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: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=65.12.230
The text of this section reads as follows:
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. . .|
|. . . . . . . . . . . .|
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.