Private property versus Estate

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by 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.Jerry

JG: Any Church or religious organization that owns property in mortmain is tax exempt. So you must acknowledge that tax exemption exists.
The next question - is "private property" subject to taxation?
I can't find any cite or statute that says so.
Can you ?
I do find myriad statutes that impose a tax on "real and personal property" (See Texas Constitution reference posted before).
But I can't find ONE REFERENCE that says REAL ESTATE held by qualified ownership is the same as PRIVATE PROPERTY held with absolute ownership.

(I didn't make up those definitions, nor the fifth amendment, USCON)

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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. Jerry

JG: Since I am under no compulsions or obligations to the state, pursuant to their law, what is there to prove? I can't be compelled into the militia. I cannot be compelled to sit for jury duty. I cannot be dispossessed without due process of law, etc., etc. I am not liable for the unpayable national debt. I am not culpable for the socialist government's submission to usurers, nor the military adventures across the globe.

The definition of sovereign does not state one that has no dependencies. So your logic is flawed, as is the follow up issues you raise.

Let's review terminology, so you won't make the same mistake again.

SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.

SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.

Do you note anything about dependencies in that?
I do not.
Sovereignty over one's person, labor and property is supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power.

Now, when the government says that people are sovereign, do you think it means that the government is supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power over the people and their property?

"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise County,
78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

It does not appear so.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly he sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

I guess you might construe court cites to be legal mumbo jumbo if you would prefer that Americans do not learn about sovereignty and private property.

And your stated fear of police and guns entering your home shows that perhaps you believe their propaganda too much. Perhaps you registered it as estate? Remember, only private property is protected.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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

JG: What fact leads you to presume people are NOT sovereign?
What fact leads you to presume that people cannot own private property when the law plainly admits of its existence?

If you assume 'everybody' is a subject / citizen / resident, then you will never realize your error.

Apparently you wish to remain in the socialist / usury world and refuse to look up at the heavens in all their glory. Don't blame the secular law for your error in judgment.

I am quite fond of the protections for private property that the law offers to the owners thereof. In fact, most if not all states have anti-Peonage laws. Government is not allowed to confiscate all your property so that you become a peon and a public charge - at least not of the private people who aren't socialists. Check your own state for anti peonage laws. For example, Georgia Constitution exempts 1600 dollars worth of property from ALL judicial and government claims. (Ga. Const. 1:1:26)
IF you plan accordingly, and bought your land for 21 silver dollars, your automobile for 21 silver dollars, and so forth, you can be relatively judgment proof... up to 1600 dollars (lawful money, not frns)

God Bless the USA!

[Lawdog]

If I had to compile a list of the stupidest things a person could do, buying a piece of land and intentionally not recording the deed would definitely be on there.

It's true that you don't "have to" record your deed, insofar as there is no criminal penalty for not recording. But it could cost you the property. And publishing some sort of "notice" in the local paper is not the legally effective notice that would keep someone else from claiming the property. Legally effective notice is...recording your deed. Gee, what a concept.

There are three types of laws regarding recordation of title to real property: race, notice, and race-notice. Here's a good overview (for some reason no indication is given as to which system Virginia uses, but it's probably either notice or race-notice, as those are the overwhelming majority):

What are the Recording Acts?
The Recording Acts are state statutes that establish the keeping of official county records to track public land ownership. The Acts help settle conflicts of ownership in real property by prioritizing documents of ownership. However, the order of priority depends on the type of statute that the state has adopted: race, notice, or race-notice.

Race statute
Also known as the “Race to the courthouse.” The rule that the document recorded first wins and will have priority over any later recordings.

States that follow the Race statute: Delaware, Louisiana, and North Carolina.

Notice statute
A later buyer who pays fair value for the property and does not have notice that there were any other earlier conflicting interests, wins and will have priority over any later recordings.

States that follow the Notice statute: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia.

Race-Notice statute
A later buyer who pays fair value, does not have notice of any other earlier conflicting interests, and records first, wins and will have priority over any later recordings.

States that follow the Race-Notice statute: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio (regarding mortgages, OH follows the Race statute), Oregon, Pennsylvania (regarding mortgages, PN follows Race), South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

What is the Purpose for the Recording Acts?
The purpose of the Recording Acts is to protect people who have acted in good faith and paid value for property. (The concept of “good faith” entitles one to act promptly and reasonably and is usually implied in every contract). The Acts do not create a criminal penalty for not recording, just a strong incentive to record documents for public record. By recording a document, you’re giving the general public constructive notice of your ownership rights. Until a document is recorded properly, title to property could be at risk from later good-faith purchasers.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...ding-acts.html

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

If I had to compile a list of the stupidest things a person could do, buying a piece of land and intentionally not recording the deed would definitely be on there.

JG: But the reference you posted was for "real property" which is estate, not private property.

If you are buying estate, by all means, follow the rules for estate.

But the original post was about the glaring difference between private property, absolutely owned, and protected from being taken for public use VERSUS estate (real and personal property) held with a qualified ownership, and at risk from being taken for public use without just compensation (as in failure to pay taxes).

Can you find one state or local ordinance that specifically taxes private property?

All I can find are references to real property, and that's estate - not private property.

Estate, as in real estate, can be taxed, liened, confiscated, regulated, etc.,etc.

Now contrast that with 'private property' listed in this section:

Article 11- Sec.12, Texas Constitution

Sec. 12. EXPENDITURES FOR RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF SANITATION SEWER OR WATER LATERALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The legislature by general law may authorize a city or town to expend public funds for the relocation or replacement of sanitation sewer laterals or water laterals on PRIVATE PROPERTY if the relocation or replacement is done in conjunction with or immediately following the replacement or relocation of sanitation sewer mains or water mains serving the property. The law must authorize the city or town to affix, with the CONSENT OF THE OWNER of the PRIVATE PROPERTY, a lien on the property for the cost of relocating or replacing the laterals on the property and must provide that the cost shall be assessed against the property with repayment by the property owner to be amortized over a period not to exceed five years at a rate of interest to be set as provided by the law. The lien may not be enforced until after five years have expired since the date the lien was affixed.

Though the government can remove or replace public water lines on private property (assuming prior permission was granted for original placement) they cannot impose a lien nor compel payment of costs without CONSENT OF THE OWNER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY!

If that was on real estate, would you think the government would have to ASK PERMISSION OF THE OWNER to slap a lien and compel payment?

[gldskr]

Originally posted by JG
We will have to agree to disagree.Perhaps

If you think absolute ownership and qualified ownership are 'one in the same', we have no basis in communication. Obviously, I made no such claim, it is your contextual errors that is the basis for any miscommunication. From the context of real estate absolute ownership is possible in regards to title. Congruently, qualified ownership is also a requisite because its context is time(the qualification). As I stated, as long as the transaction is done properly, the two may coexist. It is a jurisdictional issue where the interest must be 100%.

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 )Because you couldn't find a reference in "law", therefore absolute ownership does not exist? Apparently, Black's does not agree. Again, you are mired in the misapplication of context. Qualified ownership does not and cannot apply to title, only to the interest that accrues from title. When the absolute owner of real estate dies, his qualified interest in the property is passed on to his heirs. They are now the new absolute owners, provided they don't do something stupid. All property has qualified ownership, it is just a matter of degree.

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)OK, then I'll say it, all statutes are directory only, with regard to We the People. A directory law cannot compel performance, becuase the contract which such law purports to enforce, is controlling. A directory law can only become mandatory by contract.

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.Is it not possible for one man to have absolute ownership and give another man 100% interest? Interest is not title, perhaps you understand this by now.

Land can certainly be bought and sold. The possession of land is the basis of law since time immemorial. Obviously, you don't know know the relationship between land and grants. Possession is irrelevant, rights derive from title.

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.This is the MO of tyrants of all stripes.

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.Not necessarily, I may freely sojourn across this country without owning land. I just make sure I sojuorn in the proper jurisdiction.

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.Times change, people don't. Its always been this way. Education is paramount.

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.
Yes and no.

gldskr

-------------

[gldskr]

Originally posted by Lawdog
If I had to compile a list of the stupidest things a person could do, buying a piece of land and intentionally not recording the deed would definitely be on there.

It's true that you don't "have to" record your deed, insofar as there is no criminal penalty for not recording. But it could cost you the property. And publishing some sort of "notice" in the local paper is not the legally effective notice that would keep someone else from claiming the property. Legally effective notice is...recording your deed. Gee, what a concept.

There are three types of laws regarding recordation of title to real property: race, notice, and race-notice. Here's a good overview (for some reason no indication is given as to which system Virginia uses, but it's probably either notice or race-notice, as those are the overwhelming majority):

The main reason for statutes requiring recordation is to protect the lenders from fraudulent acts of unscrupulous sellers. Lenders require recordation lest their "loans" go unsecuritized.

After all, if an unrecorded property is subsequently sold, title still exists with the deed in the owner's possession, with its concurrent right of disposition. Recordation is only evidence of title.

Times were when sellers of property would sell the same real estate many times over and the banks would get it up the wazoo. Write a statute and you mitigate the problem without having to deal with the fraud that caused the problem in the first place.

gldskr

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Jetgraphics is right- the difference is about "private property" vs "real or personal". This was confirmed for me in some research I did last night under a certain u.State laws in re: real estate taxes.

Over and over again the tax is declared to apply to "real property", and loudly excludes "property not subject". Why mention this possibility if there is no such thing? Besides "not subject", there are also "exempt" items- so the two concepts are different from one another.


So "quit claim" the registered title (after fully securing in every other way the ownership- ucc liens, mortgage, other liens etc), w/o recorded transfer to any new owner. There will be an argument from the deed office as they will want a "transfer tax" form filed- but this is no transfer. This is "quit claim".

The property is protected from being sold out from under by the fact that the last holder of public record has filed a "quit claim". Any subsequent act by the same under that claim would then be void (and a fraud!).

Then record, not a deed, but a Notice- of lawful claim for at least $21 gold.

There are also a list of exemptions that could be claimed, enough that there has got to be some chance of success there anyway.

Perhaps the 'exemption' claimed should be"private property"- but really this an exclusion so has to be established differently.

immune from collection in Texas:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...tml#post130512

[Lawdog]

It's time to dispense with the gibberish. It's insane to claim that private property cannot be taxed. The term private property is used as a counterpart to public property, which is government owned. How could the government raise any revenue if it could only tax property IT owns? Can money be raised if they tax themselves? Of course not. That's like moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket. Nothing has been gained.

Real estate, aka land, is the term used in contradistinction to personal property, aka chattels, which is pretty much everything else. Your car, your clothes, your jewelry, your stocks...all personal property.

Saying the land and house which sits on it that you own are personal property is true...you're a person, and you own it. But it doesn't get you out of taxes. If you do not record your deed, the county Tax Commissioner will send the bill to the previous owner of record. He will, of course, then say he sold the land to you, and he will probably have a copy of the deed he gave to you to prove it. At that point the Tax Commissioner will ask you why you never bothered to record, out of curiosity, but you will owe the tax regardless.

As far as recording goes, at least one of you needs to re-read what I posted about recording laws, especially race and race-notice.

Let's use a scenario here. You live in a state where race or race-notice is the law. You buy a piece of land and the house it sits on from someone who, unbeknownst to you, is not the most honest person in the world. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, you never record your deed.

The guy who sold you the land learns a few months later that you never recorded your deed. Feeling like double dipping, he sells the property a second time to a new buyer. The new buyer had no notice that you previously bought the land, both because you never recorded the deed, and no one ever told them about the previous sale of the property. The second buyer records their deed.

Guess what? They are now the rightful owner of the land, and if you refuse to vacate, they can use the sheriff or other legal processes to have you removed forcibly. You might be able to nail the guy who sold you the land for fraud, if you can find him. Chances are someone who pulled a stunt like this would not stick around.

So don't be a schmuck. Not recording your deed doesn't get you out of paying taxes, and it might end up costing you the land.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Lawdog:

It's time to dispense with the gibberish. It's insane...

I could not agree more. So stop gibbering. And clean up your act, attorney-rascal! Try a colon cleanse- that will bring you over to sanitary.

How could the government raise any revenue if it could only tax property IT owns? Can money be raised if they tax themselves?

How do I raise revenue if I only use my property? Not much of a businessman, are you? Ever hear of...

rents
user fees
license
collateral
indenture
interest
rates
toll
sales
franchise
premiums
contribution
contracts
obligations

and um...i dunno: tax?

All government ever does, or anyone for that matter, is tax themselves. That's how you walk up a hill, tax yourself to expend the energy. It's taxing.


In the alternative there is stealing and highway robbery and rape...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdwawQ7HPY

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_articl...7&provider=top


they "re-venued" her body. Was it presumed "public"?

to claim that private property cannot be taxed. The term private property is used as a counterpart to public property, which is government owned.

The difference is subject property, and foreign property. Thats what the code says. The opposite of "subject to" is "foreign".


Notice how important it is that titles keep being registered...what is this one trying to hide?

...you never record your deed.

record it as "notice", w/o transfer, JUST LIKE A MORTGAGE

record a mortgage, and other liens, as well.

RECORD YOUR DEED. Just do it right. The new registration always comes from the "transfer tax" application, which, upon approval, will register a new taxable ownership. 'Quit-claim' the old one, w/o transfer.

The guy who sold you the land ...he sells the property a second time to a new buyer.

The new buyer had no notice...

Wrong. The notice is recorded in at least 3 different public registries. Post an extra one on the door.

They are now the rightful owner of the land

If you are the judge, I'm sure. If we are talking about the normal existing laws on land and at sea, no. Either I may foreclose on my legitimate registered security or the system is not a system. Chaos.

In the chaotic period many attorneys will find they are expendable to their masters. "orden ab chao"

So don't be a schmuck

now who's meshuganah? Quit schnorring...and gibbering.


I think Lawdog should be banned for giving "incorrect advice"...and "arguing when corrected" (just kidding! all he needs is a turn or two on the rack and his heresies will melt like snow in summer...)

[gldskr]

Originally posted by Lawdog
Let's use a scenario here. You live in a state where race or race-notice is the law. You buy a piece of land and the house it sits on from someone who, unbeknownst to you, is not the most honest person in the world. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, you never record your deed.

The guy who sold you the land learns a few months later that you never recorded your deed. Feeling like double dipping, he sells the property a second time to a new buyer. The new buyer had no notice that you previously bought the land, both because you never recorded the deed, and no one ever told them about the previous sale of the property. The second buyer records their deed.

Guess what? They are now the rightful owner of the land, and if you refuse to vacate, they can use the sheriff or other legal processes to have you removed forcibly. You might be able to nail the guy who sold you the land for fraud, if you can find him. Chances are someone who pulled a stunt like this would not stick around.

Thank you Lawdog for illustrating my point. The problem arises, however, that the contract to sell to the second buyer is fraudulent. As we know, such contracts are a nullity. If a contract is a nullity from its inception, it is impossible for it to become legitimate merely by recordation.

Recordation statutes only apply to entities, the same way they do for vehicle registration. By registering your property with the corporate agents they will certify the title, effectively insuring it. Who does this benefit? Surely not the second buyer because his claim is against the seller. But the bank is indemnified for the "funds" it loaned by being able to write the whole thing off. That is what these statutes are all about, money.

The lawful owners rights are still intact simply because a nullity cannot take precedence over substance. Registration of a contract does not confer right to tiltle, the contract itself does.

By entering the statutory world, the law affords us the right of limited liability, that is what recordation does, among other things.

gldskr

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

gldskr:

If a contract is a nullity from its inception, it is impossible for it to become legitimate merely by recordation.

As to the above and the rest of your post:

you may well be right- I mean this is logically sound, but I am concerned that there are statutes that specifically order priorities over "real estate": which of course is your point. Do the statutes apply...

It comes down to- take the scenario posed by Lawdog: the sheriff shows up looking to evict you from your property so you contest this in court. Will it fly?

There is a doctrine of "gaining possession in the ordinary course of business, which Lawdog refers to as "notice".

Of course if the property is well posted then there is notice- one would figure a potential buyer should at least inspect the place before the sale, right? It's the least he could do...

This is why the approach of actually eliminating the registration in the first place is so interesting.

I just realized that the only issue raised in this 'mini-thread' was "to record, or not to record" ( I got a bit distracted, ahem). And the only alleged 'downside' related to proof of ownership.

Never a word about the effect on tax-registration: more proof, this time from an upstanding member of the BAR that registration=taxation.

I shall take that as legal advice from a licensed attorney.