Friday, September 26, 2014

SCOTUS Opinion Shuts Down Land Patent and Allodial Title Freaks

To all Land Patent freaks thinking you don't have to pay state or county property tax for land to which you have some kind of allodial or patent title:

ONLY the state constitution and laws provide you with exemptions from property taxation, and none that I know of grant any exemptions for allodial title or land patent once issued by the US government.  Once the US Government releases land within the boundaries of a state to the public, state taxes apply according to law. Here is your proof, from the US Supreme Court (see the entire opinion attached).

"We hold the true principle to be this -- that whenever the question in any court, state or federal, is whether a title to land which had once been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other property in the state, is subject to state legislation so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States."  Wilcox v Jackson 38 U.S. 498, 517, SCOTUS
Numerous state courts have asserted the text quoted above in their holdings.

So, Land Patent and Allodial Title Freaks, please skulk home with your patriot myths and go silent on this subject forever.  Stop hawking your bullshouts to ignorant people seeking to avoid property tax.  You will only cost them more money in the end as they pay for your nonsensical advice and fight tax collectors over rights they don't have.  If you want to refer them to something, give them the above court case AND your state Constitution's provisions on taxes and exemptions. For example, look here for those from Florida.

FYI, I have provide the above comments and case law to debunk the ridiculous assertions below.

On 2014-09-24 16:46, someone wrote:
  DO YOU REALLY OWN YOUR PRIVATE LAND?    The foundation of this nation was private land ownership. That's  why the settlers came here. To insure private ownership of land,  the nation's founding fathers made it unlawful for government to  own land except for the ten square miles of Washington D.C., and  such as may be needed for erection of forts, arsenals, dockyards,  and other needed buildings. (The Constitution).    ...A Land Patent is permanent and cannot be changed by the government  after its issuance. "Where the United States has parted with title  by a patent legally issued and upon surveys made by itself and  approved by the proper department, the title so granted cannot  be impaired by any subsequent survey made by the government for  its own purposes." Cage v. Danks, 13 La.Ann 128. In the history  of this county, no Land Patent has ever lost an appellate review  in the courts. As a matter of fact, in Summa Corp. v California,  466 US 198, the Supreme Court ruled forever that the Land Patent  would always win over any other form of title. In that case,  the land in question was tidewater land and California's claim  was based on California's constitutional right to all tidewater  lands. The patent stood supreme even against California's  Constitution...          

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary



Unknown said...

Read again - Nothing passes a perfect title to public lands, with the exception of a few cases, but a patent.

Where a patent has not been issued for a part of the public lands, a state has no power to declare any title less than a patent valid against a claim of the United States to the land or against a title held under a patent granted by the United States.

Unknown said...

In other words only if the state has a patent can they even begin to declare a claim against land that is under patent granted by the United States.

Unknown said...

Appears to be quite the pickle there. On the one hand the land is subject to state legislation while on the other hand they really have no valid claim against the Land patent. So while the state might have the ability to assess property taxes, enforcement of payment can't involve taking the Land as they have no valid claim against a United States Land Patent. OUCH!!!

Jackson Dawson said...

If you read all the court opinions carefully, one will find they continually default to the term real estate Or real property. That is the trick of the lawyers. Patents were converted to real property. One must convert them back. And be sure the cards no it is not any longer real property. Only real property can be taxed. This was a trick of the banksters dating back to the eighteen hundreds. Retracted back to Savannah Georgia.

Bob Hurt said...

Jackson Dawson and "Unknown," both of you have no clue about the law. You'd do better asking questions instead of making stupid comments that have no legal foundation. The patent is the mechanism by which the government passes land ownership to a non-government entity. Thereupon, the land becomes taxable by the state in the manner of all other land taxation, with the exception of only such exemptions as the state constitution or laws identify.

BamaJan said...

The statement says 'title'. A Land Patent is not a 'title'. It is an ownership document granted by the government allowing for a piece or tract(s) of land to be privately owned by an individual. Therefore the statement by the Supreme Court does not relate to Land Patents. Maybe YOU need to study law.