Land Patent Instructions

[quote=idknow]
Dearest Brother o mine, Jerry,

We are not of this world-system, nor are we sons to be `taken care of' (referring to the conversation between Jesus and Peter discussing who pays the taxes) but in the presently defined system, the rulers of this system now operating couldn't even get THAT right -- for they cannot do illegally what they cannot do legally(^1): and this IS a vestige of all that our fellow anointed-siblings who went before did when sitting in chambers of legislatures to setup, define and promulgate Law in centuries past, upon which all current rules, regulations, and opinions of court are based upon; and let us recall that it started two millenia ago with our heavenly father's presentment of His harvest to the world;[\quote]
Damn long single sentence containing many thoughts.. difficult to follow, but I will try.
You indicate by your statements that in the conversation between Jesus and Peter that there might have been a connotation to the effect "nor are we sons to be 'taken care of' "... I do not remember reading such in the scripture.. can you provide a reference please? You go on to suggest that the present day system cannot get "THAT" right (tax laws) because they cannot do illegally what they cannot do legally. This is yet to be proven in a court of Law. The Constitution provides for the implementation of a tax system.
Seemingly, you are attempting to suggest that 'our anointed-siblings' were responsible for the manifestation of the current system of law. This would all depend on WHO you are referring to as 'our anointed-siblings'. You are also attempting to interject some event (unknown) which occurred two millenia ago as the starting point of the present day legal system. The concept and usage of Judges came about some five millenia ago... not two. In the current Judeio/Christian legal system, judgment by our peers did not come about until the intervention of the Roman empire, with its' implementation of the Law Merchant, which allowed mercantile peers to judge on an issue(s) of contract abridgment.
snip
[quote=idknow]
phew, I wax too eloquent! LOL, i'm gona rest.[\quote]

Ecclesiastes 1:2, “Vanity of vanity, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanity, all is vanity.”
Ecclesiastes 1:18, “For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”
Ecclesiastes 2:11, “Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to do: and behold, all was vanity and vexation of the spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.”
Ecclesiastes 12:1, “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them.
Ecclesiastes 12:13, “Let us then hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”

Keep His commandments,,, not those of man.
Jerry

[B Rookard]

"A land patent is '[a]n instrument by which the government conveys a grant of public land to a private person.' " - Glass v. Goeckel, 473 Mich. 667 fn. 11, 703 N.W.2d 58 (2005).

Thus, the government owns the land. The government then conveys the property to someone. When they do, that property becomes part of the mass of property in the State.

"Where federal land is sold to a private person, it becomes part of the general mass of property in the state and is subject to ad valorem property taxation. [cite omitted] Thus, the land in this case ceased to be federal land and was subject to taxation when the unrestricted patent was issued [to the grantee]." - Bay Mills Indian Community v. State, 244 Mich. App. 739, 626 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. App., 2001).

Property owned by the federal government is generally not subject to taxation by the State. This has to do with intergovernmental immunity doctrine - the idea that one government cannot tax the other.

The federal government can sort of "pass on" this tax exemption in the way it grants the land.

One of the easiest examples is a conveyance to an Indian tribe. In that case, the conveyance is not to citizens of the State, but to what is essentially a foreign people (in a sense). That property is not really part of the State (in a way), or at least it can be thought of as not under State control, although within the boundaries of the State. Now although the State might not tax that property, that certainly doesn't mean that the property is not subject to *any* property tax ... for the Indians control the land and may subject it to their own taxes.

In the case of a grant to a citizen of the State, as the quote above notes, that property belongs to someone within the jurisdiction of the State ... and both the land and citizen are within the jurisdiction of the State ... and thus the State can proceed to tax that property.

Tax protestors have it exactly backwards. The property was exempt from State taxation while in the hands of the federal government (because of intergovernmental immunity) ... and once an unconditional land patent is issued, the property comes within the control of the State ... and is subject to tax.

Of course, there is far more that could be said, but I don't have time to write a book.

[B Rookard]

I actually saw a tax protestor at a tax foreclosure hearing who didn't want to pay property taxes ... and he got into this ucc-redemption / land-patent stuff ... not surprisingly, the guy had no clue what he was doing (and it was painfully obvious that the guy had no clue what his papers actually said ... as someone clearly told him what to write).

Here's another example of what not to do ... don't attempt to grant yourself some sort of land patent.


************************
607 F.Supp. 536, 2 Fed.R.Serv.3d 356

United States District Court,
N.D. Indiana,
Fort Wayne Division.
Arnold W. HILGEFORD and Martha A. Hilgeford, Plaintiffs,
v.
The PEOPLES BANK, PORTLAND, INDIANA, Defendant.
Civ. No. F 85-154.
April 19, 1985.


WILLIAM C. LEE, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on its sua sponte analysis of the complaint filed in this cause. For the following reasons, this cause will be dismissed on the court's own motion.
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). The district court's role is to ensure that the claims of pro se litigants are given “fair and meaningful consideration.” Matzker v. Herr, 748 F.2d 1142, 1146 (7th Cir.1984); Caruth v. Pinkney, 683 F.2d 1044, 1050 (7th Cir.1982). This court also recognizes that federal courts have historically exercised great tolerance to ensure that an impartial forum remains available to plaintiffs invoking the jurisdiction of the court without the guidance of trained counsel. Pro se motions and complaints such as the plaintiffs' are held to less stringent pleading requirements; rigor in the examination of such motions, complaints and pleadings is inappropriate.
This is the second action filed by plaintiffs against this defendant within the last two weeks. The first action, Hilgeford v. The Peoples Bank, No. F 85-142, was dismissed by this court for lack of jurisdiction in an order dated April 11, 1985. This court ruled in that order that the basis of jurisdiction preffered in the complaint failed to allege any federal question, and that diversity jurisdiction failed because both the plaintiffs and the defendant are citizens of Indiana. With knowledge of the court's April 11, 1985 ruling, plaintiffs filed this cause, which is nearly identical to the first cause, except that the plaintiffs have made reference to federal constitutional and statutory provisions in an apparent attempt to bolster jurisdiction.
The essence of both No. F 85-142 and this cause is that plaintiffs seek to quiet title to certain real property located in Portland, Indiana. The plaintiffs claim superior title to the property by virtue of a *538 “Land Patent” which they drafted and signed themselves and recorded with the Recorder of Deeds in Jay County, Indiana. The defendant bank had apparently made a loan to the plaintiffs, and secured the loan via a mortgage on the property. The bank filed a foreclosure action, and on April 10, 1985, had the plaintiffs evicted from the property. Plaintiffs seek to have the title to the property and the interests of the parties determined in this court, and the defendant bank enjoined from asserting any rights in the land.
[1] Link to KeyCite Notes The alleged bases for jurisdiction are article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, and an Act of Congress of April 24, 1820, 3 Stat. 566. Article IV, § 3, cl. 2 gives Congress the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States ···,” and the Act of Congress of April 24, 1820 was the statute enacted by which the government apparatus for disposing of public lands via issuance of land patents was created. However, neither of these provisions are implicated here. These provisions, and the current statutory machinery for land patents set out at 43 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., are for land patents to public lands of the United States. These provisions allow the United States to grant title to public land to private individuals, thereby creating private title in the patent holder, and extinguishing title in the United States. The “patent” involved here is not a grant by the United States; it is a grant by the plaintiffs. The “patent” here is not a grant to some other holder so as to pass title on to another party; it is a self-serving document whereby the plaintiffs grant the patent to themselves. This “patent” does not involve or concern “public land;” it relates to plaintiffs' private property. The court cannot conceive how these federal provisions are implicated here, and thus federal question jurisdiction is absent.
[2] Link to KeyCite Notes Of course, the purported “land patent” in this case fails for reasons independent of jurisdiction. As was noted before, the “land patent” attached to plaintiffs' various filings is a grant of a land patent from the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs. 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 simply 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.
The blatant insufficiency of the “patent” is evident when it is compared to the copy of a land patent attached to the plaintiffs' “Motion Barring Action of Ejectment.” That copy, which is apparently of the original land patent for part of the property which is the subject matter of this cause, bears the signature of the President of the United States by his appointed Secretary of the Interior. It is clearly a grant from the United States to a private citizen (one Reuben Montgomery). Plaintiffs' “land patent” is obviously insufficient when compared to this valid patent.
Finally, the court acknowledges the plaintiffs' fifty-one page “Memorandum of Law,” which sets out a lengthy history of land ownership principles in England and the United States. This Memorandum is irrelevant to the issues raised by this suit. The plaintiffs apparently granted the defendant bank a right in the property by mortgaging the property, and gave the bank the contractual right to foreclose on the property in case of default. The filing of the purported “land patent,” and then the filing of these two lawsuits to quiet title, after the creation of the bank's mortgage interests, smacks of bad faith attempts to interfere with the defendant's contractual and property rights.
Because this cause constitutes the third quiet title suit filed in this court within the past month on the basis of a most identical self-serving land patents (two of which were filed by these same plaintiffs), the court fears that other such suits will be *539 filed unless a signal is sent that this court will not tolerate such obviously frivolous suits based upon documents which on their very face are legal nullities.

[Court then goes on to analyze sanction provisions and impose sanctions on the poor soul].

[B Rookard]

If you can't pay your property taxes ... in Michigan, there is a provision for low income people to get an exemption from city and county property taxes.

See MCL 211.7u ...

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1xkei...ame=mcl-211-7u

[mrg]

How did the plaintiffs come to own the property?

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

If you can't pay your property taxes ... in Michigan, there is a provision for low income people to get an exemption from city and county property taxes.

See MCL 211.7u ...

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(1xkei...ame=mcl-211-7u

They have the same program in cook county too, but when you sell your property, you have to pay all the arears back.

[rottweiler]

Before a territory could become a State all vacant land would be ceded to the USA. Then people could pay surveyors fees, about 1/2 a silver dollar per acre(as much as 4.50 silver a acre if somebody just wants to mine it), and get anywhere from 80 to 360 acres granted to them. All because the USA were obeying there constitutional limits and were not in the land business. These patents FALL UNDER TREATY LAW and no one can F$#% with them, not even the SCOTUS. They are international treaties between sovereigns, the President and the patentee and were even higher law than the constitution. These lands could ONLY be taken for insurrection and NEVER for ANY taxes or DEBT unless the patent was involved and title was changed. There has never been one single case of land being taken away when a properly prepared land patent was in place.

Consequently, I strongly disagree with your opinion. The original patentee did not buy the land, it was granted or given away for a valuable consideration or thought, he simply paid surveyor's fees. For example, Lord Baltimore received a huge grant from the King of England and after the revolutionary war he still retained his property even though England were losers. Only a total violater of international law would take lands away that were granted by treaty.

1. God's Law
2. Common Law
3. Law of Commerce(Old Jewish Law), Treaty Law, Law of Nations, UCC.
4. Constitutional Law
5.The rest is the garbage froth. (Statutes, ordinances, etc.).

The railroads recieved massive amounts of patents on either side of it's tracks for connecting the oceans by rail. People would go west and get a patent and sell the land right away for a pittance to lumber companies. Land was plentiful and so were crooks, just like today, but there were a few god fearing men that held sway, the people of the Reformation.

The confusion arises because people do not know what a properly prepared land grant is.

Originally Posted by B Rookard

"A land patent is '[a]n instrument by which the government conveys a grant of public land to a private person.' " - Glass v. Goeckel, 473 Mich. 667 fn. 11, 703 N.W.2d 58 (2005).

Thus, the government owns the land. The government then conveys the property to someone. When they do, that property becomes part of the mass of property in the State.

"Where federal land is sold to a private person, it becomes part of the general mass of property in the state and is subject to ad valorem property taxation. [cite omitted] Thus, the land in this case ceased to be federal land and was subject to taxation when the unrestricted patent was issued [to the grantee]." - Bay Mills Indian Community v. State, 244 Mich. App. 739, 626 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. App., 2001).

Property owned by the federal government is generally not subject to taxation by the State. This has to do with intergovernmental immunity doctrine - the idea that one government cannot tax the other.

The federal government can sort of "pass on" this tax exemption in the way it grants the land.

One of the easiest examples is a conveyance to an Indian tribe. In that case, the conveyance is not to citizens of the State, but to what is essentially a foreign people (in a sense). That property is not really part of the State (in a way), or at least it can be thought of as not under State control, although within the boundaries of the State. Now although the State might not tax that property, that certainly doesn't mean that the property is not subject to *any* property tax ... for the Indians control the land and may subject it to their own taxes.

In the case of a grant to a citizen of the State, as the quote above notes, that property belongs to someone within the jurisdiction of the State ... and both the land and citizen are within the jurisdiction of the State ... and thus the State can proceed to tax that property.

Tax protestors have it exactly backwards. The property was exempt from State taxation while in the hands of the federal government (because of intergovernmental immunity) ... and once an unconditional land patent is issued, the property comes within the control of the State ... and is subject to tax.

Of course, there is far more that could be said, but I don't have time to write a book.

[rottweiler]

B. Rookard, I have a gut feeling you have no interest in the truth whatsoever and not in the least, prove me wrong by reading this and admitting you were wrong. Come on be a man for a change and not a luciferian dupe.
http://www.teamlaw.org/LandPatents.htm

Rottweiler spoke and it was so.....
"Not so.

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

Before a territory could become a State all vacant land would be ceded to the USA. Then people could pay surveyors fees, about 1/2 a silver dollar per acre(as much as 4.50 silver a acre if somebody just wants to mine it), and get anywhere from 80 to 360 acres granted to them. All because the USA were obeying there constitutional limits and were not in the land business. These patents FALL UNDER TREATY LAW and no one can F$#% with them, not even the SCOTUS. They are international treaties between sovereigns, the President and the patentee and were even higher law than the constitution. These lands could ONLY be taken for insurrection and NEVER for ANY taxes or DEBT unless the patent was involved and title was changed. There has never been one single case of land being taken away when a properly prepared land patent was in place.

Consequently, I strongly disagree with your opinion. The original patentee did not buy the land, it was granted or given away for a valuable consideration or thought, he simply paid surveyor's fees. For example, Lord Baltimore received a huge grant from the King of England and after the revolutionary war he still retained his property even though England were losers. Only a total violater of international law would take lands away that were granted by treaty.

1. God's Law
2. Common Law
3. Law of Commerce(Old Jewish Law), Treaty Law, Law of Nations, UCC.
4. Constitutional Law
5.The rest is the garbage froth. (Statutes, ordinances, etc.).

The railroads recieved massive amounts of patents on either side of it's tracks for connecting the oceans by rail. People would go west and get a patent and sell the land right away for a pittance to lumber companies. Land was plentiful and so were crooks, just like today, but there were a few god fearing men that held sway, the people of the Reformation.

The confusion arises because people do not know what a properly prepared land grant is."

Good ,, no EXCELLENT,, Rottweiler..

Jerry.

[rottweiler]

For those who have tried land patents unsuccessfully, the cause of their lack of success is — ignorance. It’s time to put that ignorance to rest.

Think about it.

Where did the land within the United States of America come from?
It came from: England, France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, Hawaii, and from the Native American Indians.

How did the United States acquire the land?
By purchase like with Manhattan Island, the Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska;
By war power like with, Hawaii and much of the Native American Indian lands;
By Treaty like, The Northwest Territories Treaty, The Guadeloupe Hidalgo Treaty; and
By treaty as the end result of war like the Revolutionary War for independence from England.

The end result — regardless of how the land was acquired — a Treaty was ultimately designed whereby the land was resolved and reserved for the proper possession and individual ownership of the people of the United States of America. Security in land rights was, and is, found within the Treaty.

Once land was acquired in the nation it was held by the United States until someone proved their claim to it. Once the land was properly claimed and filed, the General Land Office certified that the surveys were paid for. According to the various land acts of Congress, the land was then made patent under the signature and seal of the President of the United States of America.

When a State enters the Union of the United States of America, an Enabling Act is agreed to. The Enabling Act requires that all of the unappropriated (unpatented) lands be forever granted to the Union for its disposition. For example, here is an "irrevocable ordinance" from Colorado’s Enabling Act:

"That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States".

Without such transfer of control over the right and title to the land, there would be no effective authority in
a land patent sealed under the signature of the President. For example, with few exceptions, U. S. of A. land patents have no authority in the Republic of Texas because Texas never ceded its lands to the United States. Once the land is placed in trust under the sole disposition of the United States government it stands there until someone makes a proper claim for it and because the Constitution forbids the United States from owning it, they must grant it to the person that proves their proper claim to it; that is when the land is granted to the proper claimant and that grant is made patent under the hand and seal of the President.

Notice the net effect of these Enabling Acts in relation to state taxes and state statutes:

‘After exclusive jurisdiction over lands within a State have been ceded to the United States, private property located thereon is not subject to taxation by the State, nor can state statutes enacted subsequent to the transfer have any operation therein.’ Surplus Trading Company v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, 214 U.S. 274; Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439; Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture, 318 U.S. 285

Every State within the Union of States (with the exception of the Republic of Texas) granted their unappropriated lands to the United States as a condition of statehood. Then as people acquired land, under various acts of Congress the President signed the patents securing the patented rights to the patent holders and their heirs and assigns forever.

There are many more cases where the United States Supreme Court has supported the fact that the Land Patent certifies absolute and supreme title to land. There are no cases where the courts ever ruled against the properly obtained Land Patent.

Summa Corp. v California, 466 US 198, is not listed above, yet it is one of the best cases describing how land patents work. In that 1980’s case the court noted that they had ruled and ruled and ruled and they were not going to rule again, the Land Patent is supreme title to land. The case was one where California was granted the tidewater lands in the California Republic Constitution and therefore California went after a family’s land, which land was secured under patent on an old Spanish Land Grant. Interestingly, the case doesn’t talk much about land patents; it talks about the Guadeloupe Hidalgo Treaty. Imagine that, a land patent case that speaks mostly about the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which clause states that Treaties are supreme law even over a State's foundational Constitution.

Don’t you get it? Here’s how land patents work:

The Land was originally acquired within the United States of America by some Treaty.
Your Land Patent secures the rights of the Treaty upon which the land was originally acquired within the territories of the United States from the Treaty to the individual person named on the patent.
The patent specifically grants the described lands to the party named on the patent and to their heirs and their assigns forever.
The party named on the patent then passes the inheritance, grants, or assigns the patented lands to someone else, which heir or assignee is now named on the patent by that assignment. The documents that demonstrate such an assignment are often called, "Deeds".
Because the granter can not compel you to accept the assignment it is necessary for you to take some action to signify your acceptance of the assignment. For this reason we use Team Law's copyrighted "Declaration of Land Patent".
Once you have accepted the proper assignment of the Land Patent with proper documentation, you are named on the physical Land Patent where it says, "and to his heir and assigns forever".
It doesn’t matter how many times the land is reassigned. The patent by its own creation lasts "forever" and belongs to the named party "and to their heirs and assigns forever".