:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold a Free Conference Call every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Notice of Assignment as a Matter of Public Record

The mystery of Land Patents unveiled.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Wesexpress
expired
Posts: 2
Joined: Friday January 28th, 2011 8:51 pm MST

Notice of Assignment as a Matter of Public Record

Postby Wesexpress » Friday December 30th, 2011 7:09 am MST

When making our assignment matter of public record or informing interested parties, the wording used to describe the affected property can make all the difference.
If I've properly comprehended the underlying concepts, the existence of a "universal template" for use at this juncture is unrealistic - since situations vary:
The only specific format to remember is the one used in "legal descriptions" within your chain of title by Corp US, as an example of what to avoid.

The parcel of land should be referenced in a manner aimed at:
  1. Distancing ourselves from the "legal description" used by Corp US
  2. Providing adequate, clear designation of the parcel on which we stand
Oftentimes the Corp US legal description throughout the chain of title includes the maximum amount of specific designations possible.
Oftentimes the Corp US legal description consists of nonspecific references to existing records.

It would therefore seem as if a solid way forward would be to detail every designation and reference all relevant records in your description, however:
Minor error could be detrimental. (Why put myself at risk of a single typo on a publicly recorded notice creating an "Achilles heel" in the stance I'm taking or risk unintentional infringement on the rights of neighboring sovereigns on the same plot of patented land?)

Using our own combination of designations and references to formulate a fair and adequate "sovereign description" of our land, while avoiding the trap of Corp-US lingo used on said records/measurements seems logical - Unless I am missing some major conceptual aspect here.
Rather than ask for formatting advice, I hope to generate discussion on core concepts from those who have taken the time to do their own research.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Notice of Assignment as a Matter of Public Record

Postby Admin » Friday December 30th, 2011 8:07 pm MST

:h: Wesexpress:
Your post proposes it was made to: “generate discussion on core concepts from those who have taken the time to do their own research”; and, though such a discussion would be appropriate on our Beneficiary’s Private Forum (where Team Law beneficiary support is openly available), that level of support must be reserved to Team Law beneficiaries. Thus, we would have normally relocated your post to the private message system for a direct response from Admin reminding you of the Forum Rules more particularly to Rules 3, 1012, 21 and 31.

However, your post was preserved so Admin could respond with particular focus on some critical elements people should always keep in mind as they work to secure their land and the respective rights that flow directly from landownership.

Accordingly, we acknowledge the accuracy of your opening comment:
Wesexpress wrote:When making our assignment matter of public record or informing interested parties, the wording used to describe the affected property can make all the difference.
Therefore:
Wesexpress wrote:…the existence of a "universal template"…is unrealistic—since situations vary.
We could not agree more!
To that we must add that such universal templates would be as impractical regardless of the source promoting the same. Of course, that includes, but is not limited to, sources like: private parties, organizations, attorneys and even State legislatures; which is exactly why it is so important to actually understand the history, background, meaning and intent of each document in any chain of title (or other legal document. Thus, it remains an elemental requirement to follow the Standard for Review both when reviewing legal documents that already exist and when generating such documents for any given purpose. Respectively, those that have experience using Team Law’s document review service would certainly attest to the fact that such understanding is at the essence of that service. Again, Team Law’s purpose is: “To help people learn how to learn the law so they can learn how to apply the same.”

However, for that very reason, we disagree with the allegation that:
Wesexpress wrote:The only specific format to remember is the one used in "legal descriptions" within your chain of title by Corp US, as an example of what to avoid.
Still, we imagine that you might have meant to say, ‘people need to learn to distinguish between elements of a land description that describe land and the property appurtenant to it from elements that imply jurisdictional controls external to the actual land description itself.’ Such intent would be valid. Nonetheless, the chain of title will (in most cases) specifically describe what was being passed on in the instrument; and, whatever that is, it is legally limited to that. To go further into that topic would require Team Law beneficiary support; so, we will not address it further here; other than to note that: ‘In most cases using the land description properly provided on most deeds is, not only proper but, necessary to properly convey the Title to the land. Suffice it to say that (contrary to what you next suggested) the land description on deeds (and related instruments) should be used only to describe the boundaries of the land itself and for no other purpose; one should never get creative composing new land descriptions that do not follow the proper land descriptions that come directly from the land descriptions properly provided in the actual documents of the formal Chain of Title.

As you suggested, even “minor errors can be quite detrimental.” Thus, learning the law, with its language and history, are quite necessary to make understanding such documents possible. Of course, such understanding is not even possible if we have to rely on hearsay from some third party, like an attorney. How can we know the advice of an attorney is right, if we do not know the subject matter for ourselves from our own experience? We cannot. Thus, if time is of the essence and we are ignorant of such a topic, we can call upon a lawyer (one topically suited and well studied and experience in law) for advice only if we use that as a reasonable starting point to review the matter firsthand (to timely gain the experience necessary and potentially consider allowing an attorney to speak for you in a matter). Such a situation should be rare indeed, if we honor the elementary necessity of life that requires us all to learn and apply the law.

In the later part of your post you began referring to the “sovereign” nature of man. However, experience shows that, while many people today bandy that and related words around, only a rare few actually understand its meaning. Therefore, let’s review:
“The three elements that define sovereignty are: dominion, agency and possession; all three of which are necessary for sovereignty to function.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Land Patents”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Matt633 and 1 guest