Removing Land from Gov-Co Registration Roles

16 Nov

The Great Seal of the State of Washington

Image via Wikipedia

The Revised Code of Washington (territorial-state) includes a fascinating section that explains the proper procedure for removing land from the registration roles of the de facto county’s government.

The legal implications of this removal are not known to me.  But they seem to implicate the difference between the venues of “The State” (of the Union) and “this state” (territorial).  It appears that the modern land “registration roles” for “Cook county” are “in this state” (territorial) while “registration” (If there is such thing) within “The County of Cook” presumes your land to be situated within The State (of the Union).

More, if you can remove your property from the registration roles of a county “in this state” and remove it back to The County of The State of the Union, the de facto gov-co of “this state” may not be able to continue to impose a property tax on it.

Part of the reason that the gov-co of this state” may not be able to impose taxes on people, property or land situated within The State is Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States which declares in part that “No State [of the Union] shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”.   Because “this state” (territory) is not one of the States of the Union, the de facto gov-co of “this state” is not obligated to use gold and silver coin and can lawfully operate with Federal Reserve notes.  But–I doubt that “this state” can impose any taxes denominated in FRNs upon persons, property or land situated within The State.

Thus, it appears possible that by removing your land from the registration roles of “this state,” you might be able to 1) restore you land into the venue of a de jure County situated within The State of Washington; and 2) perhaps avoid the property taxes imposed by “this state” on your land.

I also have a hunch (based on nothing more than gut) that the process of registering any property (land, automobile, etc.) with “this state” might constitute a pledge.  I wouldn’t bet that hunch is correct, but I’m going to explore the possibility as time permits.

Because the following code section has been found only in the Revised Code of Washington, it will only apply “in this state” (territorial) of “Washington” and “WA”–and not in the other 49 territorial-states.  However, if this remedy exists “in this state” of Washington, it almost certainly exists and can be found and applied within each of the other territorial-states.

(More, five or ten years ago, I saw argument and authority that it’s possible to invoke the laws of any territorial-state within any other territorial state.  I just can’t remember where where I saw that authority.)

You can verify and/or download a clean copy of the following section from:

The text of this section reads as follows:


65.12.225 <<  65.12.230 >>   65.12.235

RCW 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 Washington:
I, (or we), . . . . . ., the undersigned registered owner . . . in fee simple of the following described real property situated in the county of . . . . . ., state of Washington, to wit: (here insert the description of the property), hereby make application to have the title to said real property withdrawn from registration.
Witness my (or our) hand . . . and seal . . . this . . . . day of . . . . . ., 19. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Applicant’s signature.

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


[1917 c 62 § 3; RRS § 10659.]


It’s entirely possible that my speculation concerning the legal impact of RCW section 65.12.230 section is mistaken.  Don’t believe it because you hear it from me.  Use your own eyes, your own mind and reach your own conclusions.

Nevertheless, the potential that seems to be inherent in RCW 65.12.230 seems too great to ignore, so it has to be considered.


Posted by on November 16, 2010 in "The State" vs. "this state", Foreclosure, Land, Venue



20 responses to “Removing Land from Gov-Co Registration Roles

  1. gary lochte

    November 16, 2010 at 9:26 PM

    I have not investigated, but would suspect similar instructions in all 50 states. But even if other states do not include them, because of reciprocity, one could motion for taking judicial notice of Washington State’s instructions in your own state.

    • commonlawman

      May 6, 2014 at 3:15 PM

      In NC, it is called “Release from the Torrens system”. Worded completely differently, but to the same effect.

  2. Kevin Hines

    November 17, 2010 at 12:25 AM

    Great show tonight, Al. The reason I think you’re right is because they have to give us a remedy for everything they do. Also, I remember John Jennings, a researcher in Florida, always said that you can invoke the foreign law of other states at any time in your state.

    Also, by withdrawing the registration of title to real property, it could also mean that a bank can not foreclose, because the lot and block “legal” description would no longer exist, and thus, nullifying the Deed of Trust instrument.

    Also, the “pledge” you referred to in your article includes the pledge of your real property behind municipal bonds issued by the city. If your property is no longer pledged behind those bonds, there is no property tax charged to you for the repayment of those bonds.

    • commonlawman

      May 6, 2014 at 3:21 PM

      I don’t know if withdrawing is enough, but a trust relationship can be created simply by declaration that the owner holds the land in trust. This is from the Uniform Trust Code.
      A declaration is basically an affidavit, I believe.
      This would surely terminate the effectiveness of a deed of trust, because surely one piece of land can’t be the subject of 2 trusts at once?
      Incidentally, the NC definition of “satisfaction of deed of trust” is to terminate the effectiveness of said deed.

      • EarlatOregon

        May 6, 2014 at 6:36 PM

        In the Middle of the page of a Deed,
        Trust Deed, or Grant Deed,
        is a Large space,
        above that space are these words:

        There are no encumbrances on this property except:

        and what follows after is a “Subdivision” description,

        so clearly that “Subdivision” is an Encumbrance.

        How to Remove that Encumbrance?

      • commonlawman

        June 9, 2014 at 6:13 AM

        There are ways of combining two parcels… That’s probably all it would take.

  3. mAximo

    November 17, 2010 at 12:40 AM

    You can also say that leaving one’s property registered in the territorial
    state subjects one to federal regulation and taxation, including a federal
    property tax. But I don’t think that transferring registration back to the
    State can get you out from under State regulation & taxation. Gold & silver
    coin was re-introduced into circulation as of 1986, so it’s possible to pay
    State taxes. In any case, there was still gold & silver coin in 1919, when
    N.Dakota chartered itself as ‘doing business as’ the Bank of North Dakota.
    So it may (indirectly) emit bills of credit like Puerto Rico’s state-owned
    bank: because the Constitutional prohibition in Art.I Sec.10 doesn’t apply
    to a ‘territorial state’. But shouldn’t that mean that ‘this’ concept was
    already accepted in 1919? How else would you explain why the feds didn’t
    try to shut it down in the 20s?

  4. PatriotOne

    November 17, 2010 at 1:40 PM

    I have put in a request to Bill Munro concerning this article. I send the same request to you Alfred, please interview Mr. Bill Munro.

  5. Luke

    November 18, 2010 at 12:55 AM

    Meeting the prerequisites of a statute. “It is the general rule that when a statute requiring a license and registration for those seeking to engage in the practice of a trade or profession is not for the purpose of raising revenue, but has for its primary intent the protection of the public from injury by preventing the practice of such trade or profession by incompetent, irresponsible, or unfit persons, none other than those meeting the prerequisites of the statute are authorized to engage in such practice.” * * * “The instant case being a suit for services by one who does not describe himself as an architect, and there being nothing in the petition to indicate that he held himself out as such to the defendant, or pretended to be an architect when in fact he was not, the court did not err in sustaining plaintiff’s certiorari excepting to the judgment of the municipal court dismissing his suit on demurrer.” Brown v. Glass, 167 S.E. 722, 723, 724 (Ga. 1933) (WRD).

  6. Thomas

    January 2, 2011 at 7:38 PM

    A simple search of the Washington Code reveals that the definition of Registered Land is land that was registered in The Torrens Act. Removing the land from that Act would be a 1st step in securing your land patent rights under the original grant of land from the United States of America. Not all states used the Torrens System of land registration, therefore it is not mentioned in other states statutes.

    • adask

      January 2, 2011 at 8:58 PM

      That’s an important clue.

      • PatriotOne

        January 3, 2011 at 10:43 PM

        Referring to Torrens; A Land Patent issued to the purchaser of lands in the United States contains all conditions. All the land (I’m sure all, not 100%) in Michigan was sold, except 1sq mile in the middle of Cass Lake before Michigan became a State of the union.
        Within the Patent were the restraints placed upon the land by Acts of congress. No thing can collaterally attack the Patent. That is, if the United States of America under the Constitution for the same exist.
        I would think? “My” name provides one link.

  7. Joel

    August 11, 2011 at 2:52 AM

    “County” has been redefined in title 1 US code as federal territory, making it something other than the common English language meaning which came down from the common law of the colonists. all the colonies are common law colonies, since King George III was defeated. TWhat leaves only one law extant: the common law. That “something other” is a federal claim that counties, like States, are federal. That means the feds have usurped, or attempt and think to, usurp what is natural to all inhabitants living on USA soil The kicker is that “in this state” is defined as property owned by and ceded to the USA. Our student group has so far found this holds true in about 15 States definitions as have been discovered to date. There is substantial amounts of written law that support this finding. Go to the websites of each State (starting with your own) and perform word and term searches for “in the state”, “in this state” and “within the state”, and “within this state” your time will be very well spent in the results and clarity this begins to yield. An astonishing recent find is that language is contained in at least two Bank Account agreements I have reviewed, and I suspect it is littered throughout many other corporate contracts. Bring your findings to this blog and we can share them, making the subject far more comprehensive with respect to federal territorial law and its proper application to the proper territory.

  8. Kitty Canaryitty

    November 22, 2011 at 3:27 AM

    Registering is optional: “The owner of any estate or interest in land, whether legal or equitable, except unpatented land, may apply as provided in this article to have the title of said land registered.” Colorado Revised Statutes 38-36-101

    Here is the remedy: “Unless removed from registration in the manner stated in this section, the obtaining of a decree of registration and receiving of a certificate of title shall be deemed an agreement running with the land and binding upon the applicant and the successors in title that the land is and remains registered land and subject to the provisions of this article and of all amendments thereto.” C.R.S. 38-36-136

    …and don’t forget to Accept the Deed!

    love, kitty

  9. Rockie W. Broaddus

    May 24, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    The thing that you are looking for that lets you use statutes from other states in your state is the Sister States Act which relates to the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in the constitution. You may be able to use the statute of any state in your state unless your state regards the statute as “repugnant”

  10. Brian Hamill

    March 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM

    This is a great thread. In the North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 43, it says:

    “Article 9.

    Removal of Land from Operation of Torrens Law.

    § 43‑56. Proceedings.

    Any land brought under the provisions and operation of this Chapter before April 16, 1931, may be removed and excluded therefrom by a motion in writing filed in the original cause wherein said land was brought under the provisions and operation of said Chapter, and upon the filing of a petition therein showing the names of all persons owning an interest in said land and of all lien holders, mortgagees and trustees of record, and the description of said land. Upon the filing of said petition the clerk of the superior court shall issue a citation to all parties interested and named in the petition, and upon the return date of said citation and upon the hearing of said motion, the said clerk of the superior court may enter a decree in said cause removing and excluding said land from the provisions and operation of this Chapter, and transfer and conveyance of said land may be made thereafter as other common‑law conveyances. (1931, c. 286, s. 1.)”

    But before that:

    “§ 43‑20. Decree and registration run with the land.

    The obtaining of a decree of registration and the entry of a certificate of title shall be construed as an agreement running with the land, and the same shall ever remain registered land, subject to the provisions of this Chapter and all amendments thereof. (1913, c. 90, s. 26; C.S., s. 2395.)”

    The agreement stands unless you no longer agree, and make it official. So rather than being a requirement, it is optional. I don’t know why I have never been directed to this before in several years of reading about it.

    This is a great eye-opener!


    • Dan Pendergast

      January 15, 2018 at 6:52 PM

      I live in, or I should say ‘on’ North Carolina. I attempted to withdraw my land from registration last year but was told that NCGS only applied to lands registered under Torrens law. As Brian stated Art. 9, sec. 43-56 pertains to the “Removal of ‘Land’ from Operation of Torrens Law”.

      At NCGS, Art. 4, Sec. 43-25 Release from registration, it explains how to un-register an “estate in Lands” which I presume is quite different than ‘land’ itself—one pertaining to the land itself and the other pertaining to a bundle of rights associated with ownership of land. When I applied to have my property [land] released under 43-25 I was told that [under Sec. 43-56 and 43-25] those sections only apply to Torrens registration. This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would they have 2 sections under 2 different articles where one specifically denotes that it applies to Torrens registry and the other makes no mention of Torrens Law at all and is under a separate Article.

      I was told that the Reg. of Deeds Office was prohibited from removing a registration. When I asked where in the statutes this prohibition existed I was given several statutes that he claimed prevented the Reg. of Deeds from removing a registration. Upon researching the statutes quoted I found nothing that said the Reg. of Deeds was prohibited from removing a registered deed from the records .

      I’m smelling a rather large rat here. It appears that they will obfuscate the truth in order to maintain the ‘estate in lands’ as security for a bankrupt debtor, the Corp. U.S. It appears that everything, taxes, parking fines, building permits, etc. are nothing more than foreclosure in bankruptcy on the government’s assets. Those assets include everything registered in the straw man name with the un-rebutted presumption that the living man is the fiduciary for said transmitting utility straw man.

      They pulled their usual switcheroo when they listed the owner as the all caps name instead of the proper appellation of the living man. I later became aware of the fact that registration conveys legal title to this state whereby I only retained equitable title granting me time, possession, and use–that is, as long as I kept paying rent like a good tenant. I did not know at the time of registering my deed that my property was to used as collateral for Govco’s debt, therefore it was an undisclosed element of said registration contract making it, in essence, a void contract.

      I also stopped paying property tax as the so-called bill seems to be, not a bill, but a statement of account even though it says “Property Tax Bill” on it. Nowhere on it is anything stated in U.S. dollars, ie. “Amount due” and then in a box it says “900.45”. I don’t think they have the right to lay the tax and are hoping that I, like everyone else, will presume that I owe them $900.45 USD. The mere fact that it is in a box raises the presumption that the amount stated has zero legal significance [under the Four Corners Doctrine].

      I asked them for a True Bill but so far haven’t heard from them regarding a True Bill or my refusal to pay and its going on 2 years now.

      I am considering transferring the property to a new owner and filing an affidavit that I no longer own the property. If the new owner never registers the deed how will they be able to continue with their fraud?

  11. Mark Wentworth of the Staples Family

    March 13, 2014 at 9:39 PM

    My question is… if the United states was bankrupt before Montana drew up a constitution in the seventies, (The originals were apparently “Lost’, ) wouldn’t that “Constitution” be null and void because there was no authority for becoming or allowing Montana to become a state and therefore all is based on fraud….No state?

    • Adask

      March 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM

      Interesting question. I don’t think that anyone needs “authority” to draft a constitution. A constitution is the result of a kind of political “vaccuum”. This vacuum can be the result of wilderness or revolution. But if there is no existing constitution that’s in effect, then the people have the right to draft one and if a majority agree to be bound by that new constitution, then that constitution begins to be a source of authority. A constitution is formed when and where there is no existing authority. A new constitution, if it’s honored by the people in the area, creates authority where none was previously in effect. A constitution is a political instrument that flows from the inherent authority of the people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s