I Must Take a Closer Look at This

[allodial]

"Secret? I dunno. A lot is plain and obvious in the contracts."

There is an intent here, and it includes fraud. They detain the people in an unfavorable position by withholding information and they do it without placing anything you are mentioning into evidence. It is an obvious fraud. It is nothing more than a justified method of theft. To encumber any property against the will of the owner is the basic definition of theft. They have no interest in the property (and admit it) and no standing without any claimed injury. This is basic civil rules.

I'm unaware of all of the merits or particulars of the case. However, if any of those clauses were present in the original purchase contract and the elements of situs and such are there there is much implied by situs and the terms used. The property registration probably says a lot too. A fee simple requiring payment of tax just might create an interest in the property. The key is "against the will of the owner" is not applicable if the agreement is in the purchase contract.

Usually the "tax collectors" seek out the last registered "owner" to collect the tax. What would protect the party who you sold it to, and then bought it back from, and then did not record that sell, from being sought after for the tax that will not go unpursued?

Deregistration of property in the right way wouldn't create that kind of situation. If the process perhaps (I posted the entire process once but seems no one paid attention to it because its too simple) involves a new assignment which is recorded there would be zero reason for them to go after the previous owner. In Missouri, if a car is being sold or assigned to a person that is not liable for registration then one can AFAIK simply provide a Notice of Sale (Form 5409). If you or the previous owner were to fail to notify (report the sale or assignment) the state why would the state have any reason to believe the vehicle or automobile wasn't still owned by the previous owner?



P.S. Ya know, when kings did things they actually bothered to notified their subjects.

"Secret? I dunno. A lot is plain and obvious in the contracts."

There is an intent here, and it includes fraud. They detain the people in an unfavorable position by withholding information and they do it without placing anything you are mentioning into evidence. It is an obvious fraud. It is nothing more than a justified method of theft. To encumber any property against the will of the owner is the basic definition of theft. They have no interest in the property (and admit it) and no standing without any claimed injury. This is basic civil rules.

...And this is the thing why I might throw a bit of water on the general smoke and fire of conspiracy in this case because:

#1 at least one state SPECIFICALLY publishes in their statutes how to end registration;
#2 I posted it many times;
#3 There are probably thousands of free law books on conveyancing, real estate and land registration available with a G**gle search;
#4 the clerk pumpkin mentioned basically outlined the process and/or admitted to there being one (and its not secret--but if you try doing it while a mortgage is in place don't be surprised by an invitation to the Graybar Hotel).

If I had read The Sporting News and Cosmo everyday but couldn't be bothered to read the instruction manuals for my life and inheritance, if it were a conspiracy I suppose that would have made me involved. Now, its a conspiracy when you study to show your self approved, follow the process and they interfere: then you might be talking about a very appropriate reason to go "gloveless"; but in the meantime you might want to take a different approach...

.

If you search out the process and law first and they interfere with the process, then I might agree with you on conspiracy. They are telling you the truth and admitting the truth. But if you registered it, they presumed you wanted it registered. Be mindful, that you might lose some county or city services unless you pay for them itemized or the like as David Merrill most wisely mentions.

I mentioned to David Merrill about someone purchasing a property associated with an HOA with obnoxious rules. When the would-be purchaser said he could not in sound mind sign the agreement without reservations the real estate agent (tied into the shady racket) ceased communications. David Merrill rightly said IMHO that he would not be willing to convict them of fraud or anything. With hesitation admittedly, I agreed to this extent: if the would-be purchaser had made the reservations and they sought to ignore the reservation THEN we would be talking fraud IMHO on the seller's part for holding the property out as fee simple when the HOA agreement amounts to a situation for the property owner with lesser rights than an apartment renter.

That the clerk is telling you basically HOW to de-register, doesn't sound like a conspiracy and it doesn't sound like he/she should be seen as an enemy. Consider for a moment that his or her power might be more limited than yours. So why look at someone who might be your honorable servant as if he or she were the master and cause of the undesirable situation?

There was a guy who was interested in a gal. He and I had a private face to face talk once and he was perplexed about the way things went. In sum I said you're a rather tall and muscular guy and she is looking at you like "He is strong" and it attracts her and she is dreaming of you being her protector and being swept way by you and your deep voice but you are begging and pleading acting like a little tiny scared dog and she realized it--your voice is deep but because of how you approached her it might as well be like *puts on squeaky little kid voice*, you have got the cart and the horse turned around the wrong way and she doesn't like it. Once he stopped reading Cosmo he probably came to have far better experiences.

Captain: I don't like were we are. Actually, I hate it.
No. 2: With all due respect, Captain, you gave the command and we followed you orders, so here we are.
Captain: Those are the only commands I know so those are the ones I gave. If only we could go backwards.
No. 2: But, sir, we can go backwards.
Captain: Nobody told me we could go backwards.
No. 2: But, sir, its in the Ship's Manual!
Captain: *DOH!*

I admit this suggestion is untried as far as I know. I did it and suitors have done it with automobiles. But since this registers the vehicle in the new name/owner then that might answer your question.

Another possibility is grab the County CAFR. After purchase break out your per capita share of the services you want and pay it itemized.

One can pay for one's portion of services and even contract with the county instead of the municipality for security. Its done all the time with unincorporated areas.

***

Exploring real estate or real property if the tax is not paid then foreclosure in the first and refusal to renew registration/tags in the latter. In both cases a whole lot of problems will ensue. For at once why is the property registered at all on the State Registry if it is not part of that closed law boundary? For at once, if the "would be" king knew what he was doing at all, then the "would be" king would have his own courts, his own great registry, his own laws, etc. etc. And that would of course mean that the "would be" king would have his own flag and therefore his own Honor. Thusly the "would be" king would be able to contract with all the other nation states by way of treaty. And therefore travel under His own Warrants!

But no, me thinks, this is no argument at all for there is no "would be" king. For why would a king freely alienate property into another kingdom unless he is totally crazy and his will is compromised. Certainly his Understanding is faulty. Thusly his Will is too. And this is double-minded and unstable IN ALL his ways. If said property is security for a contracted debt, then that makes a bit of sense, but otherwise, no property ever leaves the State.

You're making 'too much' sense there, MJ!

Attachment 3793

The right to keep and bear arms also extends to the right to bear coats of arms. (A thing called a "writ of arms" was issued to carry weapons such as in the presence of the king.)