Land Patent Cites

Suijuris,
If it's not too much trouble you might want to take just the cites with a brief description, edit into verified and unverified and keep a running list in the first post in this thread.

Or maybe one of us could keep watch here, sort'em and keep a doc updated in the download area.

When I get to it I will post some cites I have here. I haven't verified but I have a list a half a mile long on papers scattered in several locations. Some from the Johnson Recordings Yadu mentioned. (I listened to Johnson a year or so ago and the time is well spent for the education received).

Others are from surfing, purchase of reading materials, and random searches on findlaw. I have no access to lexis or westlaw to shepardize the cases but will try to get the case sites here with a brief description soon.

Notes from Johnson Audio:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* American Jurisprudence Pleading & Practice Forms Vol 20 A - Public Lands
* US vs Beggerly 97-731 (June 8, 1998).
* Woodworth vs Fulton 1 Cal.295
* Weaton's Int'l Law LCC# JX-2495.E3
* Botiller vs Dominguez 130 us 238
* Glover vs McFadden 346 us 940
* History of Public Land Law Development LCC# 68-6299 Nov. 1968
* Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners and Subdivision of Sections 1974 (BLM) USG Prt Office# 024-011-00012-7
* Paris Peace Treaty Sept 1783
* North West Ordinance 1787
* South West Ordinance 1790
* Kentucky/Texas did not cede land to USA. Indiana/Illinois Created out of North West Territory - Land Ceded to USA by Virginia. Congress then gave 1 whole township and section 16 of each township to Illinois concurrent jurisdiction with Indiana on Wabash and on Mississippi to any state that would be formed West on that border. All else was retained and disposed of by Land Patent.
* See U.S. Statutes at Large Vol. 3 P.428-431. (Statute I, April 18, 1818, 15th Congress Session I. Ch 66, 67. Enabling Act for Illinois Territory).
* Laws Applicable if any, are ones at the time the patent was issued.
* BLM records for Public Lands disposed of via patent East of Mississippi are in BLM archives in Alexandria Virginia
* Cragians vs Powell 128 us 691
* United States vs Gardner 903 F. Supp. 1394 (Oct 2,1995) (Tresspass on public domain of US They assert Nevada Owned the land cause it passed to Nevada when it became a state. US District court Affirmed that the only land granted was that land congress granted to the State in the enabling act for that state. All else was still within the disposition of the US until Patented when the US transferred all rights into private ownership/propritery title.
We get taxed by state giving title insurance against someone trying to take our property. If you can trace a clear title of ownership through assigns to the patent you need no title insurance because you can successfully assert clear title to the land and defent so in court.
* Kleppe vs NewMexico 426 us 529 (1976)
* Digest of US Supreme Court Reports Lawyers Ed.
- Vol 12A States Territories and Possessions.
- Vol 11A Public Lands.
* US vs Arredondo 31 US 6 Peters 691
* Territory of Montana vs Lee 2Mont. 124 (Jan, 1874) (applicable today).
* Lake Shore and MSR Company vs Ohio 173 US 285
* McCulloch vs Maryland 4L ed. 579
* Weston vs Charleston 7L ed. 481
* Wheeling, P and C Transportation vs Wheeling 25L ed. 412
* Vanbrocklin vs Anderson 29L ed. 845
* Madden vs Kentucky 84L ed. 590
* Gibson vs Chouteau 20L ed. 534
* Henderson Bridge Company vs Henderson 43L ed. 823
* Fletcher vs Teck 3L ed. 162
* Title 43 USC sec 1421-1424 PL 88-608 19 Sep 1964.
* 29 Federal Procedures Lawyers Ed. Sect 66:507 Section B.
* US vs Fitzgerald 10L ed. 785
* US vs Gratiot 10L ed. 573
* Jackson vs Lamphire 7L ed. 679
* Brown vs Huger 16L ed. 125
* Bicknell vs Comstock 28L ed. 962
* Re Emblen 40L ed. 613 (161 US 52)
* Green vs Liter 12 US 229
* Beattys Administrators 12 US 8 Cranch
* Eminent Domain - Blacks Law, The right of state to REASSERT ownership or
dominion of or RESUME possession of property. (If a state never had dominoin over, how can it resume possession or reassert?) See act of Congress 1818 creating IL to see what it was granted dominion over.
* Condemnation - taking of private property for public use.
* USC Annotated. (Lists Cases decisions applicable to a statute US Code).
* Article 4 Section 3 clause 2 - Brittle vs People 2 Neb. 198 (1872)
* US GPO - History of public land law development Nov 1968. Cat# 68-62999. P. 301
For Public Record Congressman Steven A. Douglas, Congressional Globe
31st congress 1st Session June 26, 1850 P 848.
* Being Sovereign Status has no effect on ownership of property. Although it has much to do with SS# You can still own land in fee simple not being sovereign.
* Digest of US Supreme Court Reports Vol 12A States Terrirories and Possessions. State Sovereignty P10. Section 5. McCulloch vs Maryland 4 Wheat 316 aka 4 Led 579 (Standing - Not been overturned - 1820) aka 17 US 316.
*Sovereignty of state extends to everything that exists of its own authority or permission. Public land disposition are controlled by US not the State except as where it owns the land by grant from congress in an act.
* Titles to land - Digest of US Supreme court reports. Vol 11A Section Public Lands P. 188. Sub Sect 246. (Deals with Heirs and Assigns).
DeLavergne Refrigating Machine Co. VS Featherstone 147 US 209 aka 37 Led. 138
* Title 43 USC sec 961 - Land Subject Grant (All title passes from US)
* American Jurisprudence 2nd Ed. Title 16 page 256. (Unconstional Statute ...)
Title 37 Page 8 (Fraud videated every transaction and all contracts).
(- 262 Pacific Reporter 314)
(- 292 Pacific Reporter 539) - Tax info about California.
(- 187 Pacific Reporter 418)

* The Illinois Supreme Court in People ex. rel. Peabody v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., (1889):
When a corporation is formed under the general incorporation act, for the purpose of carrying on a lawful business, the law, and not the statement or the licence of certificate must determine what powers can be exercised as incidents of such business...To create one corporation that it may destroy the energies of all other corporations of a given kind, and suck their life blood out of them, is not a 'lawful purpose.' - It seems this is what the government has become, a leech sucking the life blood of the people. Is Illinois affirming that it's own actions are unlawful?

* In 1628, King Charles I granted a charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company. In 1664, the King sent his commissioners to see whether this company had been complying with the terms of the charter. The governors of the company objected, declaring that this investigation infringed upon their rights. On behalf of the King, his commissioners responded:

The King did not grant away his sovereignty over you when he made you a corporation. When His Majesty gave you power to make wholesome laws, and to administer justice by them, he parted not with his right of judging whether justice was administered accordingly or not. When his Majesty gave you authority over such subjects as live within your jurisdiction, he made them not YOUR subjects, nor YOU their supreme authority.
From childhood, this King had been led to act as a sovereign should.

The Creator is Sovereign over People. WHO IS Sovereign over a fiction at law?
“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins (118 US 356).

The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The successful war for American Independence was formally brought to a close in the year 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Peace. Article 1 of the Treaty clearly states that King George of England “acknowledges the United States viz the thirteen colonies are free, sovereign and independent States… and relinquishes all claims to the government, property, and territorial rights of the same…”

The United States Supreme Court declares that the “Sovereignty” remains with the “people” and resides with the “people”… Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins (118 US 356).

“There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States (of America). By their authority the State Constitutions were made and by their authority the Constitution for the united States (of America) was established…” Hauenstein vs Lynham (100 US 483).

The Michigan Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court concurred and made it perfectly clear that the term “person” does not include the “sovereign” and that for a sovereign to be bound by statute the sovereign must be “specifically” named. Will vs Michigan state Police (1938 105 L.Ed.2nd 45).

United States vs Fox (94 U.S. 315) states that in common usage, the term “person” does not include the sovereign. Statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it.

“Acts of Congress” are not applicable to “sovereigns” in the 50 states. 18 USC, Rule 54 C Positive Law enacted – Titles of the United States Code.

It is the doctrine of the common law that the sovereign cannot be sued in his own court without consent. The Siren, 74 U.S. 152 (1968).

Chisholm V Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) - Basically declares the people are the only true sovereigns in america.
“No action can be taken against a sovereign in the non-constitutional courts of either the United states or the state courts and any such action is considered the crime of Barratry. Barratry is an offense at common law.” State vs Batson, 17 S.E. 2d 511, 512, 513.

No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of ours shall hold the pleas of our crown. Magna Carta, Article 24. i.e. (No member of government may make a complaint against any individual. To "...hold the pleas of our crown" means to "...sue in the name of the king," or, in America, to "...sue in the name of the sovereign people," e.g. THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA VS A.B.)

Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court." Magna Carta, Article 34

(A plea or charge against a man or woman [sovereign] must be attended by another member of the sovereignty to be valid). An agent of government does not participate in sovereignty other than as a private individual. - See Yick Wo.
"Sunshine is the best form of disinfectant". - Justice Brandeis

United States v. Certain Interest in property in Champaign County, State of Illinois 165 F Supp. 474

Federal Farm Mortgage Corp v. Ganswer 146 NET 635, 20 N.W. 2d 689

South Omaha Bank v. Levy 95 N.W. 603

First National Bank v. Sargeant 65 NEB. 394 91 N.W. 595

Morrill v. Skinner 57 NEB. 164, 77 N.W. 375

Barber v. Crowell 55 NEB 571 73 N.W. 1109

Speer v. Hadduck, 31 FREEMAN (ILL) 439, 443

United States v. United States Chain Company 212 F. Supp. 171 (N.D. ILL.)

(More to come on Common Law/Allodial Title & Land Patents)
Some of the above posts from Joe Stevens (Deceased), Revised by Augustus Blackstone.

http://www.healthfreedom.info/final_...operty_tax.htm (The Book)

http://proliberty.com/observer/20040419.htm (Some writings from Uncle Gus).

http://proliberty.com/observer/20010312.htm (The Errant Soverign's Hand Book - By Uncle Gus).

DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS: RESOLUTIONS OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

October 14, 1774

Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.

And whereas, in consequence of other statutes, judges, who before held only estates at will in their offices, have been made dependent upon the crown alone for their salaries, and standing armies kept in times of peace:

And it has lately been resolved in Parliament, that by force of a statute, made in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, colonists may be transported to England, and tried there upon accusations for treasons, and misprisions, or concealments of treasons committed in the colonies; and by a late statute, such trials have been directed in cases therein mentioned.

And whereas, in the last session of Parliament, three statutes were made; one, entitled "An act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading, or shipping of goods, wares and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America"; another, entitled "An act for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England"; and another, entitled "An act for the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any act done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England." And another statute was then made, "for making more effectual provision for the government of the province of Quebec, etc." All which statutes are impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights.

And whereas, assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances; and their dutiful, humble, loyal, and reasonable petitions to the crown for redress have been repeatedly treated with contempt by His Majesty's ministers of state:

The good people of the several colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceedings of Parliament and administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies to meet and sit in General Congress, in the city of Philadelphia, in order to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties may not be subverted:

Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, declare,

That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights:

Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.

Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother-country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.

Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and en joyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.

Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British Parliament, as are bona fide, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother-country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America, without their consent.

Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.

Resolved, 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.

Resolved, N.C.D. 7. That these His Majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.

Resolved, N.C.D. 8. That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same are illegal.

Resolved, N.C.D. 9. That the keeping a standing army in these colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony, in which such army is kept, is against law.

Resolved, N.C.D. 10. It is indispensably necessary to good government, and rendered essential by the English constitution, that the constituent branches of the legislature be independent of each other; that, therefore, the exercise of the legislative power in several colonies, by a council appointed, during pleasure, by the crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous, and destructive to the freedom of American legislation.

All and each of which the aforesaid deputies, in behalf of themselves and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties; which cannot be legally taken from them, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without their own consent, by their representatives in their several provincial legislatures.

In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present, and proceed to state such acts and measures as have been adopted since the last war, which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America.

Resolved, N.C.D. That the following acts of Parliament are infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists; and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary in order to restore harmony between Great Britain and the American colonies, viz.:

continued . . .

The several acts of 4 Geo. 3, ch. 15, and ch. 34. -- 5 Geo. 3, ch. 25. -- 6 Geo. 3, ch. 52. -- 7 Geo. 3, ch. 41, and ch. 46. -- 8 Geo. 3, ch. 22, which impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend the powers of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize the judges' certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to, requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships and goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend his property, and are subversive of American rights.

Also the 12 Geo. 3, ch. 24, entitled "An act for the better securing His Majesty's dockyards, magazines, ships, ammunition, and stores," which declares a new offense in America, and deprives the American subject of a constitutional trial by a jury of the vicinage, by authorizing the trial of any person, charged with the committing any offense described in the said act, out of the realm, to be indicted and tried for the same in any shire or county within the realm.

Also the three acts passed in the last session of Parliament, for stopping the port and blocking up the harbor of Boston, for altering the charter and government of the Massachusetts Bay, and that which is entitled "An act for the better administration of justice," etc.

Also the act passed in the same session for establishing the Roman Catholic religion in the Province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger, from so total a dissimilarity of religion, law, and government of the neighboring British colonies, by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France.

Also the act passed in the same session for the better providing suitable quarters for officers and soldiers in His Majesty's service in North America.

Also, that the keeping a standing army in several of these colonies, in time of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that colony in which such army is kept, is against law.

To these grievous acts and measures, Americans cannot submit, but in hopes that their fellow-subjects in Great Britain will, on a revision of them, restore us to that state in which both countries found happiness and prosperity, we have for the present only resolved to pursue the following peaceable measures:



Text from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (Washington, 1904), I, 63-73.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...tick/pr10.html

In the interest of balance:

Fifth Third Bank v. Jones-Williams, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-935, 2005-Ohio-4070, ¶4,5,36,37 (Aug. 9, 2005):

In addition, appellants alleged: (1) their property is immune from collateral attack due to the execution of a land patent;

....

In support of their motion for summary judgment, appellants submitted copies of the following: ... (5) a quitclaim deed recorded January 22, 1996; (6) a document entitled "Declaration of Land Patent" dated January 20, 1996; (7) a document entitled "Declaration of Homestead" dated January 20, 1996; (8) a land patent dated February 3, 1807;

....

Finally, appellants argue the trial court improperly granted summary judgment because their property is protected by a U.S. land patent, shielding it from collateral attack. Appellee argues contra that a land patent is merely a conveyance, and not a general protection from liens. We agree. As the trial court aptly stated, "the information sheds no light on the case at hand." (June 23, 2004 Decision, at 5.) Therefore, appellants' argument is without merit.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee.

Decision available at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/

[citizensoldier]

Mods,

I am unsure of what's legalbeagles motivation by misrepresenting what the case he/she mentions says about land patents and the context in which it was mentioned, but the above is not a cite nor decision concerning a land patent.
The case used by legalbeagle is about discharge of a mortgage debt, which they mentioned a land patent as one of their defenses against a lien on the real estate. As I have stated numerous times, a land patent doesn't infringe on anyone's right to contract nor is it a means of defense against the terms of said contract. The court was not ruling on the supremacy nor validity of the land patent - it only agreed with the trial court that:

Finally, appellants argue the trial court improperly granted summary
judgment because their property is protected by a U.S. land patent, shielding it from collateral attack. Appellee argues contra that a land patent is merely a conveyance, and not a general protection from liens. We agree. As the trial court aptly stated, "the information sheds no light on the case at hand."

Although the court agrees with appellee as stated above, they are merely agreeing that a patent does not provide general protection againt liens, so its irrelevant information. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently on land patents since the formation of the country - properly assigned land patent is supreme.

Then I'm not sure what use is being suggested for the land patent. As far as I can tell, it's just a deed when the government is the grantor:

"land patent. An instrument by which the government conveys a grant of public land to a private person." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).

Sure, there were some federalism disputes back in the early days of the United States when the federal and state governments fought over which of them had the right to convey a certain parcel of land. Those are represented by the cites in this thread. The case I cited was the most recent one I found that dealt with an attempt to use a land patent in the context that is most often discussed in these forums: defeating foreclosure.

The bank's right to foreclose is usually founded in contract (most modern bank Notes and Mortgages contain clauses granting the bank a right to foreclose if you don't pay back what you owe), so in the most common case, holding a land patent up to try and defeat foreclosure is clearly an attempt to infringe the bank's right to contract.

You're right, the court does not invalidate or dispute the land patent as a supreme means of conveying land. But I don't think I've taken the case out of context at all. The defendant in the foreclosure tried to stop it by claiming it was protected by a land patent. The court deemed the argument bogus and gave the bank its summary judgment.

[citizensoldier]

Originally Posted by legalbeagle

Then I'm not sure what use is being suggested for the land patent. As far as I can tell, it's just a deed when the government is the grantor:

"land patent. An instrument by which the government conveys a grant of public land to a private person." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).

Sure, there were some federalism disputes back in the early days of the United States when the federal and state governments fought over which of them had the right to convey a certain parcel of land. Those are represented by the cites in this thread. The case I cited was the most recent one I found that dealt with an attempt to use a land patent in the context that is most often discussed in these forums: defeating foreclosure.

The bank's right to foreclose is usually founded in contract (most modern bank Notes and Mortgages contain clauses granting the bank a right to foreclose if you don't pay back what you owe), so in the most common case, holding a land patent up to try and defeat foreclosure is clearly an attempt to infringe the bank's right to contract.

You're right, the court does not invalidate or dispute the land patent as a supreme means of conveying land. But I don't think I've taken the case out of context at all. The defendant in the foreclosure tried to stop it by claiming it was protected by a land patent. The court deemed the argument bogus and gave the bank its summary judgment.

As the thread title suggests, the contents should be about land patents - not about mortgage elimination cases where a land patent is inappropriately used as a defense. You claim your motivation to be "in the interest of balance" concerning land patents; however, misrepresentation of the case by cutting and pasting information that is taken out of context is not balanced. The court was merely saying the land patent is irrelevant concerning the dispute of a debt arising from a contract, which is correct.

[wisper]

The land patent, is if I understand the issue, is just clear title to the land, granted in patent to the original owner, by the land office and approved by the president. If I update the patent and bring the patent forward as an heir or assign, by abstract completion and demonstrated acceptance I have the the dirt and the air above it. How does one get to the point of including other property (like a home) under the protection of the patent. It would seem logical to me with a home sitting on the patented land, that the patentee would be hard pressed to get any 1st or 2nd mortgage, (on the home) because the bank would be in second or third position on it's lien , if they were to make the loan. I may be wrong, and if so, tell me, but I have been of the impression that all the patent was going to do for me was protect against eminant domain, keep the utlity companies and city/county employees off the property and free me from permits and possibly property taxes. I have put together the patent paperwork, and I own outright the home sitting on it, but so far, here is what I've found: 1) If I don't follow the the building codes and get the proof( through the permit process) then certain significant items are denied me. 2) The utility ( water) won't provide the water mains without the easements established by the Planning & zoning dept 3) P&Z demands a site plan to include all utility locations to establish the easements, not just on my patented land, but for the properties on the four sides of my property. 4) when I entertained bypassing an approval of a county site plan on my property, the county let me know that I would be shooting myself in the foot, without all the necessary approval, if I ever had to sell, the new owner would have to update and pay for what I didn't do, or the title insurance would be stopped and 5)the power company would not provide power to the home without a county inspection on the site, otherwise they would be liable to additional liability for which their lawyers won't accept.
In conclusion, I have gone through the expenses and time it took to get the patent sandwich together, I paid cash for the land and for a new manufactured home, there are no banks involved, it looks like the county would be willing to fight to keep the property on the tax roles as they have been for almost a hundred years, so here I am wondering why I got involved, and thinking that even the tax role thing would be significant only in a large metro area. Am I missing something?