Here is a first draft sample:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick Burrell
Attachment 702
Printable View
Here is a first draft sample:Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick Burrell
Attachment 702
RE: "Get Clear Title - Accept the Warranty Deed " Title of video. Results still being tested
http://<a href="http://www.youtube.c...qpBT6-3-oo</a>
Interesting video with an easy to follow process for getting the deed to you property, free and clearl but as stated above this is still in the testing stages. Input is welcome fB
fredrick - the link above is incomplete. Could you please provide a full one.
Many Thanks.
Dawgboy
Here is the link copied directly from my browser, I hope it works for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgboy
I loaded the Youtube page and copied the address so it should be working
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqpBT6-3-oo
fB
I’m having only one issue with Robb’s land ownership.
Sure you can go in and acknowledge the deed but it still does not change anything on the deed in fee simple. You’re the owner but still liable for the property tax. If that’s what you trying to diminish the property tax, that’s not going to happen.
Here’s what I mean.
In English law, a fee simple (or fee simple absolute) is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the most common way that real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved for governments.
Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed.
How ownership is limited by these government powers often involves the shift from allodial title to fee simple such as when uniting with other property owners acceding to property restrictions or municipal regulation.
In the United States, fee simple owners are subject to property tax and other assessments for items such as roads and water/sewer improvements on the land.
Freehold: Then what freehold land states: In certain jurisdictions, including England and Scotland, a freehold (also called frank-tenement and franktenement) is the ownership of real property, being the land and all immovable structures attached to such land. This is opposed to a leasehold in which the property reverts to the owner of the land after the lease period has expired
Leasehold: A leasehold thus differs from a freehold or fee simple where the ownership of a property is purchased outright and thereafter held for an indeterminate length of time, and also differs from a tenancy where a property is let (rented) on a periodic basis such as weekly or monthly.
Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord, but it should not be confused with anarchy as the owner of allodial land is not independent of his sovereign. In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign.
In particular, land is said to be "held of the Crown" in England and Wales and the Commonwealth realms. In England, there is no allodial land, all land being held of the Crown; in the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the federal government, and subject to the imposition of taxes by state and/or local governments, and there is thus no true allodial land.
I never though I would ever back up a opinion but this makes sense,
The Constitution nowhere empowers the federal government to practice eminent domain. That is, nowhere in the Constitution is that power granted in the first place. Nor does the Constitution anywhere say that people hold their property by fee simple and not allodial title.
Link
Search Fee simple : ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police ...
Even in Indiana Code:
IC 32-24 ARTICLE 24. EMINENT DOMAIN
IC 32-24-1 Chapter 1. General Procedures
IC 32-24-1-1 "Condemnor" defined
Sec. 1. As used in section 5 of this chapter, "condemnor" means any person authorized by Indiana law to exercise the power of eminent domain.
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.9.
IC 32-24-1-2 "Owner" defined
Sec. 2. As used in section 5 of this chapter, "owner" means the persons listed on the tax assessment rolls as being responsible for the payment of real estate taxes imposed on the property and the persons in whose name title to real estate is shown in the records of the recorder of the county in which the real estate is located.
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.9.
I agree with your viewpoint here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chex
The specific type of ownership which is subject to "taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat" can only be that way via contract agreement or a trust structure whereby the parties fulfill the terms of either by their actions. It is non-constitutional as it falls under contract and/or trust law.
Therefore, since the deed is still wanting completion, the terms and intents of the grantee can be spelled out via the formal acknowledgment of acceptance. Taxation, police power, eminent domain, etc. are all in assumpsit. The demand of lawful money of exchange as part of the formal acceptance creates the separation from taxation since ALL taxation in this day and age is based upon signature endorsment of the FED's private credit and currency.
Can not the character of real property change according to the grantee's acceptance terms and the manner in which it is conveyed? The grantor is usually operating in an office of trust for the creator of the property being conveyed (The State). However, the grantor is also releasing terra firma and pedis possessio by walking away and agreeing to the grantee rightfully standing upon the land.
This goes to Michael Joseph's question, "Can property ever leave the State?" Perhaps not, however the terms and remedies can be spelled out so as to avoid the "contracted" subjections to the conveyed real property under "normative" conveyance including any and all debt scavengers who utilize the defective deed to their advantage.
Possibly there is a lead - .
David I cannot get either of the 2 links you posted to work for me from this threat
Very interested
first one went to advertisiment for image service and second said could not load because of errors
can you either repost in the thread or summarize or send to me via e mail or such? etc...? Thanks
Welcome 5201! Thank you for bringing failed links to my attention. I have attached them here in the website.
IC 32-24-1-2 "Owner" defined
Sec. 2. As used in section 5 of this chapter, "owner" means the persons listed on the tax assessment rolls as being responsible for the payment of real estate taxes imposed on the property and the persons in whose name title to real estate is shown in the records of the recorder of the county in which the real estate is located.
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.9.
IMO, allodial title, is not required at all. 'As used in section' does not alter the status of the people. Government can only make laws concerning things over which they have authority. Government has no authority over the property rights of the people. Those rights are inalienable. And as for Indiana is concerned, this ends Article 1 of the 1816 constitution:
Sect. 24. To guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare, that every thing in this article, is excepted out of the general powers of Government, and shall forever remain inviolable.
Article one, of course mentions the right to property, and all other inalienable rights (limited only by controversy between owners of those rights, the people). Government has been excepted out of the inalienable rights of the people. We get the common law from England, but England had one king. With no nobility, and only a representative government, common law is not the same as in England. Fee simple does not mean a thing next to the inalienable rights of the people. The question for land ownership, that is most important IMO, is who is in possession? Who has had peaceful possession? Who paid the previous owner his asking price? Is the one in possession one of the people? An owner in common law has dominion over what he owns. We have no king but only servants. Who here thinks that the servants replaced the king?
Why do you consider this a threat? For my part, the bank is paying my real estate taxes http://jesse2012.com/mortgagetx.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by 5201
which seems a nice compromise while we figure this one out.