Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


LEGAL ? About Land Patents
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27
  1. #1

    ? About Land Patents

    "Land Patents" was brought up in another thread, and was sort of off topic, I have a question, or several, and thought a new thread was more appropriate.


    My understanding: Land Patents is where an individual buys land from the US government, and not another individual.

    BTW anyone interested to see if any of there ancestors had land patents you can search BLM here:

    https://glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx

    My 3XG grandfather, and 2XG grandfather had land patents, not far from here. And the 3XG grandfather was given a "Military Warrant" by the US government for serving in the War of 1812 (fought at Mobile) 120 acres.


    Anyway.....to the question.


    If an individual purchases land from another individual, can it be turned into a "Land Patent"? If so how? Please don't get to technical. Laymen's terms.

    I understand that China is buying a lot of land from the government, or so I've heard, can individuals also purchase "Land Patents" today?

    Where might one inquire as to a purchase? BLM?
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    44
    You can read up on them here:http://www.teamlaw.org/PatentHowTo.htm

    Samuel Adams can probably tell you much more. As IRC, he may have some.
    "It is never the tigers that get you. It is always the gnats."

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Granana View Post
    You can read up on them here:http://www.teamlaw.org/PatentHowTo.htm

    Samuel Adams can probably tell you much more. As IRC, he may have some.
    Thanks and believe you're right.
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  4. #4
    Another question: I have the documents (or rather photo copies) of the original land patents, and noticed that the documents do state:

    Its own words prove the land belongs (fee simple) to the party named on the patent and to their heirs and assigns forever.
    I didn't think anything of it at the time, but just curious can a legal "claim" be made to the land, even if a warranty deed is held by another person. I'm sure lawyers have figured all this out, but was just wondering. Not only for undercutting someone who has a warranty deed to the land my grandfathers bought from the government, but also the land I am sitting on. With a warranty deed, bought and paid for, and due to age fall under the law of not having to pay taxes on the land.
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southern Born
    Posts
    4,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Granana View Post
    You can read up on them here:http://www.teamlaw.org/PatentHowTo.htm

    Samuel Adams can probably tell you much more. As IRC, he may have some.
    I've read up on them there but still couldn't tell how to go about this in this day and time.
    Samuel Adams knows a bit about this but is sometimes so cryptic or not clear enough. I've tried to cipher what he is saying but it goes over my head.
    I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
    — Robert Heinlein

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    2,783
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny225 View Post
    I've read up on them there but still couldn't tell how to go about this in this day and time.
    Samuel Adams knows a bit about this but is sometimes so cryptic or not clear enough. I've tried to cipher what he is saying but it goes over my head.
    I know what ya mean. When Sam speaks, I listen, but most of the time, I don't understand what he said. Maybe CaryC can coax him into bringing it down to our level, LOL. Hopefully, he will see this thread.
    Sherree

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    9,495
    That argument failed in Wisconsin.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjr.../#507b28012831

    Believers in the theory that federal land patents defeat property taxes have been dealt a blow by this decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. It is a rather interesting theory. The idea is that if title to your land traces back to a patent issued by the federal government, then municipalities and counties cannot tax it since they could not tax it when it belonged to the federal government. Of course, you might have to do some paperwork in order to claim the benefit. Alan Kreglow will help you with the process and explain it more thoroughly.

    A lot of land in the United States traces back to federal land patents. We don't want to think too hard about how it is that the federal government came to own the land. It was not always a pretty process. One of the reasons taxes were low in the 19th Century was that the government had quite a bit of revenue from land sales. Of course not all land titles in the United States trace back to federal land patents. It may well be most of it, at least in terms of area - all those rectangle shaped states that you fly over when going coast to coast. I'll have to make a project of figuring that out some time.

    In the latest Wisconsin case, Gary Charles Lizalek had several reasons why his land in the County of Milwaukee should not be foreclosed. Front and center was the notion that title tracing to a federal land patent made the property exempt:

    Lizalek first contends that the County had no right to tax his land because the federal government conveyed the land with a clear title to an owner “and to his heirs and assigns forever” through a “federal land patent” in 1837. Lizalek contends that he is the assignee of that land patent, so the County cannot encumber the title to his land; his land is not subject to the political jurisdiction of the State of Wisconsin or the County.

    The second sentence really fascinates me. Many tax protester theories concerning the income tax are based on the idea that the federal government is sharply limited and constrained so that it can only apply the income tax to people who live in the District of Columbia or something like that. The land patent people, on the other hand, argue for a kind a federal supremacy that a land owner gets a small sliver of. Their title stretches back to a piece paper signed by Martin Van Buren. Wisconsin was barely a territory then.

    The Court made short work of his argument:

    The federal courts have squarely rejected this argument, ruling that federal government conveyances of property by federal land patent in centuries past “do not prevent the creation of later interests and have nothing to do with claims subsequently arising under state law.” See Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670, 672 (7th Cir. 1986). The fact that Lizalek's land, like other land in the State of Wisconsin, was conveyed by federal land patent long ago is irrelevant to the County's authority to tax the property.


    It Does Not Work

    In response to a Michigan case, a few months ago, I went looking, pretty thoroughly, to see if anybody had ever gotten so much as the time of day from making the land patent argument with respect to property taxes. My sources and research skills are pretty good, but everything I came up with was negative. I had a bit of an exchange with Alan Kreglow, but none of the cases he pointed to had anything to do with property taxes. This is more or less a summation of his argument:

    The real point is NOT that courts are deciding en masse in favor of people seeking to have their property taken off the tax rolls, but that our courts are deeply corrupt and are ignoring the lawful principle of stare decisis by IGNORING U.S. Supreme Court decisions consistently upholding the power of the land patent in decisions that ruled in favor of those claiming the “forever” benefit of the land patent.

    I have seen opinion letters from state attorneys general stating flatly that when land was transferred into private ownership it became subject to property tax, but this point is always asserted with no Supreme Court authority to back up the bald assertion. There is no logic to this, aside from the fact that the state WANTS to tax the land and has passed statutes that assert they can. But this violates the Constitution of the United States of America and such statutes are generally unconstitutionally vague.

    I had a friend who got deep into the tax protester movement. He and I would have these interesting discussions. When I showed him decisions that flat out said the theories he was propounding were wrong, his answer was "The courts are corrupt". Mr. Kreglow's response is similar. The argument is that he is right and the lower courts should be deciding that way, they just don't. He is violating one of my fundamental tax planning tenets - "It is what it is. Deal with it."

    I'm not sure how big this movement is. Given the large number of taxing jurisdictions in the country, I would not be shocked if making the argument has worked in some small town somewhere. If you decide to try it, be aware that some states, like Indiana, have very unforgiving systems that will cause you to lose your property pretty quickly if you don't pay the taxes.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    37,119
    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    Another question: I have the documents (or rather photo copies) of the original land patents, and noticed that the documents do state:



    I didn't think anything of it at the time, but just curious can a legal "claim" be made to the land, even if a warranty deed is held by another person. I'm sure lawyers have figured all this out, but was just wondering. Not only for undercutting someone who has a warranty deed to the land my grandfathers bought from the government, but also the land I am sitting on. With a warranty deed, bought and paid for, and due to age fall under the law of not having to pay taxes on the land.


    You would be committing fraud trying to claim land that was legally sold and transferred years ago.
    Now on the subject of whats stated on the patent that the land belongs to you and your heirs forever and this is as long as it's kept in the family and if you have more than one kid you must name an heir to the property/land or the courts will see fit that it's sold off and the money divided up amongst the surviving kids and grand kids.
    Another thing with that is there can be no inheritance tax on the land to the heir of the land as it belongs to them forever and government cannot tax something that does not belong to them in the first place and they are committing an act of extortion and holding what is rightfully yours to began with as stated in the land patent/true title to the land.
    With the land patent you share ownership of that land with no one! Not the town, county, state or federal government. You still have to pay local yearly land taxes.
    The land patent does not allow you to start your own fiefdom against the government but gives you some rights that you must learn to defend yourself in the proper court of law.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny225 View Post
    I've read up on them there but still couldn't tell how to go about this in this day and time.
    Samuel Adams knows a bit about this but is sometimes so cryptic or not clear enough. I've tried to cipher what he is saying but it goes over my head.
    I'm only semi-brilliant so some of this may be wrong. I read the whole thing. My understanding is:

    If you have a warranty deed you have to obtain a "Chain of Title" meaning all who have owned the land back to when it was purchased from the government. In the case of my grandfathers that would be 1849, and 1851. I don't live on the land or own it, just giving a perspective on the timeline. So the land I live on now, not my grandfathers, I would have to go to the Chancery clerk's office, and get the chain of ownership (who owned it, and then sold it, or the part that applies to you) back to the original purchase of Land Patent, and have it notarized. That is what I understood from this:

    Though the only way you can be sure you own the Land is to have a complete Chain of Title in your own records, if you are sending documents to Team Law to use Team Law’s Land Patent Sandwich service documentation we do not need the complete Chain of Title (abstract, etc.), we only need to see the land patent and certified proof of the most recent Deeds that grant the Land to you; ie. we need to see a certified copy of your Warranty Deed (if your right to the land was acquired by a Quitclaim Deed we need to see a certified copy of it and of every other transfer document back to a Warranty Deed)
    Then have the location presented in a Land Patent format, and the apply for a land patent.

    I think Sam is reading this thread so he can refute that if need be.
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  10. #10
    Thanks to Meemur, and Publius for their replies.

    It's not so much that I want to take someone else's land, but rather concern that someone will try to take mine, and don't think that hasn't been tried, expensive in court.
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    68,797
    This is "sovereign citizen" stuff as I understand it.

    If you want to get stomped into a legal mudhole by the gummitup, and take on a new all consuming full time legal hobby, try it.
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    9,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    If you want to get stomped into a legal mudhole by the gummitup, and take on a new all consuming full time legal hobby, try it.
    This, in spades! I've known several men through the years who lived on disability who tried to claim the family land was exempt from taxes. One was in Michigan and that piece of land had been in his family since the 1800s. He had all the time in the world to research it and sit around in court.

    He lost. And everyone I've know who has tried this has ultimately lost.

    To me, this is not a battle worth fighting under the present circumstances.

    Cary, if someone rich or a gov't entity really wants your land, they generally will get it, unless you have really deep pockets and/or lots of friends in high places. Screwdriver's story (he won the right to keep his property) is rare. This is the sort of nation that we're living in, now: people with enough money can pretty much do whatever they want to do. The rest of us are screwed, unless we think ahead a bit and hold property in places that the rich aren't going to develop or even care about.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    2,783
    Like Cary has already stated, we've already been to court ( it was expensive, too) to keep another person from taking our land. We won the case. I have a question, though. Since Cary is retired, we no longer have to pay land/property taxes. Does this mean that our land is free and clear, and we are the rightful and lawful owners of it now? Our home and property has all been paid off, as well.
    Sherree

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    12,353
    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    I'm only semi-brilliant so some of this may be wrong. I read the whole thing. My understanding is:

    If you have a warranty deed you have to obtain a "Chain of Title" meaning all who have owned the land back to when it was purchased from the government. In the case of my grandfathers that would be 1849, and 1851. I don't live on the land or own it, just giving a perspective on the timeline. So the land I live on now, not my grandfathers, I would have to go to the Chancery clerk's office, and get the chain of ownership (who owned it, and then sold it, or the part that applies to you) back to the original purchase of Land Patent, and have it notarized. That is what I understood from this:



    Then have the location presented in a Land Patent format, and the apply for a land patent.

    I think Sam is reading this thread so he can refute that if need be.
    What you appear to be describing is commonly known as an abstract of title. In any jurisdiction I'm familiar with, every instrument (deed, mortgage, lease, etc.) in that chain of title would have been, of legal necessity, already acknowledged (i.e., notarized) prior to recording. (If a deed, mortgage, lease, or any other instrument is not acknowledged by a notary public, it will be rejected for recording by the county registrar.)

    That being the case, I am at a loss to understand why you would have to have a pile of recorded instrument copies that have been already notarized (which is what an abstract of title is), itself notarized as to the whole. I could see attaching an abstractor's certificate stating that the abstract is a full and complete compilation of all items filed for public record dealing with that particular tract of land down to a given certification date. But then to have the abstract of title itself notarized? I just don't see what that accomplishes.

    Once the land has been patented, it is no longer owned by the government, but by a private party, who will convey it by deed when he/she decides to do so. Private parties do not convey by patent; only governments do, and when they do, it is only as to unappropriated land still in the public domain, of which there is very little remaining today. Most states patented their unappropriated state lands long, long ago, and what public lands may remain are not going to be patented at this point. The federal government has a lot of unappropriated land in the western states, but nowadays the feds almost never convey any land at all, being it by patent or otherwise.

    If you were to find a vacancy between existing patents (some strip lying between two patented surveys that had been omitted from both earlier patents due to survey error), there is a method for surveying and applying for a patent to that strip. This occasionally happens in Texas and other states which do not rely on Jeffersonian legal descriptions (i.e., township, range and section), but in states using township and range, vacancies are quite rare, to the extent they may exist at all.

    Long and short of it: If somebody is trying to sell you a patent, or trying to sell you some means of "obtaining a patent" for a tract of land you already own because you bought it from an individual, they are merely trying to separate you from your money.


    The Obama Administration constitutes a pseudocompetocracy, i.e., rule by those whose primary skill is in feigning competence.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    SWMO
    Posts
    1,566
    You only "OWN" what you can defend with force.

    A piece of paper labeled "Patent" doesn't protect you from the government or the court system. They will take your property whenever they want.

    Remember:

    Everything Nazi Germany did was "Legal"

    Anne Frank was an enemy of the state....

    and executed for her crimes...
    WARNING!!!

    My use of pronouns will offend faggots, the mentally ill, and the gender confused.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    12,520
    Another perspective on land patents from my study on Property Rights. This pertains to the west. The east coast has additional complications from the headright system where the colonial states issued patents.

    https://famguardian.org/Publications.../tableoc5.html

    Table of Contents WESTERN SETTLEMENT

    Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; recognition Spanish/Mexican Land Grants; Land Patents - quitclaim national interest, "tribunal judgement" State possessory rights adjudicated, issuance not discretionary, annulment suits subject to statute of limitations except for fraud, enforcement or trust for rightful owner, conclusive evidence of title; "Color of title"; National title by "discovery"; Indian right of occupancy or "Original Indian Title" - tribes unauthorized to convey title; extinguishment of Indian title.

    LAND PATENTS

    SPANISH & MEXICAN LAND GRANTS

    EXTINGUISHING "ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE"

    NON-MINERAL CHARACTER OF THE LAND

    "Public domain", "Public Land"; mineral lands not open for homestead; possessory property rights - assertion of rule that one could not "prescribe against the sovereign" through adverse possession.

    UNITED STATES v. GRATOIT

    HOMESTEAD

    Land disposal strategies - "distribution," "graduation and donation," "preemption"; "Log Cabin Bill"; doctrine of "relation back"; possessory rights; homestead acts; "indemnity lands" as incentives to railroads;

    PRE-EMPTION
    "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SE Okieland
    Posts
    5,102
    https://glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx

    Did a look up of our last name and found multiple hits and all but one was from 1896 and one from 1905 and all were to members of an Indian tribe....

    Interesting....

    Texican....

  18. #18
    Just wanted to thank everyone for their replies, gone all afternoon yesterday. Thanks Oilpatch for the heads up.
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    68,797
    Start with something simple.

    Get a real title to your car....
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    Start with something simple.

    Get a real title to your car....
    Are you saying there is something else than the one you get when you don't owe anything on the car?
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    68,797
    Certificate of title is probably what you have.

    So, who has the actual title? Revenue/DMV has you on a leash for your car as well.
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Illinois backwoods
    Posts
    44
    This is a big topic, and I haven’t had the time to engage fully and I wanted to see where the conversation might go before I responded.

    As always, Meemur soothingly offers every reason why the boys of the village should not resist King George.



    Love the hairstyle, btw, Meems.

    Anyhow, on to specifics......

    I posted a portion of a memorandum that I used in the Electoral College thread ?, I think it was, but here is more of that memorandum.....

    “Land duly conveyed by Patent is not taxable by the state.” -Lomax vs. Pickering 173 US 26, 43 L. Ed 601;
    “After the American Revolution, lands became allodial, subject to no tenure, nor to any services incident thereto.
    Land held in allodium is defined as man's own land, which he/she possesses in his/her own rights without owing
    any rent or service to any superior.” Wendell vs. Crandall, 1 NY 491 ( 1848 )
    “When congress has prescribed the conditions on which portions of the public domain may be alienated (to convey, to transfer) and has provided that upon the fulfillment of the conditions of the United States shall issue a Patent to the purchaser, then such land is not taxable by a state.” Sargent v Herrick & Stevens, 221 US 404; Northern P.R. Co. v Trail County 115 US 600


    “In cases of ejectment, where the question is who has the legal title, the Patent of the government is unassailable.”
    Sanford v Sanford, 139 US 642
    “Estoppel has been sustained as against a municipal corporation.” Beadle v Smysor 209 US 393
    “A court of Law will not uphold or enforce an equitable title to land as a defense to an action of ejectment,”
    Johnson v Christian 128 US 374; Doe v Aiken, 31 FED. 393.
    “In ejectment the legal title must prevail, and a Patent of the United States to public lands pass that title; it cannot be assailed collaterally on the ground that false and perjured testimony was used to secure it.” Steel v St. Louis Smelting and Refining Co., 106 US 417
    “A Patent issued by the United States of America so vests the title in the lands covered thereby, that it is the
    further general rule that, such Patents are not open to collateral attacks.” -Thomas vs. Union Pacific Railroad
    Company, 139 F.Supp. 588,596 (1956); State vs. Crawford, 475 P.2d 515 (Ariz. App.J970); Raestle vs.Whitson, 582 P.2d 170, 172 (1978 );
    “A patent issued by the government of united states is legal and conclusive evidence of title to the land described therein, no equitable interest, however strong, to land described in such patent can prevail at law, against the patent.” [Land Patents, Opinions of the United States Attorney General’s office. (Sept.1869)]
    “Any bank or lending institution laying claim to the land by the lien theory, must have contested the federal land patent within the two years after the Act of March 3, 1891, supra, or forever be barred. Lien assessment theory to the contrary, notwithstanding.”-United States vs. Schurz 102 US 378, ;Summa Corp., supra
    “A mortgage is only a lien, not a vested interest in the leasehold. Even after a default on a mortgage, a mortgagee only has an equitable lien.”
    -United States vs. Champaign County, F.Supp 474, 480 ( 1958 )
    “A patent when attacked incidentally, cannot be declared void, unless it be procured by fraud, or is void on its face, or has been declared void by law. A patent cannot be avoided at law in a collateral proceeding unless it is declared void by statute, or its nullity indicated by some equally explicit statutory denunciations. Once perfect on its face is not to be avoided, in a trial at law, by anything save an elder patent. It is not to be affected by evidence or circumstances which might show that the impeaching party might prevail in a court of equity. A patent is evidence, in a court of law, of the regularity of all previous steps to it, and no facts behind it can be investigated.
    A patent cannot be collaterally avoided at law, even for fraud. A patent, being superior title, must of course, prevail over colors of title; nor is it proper for dray state legislation to give such titles, which are only equitable in nature with a recognized legal status in equity courts, precedence over the legal title in a court of law”. [ID. at 242, 243,245, 246]
    “The plaintiff in ejectment must in all cases prove the legal title to the premises in himself, at the time of the demise laid in the declaration, and evidence of an equitable title will not be sufficient for a recovery. The practice of allowing ejectment to be maintained in state courts upon equitable titles cannot affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.” Fenn v Holme, 21 Howard 481.
    “In federal courts, the rule that ejectment cannot be maintained on a mere equitable title is STRICTLY ENFORCED, so that ejectment cannot be maintained on a mere entry made with a register and receiver, but only on the Patent, since the certificates of the officers of the land department vest in the locator only equitable title. This rule prevails in the federal courts even when the statute of the state in which the suit is brought provides that a receipt from the local land office is sufficient proof of title to support the action.” Langdon v Sherwood, 124 U. S. 74; Carter v Ruddy, 166 US 493.
    “Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States and the whole legislation of the government, in reference to the public lands, declare the Patent to be the superior and conclusive evidence of the legal title. Until it issues, the fee is in the government, which by the Patent passes to the Grantee, and he is entitled to enforce the possession in ejectment.” Bagnell v Broderick. 13 Peter (US) 436

    Digest that and we’ll get into details later.
    “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Illinois backwoods
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    Are you saying there is something else than the one you get when you don't owe anything on the car?
    Didn’t see this.....

    The real title to “your” car is/was the “Manufacturers Certificate of Origin”, a.k.a “MCO”.

    When a new auto is purchased, with federal reserve notes (not lawful $$) by the average jurisdictionally uneducated, the dealer sends the MCO off to the DMV/secretary of state and the “purchaser” (you cannot make a bona fide purchase for value with a debt note/frn) gets a “certificate of title” while the STATE maintains the superior interest in the automobile, and another nail is driven in the coffin of “travel by right”.
    Travel is another worthy topic, and not unrelated, in many ways, to the basic tenets of Land Patents.
    “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Asylum 23
    Posts
    8,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel Adams View Post
    Didn’t see this.....

    The real title to “your” car is/was the “Manufacturers Certificate of Origin”, a.k.a “MCO”.

    When a new auto is purchased, with federal reserve notes (not lawful $$) by the average jurisdictionally uneducated, the dealer sends the MCO off to the DMV/secretary of state and the “purchaser” (you cannot make a bona fide purchase for value with a debt note/frn) gets a “certificate of title” while the STATE maintains the superior interest in the automobile, and another nail is driven in the coffin of “travel by right”.
    Travel is another worthy topic, and not unrelated, in many ways, to the basic tenets of Land Patents.
    Thanks Sam. Any way to recover that MCO?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Illinois backwoods
    Posts
    44
    My understanding is that the state destroys the original, after one year, keeping a copy on microfilm.

    As I have zero faith in the technology of modern automobiles, to say the least, I refuse to support that industry with the purchase of a new auto.

    For years after my days in court defending the right to travel, local and state police looked the other way when I was out on the highways in my old school 3/4 ton pickup.
    When it finally wore out, I bought a John Deere 3010, with front loader.....much more practical for local travel and homestead use, paired with a couple medium weight running gear wagons.
    Easy to work on, as well.

    Now removing a currently compromised automobile from the commercial registry is a topic.....for another thread.

    But there are many “other interests” (from Meemur’s case, above) that must be addressed before a “US citizen” could perform such an action.
    “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dozdoats View Post
    Certificate of title is probably what you have.

    So, who has the actual title? Revenue/DMV has you on a leash for your car as well.
    O yes I see what you mean. I even got a letter with mine that said, if I wanted the "Title" (instead of Certificate of Title) I had to apply to the …..going from memory here......Motor Vehicle Registration in my state and apply for it. If that doesn't work for you/anyone, I can dig my letter out, and give it to you straight.
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

  27. #27
    Just for information purposes here, for those interested:

    This is a 30 page book/pamphlet so will just post the link:

    http://defendruralamerica.com/files/...andPatents.pdf

    And in case anyone wants to know what "Allodial" means.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title
    "Wise Men Still Seek Him"-bumper sticker

    "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-John Adams
    “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own...."- Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.