Re: allodial

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Two Cities on April 10, 1998 at 13:47:52:

In Reply to: Re: allodial posted by Common Right Group on April 09, 1998 at 22:04:04:

: : : What proof exists that municipal entities(courts)

: : : will grant you a tax-free land patent?

: : Some of you may enjoy the following read.
: :

: Thanks for the reference. We have a bad feeling about the question though. It asks about Municipal entities "GRANTING."
: As far as we know, all granting in the form of land patents was done by the federal gov't. If you want to know what the original patent on your land says, write or phone your nearest BLM office, and follow directions.
: We obtained copies of two three patents originally issued during the Grant Administration. Interstingly, two were for Mexican Grant lands under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the other was a Railroad Patent. Of the first two, one covers the lands, the other covers the lands and all improvements thereto.
: NEVER attempt to file for a new patent. It's a done deal from long-long ago. What you are is an assignee, if anything, but be careful, the City of..... or the County of..... may be an assignee, in which case the rules change.
: There is an outfit in Morgan Hill, California that has done tremendous research into the issues of political status and property rights, including patents, that could be of mor help on this subject than we could hope to be. We intend to request their materials real soon, but need to put some eggs together in a financial basket first.
: Hope this tidbit helps - some.

I don't like the word improvements. It appears to be a question of updating a
portion of the original. However a title search will only reveal the string of
ownership within the 'Oz Counties'. However there are (at least here) laws that
says, purchase conveys title. So if the hidden true owners don't like the 'new'
purchase, that imo should take place, as a transfer from the PERSON in peonage, to
the man with unalienable rights, I guess they will end up with some time period
during which they can attempt to quiet title, otherwise abandon claim. Perhaps an
advertisement to the effect in the legal notices column, conspicuosly.
Be very careful of how the metes and bounds are stated.
Scribes have distorted the descriptions of land for quite some time.
If the State of California maintains a web site, it is possible to pluck
some tidbits. The State of Washington maintains the RCW online, via gopher
and it is searchable. It appears to hold some of the laws for the state of
Washington (or just plain Washington) as well. The performance of their search
engine is subject to secondary analysis. I.e. it is just to quick to reject
certain search parameters, which leads me to conclude that an off-limits
filter is running as a pre-processor.

An allodial holding, should be defined at transaction time with metes and bounds
that are in conformance with the boundaries of California as put forth in the
constitution of California at the time of it's adoption, as well as in conformance
with the borders of the counties within California. No abbreviations on the
townships etc.. Don't go N, go north or northwesterly as the case might be. Start
at a place. Don't begin at a point.

And of course it has to be paid for. The normal title insurance garbage of nowadays,
was included of yore, as a promise to defend in the transfer document. (indenture).

Have you seen these:

There is an -allod1 and an -allod2 as well.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]