What exact steps are necessary to get an allodial title?

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by Pauligirl

Not really. From the cases I've read, it doesn't do anything. except maybe get the party slapped with a fine.

P

Then may I suggest you ask this member how they are fairing with this issue so far http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=179&page=1

[Raptor13x]

Originally Posted by Pauligirl

What exactly is a land patent or allodial title supposed to do?

An allodial title means you own the land, nobody else has any claim whatsoever to it. You are essentially the King or Queen of this land, with the ability to do absolutely anything you want on it. You can drill a damn oil well if you want. And you dont have to ask for any permission or anything, dont have to have permits, licenses, inspections, you dont have to pay property tax, anything. Anybody that enters your property without permission, including police(unless they have a lawful warrant) is trespassing, and you could lawfully shoot them, should you please, or do the kind thing and shoo them away.

The only reason you have to pay property tax, and get all these licenses and permits, and follow all these codes, is because you are on feudal land normally. You dont own the earth beneath your house. You have to pay property tax even if your house is paid off in full because you are effectively paying rent for the land your house is on.

That is the difference, and that is why we are so interested in this.

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Takes the land out of the public and into the private where it belongs. Hope that helps.

And I will repeat the above statement.

thanks for the explanation Raptor!

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Then may I suggest you ask this member how they are fairing with this issue so far http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=179&page=1

I think the key words are "so far." And by the way--some of the cites you have about banks not lending credit are not quite right.
P


Self-awarded "allodial" or "allodium" deeds do not immunize from zoning, mortgage, or tax law: Charles F. Curry Co. v. Goodman (Okl.App 1987) 737 P2d 963; Kull v. City of Stearns (Minn.App unpub 4/5/94)("we reject any argument that landowner's property is not taxable because it is allodial land"); (some State constitutions expressly declare all land to be allodial but this does not immunize against property taxes or foreclosure) Kull v. County of Stearns (Minn.App unpub 4/5/94); ditto (the allodial title mentioned in the state constitution is equivalent to fee simple title) County of Dane v. Every (Wisc.App unpub 4/17/86) 131 Wis.2d 592(t), 393 NW2d 799(t); ditto Emery v. Orleans Levee Board (La.App 1943) 15 So.2d 783 aff'd 207 La. 386, 21 So.2d 418 cert.den 325 US 879; Dunn County v. Svee (Wis.Supm unpub 2/16/88) 143 Wis.2d 909(t), 420 NW2d 58(t) cert.den 487 US 1222; (especially when self-awarding allodium title to land that he never owned at all, recording the document, and then attempting to sell it for money) Industrial Devel. Bd of Tullahoma v. Han**** (Tenn.App 1995) 901 SW2d 382 ("His allodium title is no more than a naked claim to property which he have never had an interest in and has never possessed."); (self-awarded allodium deeds, declarations of homestead rights, so-called common law liens, and notices of posting have no legal force or effect and the county registrar must refuse to file them) Opinion of Nebraska Atty-Gen, nr. 233 (11/2/84); similarly a self-awarded deed from and to the same person as an attempt to frustrate a foreclosure. DeRiemer v. Apex Financial Corp (Del.Supm unpub 1/24/91) 586 A2d 1201(t)




Self-awarded "land patent" does not immunize from zoning, mortgage, or tax laws and does not oust state courts of jurisdiction: Cragin v. Comerica Mortgage Co. (6th Cir unpub 10/24/95) 69 F3d 537(t); Nixon v. Phillipoff (ND IL 1985) 615 F.Supp 890 aff'd 787 F2d 596(t); Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank (ND Ind 1985) 607 F.Supp 536 aff'd (7th Cir 1985) 776 F2d 176 cert.den 475 US 1123 (claim based on self-drafted land patent is so frivolous that a fine is justified); ditto Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Redwine (1988) 51 Wash.App 766, 755 P2d 822; ditto Nixon v. Individual Head of St Joseph Mortgage Co. (ND Ind 1985) 612 F.Supp 253 aff'd 787 F2d 595(t) ("will draw immediate and severe sanctions" ... "The identical language of the land patent in this case and in the Hilgeford case suggest to this court that some party is responsible for the broad dissemination of the obviously false and frivolous legal concepts which have led to this suit"); (self-awarded land patent can be grounds for lawsuit or prosecution for slander of title brought by legitimate owner against persons who fabricated the land patent) State of Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 670 ("The usual way to obtain clean title is to pay one's debts. Some have decided that it is cheaper to write a land patent .. and to file that in the recording system. If self-drafted land patents are frivolous gestures, then the removal [to federal court] of the state's prosecutions is frivolity on stilts. ... No federal statute authorizes the filing of bogus land patents that confound recording systems."); see also Annotation: Recording of instrument purporting to affect title as slander of title, 39 ALR2d 840 (1953 and suppl.); (self-awarded land patents can be prosecuted as criminal slander of title) State v. Leist (1987) 141 Wis.2d 34, 414 NW2d 45 review den.142 Wis.2d 950, 417 NW2d 896; ditto State v. Glick (7th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 670; (self-awarded land patents or similarly self-awarded title documents "ingenious but of no legal meaning or effect") Leibfried Construction Inc. v. Peters (Minn.App 1985) 373 NW2d 651; (self-awarded land patents unavailing even when accompanied by a genuine 19th century federal land patent to the first owner) Leach v. Building & Safety Eng'g Div., City of Pontiac (ED Mich 1998) 993 F.Supp 606 ("It is, quite simply, an attempt to improve title by saying it is better. The court cannot conceive of a potentially more disruptive force in the world of property law than the ability of a person to get ‘superior' title to land by merely filling out a document granting himself a ‘land patent' and then filing it with the recorder of deeds. Such self-serving, gratuitous activity does not, cannot, and will not be sufficient by itself to create good title."); ditto State of Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 670; Blair v. Emmert (Ind.App 1986) 495 NE2d 769 ("The mere filing of a document in a county recorder's office does not create property rights in those persons named in the document... Thus, Blair's contention that his personal fiat of filing a document entitled ‘land patent' gave him superior title is wholly without merit."); Charles F. Curry Co. v. Goodman (Okl.App 1987) 737 P2d 963; Pathway Financial v. Beach (1987) 162 IL.App.3d 1036, 516 NE2d 409 (specifically land patent does not immunize from mortgage foreclosure); (even a bona fide federal land patent does not make the property immune to foreclosure, a land patent works as a deed and after that the owner may mortgage his property - and lose it by foreclosure - as with any other real estate) Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Gefroh (No.Dak 1986) 390 NW2d 46; ditto Britt v. Federal Land Bank of St.Louis (1987) 153 IL App.3d 605, 505 NE2d 287 app.den 116 IL.2d 548, 515 NE2d 102; (land patent does not oust state court of jurisdiction) Stafford v. Goff (D. Colo 1985) 609 F.Supp 820; State of Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir 1986) 782 F2d 670; (self-awarded land patents not to be filed by registrars) Wash.Atty-Gen 1996 Opinion nr. 12 (7/31/96); similarly self-awarded homestead declaration does not overcome a judgment of foreclosure for failure to pay mortgage. Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Parsons (1990) 118 Ida 324, 796 P2d 533; ditto Britt v. Federal Land Bank of St.Louis (1987) 153 IL App.3d 605, 505 NE2d 387 app.den 116 IL.2d 548, 515 NE2d 102

http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss8.asp

[Freedomless]

Pauligirl,
Is that why a friend of mine, who I have seen his allodial, land patent, filed in the mid 1990's, has not paid realestate taxes? I don't know who you are, but I have seen you post on many forums, trying to sound impartial, but not, giving the most beneficial information of the law. I do know several people who have their land patent and it does work. Who is paying you to give information that is not correct?

[Livefire]

Pauligirl is presenting a warped version of things.....those cases are involving people trying to claim that the land patent supersedes any encumberance that a mortgage places on real estate (i.e. appurtenances) which of course is not true.....it would behoove anyone to learn the basic definitions used in real estate before any attempt to update a land patent.

If you study this out you will find the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the patent is superior over all other titles to land....Jerry Pitts has provided a great deal of info in his posts concerning that. It can only be vitiated by fraud and it doesnt cover the real estate upon the land.

[TheBlackTruth]

Originally Posted by storme

Property Tax Why You Pay and How to Opt Out

on

Voice of Freedom
under Articles

http://www.freedomradio.us/

So as to avoid searching, you can go directly to it by clicking here http://www.freedomradio.us/article27.htm

[Jerseee]

Pauligirl,

Hahahahahaaa, you really need to go to your state archives and read up. No one is creating land grants/patents--they are already done. All you have to do is ascert your rights in the patent. One of the reasons for the revolutionary war was freedom from taxation without representation. Learn the affects of the Declaration of Independence. Without any of this, we would not have what we have today (regardless of its corruption and fiction). It is all based on that very doctrine called the Constitution. Whether folks think it is alive or dead--that matters not since they are basing everything on this document--even their oaths of office!

But hey, if you want to pay those things (as if you could actually "pay" something nowadays) then feel free. If you want to believe that government is not a fiction--then do so, however, court rulings and AmJur says otherwise. Anyway, I was merely posting information for those that wanted to know more and needed a starting point.

Obivously there are others here and abroad who know otherwise what you have posted and can obivously read very well to pick up on your spin of the real deal.

I post to inform and when folks ask me for more information (no matter what it is or whether I agree or not) I give them a place to start researching for themselves or I refer them to a more knowledgeable member or source on their particular issue.

You and your cohorts are in desparate need of me to answer your questions that you don't even make them questions---you make them accusations and you spin the intent of the post. I maintain my position and I speak about the alleged debt--period. Everyone knows that this whole system is fictional and yet, you and your buddies maintain some sense of patriotic duty to push its realism on the masses.

take a history course about the NEW DEAL, the year 1913, revolution and treaties that the government are engaged in and make sure your know which government they are talking about before responding. Good grief.