Private property versus Estate

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

JG: What's the discrepancy?

Ownership can be absolute or qualified. There's nothing in the post that refutes that fact.

Ownership is not restricted to 'land' only and when you attempt to make a definition apply to only one particular aspect of Commerce, then you find you have made an error.

Originally Posted by Legal dictionary

The owner is he who has dominion of a thing real or person-al, corporeal or incorporeal,...

So what makes the state desire to express an 'ownership' interest in something that is 'incorporeal'?

Jerry

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

As you guys may already know I am working on perfecting a way to fight property taxes.

JG: Only estate is subject to ad valorem taxes. Don't fight if you only own estate.

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

I know you have to take what attorneys say w/ a grain of salt (or a mountain of it sometimes!) but this attorney told me that if you didn't record the deed that someone else can come in and record the deed and claim the house.

JG: Sole legal effect of recording of deed (of realty) is to give 3rd parties constructive notice.
(I forget the exact Ga Appellate court cite)

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

She said there was a statute making it mandatory to record.

JG: That's true - and false. Most statutes state that all property transfers SHALL be recorded in the county in which property is located.

In Georgia's case, I found the statute. But in the Georgia Encyclopedia of Law I found that there is no law compelling the recording of a deed (!).

As stated above, the appellate court ruled about the legal effect of recording.

The resolution of the conundrum is founded in "SHALL"

SHALL - As used in statutes, contracts, or the like, this word is generally imperative or mandatory... But it may be construed as merely permissive or directory (as equivalent to "may"), to carry out the legislative intention and in cases where no right of benefit depends
on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense.
BL6 p.1375

So, one who is dealing with PRIVATE PROPERTY and not realty (estate), can assert that his right is violated by interpreting the law as compulsory, in his instant case.

That's how it is all neatly resolved.

The law is only mandatory on those who have no private property rights.

But don't forget to give "Constructive notice" in the local legal section of the county newspaper.

Originally Posted by andrewmitch

I understand the statutes only apply to those who subject themselves to them but the risk is too high (losing your house) where it can not be ignored. Of course, I will dig into this specific issue more and let you know what I discover.

JG: Just be careful in your terminology.
Don't mix classes. Estate and private property are mutually exclusive.
Realty law always refers to estate.
Private property law always refers to private property.
Never the twain shall meet.


Three facts to establish title or defend title -
(1) Right to own
(2) Alienate title with lawful money
(3) No superior claim exists

(1) Legal age, status not impaired, not a human resource pledged as collateral on the unpayable national debt, etc., etc.

(2) Minimum 21 dollars (silver or gold). Thus one can claim the right to a trial by jury under the RULES of the Common Law, for any controversy about said property. (7th amendment)

(3) Give due notice in appropriate legal organ. For example, one may place a legal notice, asking all claimants to land (lat. / long.) to reply to Box XYZ (at the newspaper) within 30 days or forever WAIVE their claims. After 30 days, the newspaper will issue an affidavit. Then buy the property, assured that there is no superior claim that can lawfully be made.

(The common practice of recording of deed for realty is solely for due notice. There is no property right preserved by recording deed with court clerk. There is no law compelling the recording of private property transactions. Why make a public recording of a bill of sale for private property? It wouldn't be private anymore!)


(OH! I just remembered where I had all the goodies. Here's the file -)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/files/P_Right/Your Right to Private Land

Right to property

Enjoyment of the right to property includes chattels such as automobiles, as well as land.

Land owning

Three things that help you establish allodial title:
1) You have the right to own,
2) No one has a superior claim upon the property in question, and
3) You purchased it with lawful money... And don’t record the deed with the county.

When people are told the facts about property ownership, and that they need not register the deed, many times disbelief triggers them to say:
“You’re wrong ... It’s the law!”

But understanding the nature of real law requires some digging. No mandatory statute can violate a right. Furthermore, there is often a property transfer tax which must be paid before the clerk will record the deed. No right can be made liable for taxation. Therefore we are
dealing with something other than the right to property.

But the Official Code of Georgia Annotated states:

O.C.G.A. 44-2-1.
Where and when deeds recorded; priority as to.

“Every deed conveying land shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county where the land is located. A deed may be recorded at any time; but a prior unrecorded deed loses its priority over a subsequent recorded deed from the same vendor when the purchaser takes such deed without notice of the existence of the prior deed.

The word “shall,” on first reading, gives one the impression that it is mandatory. End of discussion. The proponents of allodial land and freedom are obviously ignorant, misled, and confused, say the pundits.

But there’s another side to this word play...

“There is no Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed.”
Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, 8 A, p. 265, Sec. 132

Is this not contradictory?

What makes BOTH the statute and the encyclopedia right?

What if “shall” didn’t mean “shall”? Go back and review the little section on law pertaining to mandatory versus directory statutes.

There’s the key: shall means may if a private or public right is impaired by its interpretation as shall.

Clever politicos.... They write a “law” in a form to persuade you that you are obligated to perform to it, but in truth, they have not. You are under no obligation nor is there a consequence for not obeying a directory statute.

And there’s more to it than meets the eyes.

“Sole purpose and effect of recording of deed is to afford third parties constructive notice of the existence of the deed."
City Whsle. Co. v. Harper, 100 Ga.App. 151,
110 S.E. 2d 561 (1959)

The court ruling is clear and to the point. The sole purpose for recording deeds is to give notice. Wouldn’t it be just as effective to place a legal notice proclaiming that any claimants to the property in question have 30 days to present their claims or forever waive that right?

-end-

Hope that helps.

[Jerry Pitts]

JG:

Do you have 'absolute' 'ownership' of any property? If not, then what point are you trying to make? If you do, can you prove that you do? If you think you can prove that you do, then provide the evidence of the same.

Jerry

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Ownership is not restricted to 'land' only and when you attempt to make a definition apply to only one particular aspect of Commerce, then you find you have made an error.
Jerry

JG: The thread title would lead one to conclude that we're discussing the ownership of land and houses.
And that most people are mislead to assume that "all land" is estate (real property).
However the law, as written, appears to have two distinct categories of ownership:
ABSOLUTE (as in private property) and
QUALIFIED (as in estate, real and personal property).

Most if not all of the myriad realty law gibberish is not applicable to private property, absolutely owned, by an individual.

Estate is defined as an interest in property.
Interest is defined as less than title.
Ergo, one cannot have absolute ownership if one has less than title in property.

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another thing, for an estate in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

Estate is a temporary or qualified ownership of land. It is NOT private property. Even an "absolute estate" is still not absolute ownership.

And only private property is explicitly protected by constitution and the common law.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

JG:

Do you have 'absolute' 'ownership' of any property? If not, then what point are you trying to make? If you do, can you prove that you do? If you think you can prove that you do, then provide the evidence of the same.

Jerry

JG: I absolutely own myself, my labor and the fruits of my labor, since I left national socialism in 1992. I am not a "person liable".

I currently am trying to acquire private property to establish my domicile.

The point I made, with the initial post, is that absolute ownership is not only recognized by LAW, it's still available to those who have the status at law to exercise said ownership.

Unfortunately, most Americans are of the opinion (or belief) that "everything" related to land is REAL ESTATE. (Which is only applicable to those who lack the legal standing to absolutely own)

And I believe I have shown that the facts in the public record refute that false assumption.

Ergo, if those Americans who wish to be free and independent of the socialist burdens fail to extricate themselves from the qualified ownership of land and houses, they have little chance of success.

In short, sovereignty and property are inseparable. An American can only exercise sovereignty over his private property. And only upon private property can one exercise natural liberty.

Servant government only promised not to take private property, estate (real and personal property) is not protected.

Does that help?

[Jerry Pitts]

In Short then, all you have said is merely theory and has not been tested and proven. Proven to the point wherein it would be workable with every man or woman who attempt to utilize your instructions.

Jerry

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

JG: I absolutely own myself, my labor and the fruits of my labor, since I left national socialism in 1992. I am not a "person liable".

I currently am trying to acquire private property to establish my domicile.

The point I made, with the initial post, is that absolute ownership is not only recognized by LAW, it's still available to those who have the status at law to exercise said ownership.

Unfortunately, most Americans are of the opinion (or belief) that "everything" related to land is REAL ESTATE. (Which is only applicable to those who lack the legal standing to absolutely own)

And I believe I have shown that the facts in the public record refute that false assumption.

Ergo, if those Americans who wish to be free and independent of the socialist burdens fail to extricate themselves from the qualified ownership of land and houses, they have little chance of success.

In short, sovereignty and property are inseparable. An American can only exercise sovereignty over his private property. And only upon private property can one exercise natural liberty.

Servant government only promised not to take private property, estate (real and personal property) is not protected.

Does that help?

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

In Short then, all you have said is merely theory and has not been tested and proven. Proven to the point wherein it would be workable with every man or woman who attempt to utilize your instructions.
Jerry

JG: Are the legal cites or definitions incorrect?
Are you disputing the constitutional protections for private property?
Are you disputing that States only tax "real estate"?
Are you disputing that when governments take property for failure to pay taxes, they do not pay just compensation, thus proves that taxable property cannot be "private property"?
Do you have any evidence that States levy a tax on "private property"?

Or are you at a loss to dispute the facts presented and need to object out of habit?

And, yes, there are people out there who do own private property and do not pay "property taxes". The ones I personally know wish to keep their private affairs PRIVATE.
That's their RIGHT.

If you have any law or citation that refutes the information presented, feel free to post it. If not, then your objections would appear to be unsubstantiated opinion.

[Jerry Pitts]

Can you prove the claims you are making? Can you prove there are people out there that own private property and do not pay property tax? Bring forth the proof, and I will be more than willing to pay more attention to what you are saying. until such time as you prove your claim, it is in my opinion, just another patriot myth.

Like I said before, you talk a good game of legal mumbo jumbo (secular law), but you cannot prove that you are a sovereign over anything. Even the body you claim you have sovereignty over, I dispute that, due to the fact that you are visually impaired. You are not a optometrist or other eye doctor sort which would enable you to remedy that problem, therefore you are dependent upon others to meet that need. A Sovereign has no dependencies, He (the sovereign) is truly independent. You say you are a sovereign, yet the police can come into your home, at the point of a gun and take whatever they desire and you are incapable of stopping them. Oh you can take them to court, but the courts will laugh in your face.

I made an announcement earlier today that I was going off line tonite, and I must keep my schedule. I will be coming back to this topic when I arrive at my destination. Until then, find the evidence that will prove that you are a sovereign, or that others (real men and women, not private corporations) own private property and as a result are not paying taxes.

Jerry

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

JG: Are the legal cites or definitions incorrect?
Are you disputing the constitutional protections for private property?
Are you disputing that States only tax "real estate"?
Are you disputing that when governments take property for failure to pay taxes, they do not pay just compensation, thus proves that taxable property cannot be "private property"?
Do you have any evidence that States levy a tax on "private property"?

Or are you at a loss to dispute the facts presented and need to object out of habit?

And, yes, there are people out there who do own private property and do not pay "property taxes". The ones I personally know wish to keep their private affairs PRIVATE.
That's their RIGHT.

If you have any law or citation that refutes the information presented, feel free to post it. If not, then your objections would appear to be unsubstantiated opinion.

[gldskr]

JG

You seem to be hung up on private property vs. real estate. They are one and the same, provided the transaction has been done properly. With a clear understanding of what land is, maybe real estate won't be the bogeyman you imagine it to be.

As correctly stated in Black's, the land is one thing, an estate in land is another. The land exists in perpetuity. It is not dirt, water and trees, but a concept delineated by the reality of its four corners. It cannot be the subject of any sale,trade or purchase as it can only be given freely.

Real estate is the proper term for the conveyance of that which lies upon the land. It is completely possible for one to have absolute ownership in real estate. It is also a certainty that one's estate in land is for a limited time only. That, however, does not diminish ones absolute ownership, provided one has a 100% interest.

Originally posted by JG
Most if not all of the myriad realty law gibberish is not applicable to private property, absolutely owned, by an individual.

Of course not, but it does apply to entities and that is how 99% of all real estate transactions transpire. As you correctly stated, statutes are directory only. When you enter the statutory world, jurisdiction comes into play, one that is contractual in nature.

Absolute ownership can only exist in one jurisdiction. As long as you continue to confuse apples and oranges, your conclusions will always resemble fruit salad.

gldskr

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by gldskr

JG

You seem to be hung up on private property vs. real estate. They are one and the same, provided the transaction has been done properly. With a clear understanding of what land is, maybe real estate won't be the bogeyman you imagine it to be.

As correctly stated in Black's, the land is one thing, an estate in land is another. The land exists in perpetuity. It is not dirt, water and trees, but a concept delineated by the reality of its four corners. It cannot be the subject of any sale,trade or purchase as it can only be given freely.

Real estate is the proper term for the conveyance of that which lies upon the land. It is completely possible for one to have absolute ownership in real estate. It is also a certainty that one's estate in land is for a limited time only. That, however, does not diminish ones absolute ownership, provided one has a 100% interest.

Of course not, but it does apply to entities and that is how 99% of all real estate transactions transpire. As you correctly stated, statutes are directory only. When you enter the statutory world, jurisdiction comes into play, one that is contractual in nature.

Absolute ownership can only exist in one jurisdiction. As long as you continue to confuse apples and oranges, your conclusions will always resemble fruit salad.

gldskr

JG: We will have to agree to disagree.

If you think absolute ownership and qualified ownership are 'one in the same', we have no basis in communication.

I have not found any reference in law, that states one can have absolute ownership in real estate. (I've seen "absolute estate", but that's either an oxymoron, or a deliberate obfuscation, since estate, by definition, is held with qualified ownership). All ad valorem taxes are levied on estate. There are no constitutional taxes or duties levied on private property. (see original post and the Texas constitution cites )

I did not state that statutes are directory only. I posted the definition of "shall" which would be construed to mean "may" IF A PROPERTY RIGHT WAS AT RISK by treating the law as compulsory. (likewise a directory law can become mandatory if a right is injured by failing to compel obedience)

And '100% interest' cannot be absolute ownership since the definition states that an interest is less than title. A title deed to realty is not a title to private property, either.

Land can certainly be bought and sold. The possession of land is the basis of law since time immemorial.

Only socialist pirates wish the owners of land to believe that they cannot own it, so that the "Collective" may take it from them - for their own good.

In short, absolute ownership of land, as private property is the prerequisite for exercising natural liberty. One cannot claim sovereign prerogatives unless one owns private property and has his domicile there.

Since 1935, and the socialist revolution, Americans have been indoctrinated and programmed to think otherwise.
Every day, we're treated to buzz words like "resident" residing at a residence. Or that we all owe our "fair share" of taxes. Or that death and taxes are inevitable. Even our religious leaders have been corrupted, if Ezekiel 18:13 KJV is correct.

But if you wish to truly enjoy the republican form of government in which the people are sovereign, you had better absolutely own your domain as private property. Estate is NOT protected from being taken for public use.