county recording/registering - nature of grant of instrument to county, state, etc.

this topic has been on my mind recently and i still don't have closure.

when we 'record' and/or 'register' an instrument with the county recorder and/or register/registrar, is there an assumption that we are granting the instrument and the substance thereof to the county and/or state and/or "United States"?"

it seems to me that all such recordings/registrations are grants in trust, but absent any express intent to the contrary, are we not granting the county/state/'U. S." right at title to said instrument/substance on general deposit? does county/state/"U. S." then assume beneficiary interest therein, whereas the grantor is deemed to accept trusteeship?

love, peace and life to you all...

Put a legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation, have the publisher of that notice give one a notarized statement that it was placed in his newspaper, have the county recorder record the same and provide a certified copy of the record does constitute a public record.

You retain the original & make available for inspection upon written request

Open web page publishing also constitutes a public record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EZrhythm

Open web page publishing also constitutes a public record.

---

many thanks ag maniac and EZrhythm for the responses, however i was looking to initiate a discussion of the nature of any recording/registration and not how to go about doing it.

again, i appreciate the data provided.

love, peace and life to all...

Andrew....the only way to win is don't play....that way the presumptions don't have a chance to take hold.

from Black's Law

Attachment 3179

many thanks for the contributions to the discussions posted, brothers.

i don't quite know what to make of the 'cloture'/'closure' reference, nor what precisely the suggestion of 'not playing' refers to.

is one suggesting not to record or register any instruments with any (de jure, de facto, etcetera) entity?

love, peace and life to you all...

the black's law dictionary reference may have been to the 'cloud on title' entry...

peace...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrew patrick

this topic has been on my mind recently and i still don't have closure.

when we 'record' and/or 'register' an instrument with the county recorder and/or register/registrar, is there an assumption that we are granting the instrument and the substance thereof to the county and/or state and/or "United States"?"

it seems to me that all such recordings/registrations are grants in trust, but absent any express intent to the contrary, are we not granting the county/state/'U. S." right at title to said instrument/substance on general deposit? does county/state/"U. S." then assume beneficiary interest therein, whereas the grantor is deemed to accept trusteeship?

love, peace and life to you all...

---

In my opinion, the county courthouse is a public building and the clerk is available, and obligated, to serve the public. The public is the collection of people who live and operate near the area and you have right of access to that building, and service from the clerk, as anyone else.

The issue is that the courtrooms in the building are always "booked solid" by members of the BAR who have mostly monopolized the time in that building. The obvious reason why that is welcomed and accommodated so enthusiastically, is that the members of the BAR generate tons of "money" for the county; they give the county plenty of business. That doesn't mean you are not allowed access to the court, it just means you have to find the few available time slots in order to conduct your affairs when necessary.

Now, as it pertains to recording instruments: I do not believe there is ANY claim of interest in your property simply because you decide to make a public record. The verbiage on your instrument dictates your claim; it is YOUR deed (act) and the original instrument gets sent back to you; it is YOUR property. The county clerk is the holder of the public record and only has a copy of your original which can be used to issue "certified" copies of your original instrument.

Think about that for a moment as it applies to "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE" for a car or the "CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH". Who holds the original? The holder of the original is the one who claims primary, and/or sole, interest in the property.

In my opinion, "registration" is a whole other animal; I believe that is tantamount to begging or petitioning the STATE for recognition of something.

"In my opinion, the county courthouse is a public building and the clerk is available, and obligated, to serve the public."

I completely agree with this. The duties and obligations are upon the public servant, they are the trustee of the public trust. I have been fighting property taxation for some time now. What I have found, and what I believe is this. When they come against you to forcibly collect the tax, they have no case. The have no claim. Actually in my State, the statute specifically states 'in summary manner, without pleadings'. A claim is a pleading. Without pleadings is without a claim. Without a claim, there is no jurisdiction of the court to act. But, since someone will allow a case without pleadings (and or judgment) to stand against him, it, IMO, is considered an agreed case. IMO, that is the consent. The courts here have even held, 'no case can find lodging within the courts of this State, without pleadings or the statutorily required affidavit for an agreed case' (paraphrased but close)'. Some later case even took the affidavit requirement to be from 'one of the parties'. Here, the treasurer and auditor 'enter into an agreement' to bring the case. Interesting, ain't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

In my opinion, the county courthouse is a public building and the clerk is available, and obligated, to serve the public. The public is the collection of people who live and operate near the area and you have right of access to that building, and service from the clerk, as anyone else.

---

I don't agree.
It is a private building.
Whom did the clerk swear the oath to?
The public is a collection of persons.

"I don't agree.
It is a private building.
Whom did the clerk swear the oath to?
The public is a collection of persons."

They exorcise the power to tax. That is a governmental power. With that power comes all its duties, obligations and restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

I don't agree.
It is a private building.
Whom did the clerk swear the oath to?
The public is a collection of persons.

---

A good idea would be to get it right from the "horse's mouth"; why not ask the local clerk?

Write a simple letter with short simple questions, like:

Is the building where you operate as clerk a public or private building?

In order to "swear", and have any meaning or value behind it, one must do so appealing to a higher authority. Any meaningful oath is sworn to God.

The clerk has many duties, but most of all, it is to be the keeper, holder and authenticator of the public record.

The word person can be defined in any number of ways. People have a right to be secure in their papers and their persons without interference. Any clerk who swore an oath is bound to not interfere with such rights.

The main purpose of those who hold office in "government" is to secure, protect and restore property. Rights are property.

many thanks for the input, men.

love, peace and life to all...

It might be that registration results in: 1 - the documents becoming public domain except for redacted portions; 2 - if you register property that is the subject of the document as being "in the State" then it will result in the property being deemed to be in the State along with associated consequences.

STATE, n. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government,

Black's 4th

I don't think being 'in the state' is what is happening. I think the executive does an improper action, but the judicial can not, so does not question the other branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

Is the building where you operate as clerk a public or private building?

---

In my little tiny town the court house is a private building that they rent.
There is a vacancy in one of the shops below that is for rent right now.
The government seems to be the biggest renter there by taking the whole top floor with family services etc.
Court houses are registered corporations.

Ottawa police hire private security to run courthouse security screening
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ning-1.3170505

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

In my little tiny town the court house is a private building that they rent.
There is a vacancy in one of the shops below that is for rent right now.
The government seems to be the biggest renter there by taking the whole top floor with family services etc.
Court houses are registered corporations.

Ottawa police hire private security to run courthouse security screening
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ning-1.3170505

---

Even if that is true; the terms of the lease dictate the use and user of the building. Why not get a direct answer rather than presume?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pumpkin

STATE, n. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government,

Black's 4th

I don't think being 'in the state' is what is happening. I think the executive does an improper action, but the judicial can not, so does not question the other branch.

---

If you assert the property to be in the state in the registered document then voila..so it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

Why not get a direct answer rather than presume?

---

They hate me.
They will do nothing for me.

Acts and statutes are copy written. Private property.
The bar card grants permission to use them.
Public has no standing in a private venue.
Public is granted access which can be invoked at any time.


In this video the judge states its his court house.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=af5_1431881023

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

They hate me.
They will do nothing for me.

Acts and statutes are copy written. Private property.
The bar card grants permission to use them.
Public has no standing in a private venue.
Public is granted access which can be invoked at any time.


In this video the judge states its his court house.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=af5_1431881023

---

That's kind of sad dude. Do you really live that way?

Code is copyrighted, not the enrolled Law at the Library of Congress. Why would you want to rely upon copyrighted code anyway?

'Venue' and 'Building' are NOT synonymous.

In the video, the judge states he is in charge of this court house. That is correct; the chief judge is the building manager. Big difference.

Its the annotated codebooks that are copyrighted. The stuff that comes from the Queen's Printers isn't copyright. If you add annotations to a Bible, you can copyright the final work. But a KJV or Douay Rheims is public domain sans annotations.

Re: Court buildings
Yes sometimes governments lease space from private persons. They don't always own the entire buildings. Even if that is the case, the easement and access to the premises remains public during their business hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Its the annotated codebooks that are copyrighted. The stuff that comes from the Queen's Printers isn't copyright. If you add annotations to a Bible, you can copyright the final work. But a KJV or Douay Rheims is public domain sans annotations.

Re: Court buildings
Yes sometimes governments lease space from private persons. They don't always own the entire buildings. Even if that is the case, the easement and access to the premises remains public during their business hours.

---

Do you say that U.S.C. is NOT a BAR-specific administrative law form?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

Do you say that U.S.C. is NOT a BAR-specific administrative law form?

---

The United States Code is freely available online. If you want U.S. Code Annotated it costs $$ it is privately copyright because the annotations are made by private concerns. AFAIK, you can write the House or Senate and they'll send you free printout of a given statute or law.

As for the U.S. district courts or U.S. Court of Claims being available to bar members exclusively, that is an entirely different matter as to the availability of the code documents themselves. Courts themselves are distinct from the Law of the Land that they acknowledge as part of due process. AFAIK, it is possible for a non-attorney to gain pro hac vice status with any given U.S. district court as well as for one to file 'pro se' or otherwise without an attorney. AFAIK, representation of statutory entities in court requires bar membership. But still, that has nothing to do with the copyright nature of the U.S. Code.

You can download the ENTIRE U.S.Code in PDF and other formats right -> here--directly from the U.S. House of Representatives' Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

If you would like Canada Federal laws, they are available via Government of Canada's website, right here. If you want laws for a particular province, simply do a search for Queen's Printer and the name of the province.

AFAIK the Crown doesn't needs a bar card to access its own forums. In the several U.S.A., the Crown is the People.

Related:
United States Code Annotated® (USCA) - Thomson Reuters

More proof that government buildings are private not public.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/04...lar-bills.html

A Texas man was arrested last month after he refused to leave the county tax office while attempting to pay his property tax using tightly folded $1 bills.

An arrest affidavit indicates Timothy Andrew Norris, 27, was asked by a tax collector to leave the Wichita County building on Jan. 28 for disrupting the operations of the office.

The Wichita Falls Times Record News reported Norris was attempting to pay a $600 property tax using the $1 bills. The paper reported that the bills were so tightly folded, it "required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill."

The affidavit says Norris pulled away from a deputy who was attempting to place him in handcuffs. He eventually was wrestled to the ground, placed in custody and charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest.

As of Monday he was no longer being held at the Wichita County jail. Wichita Falls is located northwest of Dallas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walter

More proof that government buildings are private not public.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/04...lar-bills.html

A Texas man was arrested last month after he refused to leave the county tax office while attempting to pay his property tax using tightly folded $1 bills.

An arrest affidavit indicates Timothy Andrew Norris, 27, was asked by a tax collector to leave the Wichita County building on Jan. 28 for disrupting the operations of the office.

The Wichita Falls Times Record News reported Norris was attempting to pay a $600 property tax using the $1 bills. The paper reported that the bills were so tightly folded, it "required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill."

The affidavit says Norris pulled away from a deputy who was attempting to place him in handcuffs. He eventually was wrestled to the ground, placed in custody and charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest.

As of Monday he was no longer being held at the Wichita County jail. Wichita Falls is located northwest of Dallas.

---

Under the circumstances, he entered the building as a "taxpayer" hence the "venue" is statutory. The "government building" is used for both private and public business. When you go to that building, it is you, and you alone, who determines which "venue" you will enter. If you come as a "taxpayer", you will be treated as such regardless of the public brick and mortar.