Land Patents - highest law in land ownership - even above state, county, etc. My understanding is that if they want to mess with you they have to buy it from you, per a lady in Nevada successfully fighting gov. BLM I think. A relative of Wayne Haiges as I recall.
She said to get an exhaustive chain of title all the way from the original patent to me (the current owners) - certified copies of every document. That's a start. More info from Team Law.
I'm studying up a bit more on this and wanted to post it for others that may be interested.
Land 101
http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=3
Patents
http://teamlaw.net/PatentHowTo.htm
Thanks Glenn
I have searched for this info and got nowhere
even talked to my brother the Real Estate Broker
who knew nothing about allodial titles or land patents
This should be a sticky topic, in my opinion; some quality advice for all.
Good info Glenn.
BTW having an army helps insure land ownership as well. Just a hint.
It would seem to me that my title would still depend on how rigorously each transfer was made-----an original patent would only guarantee clear title to the first "private" owner. Any flaw at any point after that could prove to be a "cloud" on every subsequent owners' title. That's why buyers title insurance is important to obtain as part of the closing. A sellers policy does not protect the new owner.
Quote from: ScottA on August 13, 2009, 07:13:23 PM
Good info Glenn.
BTW having an army helps insure land ownership as well. Just a hint.
There are many like minded individuals around these parts. :)
Quote from: rwanders on August 13, 2009, 08:23:28 PM
It would seem to me that my title would still depend on how rigorously each transfer was made-----an original patent would only guarantee clear title to the first "private" owner. Any flaw at any point after that could prove to be a "cloud" on every subsequent owners' title. That's why buyers title insurance is important to obtain as part of the closing. A sellers policy does not protect the new owner.
I think that is where the team law sandwich thing comes in. They want the paper back to the last warranty deed and I read something about going from the first Patent to the current owner then filing to accept the terms of the patent and assuming that all between have done as they were supposed to. It is necessary to obtain all certified copies of all transactions back to the original patent for an exhaustive chain of title.
Their goal is to get you in a position to accept the original patent rights - which will overpower any claims by county or others against it.
Somehow you file to accept the terms of the original patent, which nearly always says such as in mine, something such as "To John C. Fremont and his heirs and assigns to have and to hold" or similar. The exhaustive chain of title proves that I am an assign of John C Fremont and accept the terms of the patent. This locks the local officials out of the oversight of the land after proper papers are filed, as the patent is from the Federal Government.
I don't know all about it yet but am studying about it and collecting my legal papers. Recently got my three certified copies of the patent from the General Land Office at the BLM. I have all of the certified copies of the deeds for the exhaustive chain of title clear back to Fremont.
You still have the right to contract your rights away by building permits and paying land taxes if you wish. We pay land taxes.
There is a forum at team law also but I haven't had much time to study there.
Also - here is my link to Landrights.
http://www.landrights.com/
The sign - I have these posted all over the place and so do some of my friends. A fireman friend blew it up to double size and had it laminated. I laminate mie after printing them out in color on my printer. They are good for about a year that way.
http://www.landrights.com/NoTrespassing.htm
Patent sign
http://www.landrights.com/landpatentnoticeblank.htm
I have filled in and posted the patents notice on my property also.
I'll sticky it for now - we'll see how active it is.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on August 13, 2009, 10:33:29 PMYou still have the right to contract your rights away by building permits and paying land taxes if you wish. We pay land taxes.
Elaborate on that please, Glenn. I thought you
had to pay land taxes and if I'm not mistaken, just about every county/city forces you to get permits to build on your own property, does it not? If so, how you do avoid all of that to be able to keep your rights? Or am I misunderstanding something? I'm not a property owner, yet, so I'm not as knowledgeable as everyone else on all this stuff.
Some go so far as to find the old laws that prevent you from having to pay taxes on your land. It is mentioned in some of the information on Team Law. How successful they are is likely between them and the assessor and how far they will go to prove a point. Things like this are not always successful.
Yes they force you to pay and lien to collect but as I recall it is trickery they have tied into the Social Security laws and making you into a corporate entity by using all capitols for your name on their contracts with you. Sorry, I am working full time now and don't have time to dig deeper on this - and don't fully know the details myself. A building inspector mentioned something of a "Straw Man" -- Allodial Title and other interesting things.
I have not pursued it farther as I do pay my property taxes for benefits I receive and do not object to that. That is my right to contract with them to pay the tax they impose.
Other interesting stuff - On www.landrights.com check out the UCC 1-207, and the term "Without Prejudice" . I use it when signing my Federal and State income taxes. http://www.landrights.com/UCC_1-207.htm
(http://www.landrights.com/UCC_1-207.htm)
When you use things like this study it well as you may be questioned as to what it means if you use it and go to court. The best explanation is in the mentioned website and I have to reread it every so often to help clear it up for myself.
Also check out the flag used in most courts. A gold fringe on it - It is not the US flag.
Some of this may seem a bit off topic but it all ties into seeing how the system is systematically taking away the rights the founding fathers wanted us to have.
Our public servants swear to uphold the Constitution , but as soon as you turn your back on them you will find them chiseling away at the very foundation of it through loopholes and deception.
Here I am mostly wanting to stir your interest so that you will dig into it further and see for yourself what is happening. Please share your findings of interest with us here. I will drop in when I can ---
I even have to work tomorrow. d*
So in order to stay a Sovereign Citizen, all I have to do is sign UCC 1-207 or "Without Prejudice" whenever I sign a contract, and then I cannot be held responsible for said contract, and is therefore null & void in the eyes of the law, because signing the above means that it was, basically, forced upon me; an example would be Federal/State Income Taxes.
Also, according to the Team Law's Open Forum, Land 101, did I read correctly that, in registering to vote, I have signed a contract and, therefore, must pay property taxes whenever I purchase a piece of land? Here is the text I'm having trouble believing:
"The other property ownership limitation people generally concern themselves with is property taxes. In fact, property taxes are purely contractual. They are not constitutionally controlled, that is to say, they do not have to be uniform, apportioned or excise in their nature, because they are contractual. They are related to the Voter's Registration contract. To understand property taxes, it is helpful to understand that the STATE OF 'X' (where "X" is related to a common State name) is a private corporation. Signing up as a registered voter is a voluntary choice. Once a person is a registered voter they become a participant in collaterally securing any property tax issue passed by the voters to any property they have in that state. This is why those in positions of governance always call this country a Democracy—because if 50%+ of the registered voters vote for a bond issue, all of the registered voters are subject to it."
My understanding is that the UCC 1-207 -- All Rights Reserved -- Without Prejudice --- statements mean you are not forfeiting your common law rights - Common Law is the true law of the land. You are not giving up your rights for their color of law rights and deceit they use to trick you out of your rights. You are not giving up your rights for things they have not disclosed to you. I have read that this opens up Constitutional issues they do not want to deal with.
More self education is in order for me on this.
On the second part - I think you are getting an idea of the trickery they use to force most unknowing people to give up their rights. Again - I need more study on this. There are Constitution issues with some of the taxes needing to be properly apportioned per the census also.
It's all a big can of worms.
As I say - I don't know enough about it yet but hope to continue learning more. Several people have clued me in a bit over the years and raised my interest to where I study it and understand a bit more each time I read it but still I need to spend more time studying it. Not much time at this point though.
I've been savoy on the whole Sovereign Citizen movement for a while now and have seen some werid theories like that accepting mail with your state in all capital letters or a zip code makes you a Federal Citizen, to stamping UCC 1-207 on all money is a must since the Feds have a monopoly on money and make it impossible for you to use anything else.
All of this stuff is new, however. The land stuff is quite interesting though. I think I will bea frequent visitor to this thread =p
Is it possible to UNregister to vote, then, if registering requires me to pay a property tax?
I don't know. Part of the problem with stuff like this is that there are two sides to what goes on also. The other party has to be educated and forced to legally agree also.
For that to happen you will have to know your subject better than they do.
I understand there is a way to opt out of SS, but I have not done that either.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on August 14, 2009, 11:18:27 PM
Also check out the flag used in most courts. A gold fringe on it - It is not the US flag.
From the book,
So Proudly We Hail: The History of the United States Flag,
The placing of a fringe on Our Flag is optional with the person of organization, and no Act of Congress or Executive Order either prohibits the practice, according to the Institute of Hearaldry. Fringe is used on indoor flags only, as fringe on flags on outdoor flags would deteriorate rapidly. The fringe on a Flag is considered and 'honorable enrichment only', and its official use by the US Army dates from 1895.. A 1925 Attorney General's Opinion states: 'the fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the Flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe.
Also see Flags of the World... http://flagspot.net/flags/us-fring.html (http://flagspot.net/flags/us-fring.html)
It's simply decoration, like a fancy picture frame.
It is Military, maybe used by choice in the courts, but assuming there is no significance may not be giving us the full story.
It seems that government usually has a motive for it's actions.
At least you can see what the story is behind it and decide whether to dig deeper or not.
http://www.usavsus.info/ Scroll down to the Flag info for the differences and what this website has to say regarding their viewpoint. I have not deeply researched the facts. Just bringing it out for those who may have an interest in learning of it.
Yes there are tons of opinions trying to play down the significance.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/admiralty
http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/us-fring.html
Graywater code passes in California-
http://nbnetwork.org/topic/news
A good point about the codes-
http://nbnetwork.org/2793
Good info. Thanks, W :)
Cheap Housing Is Illegal
By Steve Gillman
I saw a story on the evening news a year or two ago, about the cost of housing in California. Apparently it had become so expensive to buy or to rent in some areas, that people were converting backyard sheds into extra bedrooms and renting them out. This solved not only the home owners problem of covering the mortgage payment, but it also provided cheaper rent for the tenant.
I did the same thing many years ago, renting a converted shed out for $45 per week. I even lived in it myself for several months at one point, in order to collect even more rent for the bedrooms inside my home. Of course, like the examples in California, as well as many of the solutions to housing problems, it was illegal.
The story reminded me of some interesting housing I saw in Mexico when I was hitchhiking through there at age seventeen. Three factory workers gave me a ride and offered to let me stay the night with them. They lived in a tiny futuristic plastic appartment provided by their employer. It had two sets of bunk beds, and a tiny kitchen, and a bathroom that was made of one continuous piece of plastic (looked like it would be easy to clean).
The entire apartment or "module," or whatever you call it was probably less than 200 sqaure feet. Certainly not spacious living. On the other hand, it was clean and functional, and the climate allowed for use of the paths and benches in the surrounding gardens in any season. This kind of unit is so small and cheap to construct that even in the United States it could be rented profitably to single men for $200 per month, meaning the rent would be $50 if split four ways. Of course such apartments would be illegal almost anywhere in the United States where they are needed, due to all sorts of building code issues.
I saw a news program a while back about a church in California that took homeless people off the streets and provided all meals and a place for them to stay for six months at a time. It was a working ranch with many different enterprises going on. The residents - men only as I recall - were housed in large bunk rooms, and worked every day, learning new skills that could lead to jobs in the future. There was a waiting list to get into the program, so it was apparently something people on the streets needed and wanted.
Of course, if a private company did the same thing for profit, and went one step further by giving each resident $2,000 when they left after six months, it would be illegal. It would violate minimum wage laws, and probably some building codes and other laws. As a society and government, we instead "protect" the people from such exploitation, and keep them on the cold streets.
A more personal example: A friend of mine was forced to leave his own little cabin which he had built on property he owned, because it did not meet the minimum square footage requirements of the county. He had lived in tents and cars before, and thought this was his place to finally"settle down," but he didn't have the money to meet the requirements of our "concerned society."
What am I suggesting? Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad to treat men and women as adults, rather than as children that need to be "protected." Maybe if people choose to live in small or "substandard" housing, it is because that is their best option at the time. How does taking away those options make things better for them? My friend began another stretch of "couch surfing" at 54 years old, by the way. Is it possible that individual people are better equipped to choose what is best for them than are society's "planners" and legislators?
It just is not true that governments raise the standards in these things. We have decent housing in general because we have the money for it. If you think this isn't so, just imagine creating a law in the Sudan that nobody could build anything other than a nice home according to United States standards and codes. All it would accomplish is far more homelessness.
People often don't notice how much government gets in the way of serious problems being solved, because most who live here can afford the "mandated" solutions. But consider for a moment if an investor was free to build and rent apartments any way he wanted as long as they were safe. With any imagination at all, you can probably see how he could provide cheaper rent and still make a great profit. So you can see that new housing options are prevented by existing laws.
Would investors build "slums?" Probably some of what was built would be called that, but remember that every resident living there would be there by free choice, having decided that it was the best option available. Does it really make sense for outsiders to say, "No, you can't live there, because it's too small, too crowded, and too ugly. I'm going to protect you from your own decisions! Back to the street you go!"
Let's let adults be adults and stop using laws to make their decisions for them. Let's stop making cheap housing illegal.
Government getting in the way of people taking care of their own needs? Preposterous!! Our infinitely wise and benevolent ruling class and their bureaucratic minions would never stoop so low!
Seriously, the argument could be made that many of these "for our own good" rules and regulations are in place primarily to channel our money and earning power in the direction of politically connected institutions and industries. And I would argue that no one ever built a slum, slums are created by the people who live there. The sad truth is that it takes only a few people in a neighborhood with no self-discipline, low standards of cleanliness, or criminal inclination to cause the area to degenerate into a slum.
Good article, Whitlock! Makes ya kinda mad, when you think about it... d*
So question ... how do I go about finding the owner/whereabouts of a Land Patent for a specific piece of property? I don't have one in particular in mind currently, but I figure this would be a good skill to acquire/learn until I do have one in mind, including the money of course.
Get an abstract from the title company that shows every owner all the way back to the patent, homestead etc.
We got ours then got certified copies of every title from the county recorder all the way back to and including the patent. We also got the patent certified copies from the bureau of Land Management.
Public Servents--
http://www.incnf.org/publicservantquest.htm
I had a good day yesterday. A land owner about 30 miles from here needed my assistance. He had allowed Mikey B. to get his D8 dozer across his land from the back side of the mountain as there was a bridge limit on Mike's side.
He had an easement across the neighbors land for his driveway for the last 15 years that he has owned the property. Who knows how long it has been there before that.
A house flipper from the Republic of Southern California bought the property the easement was across about 5 years ago. All of his southern California properties were foreclosed on along with another piece of property here locally. He only owns the property the easement is across now - and hopefully not for long - we don't need his kind up here. I'll refer to him as SoCal.
SoCal decided he wanted to kick Dom off of his property so he dozed out his paved driveway, bladed all of the road into the gully, put up a berm about 3 feet high, 10 feet wide and put large thousand pound or so boulders in it.
Dom hired an attorney, took SoCal to court and proved he had an existing easement. SoCal was so rude and belligerent in court the judge asked what he was mumbling as he walked away, and told him he didn't want to hear another word from him, after which he lectured him on how he could not believe he would come up here and do this sort of thing to his neighbor.
He put the driveway back in..... in his manner... down in a gully to make it unusable and he also concreted in RR tie posts 8 feet apart to prevent Dom's gate from working, as well as backing his tractor through Dom's gate and smashing it to pieces.
Back to court, the judge gave Dom permission to put it back as it was before. That is when he called me. Dom had a court order, a restraining order to keep SoCal at least one hundred feet from us, and the Sheriff warned SoCal to leave us alone before we started.
Since Socal had bladed away the footing on the sidehill for the road I had to cut into the undisturbed soil about 8 feet on the side of the mountain to make the road safe for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks. The repair area was around 3 to 400 feet. Depth of cut at the back was around 3 feet - I sloped it to look fairly decent. I used the large boulders for landscaping Dom's driveway.
It took around 6 hours and I estimate I moved around 300 to 400 yards with my Bobcat. The road averaged around 13 to 16 feet in width as it followed the countour of the mountain.
At about 5 hours, SoCal couldn't stand it any more. He came up within about 5 feet of the road where I was working and took my picture in the Bobcat as I was about 50 feet from him. I looked up - smiled and waved just as the flash went off. I shut the Bobcat engine down and said, "Hey, Hows it going?", hoping to engage in some polite conversation, but even though the engine was off, he kept walking pretending he didn't hear me. Not a very friendly sort, eh? ... [waiting]
Dom saw the flash and went to call the Sheriff.
After the picture incident, I decided I had not done good enough so I cut farther into the mountain and widened the drive even more. heh
The Sheriff arrived in about 15 minutes during which time, SoCal assuming he was in deep doodoo got in his Jeep and left, but then thought better of it and returned I guess. The Sheriff took a statement from Dom, then went straight to SoCal's house and chewed on him for around 20 minutes. Apparently SoCal talked his way out of a ride to the county lockup.
I love it... :)
My point to this story.... If you block some one off from access to their land when they have a legal easement across yours, you are trespassing - even though it is your land.
If this happens to you and you can prove your easement you can get it restored after a court battle. Dom hopes to recover attorney fee's and the cost of my work restoring his road.
When will the cidiot's (sometimes city people and idiots procreate producing a cidiot- note that this does not apply to the majority of city dwellers) learn that country people are supposed to be good neighbors because you never know when you will need their help? It goes both ways.
Do mountain folk have the same problem (like cidiots?).... Hell yeah, but the ones that do are generally pretty proud of it.. :)
That's a great story Glenn. I'm glad it got worked out.
The road is in. I doubt the guy will change his attitude. He has another court date on the 22nd so I will be informed how that goes. :)
I did the job on credit because Dom was straight with me and has been in the area for years. I think he is the type to keep his word. He had to have the road done before the court date but the attorney fees are killing him.
We try to take care of our own up here unless they prove that they are not to be trusted.
Now your friend needs to get a truck with a broken muffler and use the new road every night at 2am.
Believe me, we do that stuff around here. My buddy and his neighbor were feuding. He sent his kids to ride dirt bikes on the lot next door to his neighbor.
I have a 4 inch straight pipe on my Cummins and everybody knows when I go someplace. Neighbors 2 to 3 road miles away can hear me .... I guess I just like to be obnoxious... I don't have anybody I'm feuding with.... [waiting]
As a certified paralegal I am more than casually familiar with real estate law, (although since I am NOT a licensed attorney I am not now nor do I intend to provide legal advice). Just a "heads up" for those who believe that they can circumvent paying real estate taxes by finding an allodial title loophole.
First off, look at the warranty deed or other "ownership" paperwork you received when you bought your place. If you look you will see that there is wording in there somewhere that says you own the place "in fee simple". The term goes back to the middle ages when rulers granted "fiefs" to vassal servants as payment for "yeoman duty". In essence, you may use or dispose of your property in any way you choose as long as the "Lord of the manor" is in agreement.
we no longer have feudal titles, but the feudal law still prevails with the State, (county, township, city, village), taking the place of the Lord of the manor. You can choose to assert that you have allodial title just as you can assert that if you sprinkle yourself with pixie dust you can fly... the success rate will be about the same for both. :)
My understanding is that it all still belongs to the King of England still yet - someone may have failed to read the fine print.
I pay the taxes for any perceived benefit I may get from the county, but have been pretty successful in keeping unwanted trespassers out of here with The Sign, and a patent notice as well as having my complete chain of title back to the original owner who bought it from the Mexicans then was awarded a grant by the Federal government.
Since this thread started several officials, police and the census people have not entered my property without permission. One was told he could by our renter at the far end of our driveway -1/4 mile away, but he declined - didn't want to risk the land use fee.
Again - there are no guarantees in this sort of thing - public servants break laws every day -- just not as commonly with the laws and consequences posted in front of their faces.
I have heard that if you are not aware of the law you cannot use it for your benefit.... again - your results may vary.
Quote from: tortminder on September 04, 2010, 09:43:32 PM
As a certified paralegal I am more than casually familiar with real estate law, (although since I am NOT a licensed attorney I am not now nor do I intend to provide legal advice). Just a "heads up" for those who believe that they can circumvent paying real estate taxes by finding an allodial title loophole.
First off, look at the warranty deed or other "ownership" paperwork you received when you bought your place. If you look you will see that there is wording in there somewhere that says you own the place "in fee simple". The term goes back to the middle ages when rulers granted "fiefs" to vassal servants as payment for "yeoman duty". In essence, you may use or dispose of your property in any way you choose as long as the "Lord of the manor" is in agreement.
we no longer have feudal titles, but the feudal law still prevails with the State, (county, township, city, village), taking the place of the Lord of the manor. You can choose to assert that you have allodial title just as you can assert that if you sprinkle yourself with pixie dust you can fly... the success rate will be about the same for both. :)
Perhaps I'm confused on how all this works, but does that not refer to the real estate, since that is what you just said you were knowledgeable in? Real Estate and Land are two separate things. Land, of course being land, and real estate being the property appurtenant to the Land. That is why it is called "Real Estate/Property Tax" because you are paying taxes on everything appurtenant to the Land, not the Land itself.
If you have the Land Patent, legally of course, then you own the Land itself and it cannot be taken from you for
any reason, save Eminent Domain, and even then depending on the piece of property, you can possibly get out of that as well. Case in point, in Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n 466 US 198, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Land Patent would always win over any other form of title. In that case, the land in question was tidewater land and California's claim was based on California's constitutional right to all tidewater lands. The patent stood supreme even against California's Constitution. So you
can fight an Eminent Domain case and win. However, I digress from the original point, Property Taxes are purely a contractual agreement, and I will agree that owning the Land Patent to your piece of Land doesn't stop you from contracting away your rights.
Bottom line is I think there is confusion between Land and Real Estate/Property; they are not one in the same.
That is true - you are free to contract your rights away even by taking out a building permit - that is why you are required to sign it.
I know that the words "Land Use Fee $5000" are very important on the sign I use and several people have refused to come onto my property without an approved escort or at all according to my renter who talked to them. The PGE tree service had him escort them.
Although my memory is cloudy, I seem to recall several cases where the state won their case against owners that refused to pay their taxes. It was based on the fact that they had, in fact, paid in the past, ergo, consent to pay was implied and expected to continue. Defendant was found by the court to have a poor legal basis for asserting said rights after having paid over the preceding years, which perhaps contractually, implied an acknowledgement of obligation.
It's been ages since my business law classes and I don't know the legal jargon, but essentially the legal basis was, "someone does something, and does it again..then one day decides to object to doing it, to which the court replies..you did it before and knew what you were doing..sorry charlie" Am I off here?
I think you about have that right.
I also pay the taxes for whatever perceived benefits I may get, but like to keep the unwanted guests off of my property. I do not want them thinking I want to pay more therefore I try to discourage them.
I sign all tax papers with - Without Prejudice - all rights reserved - it was UCC1-207 but the number moved up a bit I think .
You are right that you enter into a contract with them when you sign your tax papers or a building permit. How successful one will be on any avoidance depends on a lot of factors but I like to minimize chances of paying more and am moderately successful.
http://www.landrights.com/
http://www.landrights.com/UCC_1-207.htm This UCC number is changed to 1-308
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/78775
http://www.landrights.com/NoTrespassing.htm I like this form of no trespassing sign. The words "Land Use Fee " are key to being able to immediately invoice the intruding person - official etc. and collecting in small claims court if the judge is not corrupt. It seems to work here.
Building and other officials must have a warrant or federal warrant and you must be damaging someone outside your property, and tax assessors never have the right to enter your land without your permission. It may not be to your benefit to not cooperate though.
A neighboring county issues threats and fees under these conditions but has not enforced them or ever collected on them that we know of. We think it is because the law they are using is in a gray area of conflict with the common law, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not sure why and they aren't talking.
No guarantees though.
Awesome No Tresspassing sign, Glenn. I wonder if, by posting a land use fee schedule of $5000, you are now engaged in an unregistered business enterprise, and considering nobody has paid yet, a losing one at that. Now that's a writeoff I'm sure. ;)
Back here in NY, I'm told a warrant is necessary for anyone entering private land, except for a game warden or "Conservation Officer", with reasonable suspicion. As 70% of NY's forests are privately held, the legislature has given their agency and officers protection from normal tresspass laws. Once on your land, it would seem that as peace officers, they could then alert other agencies of infractions outside their jurisdiction. I've heard of cases where target shooters, on their own land, were asked to show their weapons, ammo, and open their trunk. Fortunately, I've heard good things about these guys, who can be called to eject hunters from your land, and are best kept on our side.
The same is not be true of the code enforcement officers and others who inspect for assessable improvements. It is this individual I wish to keep as far from my lands as possible. They and their ilk are doubtless responsible for filling the public coffers with our hard earned money. Your sign will come in handy as will the old standby, "Tresspassers will be shot: Survivors shot again" ;D
I like that sign, Doc, but wonder if it indicates intent... pre-meditation? [noidea'
As to my sign I and many of my friends actively use it. I understand that the building officials took pix of it and took them back to the office for someone else to analyze apparently. Here the Sheriffs just told my renter they were interested in knowing who lived up here. The assisting ones from Fresno County were so nervous after I caught them on my property during the fire that one went and put his bullet proof vest on.
I was nothing but nice ... mean looking but polite and nice....and left the 12ga on the gun rack during my entire discussion with them. I didn't really want to leak red stuff. Just wanted to do what I could to take care of my place. Some of the local Sheriffs had gotten a bit overfilled with them selves and had been illegally forcing people to evacuate even though they were legally allowed to stay.
It may have been to their advantage but the law applies to the Sheriff also. Houses were destroyed that would not have burned if someone was there. Places were broken into and some accuse the Sheriffs of doing it. I don't think so though. There were looters caught in places near us.
To their credit, the Sheriffs were working on a large fast moving fire... they had not been in that situation before recently.... The head Sheriff apologized at the first town fire meeting. They did not come back after me after it was over.... I was sweating that one a bit even though I was right.....
I more like the accidental sign....
About a 4'x4' plywood at the property line with a bulls eye blasted out with 00 buck, and a note that says something like, Warning - Entering private shooting range. Call for safety clearance... with or without the phone number..... or something to that effect....... [waiting]
...and the tax break, I think there may be a few scofflaws running around out there who owe me now...... thx... :)
Guess I could deduct the cost of the gate and signs installation too. :)
Haven't read this site yet but putting the link here for your perusal. Sent to me by another defender of property rights.
The Narlo Offense
Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maQuxkYog_Q&feature=player_embedded
http://www.narlo.org/index.html
Quote from: AdironDoc on December 13, 2010, 08:38:08 PM
"Tresspassers will be shot: Survivors shot again" ;D
my personal favorite no tresspass type signs:
one with a large dog on it that reads "i can make it to the fence in 2.7 seconds, can you?"
"anyone found here at night will be found here in the morning"
"we shoot every third tresspasser and the second one just left"
"beware of owner, ignore dog"
all are meant to be semi serious MOSTLY tongue in cheek, but also not to show "pre meditation"
With the laws and the police attitude set up to protect the criminals I worry a bit about signs that could be construed as pre-meditation.
Nephew just shot the tires out from under a pickup of a robber that was stealing his tools in the valley with a 45. The driver tried to run him over in the process. The truck was borrowed from his brother. Robber got away with a flat tire and tools. Cops were called and one wanted to haul him (nephew) into jail. Cops left eventually with one of the group having sense and leaving the nephew alone.
The cops (Merced County illustrious Sheriff dept) did no more than tell him he should have stopped and called them.
Nephew followed the rim marks from the flat tire a couple miles to the pickup and called the public servants who, realizing they were in no danger because nephew had corralled the bad guys, came out and did their job hauling the bad guys off and filing charges including attempted vehicular manslaughter.
When was this? Did this happen to Whitney?
Hi Ange, it was my nephew - it happened at my parents' house
This Blog might help some with building code issues-
http://sustainablebuildingcodes.blogspot.com/