Land Patents and Property Tax Abatement - Urban Myth or for Real?

[andrewmitch]

While Land Patents themselves are for real (you can get yours from the BLM depending on your state) the question is what do they really accomplish?

Madsen from Team Law claims they get rid of your property tax as well as zoning and the need for permits.

David Wilbur Johnson claims they will get rid of zoning and the need for permits and that while they won't get rid of property taxes completely, that the new property tax will be whatever the amount was back when the land was first patented.

Brent Johnson from Freedom Radio claims that the Land Patent, with some other fancy manuveurs (ie using Trusts and unrecording your property) will rid yourself of the property tax.

A lawyer who specializes in Asset Protection and tax avoidance claims the Land Patent is a well known fraud.

Some say there can be no mortgage; others say there can. Some say you have to pay off the tax debt (eg some formula like 7X the annual rate).

So, is the Land Patent a Silver Bullet - one that will rid youself of the property tax as well as government regulation of your land and protect your land and house from a lawsuit.

Is the LP a key ingredient along w/ other steps to rid ourselves from the property tax attachment?

I defer to your experiences.

Thank you!

[robhalford88]

Seeing as there is no REAL money, you can't give consideration in contract. Therefore, you are only really a tenant with enjoyment of use of property, not enjoyment of ownership. The property tax is basically the governments permission for you to reside on that land.
How very marxist, no?

[andrewmitch]

thanks for the reply....but if "Real Money" is the root cause there is a simple solution. Legally give the house to someone else (eg a relative for an hour) and then sell it back to yourself, this time charging say a 1-oz Gold Coin. Now you have used real money, right? But I think you're still paying the tax

(Yes, Mr Marx would be very proud indeed )

[theghost]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

Seeing as there is no REAL money, you can't give consideration in contract. Therefore, you are only really a tenant with enjoyment of use of property, not enjoyment of ownership. The property tax is basically the governments permission for you to reside on that land.
How very marxist, no?

Not true. First of all, there is plenty of real money out there, if you look for it. Second, consideration can be anything the parties to the contract agree upon. Third, the property tax is not the governments permission for you to reside, the property tax is born the moment the uninformed home buyer (1) registers the sale, and (2) pays the real estate transfer tax stamps. The buyer/consumer does this all by him/herself, albeit ignorant of what he/she is getting themselves into (due to non-disclosure of facts on the banks part). I could go on and on, but these are the first and most relevant points to cover.

[andrewmitch]

Please continue and by the way, do you own a home and NOT pay property taxes (if so, then why?)....

[mrg]

Originally Posted by theghost

The buyer/consumer does this all by him/herself, albeit ignorant of what he/she is getting themselves into (due to non-disclosure of facts on the banks part).

And completely absent threat, duress, coercion, etc. on the part of the municipality and their mercenary armed forces?

[andrewmitch]

I think what ghost was trying to say is that we enter into the contract voluntarily (caveat emptor if you will).....and that the force occurs only if you don't uphold your end of the contract.

I think the reason we pay the property tax is because we have entered into a contract so the trick is determing how to cancel the contract. Once that is done, there is no contract left to enforce.

I think we'd have a much better time in court arguing about contracts than we would about allodial title. I don't know for sure - that's why I am appealing to your experiences.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by theghost

Not true. First of all, there is plenty of real money out there, if you look for it. Second, consideration can be anything the parties to the contract agree upon. Third, the property tax is not the governments permission for you to reside, the property tax is born the moment the uninformed home buyer (1) registers the sale, and (2) pays the real estate transfer tax stamps. The buyer/consumer does this all by him/herself, albeit ignorant of what he/she is getting themselves into (due to non-disclosure of facts on the banks part). I could go on and on, but these are the first and most relevant points to cover.

Plenty? I would like to see what you classify as real money. I was specifically thinking of frns and bank credit.
Secondly, you can accept anything as consideration that you wish, that is true, but if the frn has no value, are you actually GETTING consideration?
As for the property tax bit, I agree. What you would be doing, by registering, is giving the government a higher security interest than the your own.

[andrewmitch]

Maybe the place is start is to list all the reasons why we pay and then put a plan in place to correct each one.

Reasons:

1) You only bought the Real Estate

2) You registered the Deed w/ the Clerk

3) You didn't pay in gold

4) You have a mortgage (ie contract w/ the Federal Reserve)

5) You accepted government services (ie kids in school)

6) You don't have proper title to the land

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

Maybe the place is start is to list all the reasons why we pay and then put a plan in place to correct each one.

Reasons:

1) You only bought the Real Estate
This is all you ever buy as land cannot be bought, sold or traded; but the act of buying does not trigger any liability.
2) You registered the Deed w/ the Clerk
This is the hook, along with the property tax assignment clause within the deed, if any.
3) You didn't pay in gold
Irrelevant, contracts only require consideration, which the parties may determine for themselves. The purchase agreement sets forth the terms of the sale, the deed is the "receipt" which enumerates restrictions on the property and is the title.
4) You have a mortgage (ie contract w/ the Federal Reserve)
The mortgage is a separate contract and may or may not have stipulations attached to it. Private mortgages are available.
5) You accepted government services (ie kids in school)
More precisely, it is registration into their voting system.
6) You don't have proper title to the land.
This is probably the case in 99% of all transactions; not properly accepting the grant of land.

Originally Posted by robhalford88

As for the property tax bit, I agree. What you would be doing, by registering, is giving the government a higher security interest than the your own.

Exactly, recordation establishes a first lien.

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

I think we'd have a much better time in court arguing about contracts than we would about allodial title.

Arguing is futile as the contracts and title will speak for themselves.

gldskr