Onemaster,



What you might also notice if you re-read those citations carefully, in one the court was saying-" a "land patent" which he <u><u><font color=red>drafted[/color]</u></u>", and in the other, they describe-""<u><font color=red>new land patents[/color]</u>", and "<u><font color=red>drafting[/color]</u> and signing a "federal land patent"-, as well as "Argued that <u><font color=red>creation[/color]</u> of land patents required that the bank return foreclosed property ",and yet another"Some have decided that it is cheaper to <u><font color=red>write[/color] </u>a 'land patent' purporting to convey unassailable title"<font color=red>[/color]---Reading it that way, it would appear that what the court might be doing is to confuse the issue, so as to rule on it adversely. The fact that these individuals created new documents, rather than make the existing patents current, and assert thier claim as an heir or assign,which is the proper way to asssert the patent as I understand it. One would have to read the cases and see the evidence, before he could be sure that the process was done properly. As these are inferior court rulings, it is not outside the realm of possiblity that these rulings are specifically intended to dissuade others from properly applying the process. They mention Vexaious litigation, which Mr. Cornforth described in his seminar, as bringing the same case before the court, 5 or more times within the same calendar year. By labeling it vexaious, it gives them a way out so they won't have to deal with it . I may be way off base on this, but it seems awful fishy that they would so easily rule to contradict what the Supreme court has decided numerous times.