are you talking about levies in the local elections? 4) How does one transfer title to the subsurface land when purchasing property? 5) How does one get the right to the soil and water? I understand that a creek flowing through has limitations due to down flow onto another property. Thank you!
Top Member Reactions
-
2704 -
1994 -
1644 -
1575 -
1203 -
1011 -
971 -
884 -
870 -
847 -
664 -
509 -
444 -
428 -
413 -
392 -
384 -
368 -
E
352
-
313
