Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 5100 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do not attempt to comment using the handle "Unknown" or "Anonymous". Your comment will be summarily deleted. Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinon only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted.


Thursday, January 2, 2020

Ron Gibson Land Patent Seminar in Kingman Arizona

Ron Gibson doing an event in Arizona weekend of Jan 25th

See the flyer for the seminar here:

http://annavonreitz.com/rongibsonflyer.pdf

4 comments:

  1. I used the Land Patent Defense effectively 40-years ago.

    Robert Deardorff, J.D.
    904-302-2114

    ReplyDelete
  2. A "land patent" is a document reflecting the FIRST transfer of real property from a sovereign government to a private person or entity. No subsequent transfer of that real property involves a land patent. All subsequent transfers of that real property involve a deed. The maximum amount of land patents for a parcel of real property is ONE.

    No land patent or deed transfers real property free from the risk of eminent domain (governmental purchasing of that real property for a public purpose in exchange for "just compensation"). Likewise, no land patent or deed transfers real property free of the obligation to pay real property taxes to pay for government services which benefit the real property owner (building roads, road maintenance, drainage, fire protection, police protection, public schools, etc.).

    Finally, no land patent or deed makes it impossible for the owner to encumber his/her real property with a mortgage transferred to a lender as security for a loan made to the owner.

    So, no land patent or deed protects real property from the risk of imminent domain or property taxes and does not render real property foreclosure proof.

    CONCLUSION: Land patents are completely irrelevant as defenses to imminent domain, taxes and foreclosure. Land patents are only relevant to the very first party in the chain of title.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Law Says:

    1. "Allodial title" means a "SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT'S TITLE" and only the sovereign government can have "allodial title". A private person can not.

    2. "Allodial title" is not (and cannot be) conveyed to a private person by a land patent or otherwise.

    3. The highest title a private person can be conveyed in land is "fee simple" title (which is subject to foreclosure, property taxes and imminent domain).

    4. A land patent is no defense to foreclosure, property taxes or emminent domain.

    776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
    HILGEFORD,
    v.
    PEOPLES BANK.

    In this case, the Hilgefords filed a "land patent" which they sought to use in defense of a foreclosure action. The court wrote as follows:

    (BEGIN QUOTE)

    • 4. ...SOVEREIGN TITLE, which is absolute and encompasses on the part of the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY both ownership of the land and the right to govern the inhabitants thereof, IS "ALLODIAL" TITLE. This term is used IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO the term "FEE SIMPLE TITLE," which contemplates THE HIGHEST TITLE WHICH MAY BE PRIVATELY HELD. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) FEE SIMPLE TITLE MAY BE FREELY ALIENATED BY CONVEYANCE, MORTGAGE, OR DEVISE BUT STILL BE SUBJECT TO SOME CLAIM OF THE SOVEREIGN. (1 H. Tiffany, Real Property secs. 6, 13 (2d ed. 1920).) In current usage, THE HOLDER OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS STILL SUBJECT TO DISPOSSESSION BY THE GOVERNMENT, through due process of law, for nonpayment of REAL ESTATE TAXES and by EMINENT DOMAIN proceedings.

    The only correct premise supported by authority in the Britts' 613*613 brief is that land held by the Federal government is not subject to the acts of the States. (Cf. Gibson v. Chouteau (1871), 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534; Oregon v. McKay (D.C. Cir.1955), 226 F.2d 343.) WHAT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IS THE implicit foundation of the Britts' POSITION THAT THE LAND PATENT issued to "James Evans" and "Francis Evans" in 1841 CONVEYED THE ENTIRE TITLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH THAT NO INTEREST ARISING BY OPERATION OF STATE LAW CAN ATTACH TO THE TITLE.

    • 5 A LAND PATENT IS MERELY THE DEED BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT PASSES FEE SIMPLE TITLE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS TO PRIVATE PERSONS. (63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 70 (1984).) ONCE FEE SIMPLE TITLE IS PASSED TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT, BY LAND PATENT OR OTHERWISE, CLAIMS ARISING FROM CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE BY THAT HOLDER MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST HIM. (Cf. Stark v. Starr (1876), 94 U.S. 477, 24 L.Ed. 276; United States v. Budd (1891), 144 U.S. 154, 36 L.Ed. 384; see also 63A Am.Jur.2d Public Lands sec. 92 (1984).) Where, as here, a decree of foreclosure and sale has divested title from the former mortgagor, the mere fact that the mortgagor's claim of title may run directly back through his family to a 19th-century patent IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

    THE ASSERTION IN THE BRITT'S BRIEF THAT THEY HOLD "FEE SIMPLE ALLODIAL TITLE" IS UNTENABLE. THE BRITTS HAVE NEVER HELD SOVEREIGN TITLE and now have been divested of their fee simple title by due process of law in the foreclosure action.

    The purported "PERFECTED PATENT" filed by the Britts matches the description of similar documents filed in other States. In Wisconsin v. Glick (7th Cir.1986), 782 F.2d 670, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals described these "NEW LAND PATENTS" in the following terms:

    "People saddled with mortgages may treasure the idea of having clean title to their homes. The usual way to obtain clean title is to pay one's debts. Some have decided that it is cheaper to write a `land patent' purporting to convey unassailable title, and to file that `patent' in the recording system." 782 F.2d 670, 671.

    (QUOTE ENDS)

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.
DO NOT COMMENT USING THE HANDLE "Anonymous".or "unknown" YOUR COMMENT WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY.