More great info... and timely too !
Another BIG thumbs up BT...
Thank you once again !...
BT's on
<font color=red>FIRE [/color] !!
For HIS Glory,
Akira
P.S. Cites (unverified) taken from a
link on the site BT posted... (was cut/pasting anyway.. )
Legitimate national obligations (compliance with international treaties and extinguishment of Indian occupancy) have been discharged so that national "interest" in the property can be quitclaimed;
The courts held that the operation of a patent as a deed was of the nature of a quitclaim to any interest as the United States possessed in the land; Beard v. Federy, 70 U.S. 478, 3 Wall, 478, 18 L.Ed.88.
A patent to land of the United States constituted a full conveyance of title out of the United States; McArthur v. Brue, 67 So. 249, 250, 190 Ala. 563.
The issuance of a patent divested the government of all authority and control over the land; Moore v. Robbins, Ill. 96 U.S. 530, 24 L.Ed. 848.
A patent passes to the patentee all interest of the United States, whatever it may have been, in everything connected with the soil and in fact everything embraced within the meaning of the term "land"; Damon v. Hawaii, 194 US 154, 48 L.Ed 916, 24 S.Ct. 617; Energy Transp. Systems, Inc. v. Union P. R. Co., (DC Wyo) 435 F.Supp 313, 60 OGR 427, affd (CA10 Wyo) 606 F2d 934, 65 OGR 576; Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal 199; Hamilton v. Badgett, 293 Mo 324, 240 SW 214; Crawford Co, V. Hathaway, 67 Nob 325, 93 NW 781 (ovrid on other grounds Wassburger v. Coffee, 180 Neb 149, 141 NW2d 738, adhered to 180 Neb 569, 144 NW2d 209.
That all disputes concerning possessory rights have been adjudicated in (State) court;
For example, Section 34 of the Mining Act of May 10, 1872 (concerning challenges to an application for patent) states:
"It shall be the duty of the adverse claimant, within thirty days after filing his claim, to commence proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, to determine the question of the right of possession, and prosecute the same with reasonable diligence to a final judgement; and a failure so to do shall be a waiver of his adverse claim. After such judgement shall have been rendered, the party entitled to the possession of the claim, or any portion thereof, may, without giving further notice, file a certified copy of the judgement roll with the register of the land office, together with the certificate of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management [that federal statutory requirements for labor, description and fees have been met] whereupon the whole proceedings and the judgement roll shall be certified by the register to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and a patent shall issue thereon for the claim, or such portion thereof as the applicant shall appear, from the decision of the court, to rightly possess..."
That any statutory requirements of "proving up" and paying any claim fees have been met.
Once requirements are met by the claimant, issuance of a patent is not discretionary.
Once the federal patent requirements are satisfied, and there is no question of legitimate national interest in respect to treaties or trusts, the BLM is compelled to issue a patent to a claimant in rightful possession. For instance, Pittsburgh-Pacific Corporation applied for patents to a dozen claims in the Black Hills National Forest, upon which it asserted a discovery of iron ore. At the request of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management challenged the existence of a discovery. When the contest came before the Interior's Board of Land Appeals, the State of South Dakota participated and argued that the Bureau must prepare and environmental impact statement on the patent application. The board held the EIS was not required because patent issuance is not discretionary once Mining Law requirements have been met. [United States v. Pittsburgh-Pacific, 84 I.D. 282, (1977); Confirmed South Dakota v. Andrus, 462 F. Supp. 905, D.S.D.(1978); aff'd. 614 F.2d 1190, 8th Cir, cert. denied 449 U.S. 222 (1980.)]
Once a land patent is issued, it stands as the highest evidence of legal title.
A patent to land is the judgment of the Land Department and the conveyance of the title in execution of it to the party adjudged entitled, and, when the land described was in the jurisdiction and subject to the disposition of the Land Department, it is impervious to collateral attack; Neff v. United States, 165 F. 273, 277, 91 C.C.A. 241.
A patent is recognized as the highest evidence of title, conclusive against the government and all claiming under junior patents or treaties until it set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal; United States v. Mullan, 10 F. 785, 792; Bayner v. Stanly, 13 F. 217, 223.
If other parties possess equities superior to those of the patentee, a court of equity will, on proper proceedings, enforce such equities; but in an action in the federal court in which the legal title is involved, the patent when regular on its surface is conclusive; Redfield v. Parks, 10 S.Ct. 83, 88, 132 U.S. 239, 33 L.Ed.327.
After issuance of a patent, any subsequent claim of the United States to titles therein or other disputes between private claimants must be determined by the courts; U.S. v. McKenzie County, North Dakota, D.C.N.D., 187 F.Supp., 470 affirmed Murray v. U.S., 291 F.2d 161.
Suits to cancel a patent could only be brought within the statute of limitations, except for actions brought by the U.S. government (1) to recover the value of lands fraudulently obtained; (2) to construe and enforce a patent as construed; and (3) to impress a trust of the lands for the rightful owner - U.S. v. Whited, 38 S.Ct. 367, 246 U.S. 552, 62 L.Ed. 879; Issac Walton League of America v. St. Claire, D.C. Minn, 55 F.R.D. 139, affirmed 497 F 2d. 849, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 329, 419 U.S. 1009, 42 L.Ed.2d 284.
The expression "patent," used in Act of March 3, 1891, Section 8, 43 U.S.C.A. Section 1166, requiring suits to annul patents to be brought within six years after issuance, means a grant of land from the government. (United States v. La Roque, 198 F. 615, 648, 117 C.C.A. 349.)
A suit to cancel a patent must be brought by the United States, and, unless by virtue of an act of Congress, no one but the attorney general or someone authorized to use his name, can initiate the proceeding, (U.S. - U.S. v. Throckmorton, Cal. 98 U.S. 61, 25 L. Ed. 93.)
A patent conveying land which was a part of the public domain cannot be attacked or impeached by a person having no interest in the land, (U.S. - Roberts v. Southern Pacific Co., 185 P. 934, affirmed 219 1022, 134 C.C.A. 685; see also Issac Walton League v. St. Claire.) Such a patent is subject to impeachment only by the United States, or its grantee, (Idaho - Johnson v. Hurst, 77 P. 784, 10 Idaho 308,) or a person who has succeeded to its rights, (Utah - Ferry V. Street, 7 P. 712, 11 P. 571, 4 Utah 521,) or by a person who was defrauded or deprived of his rights by the issuance of a patent to another, (Cal. - Mery V. Brodt, 53 P. 818, 121 Cal. 332.).
A slightly different quote of Summa than yours above...
"if it is not in the patent proceedings {Patent proceedings consist of the patent and the acts of congress that are on the patent} it shall be barred" Summa v California; 466 U.S. 198 (1984)
If your U.S. Land Patent has no such covenants, then :
"Owner is free to do with his property what he wills, absent criminal intent, constitutional limitations, or liability for tortuous activities in connection therewith. "Michael ANNUNZIATA v Larry MILLER; 241 NJ. Super. 275" (Feb. 14, 1990)
The only place covenants, reservations, conditions and conditions can be put on the land is in the land patent. All others are a collateral attack on the patent. "U.S. v Coronado Beach. 255 U.S. 472. ( Decided March 28, 1921)
U S v. DETROIT TIMBER & LUMBER CO., 200 U.S. 321 (1906)
This is a good case for for land patents. This is the start of many cases to come.
Stella Hughes v. State of Washington 389 US 290 (1967)
The U.S. Land Patent prevails over State Constitution. Property rights are paramount. Not only does the U. S. Constitution protect property rights but, the laws of the Federal Government do also.
SUMMA v. CALIFORNIA. 466 U.S. 198 (1984)
This case is very strong on the U.S. Land Patent. "must have been presented in the patent proceedings or barred". Patent proceedings consist of the patent and all the acts of congress mentioned on the patent. All patents have one or more acts of congress. If you have viewed the land patents in this cite you would note, they have many covenants. These patents can be used as exhibits. If your patent has no covenants then. "Owner is free to do with his property what he wills, absent criminal intent, constitutional limitations, or liability for tortuous activities in connection therewith". (214 N.J. Super. 275. Feb 14, 1990) The covenants run with the land. But only those that are in the patent proceedings.
California Oregon Power v. Beaver Portland cement. 295 U. S. 142 (1935)
This case has to do with the Desert Land Act. Under the Desert Land Act, As the owners of the public domain, the government possessed the power to dispose of land and water thereon together or separately.
U. S.v. Coronado Beach Co, 255 U.S. 427 (1921)
This patent like all patents can not collaterally attacked. It is spelled out it "can not be changed from the original".
United States v. James Jim 409 U. S. 80 (1972)
Jim explains several things about the land patent.
CASS COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ET AL . v. LEECH LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
This U. S. Supreme Court case will take some time to read and comprehend. This is a thought-provoking land patent case. Chances are when you finish reading there will be some unanswered questions. You may want to read the Summa v. California 466 U. S. 198 (1984). "must have been presented in the patent proceedings or be barred".
United States v. Beggerly No. 97-731 (1998 )
The news media has kept this one quiet. This has to do with land in Louisiana. Beggerly applied for a copy of the land patent, to Horn Island he had bought at a tax sale from the state of Louisiana in 1950. He paid $51.20 for 625-acre tract. The B.L.M. did not come forth with the Land Patent to the property. The court ruled against Beggerly. Later Beggerly pressed the issue of the land patent. It was finally found. He opened the case, presented the patent to the court. the first case was over ruled in his favor. The patent was issued prior to state hood. The State acquired NO jurisdiction over the land at the time the Territory became a state. The treaty was in place. Treaties prevail. Now irony of this story is that the state of Louisiana had laid a, unlawful tax on the land, The land patent is a contract between the patentee and the U.S. "Article 1 sec 10 shall pass no Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"
So the short of the story is, if an heir to the person who lost the land to the State of Louisiana comes forward and files ejectment action in federal court Mr. Beggerly could lose the island.
[/color]
