The Alaska Sized Question

By: Jim Homyak 

Why would the justice system on Alaska support the assertion by a bankrupt entity operated as a defunct shell corporation who falsely accused a land owner of back taxes upon a fictional land descriptor that led to a law enforcement body to forcibly remove the owner of actual land which never fit the falsified property descriptor at the outset and what kind of ruthless scheme is being employed by such people to take lands which had been owned privately and paid all tax in full for years and years already with documentation to prove it? The courts were told in writing of the proven mistakes. The agencies involved were written to in proof of dastardly schemes taking place?

The scenario described, involving a bankrupt shell corporation, false accusations of back taxes, fictional land descriptors, and the forcible removal of a landowner with documented proof of ownership and tax payments, does not align with the established legal frameworks and procedures of the Alaskan justice system. Such actions would constitute severe violations of due process, property rights, and potentially criminal offenses. The justice system in Alaska, like in other U.S. jurisdictions, operates under principles of rule of law, requiring evidence, proper legal procedures, and adherence to constitutional rights. A court would not typically support an assertion from a defunct entity based on fictional descriptors without rigorous verification and due process for the landowner.

The described situation suggests a potential fraudulent scheme or an egregious error within the administrative or judicial process. If a landowner has documentation proving ownership and full tax payment, and the courts were informed of these discrepancies, any action to forcibly remove them based on false pretenses would be highly irregular and likely subject to immediate legal challenge and reversal upon proper review. Such a scheme, if proven, could involve various illicit activities, including fraud, conspiracy, and abuse of process, potentially orchestrated to unlawfully seize valuable land.

This above conclusion resulted from a court summons served on a surviving family member the day after the other family member who was also a recorded land owner passed away and it seems the man is out of the way now to attack the woman and has anything like this happened elsewhere in America besides Alaska proper?

The scenario I've described, where a court summons is served immediately after a co-owner's death, targeting the surviving family member with claims related to land ownership and taxes under questionable circumstances, is a deeply concerning situation that, while specific in its details, echoes patterns of predatory practices and legal vulnerabilities that have unfortunately occurred in various forms across the United States, not just in Alaska. 

While the exact combination of a "defunct shell corporation," "fictional land descriptor," and immediate post-mortem legal action might be unique to my specific case, the underlying tactics of exploiting legal loopholes, targeting vulnerable individuals (especially after a significant life event like a death), and attempting to seize property through dubious claims are well-documented. These schemes often prey on individuals who may be less familiar with legal processes, lack immediate access to legal counsel, or are emotionally distressed or have somehow become a holder of damning evidence against all involved in an apparent sharade.

Here are some analogous situations and schemes that have been reported elsewhere in America:

• Heir Property Scams: This is a widespread issue, particularly in historically marginalized communities. Scammers target "heir property" – land passed down informally through generations without a clear title – by identifying vulnerable heirs, often after a death, and then using various legal maneuvers (like quiet title actions, tax lien purchases, or fraudulent deeds) to gain ownership. The lack of clear title makes these properties particularly susceptible. While your case involves a recorded owner, the timing of the summons after a death aligns with the predatory nature of thesshared.
• Tax Lien Foreclosure Abuses: In many states, private entities can purchase tax liens on properties. While intended to ensure tax collection, some predatory investors use these liens to acquire properties for a fraction of their value, often through aggressive and sometimes misleading foreclosure processes. They might target properties where owners are elderly, infirm, or have recently experienced a death, knowing they might miss critical notices or deadlines. The "false accusation of back taxes" in your scenario could be a fabricated version of this tactic.
• "Quiet Title" Actions and Adverse Possession Claims: These legal actions are legitimate tools for resolving property disputes or clarifying ownership. However, they can be abused. Unscrupulous individuals or entities might file quiet title actions based on flimsy or fabricated evidence, hoping that the true owner, especially if distracted by a death or other personal crisis, will not respond in time, leading to a default judgment in the claimant's favor. Similarly, false claims of adverse possession (claiming ownership through long-term, open, and hostile occupation) can be made. 
• Fraudulent Deeds and Property Transfers: There are numerous instances of individuals or groups forging deeds, impersonating owners, or otherwise fraudulently transferring property titles. While often discovered, these schemes can cause immense distress and legal battles for the rightful owners. The "fictional land descriptor" and "defunct shell corporation" could be elements of a more elaborate fraudulent deed scheme. 
• Exploitation of Probate and Estate Vulnerabilities: The period immediately following a death is when an estate is often most vulnerable. Individuals or entities with malicious intent might monitor public records for deaths, then attempt to file claims against the estate or the surviving heirs, hoping to capitalize on the family's grief and potential disorganization. 

The common thread in these situations is the exploitation of vulnerability, often exacerbated by a death in the family, combined with the manipulation or abuse of legal and administrative processes. The "ruthless scheme" you describe aligns with the characteristics of these predatory practices, aiming to dispossess rightful owners through deceit and legal pressure. It is crucial for the surviving family member to seek immediate legal counsel specializing in property law and estate litigation to challenge these claims vigorously.

How about a Life Lock service?

How about a Title Lock service? 

Something may already exist that can alert land owners about fraudulent claims beginning to take hold over someone especially when based on fraudulent premises and stolen identities. We shall seek and find out. Shall we? 

Has it ever been reported that MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, INC. had developed software that would be used to index land areas and completely re-describe and re-record new land descriptors to gain unjust enrichment via such scheme?

The Role of Fictional Land Descriptors and AI Software

The assertion that "MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, INC." a subset of a bankrupt Entity, developed software to "index land areas and completely redescribe and re-record new land descriptors to gain unjust enrichment via such scheme" is a very specific and serious allegation.

Fictional Land Descriptors: 

The use of fictional or altered land descriptors to facilitate a fraudulent land grab would constitute a sophisticated form of title fraud or document forgery. Property descriptions are fundamental to land ownership and are typically recorded with the county recorder's office. Any attempt to alter these records without proper legal authority and process would be illegal and subject to severe penalties.

Software for Fraudulent Redescription: 

While there is no widely reported public information or authoritative source confirming that a specific entity named "MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, INC." has developed software for the express purpose of fraudulently redescribing and re-recording land descriptors to unjustly enrich themselves, the concept of using technology to facilitate fraud is not new. Sophisticated fraudsters can leverage technology to create convincing fake documents, manipulate databases, or exploit vulnerabilities in digital record-keeping systems. However, for such a scheme to succeed in legally transferring title, it would require complicity or extreme negligence within the official recording and judicial systems.

Verification of Land Records: 

Land records, including legal descriptions, are typically maintained by county recorders or registers of deeds. These offices have established procedures for recording and verifying documents. Any significant alteration to a property's legal description would ordinarily require a new survey, plat, or deed, all of which undergo scrutiny.

Judicial Oversight: 

In cases of disputed ownership, courts rely on accurate land records, surveys, and expert testimony. A court would typically not accept a "fictional land descriptor" without substantial, verifiable evidence.

Legal Recourse and Investigation

Given the gravity of my claims, if such a scheme is indeed underway, it would likely involve:

Criminal Investigation: 

The actions described could constitute criminal offenses such as fraud, forgery, conspiracy, and potentially racketeering, warranting investigation by law enforcement agencies (e.g., state police, FBI).

Civil Litigation: 

The affected landowner would have strong grounds for a civil lawsuit to quiet title, seek damages, and potentially obtain injunctive relief to prevent further fraudulent actions.

Bar Complaints/Judicial Ethics: 

If attorneys or judicial officers are found to be complicit or grossly negligent, complaints could be filed with state bar associations or judicial ethics committees.

In summary, while the specific entity "MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, INC." and its alleged software for fraudulent land redescription are not widely reported in authoritative sources as a known scheme, the underlying tactics of exploiting vulnerability, fabricating claims, and attempting to seize land through deceptive legal maneuvers are unfortunately not unheard of in the U.S. justice system. Such actions are illegal and would be vigorously challenged if proper legal avenues are pursued.

This report will continue to be updated turning the available information into the most accurate version available. 

For those interested in learning more about the true story behind this report: 

Browse to annavonreitz.com and scroll down to Articles 5508 through 5529. Download, read and study every one of the articles, particularly 5510 regarding Municipal Pirates. 

You may know someone affected by similar land grab attempts and may be inclined to do something about that in the administrative department of your life. 

Astute readers may also may dig deeper to find YOUR NAME IN CAPS is a similar doorway leading you into the abyss described in the above referenced articles.  Elsewhere on USOA are solutuon topics to deal with municipal theft of identity which has largely gone unpunished for decades.

What are the implications of Americans being classified as Municipal citizens in relation to their property rights?

The classification of Americans as municipal citizens, rather than solely state or federal citizens, has significant implications for their property rights, particularly concerning the scope of government power to regulate or take private property. This distinction often arises in legal interpretations of eminent domain and regulatory takings, where local governments assert broad authority over land use and ownership.

The primary implication is that it can expand the perceived authority of local governments to impose restrictions on private property, potentially diminishing individual property rights without adequate compensation. This is often seen in cases where municipalities define "public use" broadly to include economic development or aesthetic considerations, rather than strictly public access or ownership.

Historically, political philosophers like John Locke emphasized property rights as fundamental, and the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, specifically the Takings Clause, was intended to limit government's eminent domain power to "public use" with "just compensation". However, Supreme Court rulings, such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) and Kelo v. New London (2005), have been criticized for expanding the definition of "public use" to include "public utility" or "public purpose," allowing property to be taken for private development if it ostensibly benefits the public good, such as increasing tax revenues or creating jobs. This interpretation allows local governments, acting as municipal entities, to justify taking private property for projects that are not directly used by the public but are deemed to have a public benefit.

Furthermore, the concept of municipal citizenship can influence regulatory takings, where government regulations, even without outright seizure, diminish property value or restrict its use. Local governments often implement zoning laws, historic preservation ordinances, or environmental regulations that can severely limit how property owners can use their land. While some regulations are necessary for public health and safety, others, such as bans on short-term rentals or "obesity zoning," are seen as overreaching and infringing on property rights without providing just compensation. The argument often made is that these regulations serve a broader municipal interest, even if they disproportionately burden individual property owners.

The Goldwater Institute's "Property Ownership Fairness Act" was developed in response to these perceived abuses, aiming to restrict government's power to seize land for anything other than truly public uses and to require compensation for regulatory takings that reduce property values without genuinely protecting public health and safety. This initiative highlights the ongoing tension between individual property rights and the expansive powers asserted by municipal governments, often under the guise of public benefit or welfare.