Say Goodbye to Property Taxes?

[shikamaru]

I had assumed they appointed trustee because most people i know who have had situations with a mortgage have not a clue who the trustee was initially.

With a deed of trust, I can concur.
With a mortgage, I cannot.

With a mortgage, the tenant has legal and equitable title. The tenant is responsible for "rent" on the land. Tenant is obviously in possession of, using, and enjoying the home. The lender retains a security interest in the property i.e. lien.

With a mortgage it is a conditional conferment, if you will.

On certificates and titles try and see if you are able to obtain the original wet inked paper application for a Certificate of Live Birth, the original for application of a vehicle certificate, that is the title. I have not seen anyone get one as of yet.

It is their account, my opinion of course.

What you hold is a artifact of evidence that a title exists somewhere. I have no
official legal constructs, this has come to me through my own awareness and trial an error leading to interpretation,

Fair enough. I bet you could find the historical treatment of certificates and items in bail or trust via Google Books.

You had seem to be talking legal constructs though by relying on something like Wikipedia, that being the language you wanted to use I return the same type of communication for your own benefit.

I merely used Wikipedia for convenience.
The substance of what I state come from legal treatises, legal dictionaries, and legal books of authority.

If you want my sources, feel free to ask.
Unlike most people, I can site and backup the vast bulk of my statements with references.
Otherwise, I qualify my statements as opinion, assertion, etc.

Trusts have always been there, just a different kind of trust, whether it be a handshake or in markings on a stick or chiselled into a rock.

There may have been some predecessors or quasi-trusts, but not in the official form known today.
The form today is born from the 'use upon a use'.

[motla68]

ok, we will just have to agree to slightly disagree on some points there on mortgage.

Yes, sometimes the answer one seeks is within the question.

Also concur with you about the " use upon a use", the word " usufructuary was first used in English Literature before used in a legal sense in 1828.

[shikamaru]

ok, we will just have to agree to slightly disagree on some points there on mortgage.

Yes, sometimes the answer one seeks is within the question.

Also concur with you about the " use upon a use", the word " usufructuary was first used in English Literature before used in a legal sense in 1828.

Clearly I wasn't around when all of these languages, customs, usages, and practices were devised and developed .

I've found that much of what people state in patriot lore or internet yarn does not hold water upon probation by research. This is not stating or implying that what you present is such.

[KnowLaw]

It's been a while since I've been back to revisit this thread. Too many other projects on my plate.

In re-reading, a lot of what Michael Joseph had to say toward the beginning of the thread has sunk in and made sense according to the circumstances I have to work within. Primarily, the following:

The deed is an expression of Trust. The Grantee is a CESTUI QUE TRUST = LEGAL NAME = Beneficiary. Therefore the Deed is just a Transfer of Beneficial Interest. And Therefore the Grantor does not have the RIGHT to transfer the property without the State as the Property expressed Within the Deed is Equitable Interest.

Only the Trustee can do that action.

In one approach, I attempted to remedy the matter of property taxes by taking the "property" out of the State's jurisdiction to render it as being classified as "private property" by selling it back to myself (the non-fiction, flesh-and-blood man) using a Grant Deed and refusing to record it with the county recorder, since from what I was reading at the time, it seemed to make sense as "registration" (with the State) occurs when the property is recorded. And once the property is "registered" with the state, that creates the "contract" (or "trust," so to speak) which the State uses as authorization for levying the tax.

The problem with that was: the property was originally granted in a warranty deed to a relative (who paid for the property in full at the time of purchase, so it was owned outright, or so it seemed to me). The documentation, though, had the State's fingerprints all over it (in terms of its legal description and so forth among other things), nullifying any claim I might have tried to make. At this point, I'm not sure how such real property can be successfully loosened from the hands of the State given the documentation one has to work with.

This has been an eye-opening experience. It brings home the point that every situation in terms of property law is unique when it comes to dealing with law. You have to be aware of all the legal twists and turns within your specific circumstances within the law before you can make your way to solid ground regarding the process that you are pursuing.

All of which brings me back to the statement made by Anthony Joseph below:

The way the system is set up, there is no way around it if you respond the way they lead you or if you ignore them entirely. The "other" available option is never revealed for obvious reasons. Like a traffic citation; there are three options offered by the way they lead you respond. The "other" option is not disclosed... R4C; even though it IS available for those that choose to employ the method honorably and competently.

That is why I suggest that the provided and available coupon attached to the "tax bill" be sent back with instructions for them to settle their own account utilizing that valid instrument which they provided, and are BOUND to accept, according to the law they operate from and are under. Seems to be as simple an "option" as R4C'ing a Traffic Citation; utilize whatever instrument, tool or mechanism available in order to assist them in settling their account internally and to keep the peace. Their is NO disruption or challenge of the "system" on our part other than our justly and rightfully declared immunity from it and superiority over it. Any disruption of the peace or initiated "action" will be by them from a position of dishonor if they fail to, or refuse to, recognize the character and standing of the man or woman who exercises his/her inherent and Divine right of avoidance from being "ruled" or re-venued by men and/or their creations.

Having followed a similar process, this seems to be the only reasonable and honorable way to somewhat extricate oneself from the property tax situation. Although you might have to stick to your guns in order to make it stick. I provide an update further down regarding what has occurred in my case.

At the same time I was prosecuting the "private property" approach, I also went ahead and returned the property tax coupon (along with a Memorandum of Law very similar to Anthony Joseph's document) with instructions on how it was to be redeemed with the Secretary of the Treasury.

The county treasurer, however, didn't seem to want to take that option and returned a "delinquent tax notice" in June, a few days after the expiration date for the second half payment. I replied by reminding him of the draft for money order I sent in December along with a Letter of Credit and the Notice of Memorandum of Law instructions regarding how to redeem the tender of payment. And there the matter sits.

There is little doubt in my mind that he will eventually (if it has not already occurred) issue a tax lien on the property. Yet, I have proof of service of the correspondence sent to him along with a claim that this matter is out of any State court's jurisdiction and is within the UPU's (Universal Postal Union) jurisdiction. Any qualified attorney (or attorney in black robe) worth his salt should take a look at the papers I sent him and notice the canceled stamp on the pertinent documents, indicating that this matter falls within the UPU jurisdiction.

One last nice touch I noted in reading back over this thread was the suggestion to make payment of the coupon in lawful money as per Title 12 U.S.C. §411. I'll have to add that touch to my next process.

[shikamaru]

It's been a while since I've been back to revisit this thread. Too many other projects on my plate.

In re-reading, a lot of what Michael Joseph had to say toward the beginning of the thread has sunk in and made sense according to the circumstances I have to work within. Primarily, the following:



In one approach, I attempted to remedy the matter of property taxes by taking the "property" out of the State's jurisdiction to render it as being classified as "private property" by selling it back to myself (the non-fiction, flesh-and-blood man) using a Grant Deed and refusing to record it with the county recorder, since from what I was reading at the time, it seemed to make sense as "registration" (with the State) occurs when the property is recorded. And once the property is "registered" with the state, that creates the "contract" (or "trust," so to speak) which the State uses as authorization for levying the tax.

The problem with that was: the property was originally granted in a warranty deed to a relative (who paid for the property in full at the time of purchase, so it was owned outright, or so it seemed to me). The documentation, though, had the State's fingerprints all over it (in terms of its legal description and so forth among other things), nullifying any claim I might have tried to make. At this point, I'm not sure how such real property can be successfully loosened from the hands of the State given the documentation one has to work with.

This has been an eye-opening experience. It brings home the point that every situation in terms of property law is unique when it comes to dealing with law. You have to be aware of all the legal twists and turns within your specific circumstances within the law before you can make your way to solid ground regarding the process that you are pursuing.

All of which brings me back to the statement made by Anthony Joseph below:



Having followed a similar process, this seems to be the only reasonable and honorable way to somewhat extricate oneself from the property tax situation. Although you might have to stick to your guns in order to make it stick. I provide an update further down regarding what has occurred in my case.

At the same time I was prosecuting the "private property" approach, I also went ahead and returned the property tax coupon (along with a Memorandum of Law very similar to Anthony Joseph's document) with instructions on how it was to be redeemed with the Secretary of the Treasury.

The county treasurer, however, didn't seem to want to take that option and returned a "delinquent tax notice" in June, a few days after the expiration date for the second half payment. I replied by reminding him of the draft for money order I sent in December along with a Letter of Credit and the Notice of Memorandum of Law instructions regarding how to redeem the tender of payment. And there the matter sits.

There is little doubt in my mind that he will eventually (if it has not already occurred) issue a tax lien on the property. Yet, I have proof of service of the correspondence sent to him along with a claim that this matter is out of any State court's jurisdiction and is within the UPU's (Universal Postal Union) jurisdiction. Any qualified attorney (or attorney in black robe) worth his salt should take a look at the papers I sent him and notice the canceled stamp on the pertinent documents, indicating that this matter falls within the UPU jurisdiction.

One last nice touch I noted in reading back over this thread was the suggestion to make payment of the coupon in lawful money as per Title 12 U.S.C. §411. I'll have to add that touch to my next process.

Be sure to avoid the insurances particuarly title insurance.

In title insurance, the State is listed as a beneficiary .

That tip is courtesy of "the Informer".

[KnowLaw]

Be sure to avoid the insurances particuarly title insurance.

In title insurance, the State is listed as a beneficiary .

That tip is courtesy "the Informer".

Thank you for adding that comment. That's a very good point to bring up that others here should learn from.

No, I did not involve any title company in the Grant Deed transaction, since I have nearly all the paper work (going back to the Land Patent granted by the State) involved with the real property in question, there seemed to be no need. There have been three owners of the plot of land that the Grant Deed refers to.

The only paper work I don't have in my possession is the first buyer of the plot who sold it to my relative, who was the second owner of the land. I am the third owner of the lot. I am assuming I could obtain a copy of that paper work (I just haven't done so yet) from the title company that was involved in the sale to the first owner. Previous to the time it was sold to the first owner, it was bought by a land developer who then developed the land, obtained an Land Patent on it, and then sold the lot to the first owner. (For clarifications sake, obviously the land developer was the original first owner of the land; I'm just referring to the people he sold to in order to clarify that since the original owner, there have been three additional owners.)

Is it your understanding, too, that private transactions such as this would be lawful as it would fall under the common law? In other words, by not involving the State (or any of its corporate minions such as a title company), the transaction remains on the private side of the fence. If so, then perhaps I don't have that much to worry about in the face of new developments. I just need to maintain my stance and make sure my response to any "offers" that may come my way is in accord with my stance. (This can become a bit confusing, which is why I am asking a second opinion to make sure my thinking is correct.)

[shikamaru]

Is it your understanding, too, that private transactions such as this would be lawful as it would fall under the common law? In other words, by not involving the State (or any of its corporate minions such as a title company), the transaction remains on the private side of the fence. If so, then perhaps I don't have that much to worry about in the face of new developments. I just need to maintain my stance and make sure my response to any "offers" that may come my way is in accord with my stance. (This can become a bit confusing, which is why I am asking a second opinion to make sure my thinking is correct.)

The first title deed (land patent) as well as title abstract is what makes it "common law".

The title abstract is composed of an abstract of all deeds leading back to the patent.

The patent still includes the State in that the State created the patent as well as the survey of the land.

How it was procured would make it "common law" such as using gold and silver coin as well as drawing up the contract that the sale was effected at law.

Contract makes the law . (maxim)

Registration is a statutory (Roman Civil Law) custom.

[KnowLaw]

The first title deed (land patent) as well as title abstract is what makes it "common law".

The title abstract is composed of an abstract of all deeds leading back to the patent.

The patent still includes the State in that the State created the patent as well as the survey of the land.

How it was procured would make it "common law" such as using gold and silver coin as well as drawing up the contract that the sale was effected at law.

Contract makes the law . (maxim)

Registration is a statutory (Roman Civil Law) custom.

Thanks for your feedback. It has helped to clarify certain points.

Perhaps you can expand on one passage that you mentioned so that I could be clear what is meant by it. The passage about: "...drawing up the contract that the sale was effected at law."

Is there verbiage that you are aware of that accomplishes this? I'd just like to be clear about what you mean by this in my own mind.

Otherwise, yes, gold was mentioned in the sale (along with other consideration).

[Frederick Burrell]

Be sure to avoid the insurances particuarly title insurance.

In title insurance, the State is listed as a beneficiary .

That tip is courtesy "the Informer".

If you are using the R4V method you would need to sent you coupon and money order to the IRS. There are only 3 offices that process R4V payments.

IRS technical Support
1500 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, district of columbia

IRS crimminal division
Box 192
Lovington, Kentucky

and

IRS stop 4440
PO box 9036
Augdon, Utah.

Allow 3 weeks for processing if this is your first R4V. fB

[shikamaru]

Perhaps you can expand on one passage that you mentioned so that I could be clear what is meant by it. The passage about: "...drawing up the contract that the sale was effected at law."

Is there verbiage that you are aware of that accomplishes this? I'd just like to be clear about what you mean by this in my own mind.

I need to start a super duper land law research thread .

Let's look at it this way.
Let's say we successfully negotiate with a seller to accept gold and silver coin.

The parties are free to draw up the contract to their mutual benefit.

The contract could say something to the effect that "$2000 in 40 $50 gold pieces and other valuable consideration tendered AT LAW for closure and settlement.

Remember contract makes the law. Contracts even supersede constitutions .

The contract expresses the intent of the buyer.
There are other tricks too such as a absolute bill of sale rather than a receipt.
It has to do with common law vs equity if you will.

One is expressing intent to extinguish a debt at law rather than discharge in equity.