Please copy form needed and paste to word prossesor for printing

 

65.12.230 Application to withdraw

 

The owner or owners of registered lands, desiring to withdraw the same from registration, shall make and file with the registrar of titles in the county in which said lands are situated, an application in substantially the following form:

 

To the registrar of titles in the county of__________, state of Arizona:

 

I, (or we), the undersigned registered owner(s) in fee simple of the following described real property situated in the county of  __________________, state of Arizona, to Wit:

(Legal description)______________________________________________________________

hereby make application to have the title to said real property withdrawn from registration.

 

Witness my (or our) hand(s) and seal(s) this __________ day of ______________, 20___

________________________________________________

 

Applicant signature(s)_______________________________________________________

Said application shall be acknowledged in the same manner as is required for the acknowledgement of deeds.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Tax Bill Refusal Letter

 

DATE: ____________________________

 

NAME_____________________________

 

c/o ________________________________

 

Your City; near ______________________

 

Arizona state, usA

 

postal code__________________________

 

COUNTY CLERK COUNTY COURT HOUSE - COUNTY SEAT  ________________,

Arizona, usA

 

DEAR _______________________________

 

ON ____________________, I RECORDED A DECLARATION OF LAND PATENT WITH THE RECORDER’S OFFICE AS INSTRUMENT #______________ SEE ENCLOSED COPY.

 

RECENTLY, I RECEIVED A TAX BILL FOR THE AMOUNT OF $_____________. SEE ENCLOSED COPY. THIS MUST BE A MISTAKE. MY DECLARATION OF LAND PATENT IS SUPERIOR TITLE TO THAT HELD BY THE STATE.

 

“THAT THE PATENT CARRIES THE FEE AND IS THE BEST TITLE KNOW TO A COURT

OF LAW IS THE SETTLED DOCTRINE OF THE COURT.”

MARSHALL vs. LADD. 74 U.S. 106.

 

“A PATENT IS THE HIGHEST EVIDENCE OF TITLE, AND IS CONCLUSIVE, AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL CLAIMING UNDER JUNIOR TITLE, UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE OR ANNULLED BY SOME JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL.” STONE vs. US.; 67 US. 765.

 

“ISSUANCE OF A GOVERNMENT PATENT GRANTING TITLE TO LAND IS ‘THE MOST

ACCREDITED TYPE OF CONVEYANCE KNOWN TO OUR LAW’”

US. vs. CREEK NATION. 295 US. 103.111.

US. vs. CHEROKEE NATION 474 F.2d 628. 634.

 

LAND CANNOT BE TAXED IF A LAND PATENT IS CURRENT. I AM NOT A TENANT. I HEREBY REVOKE YOUR POWER OF ATTORNEY AND WITHDRAW MY CONSENT FOR YOU TO TAX ME BASED UPON THE VALUE OF MY LAND. PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS MATTER IMMEDIATELY.

 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1--207

 

SINCERELY,

 

 

______________________________________________________________

 

Attestation

Appeared, Lanny Messinger and Jackie Messinger, who are known to me to be the ones whose signatures

subscribe this Declaration of Assignees’ Update of Patent, who acknowledged that they signed this

document as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and who

Allodial Title Via Land Patent

55

solemnly Affirmed the same, Under the pains and penalties of Perjury, before me, a Notary Public in

and for Washington State, Whitman County , this _________ day of ________________ 200__

-

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL AFFIXED HERETO:

______________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires:

________________________

ATTESTATION*

We, the undersigned, bear witness this ____________ day of ______________, 200__, that the ones

known to us as Lanny Messinger and Jackie Messinger did appear before us and, upon their solemn

Affirmation under the pains and penalties of Perjury, acknowledged that they signed this Declaration of

Assignees’ Update of Patent #4108 as their free and voluntary act.

_________________________________

an inhabitant of Washington State

_________________________________

an inhabitant of Washington State

_________________________________

an inhabitant of Washington State

*Pursuant to the Bible Doctrine of” ...two or three witnesses” (Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16), etc.), and

Public Law 97-280.

________________________________________

 

RECORDING REQUESTED BY )

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO )

)

)

)

)

RECORDER’S USE

DECLARATION OF ASSIGNEES UPDATE OF PATENT

PATENT NUMBER________________________

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

THAT__________________________________________________

AND______________________________________________________DO SEVERALLY CERTIFY AND DECLARE THAT ____(WE/I) BRING UP THIS LAND PATENT IN  _____(OUR/MY) NAME(S).

 

1) THE CHARACTER OF SAID PROPERTY SO SOUGHT TO BE PATENTED, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AND REFERENCED UNDER PATENT NUMBER LISTED ABOVE IS:

(LEGAL DESCRIPTION)_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

(2) NOTICE OF PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHT. PURSUANT TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE [1776],

THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH GREAT BRITAIN (8 STAT. 80) KNOWN AS THE TREATY OF PARIS [1793,

AN ACT OF CONGRESS [3 STAT. 566, APRIL 24,1824], THE OREGON TREATY [9 STAT. 869 , JUNE 15, 1846],

THE HOMESTEAD ACT [12 STAT. 392,1862] AND 43 USC SECTIONS 57, 59, AND 83;

 

THE RECIPIENT HEREOF IS MANDATED BY ART. VI SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 3; ART. IV SECTIONS I CL. 1, &. 2; SECTION 2 CL. 1 8t 2 ; SECTION 4; THE 4TH, 7TH, 9TH, AND 1OTH AMENDMENTS [U.S. CONSTITUTION, 1781-91J TO ACKNOWLEDGE ASSIGNEE’S UPDATE OF PATENT PROSECUTED BY AUTHORITY OF ART. III SECTION 2 CL. 1 &2 AND ENFORCED BY ORIGINAL/EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION THEREUNDER AND IT IS THE ONLY WAY A PERFECT TITLE CAN BE HAD IN OUR NAMES, WILCOX vs. JACKSON, 13 PET.

(U.S.) 498, 101. ED. 264; ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT DECIDED BY THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE ARE BINDING EVERYWHERE. AND INJUNCTIONS AND MANDAMUS  PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT LIE AGAINST IT, LITCHFIELD vs. THE REGISTER, 9 WALL. (U.S.) 575, 19 L. ED. 681. THIS DOCUMENT IS INSTRUCTED TO BE ATTACHED TO ALL DEEDS AND/OR CONVEYANCES IN THE NAMES) OF THE ABOVE PARTY(IES) AS REQUIRING RECORDING OF THIS DOCUMENT, IN A MANNER KNOWN AS NUNC PRO TUNC [AS IT

SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE BEGINNING], BY ORDER OF UNITED STATES SUPREME LAW MANDATE AS ENDORSED BY CASE HISTORY CITED.

 

 

 

(3) NOTICE AND EFFECT OF A LAND PATENT. A GRANT OF LAND IS A PUBLIC LAW STANDING ON THE STATUTE BOOKS OF THE_______________________(YOUR STATE), AND IS NOTICE TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER UNDER ANY CONFLICTING SALE MADE AFTERWARD; WINEMAN vs. GASTRELL, 54 FED 819, 4 CCA 596, 2 US APP 581. A PATENT ALONE PASSES TITLE TO THE GRANTEE; WILCOX vs. JACKSON, 13 PET (U.S.) 498, 10. L. ED. 264. WHEN THE UNITED STATES HAS PARTED WITH TITLE BY A PATENT LEGALLY ISSUED, AND UPON SURVEYS LEGALLY MADE BY ITSELF AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER DEPARTMENT, THE TITLE SO GRANTED CANNOT BE IMPAIRED BY ANY

SUBSEQUENT SURVEY MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES; CAGE vs. DANKS, 13, LA.ANN. 128. IN THE CASE OF EJECTMENT, WHERE THE QUESTION IS WHO HAS THE LEGAL TITLE. TILE PATENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IS UNASSAILABLE, SANFORD vs. SANFORD, 139 US 642.

 

THE TRANSFER OF LEGAL TITLE (PATENT) TO PUBLIC DOMAIN GIVES THE TRANSFEREE THE RIGHT TO POSSESS AND ENJOY THE LAND TRANSFERRED, GIBSON vs. CHOUTEAU, 80 US 92. A PATENT FOR LAND IS THE HIGHEST EVIDENCE OF TITLE AND IS CONCLUSIVE AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL CLAIMING UNDER JUNIOR PATENTS OR TITLES, UNITED STATES vs. STONE, 2 US 525. ESTOPPEL HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AS AGAINST A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (COUNTY). BEADLE vs. SMYSER, 209 US 393. UNTIL IT ISSUES, THE FEE IS IN THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH BY THE PATENT PASSES TO THE GRANTEE, AND HE IS ENTITLED TO ENFORCE POSSESSION IN EJECTMENT, BAGNELL vs. BRODERICK, 13 PETER (US) 436. STATE STATUTES THAT GIVE LESSER AUTHORITATIVE OWNERSHIP OF TITLE THAN THE PATENT CAN NOT EVEN BE BROUGHT INTO FEDERAL COURT, LANGDON vs. SHERWOOD, 124 U.S. 74, 80. THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DISPOSE OF ITS LAND

CANNOT BE INTERED WITH, OR ITS EXERCISE EMBARRASSED BY ANY STATE LEGISLATION; NOR CAN SUCH LEGISLATION DEPRIVE THE GRANTEES OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY GRANTED BY REASON OF ANY DELAY IN THE TRANSFER OF THE TITLE AFTER THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR ITS ACQUISITION. [GIBSON vs. CHOUTEAU.13 WAL. (U.S.) 92, 93.

 

(4) LAND TITLE AND TRANSFER THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF LAND TRANSFER IS A LONG AND TEDIOUS PROCESS INVOLVING THE OBSERVANCE OF MANY FORMALITIES AND TECHNICALITIES, A FAILURE TO OBSERVE ANY ONE OF WHICH MAY DEFEAT THE TITLE. EVEN WHERE THESE HAVE BEEN MOST CAREFULLY COMPLIED WITH. AND WHERE THE TITLE HAS BEEN TRACED TO ITS SOURCE, THE PURCHASER MUST BE AT HIS PERIL, THERE ALWAYS BEING IN SPITE OF THE UTMOST CARE AND EXPENDITURE- THE POSSIBILITY THAT HIS TITLE MAY TURN OUT BAD: YEAKLE, TORRENCE SYSTEM.

209. PATENTS ARE ISSUED (AND THEORETICALLY PASSED) BETWEEN SOVEREIGNS LEADING FIGHTER vs COUNTY OF GREGORY, 230 N. W.2d 114, 116. THE PATENT IS PRIMA FACIE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF TITLE, MARSH vs BROOKS, 49 U.S. 223,233.

AN ESTATE IN INHERITANCE WITHOUT CONDITION. BELONGING TO THE OWNER AND ALIENABLE BY HIM, TRANSMISSIBLE TO HIS HEIRS ABSOLUTELY AND SIMPLY, IS AN ABSOLUTE ESTATE IN PERPETUITY AND THE LARGEST POSSIBLE ESTATE A MAN CAN HAVE. BEING IN FACT ALLODIAL IN ITS NATURE, STANTON vs SULLIVAN, 63 R.I. 216 7 A. 696. THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF A PERPETUITY IS AN INALIENABLE, INDESTRUCTIBLE INTEREST. BOUVIER’S LAW DICTIONARY, VOLUME III P. 2570, (1914).

 

IF THIS LAND PATENT IS NOT CHALLENGED, AS STATED ABOVE, WITHIN 60 DAYS IT THEN BECOMES OUR/MY PROPERTY, AS NO ONE ELSE HAS FOLLOWED THE PROPER STEPS TO GET LEGAL TITLE, THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OR RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE PAYMENT IN FULL BY A HOMESTEADER OR PREEMPTOR IS NOT LEGAL EFFECT A CONVEYANCE OF LAND. U.S. vs STEENERSON. 50 FED 504,1 CCA 552,4 U.S. APP. 332.

A LAND PATENT IS A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE PATENT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ACT OF CONGRESS AS CONCERNS IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND, ETC JANKINS vs GIBSON, 3 LA ANN 203.

(5) LAW ON RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES; TRANSFER BY PATENTEE .....”TITLE AND RIGHTS OF BONA FIDE PURCHASER FROM PATENTEE...........WILL BE PROTECTED”. UNITED STATES vs DEBELL, 227 F 760 (C8 SD 1915), UNITED STATES vs. BEAMON, 242 F 876, (CA8 COLO. 1917): STATE vs HEWITT LAND CO., 74 WASH 573, 134 P 474. FROM 43 USC & 15 n 44. AS AN ASSIGNEE, WHETHER HE BE THE FIRST, SECOND OR THIRD PARTY TO WHOM TITLE IS CONVEYED SHALL LOSE NONE OF THE ORIGINAL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE OF LAND PATENT. “NO

STATE SHALL IMPAIR THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS”. UNTIED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I SECTION 10.

 

(6) EQUAL RIGHTS: PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ARE FURTHER PROTECTED UNDER THE I4TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, “ NO STATE.... SHALL DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS”. IN CASES OF EJECTMENT, WHERE THE QUESTION IS WHO HAS THE LEGAL TITLE THE PATENT OF

THE GOVERNMENT IS UNASSAILABLE. SANFORD vs. SANFORD, 139 U.S. 642, 35 L ED 290 IN FEDERAL COURTS THE PATENT IS HELD TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF TITLE AT LAW. FENN vs. HOLMES, 21 HOWARD 481. IMMUNITY FROM COLLATERAL ATTACK: COLLINS vs. BARTLETT, 44 CAL 371; WEBER vs. PERE MARQUETTE BOOM CO.,62 MICH 626, 30 N. W. 469; SURGET vs. DOE, 24 MISS 118; PITTSMONT COPPER CO. vs. VANINA, 71 MONT. 44, 227 PAC 45; GREEN vs. BARKER 47 NEB 934 66 NW 1032

 

(7) DISCLAIMER; ASSIGNEE’S SEIZEN IN DEED, AND LAWFUL ENTRY IS INCLUSIVE OF SPECIFICALLY THAT CERTAIN LEGALLY DESCRIBED PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL LAND GRANT OR PATENT NO.____________________ AND NOT THE WHOLE THEREOF, INCLUDING HEREDITAMENT, TEMEMENTS, PRE-EMPTION RIGHTS APPURTENANT THERETO. THE RECORDING OF THIS INSTRUMENT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR INFRINGE UPON ANY OTHERS RIGHT TO CLAIM THE REMAINING PORTION THEREOF. ANY CHALLENGES TO THE VALIDITY OF THIS DECLARATION & NOTICE ARE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS REFERENCED HEREIN. ADDITIONALLY; A COMMON COURTESY OF SIXTY (60) DAYS IS STIPULATED FOR ANY CHALLENGES HEERETO. OTHERWISE. LACHES/ESTOPPEL SHALL FOREVER BAR THE SAME AGAINST ALLODIAL FREEHOLD ESTATE; ASSESSMENT LIEN THEORY TO THE CONTRARY (ORS 275.130), INCLUDED.

 

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE ATTACHED TO THIS DECLARATION, CERTIFIED COPY OF ORIGINAL LAND GRANT OR PATENT, DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD (STRIKE OUT IF NOT APPLICABLE), LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PORTION OF SAID GRANTOR PATENT.

X______________________________________________

X______________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASSIGNEE(S)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of _______________________)

(________________________________) ss.

county of______________________ )

On ________________ before me, ___________________________________ personally

appeared_________________________________ and___________ personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal ___________________________________________

Signature of Notary

When Recorded, Return To:

___________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________

NOTICE TO THE COURT:

Tax Bill Counter Demand

 

Date: _______________________

Name of entity you are counter-demanding_____________________________________

C/o_____________________________________________________________________

City, state, postal code_____________________________________________________

RE: NOTICE TO THE COURTS AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF  ARIZONA, AND ANY OF ITS COUNTIES AND ANY OF ITS CITIES:

COUNTER-DEMAND

 

DEAR SIR:

 

YOU ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTED BY THIS CITIZEN TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIRED INFORMATION PURSUANT TO UCC 3-505.4 AND RETURN IT TO ME, IN THE ENCLOSED STAMPED ENVELOPE.

 

(A) EXHIBITION OF THE INSTRUMENT THAT CREATED THE LIABILITY.

 

(B) REASONABLE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PERSON MAILING  RESENTMENT AND EVIDENCE OF HIS AUTHORITY TO MAKE IT. IF MADE FOR ANOTHER; AND,

 

(C) THAT THE INSTRUMENT BE PRODUCED FOR ACCEPTANCE OR PAYMENT AT A PLACE SPECIFIED IN IT, OR IF THERE BE NONE, AT ANY PLACE REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES; AND,

 

(D) A SIGNED RECEIPT OF THE INSTRUMENT FOR ANY PARTIAL OR FULL PAYMENT AND ITS SURRENDER ON FULL PAYMENT.

 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT INVALIDATES THE PRESENTMENT.

 

THE PERSON PRESENTING HAS A REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLY AND THE TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OR PAYMENT RUNS FROM THE TIME OF COMPLIANCE.

 

UCC 3-505.5

THE PRESENTER OR HIS AUTHORIZED AGENT, MAY TREAT THE PRESENTMENT AS DISHONORED IF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PRESENTMENT IS MADE [YOUR NAME]________________________________

MAKES COUNTER-DEMANDS WHICH ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY UCC 3-505.4 OR PLACES UNREASONABLE CONDITIONS ON DEMANDS AUTHORIZED BY THIS SECTION.

IF THE COUNTER DEMANDS [BY YOUR NAME] ___________________________ ARE PROPER, THE  PRESENTER MUST COMPLY WITH THEM, AND THE CODE GIVES A REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND. CORRESPONDINGLY; UNTIL THERE IS SUCH COMPLIANCE, THERE IS NO

FURTHER DUTY UPON THE OTHER PERSON TO WHOM PRESENTMENT IS MADE [YOUR NAME] __________________________AND THE TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OR PAYMENT RUNS FROM THE TIME OF COMPLIANCE.

YOU HAVE (10) CALENDAR DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THIS COUNTER-DEMAND IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO THIS COUNTER DEMAND. OTHERWISE I WILL CONSIDER THE MATTER CLOSED AND THE PRESENTMENT VOID AB INITIO. IF YOU DO NOT ANSWER THIS COUNTER DEMAND THEN YOU HAVE CONCURRED WITH MY DECLARATIONS AND TESTIMONY IN THIS MATTER. THIS COUNTER DEMAND SHALL BE ENTERED INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF THIS MATTER, AND

SHALL BE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW.

 

THANK YOU,

________________________________________

Your Name c/o Address­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________________________________________

City; near postal code__________________________________________________

Arizona state

__________________________________________________________________

TITLE REGISTRATION

 

The pertinent statutes for registering and unregistering land titles should be listed in the index of your state’s revised codes. For example; in Ohio, it would be ORC 5309.68; in Colorado, it would be CRS 38-30-117, CRS 38-36-136, and CRS 38-36-149. These statutes and the forms and procedures they prescribe remain fairly uniform from state to state. To give you some idea of the nature and content of such statutes, those above cited for Washington’s code appear as follows:

65.12.225 Withdrawal authorized - Effect. The owner or owners of any lands, the title to which has been or shall hereafter be registered in the manner provided by law, shall have the right to withdraw said lands from registration in the manner hereinafter provided, and after the same have been so withdrawn from registration, shall have the right to contract concerning, convey, encumber or otherwise deal with the title to said lands as freely and to the same extent and in the same manner as though the title had not

been registered.

______________________________________________________