Supreme Court on Land Patents

[mrg]

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 act 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 statehood. The State acquired NO jurisdiction over the land at the time the Territory became a state.

The treaty was in place.

Treaties prevail.

The irony of this story is that the state of Louisiana had laid an unlawful tax on the land.

The land patent is a contract between the patentee and the U.S. "Article 1 sec 10 shall pas 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.

KNOW YOUR LAND RIGHTS!
LANDRIGHTS.COM

[trooper2ls]

Thanks, very handy refs mrg. The truth is hard to supress.

..L

[palani]

So what part of the word 'contract' is hard to understand?