So How Do You Own Property?

[palani]

I ran across this is the U.S. Code and it gives one pause to reflect just what ones status actually is.

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1982 Prev | Next

§ 1982. Property rights of citizens
Release date: 2005-12-27

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

Found here --- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/se...2----000-.html ---

If nobody has a right to own property does that equate to everyone having the same right (i.e., none at all)? Are you a white citizen or a U.S. citizen? Evidently it is not possible to be both by the construction of this paragraph. If you were both you would have a double right, wouldn't you? JRB, Shoonra, IDOKNOW, help!!!

[rentiap]

No I am not one of the ones mentioned above. AS IF!

Your first question to ask yourself is weather you are one of the People or if you have volunteered to be a second class citizen.Hmmm. 13th amendment.
If you are a citizen then all or those codes and regs. apply to you.
If you are a People then none of those apply.....

Than take a look at the fifth amendment of the constitution!

Cheers,
Craig.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by palani

[cut]

[ ], IDOKNOW, help!!!

i think i'm insulted! LOL

Originally Posted by palani

I ran across this is the U.S. Code and it gives one pause to reflect just what ones status actually is.



Found here --- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/se...2----000-.html ---

If nobody has a right to own property does that equate to everyone having the same right (i.e., none at all)? Are you a white citizen or a U.S. citizen? Evidently it is not possible to be both by the construction of this paragraph. If you were both you would have a double right, wouldn't you? JRB, Shoonra, IDOKNOW, help!!!

Likewise, I am not one of those in which you have requested a response from,, but oh well.. I will take a shot at it anyway.

IMHO, I believe this passage of statutory construction that you have cited, is at best, an attempt to place the voluntary 14th amendment citizens on the same level as the sovereign. Only a sovereign can OWN land. Take heed of the term OWN.. which implies holding true and un-challengeable TITLE to the land.

Roughly 98% of the land within the continental USofA is patented land, and is still listed within the BLM under the name of the TRUE title holder. When the land was patented, the USofA ceded their right to the land unless the patent stipulated particular reservations made by the USofA. That same land you are living on, presuming you are not living on land that was not patented, patented and is under equity jurisdiction based upon a mortgage. A mortgage is an inferrior right to usage as compared to the land patent. Anyone within the chain of mortgage holders or heirs to the property could conceivably claim the land through process and conceivably re-claim the land.

To prove my point. If there is a mortgage on your house (not land), inquire with your mortgage company company whether or not a TRUE title to the land is going to be issued to you upon completion of the required payments on the mortgage. They will undoubted attempt to pursuade you that the certificate of ownership is the title.. but the supreme court has stipulated otherwise... stating in numerous cases that the patent is the supreme proof of ownership. The mortgage company can no more issue you a TRUE title than I could. They do not have the TITLE and do not have the authority to issue a Patent. You have been hoodwinked into believing the mortgage company in their claim of ownership authorizing them the ability to sale the property. They (the mortgage company/title company) and you are at best in adverse possession of the land.

You want the land free and clear... ??? You definitely have a long and arduous legal battle ahead of you. I wish you the best of luck.

Jerry.

[palani]

Jerry

Good description of what is going on.

Actually, I am not after ownership of land free and clear. Sounds like a nice concept but the state has too many guns and, just like drivers licenses and tags on cars, they can't afford to let property tax get away. I think I would prefer to be called a caretaker rather than an owner anyway.

No, the reason I asked for input from the more rational members (at least in their own minds) is to see how they would be able to rationalize the US Code section cited. The silence is certainly loud from that quadrant of the bulletin board.

I forgot to mention this in my prior post, but there is still another proof that the mortgage/title company is not the holder in due course is this simple fact.

If you look at the warranty deed itself, you will find a clause wherein the mortgage/title company is requiring the seller of the property to defend the title against all claims. So if you were the alleged owner of property and you decided to sell, and sold through a realty company, you would be requirred to defend the title against any and all claims that could be raised against the title. But who ever reads a contract prior to signing it... it is always "hurry up and sign.. oh that,, that is just a formality and has no real impact..." Of course, the purchaser as well as the seller are always eager to make the necessary arrangements so that business can continue as usual.

There is a parcel of land here in florida, which I have a certified true copy of the original Patent, in which I am an heir. The property was patented under the homestead act, and as such, stipulations were made in the homestead act as to how, when, and why the land could be sold.... and specifically states "and for no other reason." I am at this point attempting to find a way in which to remove the land from any equity status that may be held on it. I have contacted the property appraisor of that county, and he openly admitted - with stammering tongue - "uh uh uh that means that there will be no property tax on it." To which I simply stated with a smile on my face... 'that is correct'. He knows, or at least realizes that the hayday for that property has numbered days.

Jerry.

[palani]

I would say that the clause you mention represents a chain from one seller to the next. If you received a warranty deed from someone they would also be required to pay to defend their title. So in a way you are only being required to defend your title for the time you possess the property.

If you had bought the property at a sheriffs' auction or through a quit claim deed and are trying to sell it on a warranty deed you are taking on a lot more liability.

As to how to remove the property from an equity relationship with the state, ask the county tax dept for how much is owed, go with three witnesses to the sheriffs office with postal money orders in that amount and a quit claim deed for him to sign. If he refuses have the witnesses sign statements to that effect and record them. If he signs the quit claim record that. However, as you mentioned previously, do you personally have the status to own property? And are you using services provided by the state that will suck you right back into a lesser status?

I think it might be advisable to take on the personal status correction issue before getting into the property issue.

[REDCLOUD]

This was originally part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and deals with civil rights and property owneship absed upon race discrimination. It was directed at what were called black codes. The US code has been updated. If you read on in SUBCHAPTER I and Sec. 1980 you will see how it has been changed.

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1982 Prev | Next

§ 1982. Property rights of citizens
Release date: 2005-12-27

All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.

Here is the original.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed by one vote over President Andrew Johnson's veto, granted full citizenship to all persons born on American soil, except Native Americans who were exempt from taxation. The law gave former slaves the rights to own property, enforce contracts, and give evidence in courts--rights not specifically guaranteed in the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Act of April 9, 1866

An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Most of these provisons have been spread to many other parts of the Code.

If nobody has a right to own property does that equate to everyone having the same right (i.e., none at all)? Are you a white citizen or a U.S. citizen? Evidently it is not possible to be both by the construction of this paragraph. If you were both you would have a double right, wouldn't you? JRB, Shoonra, IDOKNOW, help!!!

If you were black (Negroe was then the term), you were, in fact, not a citizen, and could not hold property. You were property. Only white citizens could hold property prior to this, including title to black people known as slaves. A great war was fought over this called the Civil War. Full civil rights were not reached until 1968 and have only recently become widespread.

Originally Posted by palani

I would say that the clause you mention represents a chain from one seller to the next. If you received a warranty deed from someone they would also be required to pay to defend their title. So in a way you are only being required to defend your title for the time you possess the property.

Regarding your last sentence: The seller(grantor) of the property is the one that is responsible for defending the title. See attached sample from Florida, Holmes county,, note.. the grantor in said document is not related to me in any way that I am aware of, and the document is a matter of public record.

Originally Posted by palani

If you had bought the property at a sheriffs' auction or through a quit claim deed and are trying to sell it on a warranty deed you are taking on a lot more liability.

As to how to remove the property from an equity relationship with the state, ask the county tax dept for how much is owed, go with three witnesses to the sheriffs office with postal money orders in that amount and a quit claim deed for him to sign. If he refuses have the witnesses sign statements to that effect and record them. If he signs the quit claim record that. However, as you mentioned previously, do you personally have the status to own property? And are you using services provided by the state that will suck you right back into a lesser status?

Your above, is under the presumption that the property is being sold as the result of a tax issue and therefore the tax matter must be resolved. In the particular instance I am referring to, it is simply a matter of the various mortgages being attached to appurtenances on the land. It is really a sticky situation, as the inhabitants (tenents) would no longer have any right or claim to the title to the land, yet they would still be allowed to remain on the land and still be responsible for the mortgages in which they have committed themselves.

Originally Posted by palani

I think it might be advisable to take on the personal status correction issue before getting into the property issue.

My personal status issue is not an issue with regard to the land issue. I am who I am and the people within the community are well acquainted with the family name and history. The State authorities have already committed to saying that they have no vested interest in the land, based upon the fact that there is a recorded Federal Land Patent dating back to 1892.

Jerry.

OOOPS... I forgot to add the attachment.

Jerry