SECTION III INTERVIEW: CAROL LANDI ON LAND PATENTS AND TREATY LAW In an effort to track a big story called land patents, Acres U.S.A., has covered both miles and monumental telephone tabs, Tucked into the paragraphs of the newly released Land Patents, Memorandum of Law, History, Force and Effect is a reference to a case styled Summa Corporation v The State of California. It is this case and the implications it holds, that prompted her to raise a family, but she is back--in her words, "an advocate," meaning she fights for causes and principles often left unattended by ordinary lawyers. She enjoys her role as a researcher because it keeps her in touch with the real scholarship of the profession. Since this tape is long, we will now terminate introductory remarks and get down to bare facts. ACRES U.S.A., Carol Landi, in the course of this business of being an advocate, you have come in contact with the land patent--the law, the concept, and what's being done. So, Carol, will you review for our readers what is the background of the land patent? LANDI. When I spoke to you before I talked about the Summa Corporation decision in the U.S. Supreme Court this past spring. This is styled Summa Corporation v State of California. I hung my hat on the Summa Corporation decision that just came down from the high court. I've been working with federal land patents in California and in Utah. I'm doing the historical research on the federal patents in California. We have what are called ranchos confirmed by the U.S. government after the conquest of the western states. And these grants are comprised of anywhere from 5,000, 6,000, 10,000, 23,000, maybe up to 100,000 acres in one shot. A section consists of only 640 acres. When I read the Summa Corporation decision, I had known about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo through researching a case right here in Contra Costa county. The case is a trial court case and it cannot be found in any reporters, so I just went over to the court with the name. I found the case and low and behold it was an eminent domain case, under the fifth amendment. In California it's under the California eminent domain laws, and this lady, Virginia Stetson, held off the redevelopment agency by presenting as evidence in court a copy of the patent and the lands that they were trying to take. It also gave quite a liability on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. ACRES U.S.A.: What law was the decision based on? LANDI: Treaty Law. ACRES U.S.A.: What is treaty law? LANDI: The substance of al federal land patents is based upon treaty law. Treaty law is the law of the nations. It is embraced by the United States Constitution Article 1. Section 10, Clause 1.************************************************************** THE TREATY POWER The treaty-making power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and they also make domestic law. Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the president. They can take powers from the state and give then, to the federal government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill Of Rights. --John Foster Dulles ************************************************************** ACRES U.S.A. Which makes a treaty the law of the land? LANDI: Yes. The Judges of all states shall be bound by treaty law. ACRES U.S.A.: And the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo made secure these grants? Is that what you're saying? LANDI: That's right. Let me stray from the Treaty of Guadalupe for a moment and give you a little historical background on treaty laws. Now to begin with, our entire country was acquired through treaties with other countries as our young nation conquered lands from the original 13 colonies and westward, to California. Every inch of land in our country comes under treaty law. ACRES U.S.A.: Because of the Louisiana Purchase or the Treaty of Cession, 1803? The Treaty of Ghent? The Texas Treaty? LANDI: That's rights. Let me parade you through the historical sequence. Let's take the Northwest Ordinance. This was a resolution of Congress that merely stated the intent of Congress that the territory shall be divided into three to five states to be created upon the existence of a certain number of inhabitants required to become states of the union nothing more, nothing less. The Ordinance was not a treaty. It was part of those unknown lands that were part of all that territory gained from Great Britain under the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, 1783 (8 Stat. 801, in which the original 13 colonies derived their independence together with lands Britain gave to the original 13 colonies of territory westward to the Mississippi River. The boundaries of that territory is given in Article II of the treaty, that is, the western boundaries of those states today known as Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois and Minnesota. All the states from the Mississippi River and the states mentioned above, and eastward to include the original 13 colonies comprise all those lands that come under the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, therefore, every federal land patent in every state thereof flows from that treaty.ACRES U.S.A.: Is there any case law saying the treaty is paramount? LANDI: Yes. The lead case that said treaty law cannot be interfered with by a state legislature in Ware v Hylton, (1796) 3 Dallas (3 U.S. 199). In this, the Supreme Court held that a treaty is the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Section 2: "and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding"!) ...that any act of the legislature cannot stand in its way because a treaty is the declared will of the people of all the United States and shall be superior to the constitution and laws of any individual State." [Emphasis by the court, ] In other words, federal land patents put into evidence by a land owner cannot be challenged by a state court because it flows from a United States treaty, and therefore, no court has jurisdiction over title or ownership to land that traces its source to the paramount or common source of title from the United States government, banks and private corporations notwithstanding, because federal land patents were never given to corporations, only to private citizens hence the tern 'private land claim" or "PLC" (as we call it) used by the Bureau of Land Management as the date of the original patent. ACRES U.S.A.: And then there was the Louisiana Purchase? LANDI: Yes! The very next treaty of the United States from which all land patents flow under the supremacy clause is the Louisiana Purchase from France under the Treaty of Cession, April 20, 1803, 8 Stat. 200 signed at Paris in which our young nation gained the territory of the following states. Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming and the Northeast two thirds of Colorado. After that we had the Treaty of Ghent, October 20, 1818, 8 Stat, 2181. It merely established the northern boundary of the Louisiana Purchase as the 4th parallel to the Rocky Mountains, nothing more, nothing less. The lead case for the Louisiana Purchase States is American Insurance Company v Canter (1828), 1 Peters (26 U.S.) 511 in which Justice Marshall held the power to make treaties is an absolute power of the United States government and from that power arises the right to govern it, i.e., treaty law is superior to any state laws and is the supreme law of the land. "Zoning law" included. ACRES U.S.A.: And Texas is in a class by itself? LANDI: That's right Texas was annexed to United States by the independent vote of the inhabitants. While the Cession of Texas is a treaty, it Was annexed as a House Joint Resolution (HJR) and it would be fairly certain that the citizens had the same protection as those given under treaty law. I have not searched out the HJR as yet, although the HJR would be a simple matter to locate in the United States Statutes by year of annexation, month and day in the statutes. It is interesting to note that as an annexed state, it is the only state that has the power to secedefrom the United States. Hawaii is the last state with that power to secede. ACRES U.S.A.: What did the Oregon Treaty do? LANDI: The Oregon Treaty of 1846 was an agreement with Great Britain that gave the U.S. undisputed claim to the Pacific Northwest south of the 49th parallel. The states carved out of this treaty are the present states of Oregon. Washington, Idaho and the southwest corner of Wyoming.' This treaty with Great Britain was signed on June 15, 1846 [9 Stat, 8691, and all federal land patents of these states flow from the treaty and fall under the supremacy clause of the constitution therefore, no state, private banking corporation or other federal agency can question the superiority of title to land owners who have "perfected" their land by federal land patent. Jurisdiction by any state court is invalid, and since federal land patents cannot be collaterally attacked as to their validity or authenticity as highest evidence of title, no mortgage institution can claim title to land by its "lien." Certified federal land patents were given free and clear title with no encumbrances, then or now! ACRES U.S.A.: And this brings us to the Treaty of Guadulupe Hidalgo, 1848. LANDI: This had to do with the Mexican War following the War with Mexico, under this treaty,, the United States paid Mexico $15 million dollars in gold coin for reparations and all that conquered territory now known as the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and the western portions of Colorado and New Mexico. All lands purchased from the United States as private land claims were paid for in gold and silver coin, after which a federal land patent was confirmed and issued to the private claimant. This is a point to keep in mind regarding "loans of credit" by financial institutions in violation of Article 1, Section 10. 31 USC 463(a). ACRES U.S.A.: How did the Act of Congress, March 3, 181 figure in all of this? LANDI: Because of the confusion of land claims by the Gold Rush settlers on Mexican land grants, Congress enacted this act to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the state of California. For the first time, a Land Commission was established to confirm the claims and the Court of Private Land Claims was established to settle disputes before final confirmation by what is now known as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management under the present Department of Interior of the United States. The act of 1851 established a two year limit to contest claims after which the confirmed land claims were closed forever by the issuance of federal land patent that generally included the phrase: "given this day________________to____________________his heirs and assigns forever." No claims could be made after the issuance date of the Patent. This is what Summa (104 U.S. 1754] was all about. The two year limitation on contest of federal land patents issued to private land claimants was extended by the Act of March 3, 1891, still in force today! ACRES U.S.A.: And of some importance, is the Gadsden Purchase, December 30, 1853 [10 Stat. 1031]. LANDI: This was a treaty between Mexico and the United States in which the U.S. paid $10 million dollars in gold coin to Mexico for that southernmost strip of New Mexico. The treaty is significant because it refers back to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and conferred all the same rights and privileges to citizens of that territory as in the 1848 treaty. Hence, that southernmost portion is, in actual fact, included in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. All federal land patents in this area also flow from treaty law, still the supreme law of the land by which all judges in all states shall be bound as to the validity of the patents. 43 USC 59 establishes that duly certified copies of federal land patents shall be evidence in all cases where the originals would be evidence. Section 57 covers the states of Oregon and California. Section 58 covers the Louisiana Purchase. Section 83 of Title 43 covers the evidentiary effect of certified federal land patents for all states, and all the courts in the United States must take judicial notice of these federal patents and their evidentiary effect under these federal statutes. If the Patents are not certified when entered into evidence, the court may ignore the patent and overrule it as evidence of superior or paramount title versus the mortgage lien the banks use to lay claim to the land. *Assuming "lien" was NOT "Ultra Vires. ACRES U.S.A.: How, does this figure in lien theory states? LANDI: If the bank, or lending institution lays claim to the land by the lien theory, it must have been presented in the contest of the federal land patent within the two years after the last act of 1891, supra, or forever be barred. In point of fact, as against a federal land patent, it is extremely doubtful that any of the present lending institutions were in existence in 1891 in order to present any claim against the owner of land under a federal land patent flowing from a United States treaty, also known as the Law of Nations, in which no private citizen can dispute the terms of a treaty or act of Congress. ACRE. U.S.A.: What about state conflicts and attorney general opinions, and the general attitude we find among attorney generals, such as General Stephens in Kansas? LANDI: You can print an excerpt from a document I submitted to the state court, one referring to the California Supreme Court decision which Summa over turned. What is shown is the dissent of the California Supreme Court justice(s) that was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (unanimously). ACRES U.S.A.: o where are we? LANDI: There is nothing arcane or esoteric about federal land patents, treaty law and the law of nations. I'll senda news article from Northern California in which the BLM had to participate and obtain an act of Congress to clear the way for clear title under treaty and patent law. California is more than familiar with the obligations of treaty law, and the requirements of federal patent law under federal Title 43 USCA public Lands. We have more than a passing acquaintance stare decisis law on the subject up to date in the April 1984 case. Courts will resist it, or be confused by it. However, if nine justices of the United States Supreme Court are not confused by it, under the supreme law of the land, why should a state judge be permitted to ignore it? In point of fact, the state of California has just recently begun to acknowledge U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Because of the great socialist experiment in California, (courtesy of our unusual Senator Alan Cranston), California and Justice Rose Bird are not convinced yet that California is a part of the United States. However, we do have case decisional law recently reaffirmed by its appellate courts that when the United States Supreme Court interprets a federal statute, the courts of this state are bound by it. The key to finding case law in every state upholding federal treaty and its laws can be found in its law libraries in the Key Digest under Public Lands. I have had opposing attorneys searching through American Jurisprudence under Public Lands, which is the starting point, however, the attorneys are still baffled by it all. Am. Jur. 2d. is the best starting point to find the case law on treaties as they pertain to decisions in the states. It is all so simple, you can expect judges to be confounded by it; as the scriptures say, "God takes the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God *takes the weak things of the world to confound the strong." To abide by , decided cases. ACRES U.S.A.: Earlier you said every inch of land was acquired by treaty and falls under land patent, Even the original 13 colonies? LANDI: I have the treaty with Great Britain, upon which we founded our original 13 colonies and gained our independence, a treaty dated 1783. And I have the leading case law on that, their treaty, which covers land from not only the original 13 colonies, but all the land west to the Mississippi River. ACRES U.S.A.: In other words, the British were giving away something by treaty they really didn't have? LANDI: They didn't know it was out there. They knew about the Mississippi River, I believe. They knew about it as a result of their trade with France. The Louisiana Purchase goes from the Mississippi River and covers your Midwest states. The Louisiana Purchase, of course, was the Treaty with France. That was in 1803, signed at Paris. Some government people who are a bit busy nowadays, filling land patent orders are telling people there were no patents in the original 13 colonies. Let me say this for the record, right out of my survey book. The first patent issued in New York City on March 4, 1788 to John Martin and is simply for Lot number 20, Township 7, Range 4. And he paid $640 for that section.That was the very first patent in this country. ACRES U.S.A.: Who patented that to him? LANDI: The United States Government. ACRES U.S.A.: And what does it really mean? LANDI: John Martin apparently squared off or surveyed a plat of land, a public layer, that did not belong to a private owner. He squared it out. He applied to Congress and said, I would like to settle on this land and whatever provision you require for me to settle on this land I would like to have it confirmed and have a patent (in those days they didn't know about deeds, so they called them patents) so that it will be mine, in my name, and it will be my private claim, And Congress said, Okay, we'll have somebody check on it. They checked on it, and they agreed with his surveys and gave him a federal patent. ACRES U.S.A.: And what does the patent mean? It is just a simple title, no different from any other title, or does it have a special character to it? LANDI: It has a special character to it, The federal land patent is the paramount common source of titles from the United States government. All public land originates from the U.S. government. Even today, any public land in any state is still under the United States Government. ACRES U.S.A.: Does this patent inure to heirs and assigns? LANDI: Yes. Forever. And that is a long time. ACRES U.S.A.: Okay, this is really the case for the land patent then, isn't it? LANDI, That's the essence of it. ACRES U.S.A.: Why does the treaty confer superior status to the land patent, a status that cannot be retreated from by lessor courts, even the Supreme Court. LANDI: It pertains to the pecking order or authority. Potential land belongs to the person who receives it and his assigned heirs forever. It doesn't matter who is on that land today. No one can touch that federal land patent, except the United States Govern- ment. No one can challenge it. Let me bring you up to date from the Treaty of Great Britain. The Act of 1851 which has been updated in the Act of Congress, 1891 has to be reviewed. California, you will remember, was badly turned upside down between the Mexican Government, Spanish Government, and the Gold Rush. The Act of 1851 stated that anyone who was establishing a claim had to have it confirmed by the United States Land Commission. It was a commission of three men. If no one protested that claim within a three year period from the date of the Act, It could no longer be attacked underany circumstance! It was final. And this is what Summa Corporation was talking about. JUSTICE KAUS'S OPINION I confess to a growing u-ease about what I view as an accelerating erosion of private property rights of California citizens. We need to look no further than the first section of the very first article of the state Constitution to learn that the sovereign people of California have proclaimed "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." (Italics added) From this solemn pronouncement of the people, identifying the protection of their property with the defense of their lives and liberty and describing such interests as "inalienable," I conclude that preserving the sanctity of a citizen's private property is a singular responsibility of government and its courts. When, therefore, that government itself seeks to trench on 'such constitutionally protected and "inalienable rights", of its own people, its conduct must be closely scrutinized and its reach carefully measured by the rule of law." from the Venice Properties decision. The state of California has been trying to grab land - federal land and offshore drilling land. With the Department of Interior they have tried to say. well these are swamplands, these are tidelands, and they belong to us because, as we became a state, these lands automatically became ours. The courts have consistently said, NO. Nothing passes to you unless the United States government grants you this land and it belongs to you, then you can do whatever you want. ACRES U.S.A.: What practical application does this knowledge bring to farmers who are now being foreclosed on by government agencies, namely FmHA and PCA and Land Bank? Jenny Mae? Freddie Mac? LANDI: Some are backed by the full face and credit of the United States government, some are not. If somebody has a claim , if the bank says, they have a claim on..that land, they are going to foreclose. How are they going to prove that they have title to the land from the United States government? Was title given to them in their name? No, it wasn't! It was given to Corporal John Smith in a land patent 120 years ago, or some such person. It doesn't matter whether you're an heir. It doesn't matter whether you were an assign. The bank has to prove it has title, to the land, in order to take it over. ACRES U.S.A.: And so people who filing and getting certified patents and registering them in the court house are doing somethingthat is proper, for now, pending disposition of this whole matter. LANDI: Absolutely. ACRES U.S.A.: But you see the judges in these equity courts are not looking at it that way. They say to themselves. We've got to protect the creditors. It's much easier on the community to let this farmer go down the tube than it is to put the bank in jeopardy, to a point where there is a run on the bank. How do you face that proposition? LANDI: Well, number one, I would ask you how the case was filed? Is the farmer a defendant in the action? ACRES U.S.A.: Usually he's a defendant. LANDI: If he's a defendant, and he has a patent on his land he says to the bank: you are making a claim on my land, you want to foreclose on it. Sorry, you can't do that. You come up with a superior title to my patent, something superior to my land patent, then, I'll give it to you. ACRES U.S.A.: But, you see, the judge won't even entertain that particular point. He is shown the contract and he rules on the contract, and that's it. LANDI: No, It's not a contract!. ACRES U.S.A.: Well, what is it, when you have a mortgage? Isn't that a contract? LANDI: That's a loan of credit. It is not a contract. ACRES U.S.A.: Just for the sake of argument, would you set up, for me, in as good a narrative as you can, the defense that the farmer has? Let me give you a hypothetical situation. This farmer purchased some land. He now has some sort of title on it. He went to the bank and he borrowed some money because he wasn't making enough, and he had been promised that land values would be increasing. So "consequently he was able to borrow money to keep on farming, to grow more so he could sell it for less and lose money. And it finally came to a terminal point because the land values have dropped. So the bank says: You don't have the collateral you had last year. I guess I'm going to have to foreclose on you. LANDI: My first question! What does the bank call as collateral? ACRES U.S.A.: The land, the building and the cows. LANDI: Okay, now let me explain something to you. I don't know how it is in much of the country, but I'm pretty sure it's the same as in California, because property, real estate law, is no more screwed up in the whole country than in California. If you lookat your tax bill I'm sure even in your state you will see that the land is assessed at one amount and the improvements at another amount. I attribute that to, my background information as, being an Assistant Deputy Tax Collector. I know the difference. So there is a difference between land and its improvements. If you look on the title insurance of the American Land Title Assurance Association standard forms-uniform forms-abbreviated ALTA- you'll see that the title company insures absolutely nothing but the land! Four little letters LAND. I looked and searched those insurance policies. They will not insure anything. All they insure is good title. And on those grounds, the bank has given the farmer a loan. Basically, the title insurance company is at fault . They did not search that title back far enough to its original source to see who owned that land. ACRES U.S.A. : Okay, and it came to the United States by treaty. LANDI: Right, But the bank can make no claim on that - No one can make any claims on that land with a federal land patent on it, unless he brought up that claim during the patent proceedings in 1851 under that two year statute of limitations. ACRES U.S.A.: What about that Mexican family that owned land in New Mexico? Suddenly, that family found itself in the United States. The title that came into the United States would be secure under treaty, wouldn't it? LANDI: Absolutely! No question about it. ACRES U.S.A.: But the land that no biological person had laid claim to was just wilderness, claimed by Mexico. That land ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Then the government patented it over to somebody--a soldier, perhaps! You're saying, that this land, to that man, and to his heirs and assigns is secure forever? LANDI: Forever. ACRES U.S.A.: So, now we've arrived to 1984, and this farmer, who has that piece of land, originally patented to someone, is being foreclosed, and they haul him into court. They've got maybe 50 head breakers out in the yard to seize his equipment and to take him off in cuffs if he resists. And they go in front of a judge and the judge hands it over to the John Hancock Insurance Company or some bank, or whatever. What is the defense? What can this man do? LANDI: I think the problem that you're having out there right now is getting the patent recognized in court. LANDI: You MUST record a certified copy with the recorder or register of deeds. ACRES U.S.A.: In other words, you get this original information, put it on the appropriate document, and then have it recorded in the courthouse. What does that do?LANDI: There is a copyrighted form that has all the state decisions case law. No one can attack a federal land patent. To abide by, adhere to, decides cases. ACRES U.S.A.: Yes, but they recruit the head breakers and come out. A judge has told them to throw you out. What does this rancher do? LANDI: Number one, you tell the court it doesn't have jurisdiction over federal land patents. ACRES U.S.A.: And he ignores that. He says, objection overruled! LANDI: Say, fine, I'm going to appeal it. ACRES U.S.A.: Where do you appeal it? LANDI: You appeal it right then and there. I don't know if you have what is called a demurrer, a declaratory plea. You bring that up. In California a declaratory plea is called a demurrer. It's attacking the legal proficiency of the plaintiff's pleading. As a defendant, you can attack that and you can say right off, the court does not have jurisdiction over this federal patent. This is a state court! This is a federal land patent. Case law says; state or federal courts cannot touch land patents. You don't have jurisdiction. You can't rule on it. Boom. it's finished! It's over! If you say, No I'm going to appeal it to the highest court in the state, even the highest court in the land. I don't know of any court that will foreclose on a property without some kind of notice to the farmer that a court proceeding is taking place, or in the alternative, the farmers don't know what to do when the default notice comes that the farm is going up for sale. I am dealing with residential foreclosures presently, including those under FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) both and all of which come under Title 42 USCS "Banks and Banking". I am presently researching these federal mortgages, and fighting some with federal land patents. Farmers cannot be lawyers, and lawyers cannot be farmers, there's no question. But someone should be able to tell the farmers what signs to watch for and when to take action before the action hits them. I suspect that the only problem the farmers are having with the courts is purely procedural. I have seen my share of dishonest judges but, I have also learned how to force there hand in court, on the record. LANDI: After recording the land patent, the important thing is to know the law of the treaty that covers your state. Every protection a farmer needs is in that treaty and the judge knows that the by Supreme Law of the Land, he cannot touch or have any jurisdiction over it. When the banks are faced with the fact that the court has no jurisdiction over their foreclosure action, due to a federal land patent recorded on the property, and treaty law preempts state and/or federal law, the court will make a mistake of ruling against the farmer, which in itself, is good, because now you can appeal and buy more time to keep the bank atarms length. I would want to look at a court file, to see what really went wrong, and how. If a defendant is not responding, or if he is responding, then he doesn't know his appeal rights. Any case on federal patent could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. just as Summa did in California. Appeals are all done on paper. No court appearances. Everything on appeal is done in writing, as there are no oral arguments allowed. [Wis. Stat. 407. 103 + 401, 201) ACRES U.S.A.: What about those who have lost their farms? LANDI: As to those who have already lost their farms, my position is that, whoever the bank conned into buying the foreclosed farm, has bought a farm without warranty or guarantee of clear title. Look at the fine print in a trustee deed sale notice. IRS does the sane thing! IRS sells foreclosed property with that particular statement! So, no guarantee goes with purchase of foreclosed lands, except, that you put a federal land patent on it. I would have no compunction about even IRS auctioning off my land because, as long as I have they patent recorded, on it, then I can challenge the new buyer that IRS didn't guarantee clear title, and that I still own my land. Therefore, if I were the new buyer, I would tell IRS, I want my money back for fraud for not telling me that there was a federal land patent on the land, that I can't fight to get off my land. Incidentally, even IRS cannot supersede federal treaty law or the provisions of any treaty of this country. ACRES U.S.A.: How do you handle the matter of non-real property seizure? LANDI: We told the banks that, my federal land patent granted land only, and that is all I'm claiming is land. If they have a lien against something on my land, then please get it off, but don't trespass in the process--not on my land. I have offered banks to take their buildings away, board by board, just let me know, otherwise, they will be trespassing. Farm equipment cannot be seized on federally patented land without trespassing. They must have a court order. And if someone is not defending, in court, against a court order, on grounds of jurisdiction and statue of limitations, someone needs help, but not from a lawyer, unless the lawyer is totally dedicated. Let me tell you about a case up in Oregon. This is heresy on my part, but I can report what I learned from sources I believe to be sound. A landowner up in Oregon was foreclosed on by the bank. The court wouldn't listen to his arguments, so a federal land patent was laid on that property. By that time the bank had foreclosed. The sheriff sale had been held. Now, he went back into court and he said: That sale is illegal. The state had no jurisdiction over the federal land patent and the court said, oh really? Where's your proof? How do I know this land patent, that you're talking about, did not come under my jurisdiction? How do I know it is correct? The land owner said, Well It's certified! I will bring a witness out from the Bureau of Land Management, and he will testify and witness that this is an exact duplicate of the original document which is admissible, as evidence, in the state court. And that is precisely what they did. They brought in the Chief of Records, as a witness, to testify that the document wastrue, and certified, and was absolutely correct. It could not be changed under any circumstances, by any court. ACRES U.S.A.: So, what happened? LANDI: The judge dismissed the case and said, you are absolutely right. You own the land. You have perfect title to it. You traced it to its original source. You own the land! ACRES U.S.A.: But in the mean time they have carted a farmer's cattle, as they did in Illinois. LANDI: He has to bring suit for trespass. ACRES U.S.A.: OK, now where does he bring this suit? LANDI: He brings it right to state court. This is what happened. The landowner sued the bank for trespassing. He Won! You see, this man could sue the bank. He could sue the judge for involving himself in a case in which he did not have jurisdiction. ACRES U.S.A.: For now, what do we do? Step by Step. LANDI: What you do is build a sandwich. You've got your federal land patent on the bottom. You got that certified at the Bureau of Land Management. You have to ask for it. The bureau of Land Management, I believe, will charge a dollar or so to certify. If you don't want it, they won't do it, and you don't pay. It's part of their service. It must be certified! That's the first layer of the sandwich. That makes it admissible evidence in the state court. ACRES U.S.A.: What's the next layer? LANDI: The next piece of paper is your declaration. Number three, the top of the sandwich, will be your ordinary deed, whatever it is you call it in your state. You can grant it to yourself. It could almost be a simple thing, such as a will. Those are the three pieces of paper. Now you waltz up to the courthouse and say, I want this stuff a matter of record and I want to know where you record this. And they give you the reference of where they recorded it. Always take an extra COPY to the recorder and say, Would you endorse a copy for me? And of course, they will send the original back to you with a book and a page number on it. ACRES U.S.A.: Do all of these pieces of paper have to be certified? LANDI: No. Just the federal land patent. If you have a certified document that purports to be a lost or destroyed piece of paper, and someone certifies it as true and correct copy, this is admissible as evidence in a court. ACRES U.S.A.: Thousands of people are asking for a copy ofland patent covering their acres. But the problem is, it seems to bog down at that point. They get into court and they get clobbered something awful. Either they don't know the procedure or what issue to bring, in what way. at what time, in what court. LANDI: If you don't know how to go into court, you're in the position of the fellow who goes into farming without knowing a tractor from a disc. The law won't protect you if you don't know how to use it.