Whether California's requirement that settlers pay a fee to secure a homestead on public lands violates the Homestead Act of 1862 and the conditions of California's statehood

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. The Stated purpose of the Legislature in the : Homestead Act of 1862 is “To secure Homesteads , . for actual settlers on the Public Domain.” It is a } : condition of California’s Statehood to freely allow settlers on the Public Domain but California is allowing settlers to be charged for securing their Homestead. But California State subsidiary Santa | Cruz County charges them a fee for their Home| ; stead (see APPENDICES D and E). The problem of States charging citizens for doing business with the federal government is not new Relying on U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 , : “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper.” The Supreme Court ruled in 1819 against Maryland’s taxing a user of a U.S. Bank, (McCul‘ | loch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316). With the similarity | between U.S. Constitution Article 4 Section 3 clause 2, Congress “shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations re| specting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” and Article 1 Section 8, the Plaintiff seeks redress for fines and destruction of his Homestead built in compliance with Homestead Certificate 4889 when he refused pay local building regulators the way McCulloch refused to ; pay taxes to the State of Maryland. . 2. Certificate 4889 appears as fulfillment of only the first requirement of United States Constitution Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 to dispose of Territory belonging to the United States. The other requirements include “to make all needful Rules and Reg: ulations respecting the Territory.” As one of the ; ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued first successful settlers in this area in 191 years, the Plaintiff suggests that a few “needful Rules : and Regulations respecting the Territory” need reaffirmation. Besides (1) above, the U.S. Government should continue to help Homesteaders as in the past: Mail Delivery, Rural Electrification are ; two. 8. The speech of Cash Entry Act author, Senator Ed. wards of New York which is recorded in the Abridgment of the Debates of Congress on March 6, 1820 reveals advantages of homesteading: “I will, at present, content myself with an effort, cat merely, to shield the present settlers upon public lands from merciless speculators whose cupidity and avarice would unquestionably be tempted by the improvements which those settlers have made with the sweat of their brows, and to which they, have been encouraged by the conduct of the government itself [to pre-empt squatters].” Combined with land surveys, Cash Entry Land Patents brought order to the Colonies’ lawless eastern frontier and continue to this day. Do States weaken these protections by allowing shortened _ title Deeds which do not include the original Patent? Are States violating their enumerated Pow: ers when they pass Marketable Title Acts? Article . 1 Section 10 clause 6, Impairing Obligation of Contract by states should not allow shortening Chain : of Title to leave a grantee without benefits and protections and benefits of the Land Patent when his place on the Chain of Title is beyond the cutoff point specified by the State Law. California has a Marketable Title Act which caused the Plaintiff ; iii ; QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued delay in Declaring his Land Patent per requirement in Lossing v. Shull, 173 S.W. 2d 1, 1 Mo 342 (1943). 4. After the Civil War, Amendment 14 sections 3 and : _ 4 were not ready in time to deploy against slave . ‘ owners with the result that 4 million freed slaves ; . were deprived of land patents intended for them on their owner’s property. Is it timely to use sections 3 and 4 to stop offenses of and corporate bureaucrats when they fail to moderate their actions with section 2 due process? (refer to