Land Patents

[gregtu]

"Land Patents are issues (and theoretically passed) between Sovereigns. Deeds

are executed by 'persons' and private corporations without these sovereign

powers." -- Leading Fighter vs. County of Gregory, 230 N.W.2d. 114.116 (1975)

Ohhhh Man. Thank you for that.



I am in a situation that I needed that information!



HB

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b] There is someone who is fairly new to the forum who hasn't posted yet. If his claims are true, which seem very reasonable by the way, he is one of the baaaaaaaadest. His method of land patenting is pretty unique. Anyway he knows who he is & I know who he is, so will the man I'm speaking of please post .

I have an issue that I am thinking of here.



If my warranty deed is done as HENRY F. BOWMAN, how then can I connect the dots to Henry Franklin Bowman on my land patent?



Just wondering.



HB

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>HB,



Read the Deed carefully, are you SURE the "grant" clause is to HENRY F. BOWMAN? I've found in my reading (my own deeds) that the grant clause is to the upper-lower case man, but the TRUST DEED is in the name of the UPPER-CASE juristic person.



Remember, except for very specific circumstances prescribed by congress, land cannot participate in the commercial arena and can ONLY be granted to living souls.

[/color]



-BT

BT, Can you give me some case cites for that?



Plleeeeeeease?



HB

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>I will search for case law on the fact that land cannot be bought or sold, but I don't know that i'll find anything. That concept is embedded into the concept of Allodial Title which is a common law concept. Here's a challenge: read the documents for your property. Try and find a single indication that the land itself was purchased. I beleive you'll find and explicit clause in your Grant Deed that states the land is GRANTED.



Here are some excerpts that may be useful:



‘After exclusive jurisdiction over lands

within a State have been ceded to the United States, private property located

thereon is not subject to taxation by the State, nor can state statutes enacted

subsequent to the transfer have any operation therein.’

<font size="-1">Surplus Trading Company v. Cook, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=281&page=647&li nkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&gr aphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fimag es%252Fmichigan.gif" target="_blank">281

U.S. 647</a>; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=214&page=274&li nkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&gr aphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fimag es%252Fmichigan.gif" target="_blank">214

U.S. 274</a>; Arlington Hotel v. Fant, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=278&page=439&li nkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&gr aphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fimag es%252Fmichigan.gif" target="_blank">278

U.S. 439</a>; Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=318&page=285&li nkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&gr aphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fimag es%252Fmichigan.gif" target="_blank">318

U.S. 285</a>



<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invol=198" target="_blank">Summa

Corp. v California, 466 US 198</a>

California cannot at this late date assert its public trust easement over petitioner's property, when petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had their interest confirmed without any mention of such an easement in the federal patent proceedings. The interest claimed by California is one of such substantial magnitude that regardless of the fact that the claim is asserted by the State in its sovereign capacity, this interest must have been presented in the patent proceedings or be barred. Cf. Barker v. Harvey,

<a href="/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=181&invol=481">181

U.S. 481

</a>; United States v. Title Ins. & Trust

<font size=-1 color=#005500>

<a name=199>[466

U.S. 198, 199]

</a>Â*

[/color] Co.,

<a href="/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=265&invol=472">265

U.S. 472

</a>; United States v. Coronado Beach Co.,

<a href="/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=255&invol=472">255

U.S. 472

</a>. Pp. 205-209.





31 Cal. 3d 288, 644 P.2d 792, reversed and remanded.

[Smart-Aleck]

I had allways wondered why I had to enter the grantee's name in UPPERCASE when I worked for Wells Fargo, now I know.

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>Thats odd. ..



I have a Grant Deed for a property with a Wells Fargo Mortgage with the Grantee and Grantor's names spelled in proper, mixed case. ..



-BT[/color]

[Smart-Aleck]

BT,



Interesting, I wish I would have kept more of the paperwork to study, had all sorts of deeds, mortgages, appraisals, and property tax stuff. All I know is that the way the managers (or their managers, or managers manager, etc.) wanted the names enetered was in all caps. I'll see if my buddy still works there, maybe he can get me some blank docs to look over. I think the only jobs any of my friends even have are damn mortgage processors / loan officers.