What You Need To Know About Land Patents: Ron Gibson
Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree10Likes
  • 3 Post By snoop4truth
  • 3 Post By snoop4truth
  • 2 Post By Clay Diggins
  • 2 Post By russau

Thread: What You Need To Know About Land Patents: Ron Gibson

« Prev Thread | Next Thread »
  1. #1

    Apr 2014
    467
    851 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    What You Need To Know About Land Patents: Ron Gibson


  2. #2

    Apr 2014
    467
    851 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

  3. #3
    us
    Sep 2020
    3
    6 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    A LAND PATENT WILL NOT MAKE YOUR LAND EXEMPT FROM FORECLOSURE OR TAXES

    REPLY TO RON GIBSON'S CLAIMS ABOUT LAND PATENTS AND ALLODIAL TITLE

    Ron Gibson claims that creating a land patent and issuing to yourself will render your land exempt from foreclosure, property taxes and emminent domain. But, this is not so.

    The Law:

    1. "Allodial title" means a "government-owned 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.

    WHAT EVERY COURT HAS HELD ON WHETHER A "LAND PATENT" IS AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE TO FORECLOSURE, PROPERTY TAXES AND IMMINENT DOMAIN

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

    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.

    • 6 The "NEW PATENT" or "PERFECTED PATENT" theory asserted on appeal, as it relates to the original patents, is also defeated by the estoppel effect of the foreclosure judgment. To the extent that the new theory may be construed as a separate and independent claim, it will be accorded the same treatment by this court that it has been accorded by the district courts of Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. IT IS FRIVOLOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS and should not be raised in the circuit courts of this State.

    (QUOTE ENDS)

    More case law available which says the same thing.

    (Deleted for rule violation, no links to other forums with topics found here)
    Last edited by Treasure_Hunter; Sep 15, 2020 at 10:41 AM.
    Clay Diggins, et1955 and delnorter like this.

  4. #4
    us
    Sep 2020
    3
    6 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    A LAND PATENT WILL NOT PROTECT YOUR LAND FROM FORECLOSURE OR TAXES

    A "LAND PATENT" DOES NOT PROVIDE YOU WITH ALLODIAL TITLE AND DOES NOT EXEMPT YOUR REAL PROPERTY FROM MORTGAGE PAYMENT OBLIGATION, FORECLOSURE OR PROPERTY TAX LIABILITY.

    Ron Gibson falsely claims that if you create, re-create and file a "land patent" such will render your real property exempt from foreclosure law and absolve you of the obligation to pay property taxes, etc. But, none of this is so.

    A "land patent" is a document reflecting the VERY FIRST (THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY) transfer of real property from a sovereign government (only) to a private person or entity. No subsequent transfer of that same real property involves a land patent, because no further transfer of that same property will come from a sovereign government. All subsequent transfers of that real property involve an ordinary deed or bequest, not a land patent. The maximum amount of land patents for the same parcel of real property is ONE. No land patent or deed transfers real property to any private person or entity free from the risk of eminent domain (governmental taking of private 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 governmental services which greatly benefit the real property owner (like the building of roads and bridges, road maintenance, and providing drainage, fire protection, police protection, public schools, water and sewage treatment, etc.). Finally, no land patent or deed makes it impossible for the owner to voluntarily encumber his/her own real property with a mortgage transferred to a lender as security for a loan that the lender makes to the owner. So, no land patent or deed can protect real property from the risk of imminent domain or exempt the real property owner from the obligation to pay property taxes and no land patent or deed can exempt real property from foreclosure laws

    This is because no land patent ever conveys "allodial title" to a private person. Allodial title is the name of the type of title that ONLY A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE and a private person is not a sovereign government. A private person may only obtain fee simple title, which is ownership subject to eminent domain, property taxes, and mortgages. This is so even if the private person obtain his/her real property by a land patent direct from a sovereign government which actually does have allodial title. This is because allodial title is non-transferable to any private person. A private person cannot create, re-create or issue a land patent to anyone, much less to himself. Only a sovereign government may create and issue a land patent.


    BELOW IS WHAT EVERY U.S. COURT EVER RULING ON THE SUBJECT HAS SAID ABOUT "LAND PATENTS" AND "ALLODIAL TITLE"

    153 Ill. App.3d 605 (1987)505 N.E.2d 387GEORGE M. BRITT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    FEDERAL LAND BANK ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 86-0248.
    Illinois Appellate Court – Second District.

    Opinion filed March 11, 1987.

    (BEGIN QUOTE)

    • 4 THIS 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 [GOVERNMENT]. (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 Britts' 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.​

    • 6 The "NEW PATENT" or "PERFECTED PATENT" theory asserted on appeal, as it relates to the original patents, is also defeated by the estoppel effect of the foreclosure judgment. To the extent that the new theory may be construed as a separate and independent claim, it will be accorded the same treatment by this court that it has been accorded by the district courts of Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. IT IS FRIVOLOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS and should not be raised in the circuit courts of this State.

    (END QUOTE)

    Obviously, Ron Gibson never read the foregoing law on whether land patents and allodial title can be used as defenses in cases of imminent domain, property taxes and foreclosures (AND THAT IS ALL THAT COUNTS).

    CONCLUSION: Land patents are completely useless and irrelevant as defenses in cases involving imminent domain, property taxes and foreclosure. A land patent is only relevant to the very first party in the chain of title. A land patent merely assures the very first private owner of the real property that no other private party has a prior or superior claim to the real property.
    et1955, delnorter and Clay Diggins like this.

  5. #5
    us
    Sep 2020
    3
    6 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    A COMPETITOR OF RON GIBSON JUST GOT 20 YEARS FOR SAYING WHAT RON GIBSON SAYS NOW

    WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT LAND PATENTS. (PROOF THAT NO ONE HAS EVER SHOWN YOU BEFORE)

    https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/ma...a-56216712d77e .

    https://www.complaintsboard.com/larr...losure-c426807 .



    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...126-story.html. ...

    BEGIN AT 65% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d7b049347bc655. ...

    BEGIN AT 40% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ak-supre...t/1730202.html. ...

    BEGIN AT 50% THROUGH THE TEXT. https://casetext.com/case/flores-v-wells-fargo-bank-5. ...

    BEGIN AT 40% THROUGH THE TEXT.. https://stc.mo.gov/legal/ray-baldwin...llaway-county/. ...

    WASHINGTON STATE. https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions....-tax-liability. ...

    OHIO. https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/.../1986-006.aspx. ...

    FLORIDA. https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.n...2578B10078216F. ...

    ARKANSAS. https://casetext.com/case/opinion-no-21092. ...

    LAW REVIEW ARTICLE. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/pub....-561-583-1988/. ...

    CROSS-REFERENCED CASE LAW. https://www.casemine.com/search/us/"land+patent". ; ...

  6. #6
    us
    Jan 2019
    NC
    34
    36 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    At least one land owner used a land patent to prevent the State of Ca. from taken their land under eminent domain.

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/466/198.html

  7. #7
    Charter Member
    us
    Nov 2010
    The Great Southwest
    3,998
    11897 times
    Prospecting
    Quote Originally Posted by JosephT View Post
    At least one land owner used a land patent to prevent the State of Ca. from taken their land under eminent domain.

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/466/198.html
    If you read the case Joseph you will see that the patent was granted by Spain in 1831 and the State of California was trying to overturn the terms of the patent grant after having neglected to challenge it when it had the ability to do so during the patent adjudication process by the United States in 1853.

    The Summa case was not about eminent domain. The State of California was claiming a right to a "public trust easement" because it encompassed a portion of the coastal waters. They specifically did so to avoid raising the issue of eminent domain (you will find that fact in the first paragraph of the Supreme Court opinion you linked to).

    Normally California would have a right to that public trust easement but the Spanish patent grant did not recognize that set of rights. When California could have retained that right was during the U.S. patent adjudication but they never bothered to respond or show up for the hearing so the patent adjudicator left the right to easements with the Spanish grant.

    Here's the thing. The Spanish laws, which the patent was created under, specifically reserved the right to control easements to the patent owner (Summa Corp). If your patent grant from the United States specifically granted you the right, over the state, to control easements or be exempt from eminent domain unlike other private property it would say so on it's face (some do). But U.S. issued patents don't normally have that provision, in fact U.S. issued land patents immediately become private property in the State in which they are situated, on the same footing and the same legal status as other private property. Those land patents are based on U.S. law - not Spanish law.

    Think for just a moment where all the private property outside of the original 13 colonies came from. That's right - nearly all of that private land was created by land patents issued by the U.S. - more than 99% of non federal lands that are now privately owned were once managed by the U.S. as public lands. In excess of 6 million land patents created the private and state land ownership we have today.

    The thing about land patents is there can only be one patent for each parcel of land. There is no way to recreate or "bring forward" that original patent. Either you are a direct successor or assign to the original patent or you have no legal right to the patent. Often house "owners" under this system actually only own the rights to a portion of the beneficial use of the property. Although your beneficial uses may be described in part by a legal land description this in no way means you own all the rights in the land. For instance seldom are mineral or water rights included in the sale of attachments to the land (attachments are legally known as "real estate").

    In the case you cite Summa Corp never sold or relinquished their rights to control easements across their patent. That's what the case was about. That's why Summa won. It had nothing to do with eminent domain and everything to do with California missing the deadline (by 130 years) to assert their rights as a state. With patents, once they are granted, there are no do-overs even for the State of California.

    And that is why the Supreme Court ruling in Summa was:
    California cannot at this late date assert its public trust easement over petitioner's property, when petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had their interest confirmed without any mention of such an easement in the federal patent proceedings. The interest claimed by California is one of such substantial magnitude that regardless of the fact that the claim is asserted by the State in its sovereign capacity, this interest must have been presented in the patent proceedings or be barred.
    Heavy Pans
    et1955 and russau like this.

  8. #8
    us
    retired bumb and part time Hobo

    May 2005
    St. Louis, missouri
    6,522
    5584 times
    If only he had done a little more "research" into this document ! Thankyou again Barry !
    et1955 and Clay Diggins like this.

 

 

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. new patents - days of reading
    By BillA in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jul 12, 2019, 09:31 PM
  2. Interim Chair Ron Gibson of JMD on Land Patents
    By M.E.G. in forum Gold Prospecting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Mar 02, 2016, 10:35 AM
  3. [SOLVED] Can lid with patents?
    By 66Fairlane in forum What Is It?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Apr 16, 2013, 07:50 PM
  4. Patents and Copyrights
    By AU24K in forum Everything Else
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 25, 2011, 01:36 PM
  5. Whites Using Minelab Patents
    By Treasure_Hunter in forum White's
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Oct 22, 2006, 07:04 AM
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0