Attorney General J.B. VAN HOLLEN is in the wrong here, it's governments that can't claim land ownership beyond what they need to run government services ! Property tax is unlawful & usurps the citizens from THEIR land !
Attorney General J.B. VAN HOLLEN is in the wrong here, it's governments that can't claim land ownership beyond what they need to run government services ! Property tax is unlawful & usurps the citizens from THEIR land !
Haven't had an opportunity to look at the PDF yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveunderlaw
But with regard to the comment above, the property tax is not unlawful if one consents to it. Trouble is, the majority of property owners consent to the tax on their home property without understanding that they are even consenting to such. What is unfortunate is people's lack of knowledge about the law with regard to such issues.
Most people who have bought into the state's property tax revenue scheme haven't taken the time to study this issue.
Corporate state's make a yearly offering of their services through the property tax valuation and assessment. If you understand how properly to reject their offer, it leaves them with no legal ground on which to make their claims in order to give energy to a tax lien.
When a government descends to the level of a private corporation, coming down from its position of sovereignty and entering the domain of commerce in dealing with the people, it (government) takes on the character of a mere private citizen and loses any immunity to law suit that it may previously have had. In other words, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals. This was the effect of the case holding in the case of Clearfield Trust Company v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943).
This means you can, as a sovereign without subjects, reject any offer of which you do not approve, thus withdrawing consent.
Jay Noone: How to NOT pay property taxes interviewed by RT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKG0wUJWbcIQuote:
Originally Posted by KnowLaw
Jay Noone did not score so well, Interim Town Manager Charles T. Blanchard said taking the property was necessary. "We all pay our taxes. Without that, government can't function," Blanchard said. Town Manager Charles T. Blanchard scored well http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...rles_bl_4.html
Jay Noone came from here An Introduction to the First & Second Organic Laws http://organiclaws.org/dr-eduardo-rivera/
George sums it up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY4WlxO6i0
So, the MUNICIPALITY forcibly removed a living man from his land. The MUNICIPALITY reaffirms their (and the CITIZENS; I read the comments here - http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...rs_home_t.html) legal actions of theft/extortion by not only stating the falsehood that "govt can't function", but also forcing a living man to be SURETY for a NAME that is NOT even his. Am I reading this correctly?
If one has a private land contract with another living being (who owns said land; of course, this is questionable, if that being has been paying property taxes), trades (pays) the land with either lawful money or something else (gold/silver/pearls/whatever), does not REGISTER a DEED, does not SIGN any contract with the MUNICIPALITY, and no longer uses or recognizes an ADDRESS, the living man will STILL be FORCED off his land, if he chooses NOT to "pay property tax"??
What if the living man files a suit on the NAME (let's say, a mere three million lawful money, not dollars)? Does that help?
I am in the process of finding the patent for someone's land (not easy; I am currently at a standstill due to a missing document at the register of deeds), so we can then draft up the claim for the forever rights that are probably written on that lawful document.
This is the first thread I have read under this topic. Maybe my answers can be found posted in a different thread?
Federal Land Patents offer researchers a source of information on the initial transfer of land titles from the Federal government to individuals. In addition to verifying title transfer, this information will allow the researcher to associate an individual (Patentee, Assignee, Warrantee, Widow, or Heir) with a specific location (Legal Land Description) and time (Issue Date). We have a variety of Land Patents on our site, including Cash Entry, Homestead and Military Warrant patents. Survey plats are part of the official record of a cadastral survey.Quote:
Originally Posted by djlamb
Search
Surveying is the art and science of measuring the land to locate the limits of an owner's interest thereon. A cadastral survey is a survey which creates, marks, defines, retraces or re-establishes the boundaries and subdivisions of Federal Lands of the United States. The survey plat is the graphic drawing of the boundaries involved with a particular survey project, and contains the official acreage to be used in the legal description. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx
What happened when the chain of land (160 acres) per owner died; who then claimed the land? Heir a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person's death: who then picked up this allodial title?
Search
Remember land patents were issued by foreign European governments as well. This applies more to the 13 original colonies than the states that came out of public domain lands. Although, I'm certain there are still some foreign patents associated with some of the public domain lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chex
Treaties (including treaties with Indians) as well as land statutes active at the time of the issuance of the patent will have bearing upon them as well.
I don't know why you would think that.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveunderlaw
What the AG wrote their is dead on.
Citizens hold the lowest title to land "fee simple".
That's "Federalism".
The term federalism is derived from the Latin root foedus, which means "formal agreement or covenant."
Covenant means deed by writing.
There is already deeds in place here.
I tried serving a commercial lien in Canada on the RCMP and I got back some letters from their law office saying something similar to what you have posted.
They have no legal value because the instruments have no merit.
Two reasons.
One, they can't see it because the method is not in there codes.(foreign jurisdiction remedy)
Two, the mandate of who can authorize legally their instruments.(the ones they can see in their jurisdiction)
Walter if you think I'm wrong, how come many powerful law firms are also in agreement with my(and our Founder's) contention that a free people should not be forced to pay a property "tax" ? Also Canada is a Common Law nation too, you shouldn't have accepted that flimsy excuse of theirs IMO.
Property Rights
http://www.southeasternlegal.org/property-rights/
According to the framers of the U.S. Constitution, there is no more fundamental right than the the right to own and enjoy private property - the "wellspring" from which come the basket of liberty interests we share as Americans. As a result, half the litigation and policy matters in which Southeastern Legal Foundation has engaged since 1976 have been on this critical issue.
Consider a few highlights from our history - and watch for developments on this site as Southeastern Legal Foundation continues to help establish the strongest possible protections for the right to full use and enjoyment of private property against government overregulation or "takings."
Consider some of our efforts:
(2010-11) SLF continues to represent a group of Florida beachfront property owners in a nationally significant federal constitutional challenge to protect Fifth Amendment property rights and Equal Protection and Due Process rights. SLF continues its post-appeal challenge against the City of McDonough, Georgia over its illegal imposition of impact development fees.
(2009) Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al. SLF submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to overturn a Florida Supreme Court decision which approved so-called “beach renourishment” as constitutional, despite well-founded case law supporting the right to full use and enjoyment of private property. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al. At issue are ongoing attempts by local Florida governments to achieve unrestricted public use of private beach property without regard to constitutional due process and equal protection.
(2008) Southeastern Legal Foundation and the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii filed a friend of the court brief to the United States Supreme Court urging the high court to find unconstitutional the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ (OHA) decades-long practice of distributing hundreds of millions of public dollars to native Hawaiian beneficiaries – to the exclusion of all other Hawaiians. As the U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly, property rights belong to all people, not on the basis of race, color, or gender.
(2006) SLF takes lead in successful effort to roll back eminent domain private property seizures by government for so-called "economic development" purposes, assisting Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue in drafting anti-Kelo laws. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has solicited blueprint legislation for use throughout the nation to address the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo v. New London, CT. SLF is also preparing constitutional amendment and statutory language and research at the request of the GA Speaker of the House and GA Senate leadership on the same issue, as well as member of the South Carolina legislature. SLF continues to defend private property owners in Destin, Florida and Stockbridge, Georgia in potentially precedent-setting cases against unconstitutional government land grabs.
City of Destin, Florida (2000-2005) SLF represented a group of beachfront propert owners when the City made plans to declare a significant portion of beachfront land, regardless of its present owner, as "public" land. This move would have clearly resulted in a governmental "taking" of private property as land values would have plummeted without just compensation. In what SLF knew to be a leading beachfront property case likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the City of Destin backed down.
Dail v. York County (1998-99). At issue is the right of a widow to harvest timber on a portion of her land in Virginia. State law allows the modest timber plan, but local ordinances and bureaucratic red tape have made her plan impossible. SLF filed suit to protect her right to use her property in a responsible way, the proceeds of such timber harvest to pay the property taxes and enable her to pass down the land to her children.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992). In the landmark United States Supreme Court decision, SLF argued and the Court agreed that, because of a change in South Carolina’s coastal protection law prohibiting development of their beachfront property, the Lucases suffered a “taking” of their property and were entitled to full compensation.
Property owner David Lucas said, “The amicus curiae brief filed on my behalf had a definite positive impact on our case. In fact, my attorneys are convinced that the use of this brief was instrumental in winning the landmark property rights victory of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council.”
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1996-1998). In a stunning victory, the United States Supreme Court announced a unanimous decision in this pivotal property right case joined by SLF. SLF filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing against a policy advanced by the TRPA in California and Nevada which denies all development right to an owner of subdivision property. The TRPA policy would allow the owner to attempt to sell “transferable development rights” equal to a small portion of value of her land to another owner – only if such use comports with TRPA policy. This was an outright attempt to circumvent the ruling in the Lucas case (above) which held that regulation of private property forbidding all development of such land is a “taking”, entitling the owner to full compensation under the U.S. Constitution, in an important victory for property owners across the nation.
Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon (1994). The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a business owner who was prevented from expanding her business by government demands to dedicate a portion of her property to the city. SLF’s brief successfully argued that the city’s action was a “taking” of private property without just compensation.
Tennessee Environmental Council v. Annie Laurie James (1992). SLF successfully represented a retied schoolteacher and fourth-generation farm owner in West Tennessee who was sued by an environmental group for clearing out a drainage ditch on her property. After SLF convinced the EPA to drop its case against our client, she was dismissed for the lawsuit.
“If it had not been for SLF, we could not have afforded to defend the case,” said Mrs. James. “Now we can farm our land instead of having to provide a place for someone else to watch birds and fish.”
Beggerly v. U.S.A. (1996). SLF filed an amicus brief supporting a landowner in Mississippi whose property was “taken” by the federal government without adequate compensation.
Teahard v. Lee County, Florida (1993-1995). SLF filed a brief in support of a federal court’s award of monetary damages to a property owner for a taking of his property through wetland regulation.
Betty West (1993). SLF helped a Georgia property owner successfully resist efforts by the Sate DOT to condemn the middle of her farm for wetland mitigation.
United States v. South Florida Water Management District (1990-1991). In 1990, SLF intervened on behalf of several Florida agricultural associations and family farms in litigation surrounding the Central and South Florida Flood Control Projects.
Glisson v. Alachua County, Florida (1986-1991). SLF represented a group of Florida property owners who challenged local environmental and land use regulations as a violation of their property rights. SLF helped Cross Creek residents resist government from creating a “public use” without paying for it. While the case was pending, the County made significant improvements in the regulations.
North Carolina Wildlife Federation v. Bergland (1980). Environmentalists, forest product interest and sportsmen challenged governmental abuse of power when the Forest Service withdrew 31,000 acres of land from harvesting, mining and wildlife and plant management. SLF argued that unauthorized wilderness management invaded their interest in the land.
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978). SLF intervened when the EPA ordered the TVA’a Tellico Dam Project stopped because of its potential threat to the snail darter. SLF argued that the Endangered Species Act did not compel such drastic measures for projects and property affected by the snail darter.
The Lansdowne-based Landmark Legal Foundation, headed by conservative talk show host Mark Levin, will be exempt from local taxes after all.
http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/af...9ae6ee8d4.html
The organization was among 21 community nonprofits proposed for real estate and personal property tax exemptions. During a Nov. 12 public hearing on the applications, Supervisor Kenneth D. Reid (R-Leesburg) asked whether the nonprofits seeking exemption actually helped Loudoun residents or were just based in the county.
That angered Levin, a Loudoun resident, who later upbraided Reid on his nationally syndicated radio talk show and Landmark withdrew its application for exemption. Landmark paid $8,979.85 in real estate and personal property taxes in 2013, and $8,607.11 this year.
But County Chairman Scott K. York (R-At Large) last week moved to add Landmark, which employs five people in Loudoun, back to the list of nonprofits seeking tax exemption.
And supervisors supported York, voting 4-3-1-1 in favor of the action. Reid and Supervisors Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling) and Janet S. Clarke (R-Blue Ridge) were the dissenters, Supervisor Matthew F. Letourneau (R-Dulles) abstained, and Supervisor Geary M. Higgins (R-Catoctin) was absent from last week’s meeting.
The Board of Supervisors earlier this year lifted a longstanding moratorium on granting local tax exemptions, agreeing to consider applications for up to a total 2014 limit of $5.25 million.
There are ALWAYS ways around unlawful taxes with the right strategy.
I don't see any "free people".Quote:
Originally Posted by loveunderlaw
Just citizens.
The AG trumps your "powerful law firms".
He is their general?
In Canada the majority of the land doesn't belong to Canada.
Canada only owns the Indian reservations, Parks, the northern "territories", territorial seas, and some political buildings but not all.
If Canada wants land for instance to make another park it has to ask for it from the Crown.
If you don't pay your property tax the title reverts to the Crown, not Canada or a Province.
Indians on the reservations don't pay land tax because the land is tax exempt because it belongs to Canada.
See the picture?
“I feel a little ridiculous asking this question, but can you state your full name for the record?”Quote:
Originally Posted by walter
Since 2003, Whittemore focused on his planned Coyote Springs Development in Southern Nevada. Envisioned during Las Vegas boom years as a Palm Springs-type development, Coyote Springs would be a massive housing development — 43,000 acres, 159,000 homes — 50 miles outside Las Vegas, on the border of Clark and Lincoln counties.
Whittemore's plan for whom? What would Whittemore get out of it?