Land Patent question

[saber8]

I have recently completed a land patent,recorded it with the county recorder under "Notices" because there is no repository in this county for Land Patents. While reading several posts in forums I get the impression that the BLM must do something further in regard to perfecting my patent. I do not find my patent, though it is recent, in the federal (BLM registry of patents.
Must I get them to enter it there under some rule or letter requesting such? I obtained the certified original patent along with the certified plat maps, etc when I started. Now that it is done , including the declaration and it is recorded with the county is there anything more I need to do with the BLM or other federqal agency to get it listed in the BLM registry of Land Patents ? Or..... is that necessary ?
Any authoritative or knowledgable response will be greatly appreciated.
Saber 8

[saber8]

As to the post from saber 8 as to listings of patents by the BLM, further inquiry informs me that the BLM does not issue Land Patents any longer. Of course this would explain why the listings on their web site are older than "dirt". If anyone has a land patent and knows how and when it might be challenged , the method of challenge, the probability of the challenge being successful, and who might be precluded fom challenging it, please post any information here. Your insight & experience would be greatly appreciated.

Saber8

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[saber8]

JerryPitts,
Thanks for the post, however in regard to my patent I am an assignee. The original patent was issued in 1910 therefore this is not a re-issue of patent it is just "bringing it up" (to me), which is now accomplished and no one has better title. If you know of anything in current law that would pose a significant "risk" to a patent properly brought up to the assignee I would be very interested
in further posts
Will .

Saber8:

Please specify your meaning of Assignee. What type of patent was originated in 1910? Under what Congressional act was the original patent issued? In what state was it issued?

You have indicated that the patent has been brought forward in your name. I take it to mean that you have filed a 'declaration of patent' and when there was no contest, you filed it in the county records. This is all well and fine, however, the county of record has no authority to modify an original patent, only the Department of the Interrior has that authority, and then only in limited situations.

Remember, the land was originally ceded to the Feds when the territory became a state. The state lost all vested interest in the land, and subsequently when the Feds relinquished control of the land to the original patentee, it also lost all regulatory control over the land with the exception of any mineral reservations if they were declared to be reserved in the original patent. Therefore the feds have no executive branch authority to amend their records. That authority must come either from a judiciary ruling, or another act of congress.

If you are accurate in your assertion that all preliminary notifications have been met, and there were no challenges, then you must seek an order from the chancery court of your county to provide you with a court ruling to declare the property as yours. If you have accomplished this, then you also must notify the Secretary of the department of the interrior of the Judicial ruling, and request that the original patent be rescinded (cancelled) and a new patent issued in your name. Remember the original stated that the land belonged to John Doe and his heirs FOREVER. Thus the necessity to remove the title from the original owners name.

I would like to hear more about the process that you have followed.

Jerry.

Jerry,

I have an uncertified copy of a patent. It says John Doe, heirs and assigns forever.



If you look at a warranty deed, indenture deed, etc., if there has never been a sheriff's sale or other governmental body that has sold the land the deed will usually say, Grants, Conveys, and Assigns, otherwise it will only say convey.



If you buy the appurtenances attached to the land, the land is usually granted and assigned to you via some form of equity device like a deed. Are you not then an assign to the original patent if the chain of ownership is unbroken by a tax sale?


The reason for only a convey on a tax sale is because you are only purchasing an interest in the things attached to the land, not the land itself, so it can only be conveyed. The state has no authority to grant or assign. At least that is my current understanding, but I may be incorrect. If so please correct and let us know.

Originally Posted by sagas4

Jerry,

I have an uncertified copy of a patent. It says John Doe, heirs and assigns forever.



If you look at a warranty deed, indenture deed, etc., if there has never been a sheriff's sale or other governmental body that has sold the land the deed will usually say, Grants, Conveys, and Assigns, otherwise it will only say convey.



If you buy the appurtenances attached to the land, the land is usually granted and assigned to you via some form of equity device like a deed. Are you not then an assign to the original patent if the chain of ownership is unbroken by a tax sale?

By virtue of the Warranty Deed, you are in fact an assign. An assign operating under color of Title. The Warranty Deed or other form of conveyance is inferrior to a Patent, title in fact, or true title. If you are not an heir of the original patentee, and are on that land via WD or other less than patent deed, you are there in adverse possession at best.

If you refer back to the language of the Congressional Act that authorized the original conveyance from the US Government to the original patentee, you will find the specific language that would have control over the method of conveyance and other pertinent information. Remember, Codes, Rules, Regulations are not Law, they are codifications of the Law. The Law is the Congressional act (enacted).

Originally Posted by sagas4

The reason for only a convey on a tax sale is because you are only purchasing an interest in the things attached to the land, not the land itself, so it can only be conveyed. The state has no authority to grant or assign. At least that is my current understanding, but I may be incorrect. If so please correct and let us know.

You are correct. The state cannot convey land that has been granted by the US Government to a private man/woman under a land Patent. I have personally checked with state officials here in Florida, regarding a similar parcel of land, and have been informed by them, that the state holds absolutely no interest in the said land. Interestingly enough, this parcel of land contains a lake (naturally inculding submerged land). This type of land is normally of great concern to the state for environmental regulatory purposes. Taking that concern into consideration, they again state that they have no interest in the land.

The biggest fault I have found within most of the articles relating to patents, stems from the fact that none of the articles specify any language pertaining to 'perfecting' a land patent. Bringing a patent 'forward' in your name at the county level, does nothing to do away with the original patent. This would be the same scenario as discussed in the preceeding paragraph. In certain cases (depending of type of original patent), a patent can be cancelled and a new one issued under the name of the new patentee, giving the new patentee the true Title to that land.

[redpilltaker]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

The biggest fault I have found within most of the articles relating to patents, stems from the fact that none of the articles specify any language pertaining to 'perfecting' a land patent. Bringing a patent 'forward' in your name at the county level, does nothing to do away with the original patent. This would be the same scenario as discussed in the preceeding paragraph. In certain cases (depending of type of original patent), a patent can be cancelled and a new one issued under the name of the new patentee, giving the new patentee the true Title to that land.

Hey Jerry,

I was going through the thread, and a question popped...if a WD signifies a grant from the prior owner, are we not speaking about a series of people that would fall under the category of "an assingee"...presuming that we are not heirs....so the original patent would not really be cancelled would it?

since the original patent was a lot of land originally?

Most of us are talking about holding land that is what, an acre, maybe 5 or 20...or like me, about a third of acre...aren't we just attaching ourselves to a portion of the original patent as the "latest" or "assigns"?

Here's what I want to know....has anyone got some recognition from the USA government that their land is theirs...free-hold?

Thanks,

RPT

Originally Posted by redpilltaker

Hey Jerry,

I was going through the thread, and a question popped...if a WD signifies a grant from the prior owner, are we not speaking about a series of people that would fall under the category of "an assingee"...presuming that we are not heirs....so the original patent would not really be cancelled would it?

Pat, you are correct for the most part, probably the greater part, if I am reading your questions correctly. The WD would in fact name you as an assign in a sometimes very long series of assigns. This assign(ment) does not in fact transfer the Title to the property. In the case of the Homestead Act, the WD provides and 'entitlement' to be granted a new patent. What the WD does, is provide to you as an 'adverse possessor', an equity interest in the improvements and appurtenances located on the land. This equity may or may not be recovered if the WD is challenged by the heirs.

If you are in possession of patented land that is not an inheritance of yours (you are not an heir), then there are provisions that would allow you to eventually become the new patent owner for the section of the patent that you do possess. It is a long procedure and would as a matter of law require you to loose any 'freehold' 'allodial' aspect of the land that may have originally been assigned to the land.

Originally Posted by redpilltaker

since the original patent was a lot of land originally?

Most of us are talking about holding land that is what, an acre, maybe 5 or 20...or like me, about a third of acre...aren't we just attaching ourselves to a portion of the original patent as the "latest" or "assigns"?

Yes that is correct. The property that I am working on consists of 159.81 acres. It is under a patent that was issued in 1892, Homestead Act.

Originally Posted by redpilltaker

Here's what I want to know....has anyone got some recognition from the USA government that their land is theirs...free-hold?

There are numerous cases cited within the download section regarding land patent cites, that confirms that many people have been granted that recognition by the Federal government. One of the more recent is the Summa case cite.

I am currently working on the process of re-claiming land that is held in adverse posession by persons that are only holding equitable title (WD) to the land. That is nothing more than color of title and does not override the right of inheritance. The next phase of my endeavor is giving notice of ejectment. This is a formality, and will probably result in litigation wherein we (our family members) will concede the use of some of the land on a temporary basis so that people that were duped, will not suffer a total loss. I have met some of these people and they appear to be average Joes who have retired and put their life savings into the established property that they were hoping to someday be theirs. I cannot be so calloused and uncaring as to force people older than me to give up their hope.

I invite you to give me more details on the land that you are endeavoring to claim. If you do, then I would be able to give you more information that could assist you in your endeavor. If you prefer off-list communication, email me at eradicatecorruption@hotmail.com

Jerry,

More Questions.

I have some gold. I assign that gold to another who is not an heir, they take possession, have I not cut off any rights my heirs may have to that gold?

Although gold is portable property, It seems logical and that it would also apply to land, but since land is immobile, and transferred with an equity instrument is that why it is considered adverse possession?

One may have been assigned rights by the grantor, but must the grantee do something to accept the assignment? i.e. I can assign to you my pet rock collection, but just because I assign it to you does not mean you have ownership unless you declare it or something like that.

Have you heard of or listened to a seminar by Jeff Ganapowski?

He says it applies to all kind of things. That you don't really own your car, but you can give notice in the legal notices of a news paper. If no one makes a claim after so many days, you can get an affidavit from the news paper, then have a court certify you as owner.