Motor vehicle titles

[rumpelstilzchen]

Homes today .....

Have you now changed the topic of your own thread?

[Famspear]

Dear Patriotdiscussions:

Your home -- that house that you own on the land you own is your private property -- and it's real estate, or real property.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Wow, so do you guys know anything about rights?

Lots.

If you have a right to something, you also have a right to exclude anyone from using OR benefitting from it in any way.

Not necessarily. There are all kinds of things, including easements that can affect your "rights."

Homes today are not private property, they are real property or real estate, neither legal definition means private property.

My don't care light is flashing. Pity the fool that fails to read my "Private Property - No Hunting" signs.

Tell us about the house to house searches in Boston after the bombings again?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Dear Patriotdiscussions:

Your home -- that house that you own on the land you own is your private property -- and it's real estate, or real property.

Estate means time in a land or land for a time, not allodial title

[AndyK]

Neat: Mining the dictionaries to come up with a valid but totally irrelevant definition of "estate" PLUS bringing yet another sovereignoramus word into play: allodial.

Meaningless but neat.

[Pottapaug1938]

Wow, so do you guys know anything about rights?

Lots.

If you have a right to something, you also have a right to exclude anyone from using OR benefitting from it in any way.

Not necessarily. There are all kinds of things, including easements that can affect your "rights."

Homes today are not private property, they are real property or real estate, neither legal definition means private property.

My don't care light is flashing. Pity the fool that fails to read my "Private Property - No Hunting" signs.

Tell us about the house to house searches in Boston after the bombings again?

Glad to. Those happened only in certain neighborhoods where Dzhokar Tsarnaev was thought to be hiding. When there is an imminent threat to health and safety, as in the case of a bad guy with guns who helped to set off bombs which killed and maimed a lot of people, the rules change somewhat -- and as I recall everyone cooperated with the search effort because they wanted the little fothermucker caught as much as anyone else. I live about three miles from where the bombings happened, and nothing happened anywhere near me.

[davids]

"Patriotdiscussions" should change his name to "sovereignmythspewings".

He/she/it is falling victim to one of the many Achille's heals of sovereign logic, that of believing that all rights are "absolute" and then engaging in black and white thinking that holds that anything other than the absolute version of a right means it doesn't exist at all. For example, the OP believes that because there are taxes, that means that you don't really own property. The OP believes that your car isn't your car, just because it is being regulated somehow. And here, the OP believes that because police searched homes after a terrorist bombing that means the same as if they randomly searched homes in completely peaceful circumstances. Another word for it is stupidity.

[AndyK]

Tell us about the house to house searches in Boston after the bombings again?

Read the preamble to the Constitution. Ponder its relevance to your latest blather.

[JamesVincent]

Private property is a legal designation of the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and collective property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.[2] Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

Real estate is "property consisting of land and the buildings on it, along with its natural resources such as crops, minerals, or water; immovable property of this nature; an interest vested in this; (also) an item of real property; (more generally) buildings or housing in general. Also: the business of real estate; the profession of buying, selling, or renting land, buildings or housing."[1]

It is a legal term used in jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Nigeria, Australia, and New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate

In English common law, real property, real estate, realty, or immovable property is any subset of land that has been legally defined and the improvements to it have been made by human efforts: buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, roads, etc. Real property and personal property are the two main subunits of property in English Common Law.

In countries with personal ownership of real property, civil law protects the status of real property in real-estate markets, where estate agents work in the market of buying and selling real estate. Scottish civil law calls real property "heritable property", and in French-based law, it is called immobilier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property

You're comparing apples to oranges. All three are terms related to the same thing but from different angles. Depending on how you are referring to the property and from what standpoint you are talking from you could come up with a bunch more that would all be correct from that standpoint.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Man I wonder why they have law dictionaries and law encyclopedias if wiki works for definitions of law.

In blacks fifth edition page 1095 under property it says.. To exclude everyone else from interfering with it.

[Patriotdiscussions]

"Patriotdiscussions" should change his name to "sovereignmythspewings".

He/she/it is falling victim to one of the many Achille's heals of sovereign logic, that of believing that all rights are "absolute" and then engaging in black and white thinking that holds that anything other than the absolute version of a right means it doesn't exist at all. For example, the OP believes that because there are taxes, that means that you don't really own property. The OP believes that your car isn't your car, just because it is being regulated somehow. And here, the OP believes that because police searched homes after a terrorist bombing that means the same as if they randomly searched homes in completely peaceful circumstances. Another word for it is stupidity.

Why is it that when someone's rights are violated its a civil rights case?

Why is it not a natural rights case?

Natural rights are absolute, who really gave you the right to speak?

[JamesVincent]

Gotta love Amazon. If you look up Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition and scroll down to the section for Customers who bought this also bought and then look at the book titles, riot.

http://www.amazon.com/Blacks-Law-Dictio ... B000VFIMC2

We find:

*The UCC Connection: How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny
*Meet Your Strawman: And Whatever You Want To Know
*Common Law Handbook: For Juror's, Sheriff's, Bailiff's, and Justice's
*Reclaim Your Sovereignty: Take Back Your Christian Name

All by David E. Robinson.

You also find other issues of Black's.

Black's no more an all-powerful dictionary then Wiki, or Webster's, or Funk and Wagnall's, or any other dictionary. The difference is Black's is a specialized dictionary, specializing in law terms. Therefore it may have more, expanded content dealing with law specifically. That being said no dictionary on Earth is a basis of law and no dictionary is acceptable to quote as law, only as a definition of a term. And even then that definition may be moot if the law itself includes it's own definitions. Something Sov'runs seem to have some serious trouble understanding and they constantly point out all these magic words in a reference book that prove their point. That reference book is not law unless it happens to be a copy of the law, updated. So unless you have a law library of actual copies of state or federal laws then any definition is as good as another. And since several of the contributors to Wiki are indeed attorneys I have found that their articles are much better then most other references out there.

[JamesVincent]

"Patriotdiscussions" should change his name to "sovereignmythspewings".

He/she/it is falling victim to one of the many Achille's heals of sovereign logic, that of believing that all rights are "absolute" and then engaging in black and white thinking that holds that anything other than the absolute version of a right means it doesn't exist at all. For example, the OP believes that because there are taxes, that means that you don't really own property. The OP believes that your car isn't your car, just because it is being regulated somehow. And here, the OP believes that because police searched homes after a terrorist bombing that means the same as if they randomly searched homes in completely peaceful circumstances. Another word for it is stupidity.

Why is it that when someone's rights are violated its a civil rights case?

Why is it not a natural rights case?

Natural rights are absolute, who really gave you the right to speak?

The Founding Fathers, under the First Amendment, who do you think? It is a Civil Rights case in that it violated someone's Civil Rights, as spelled out and defined by law. Natural rights are a load of bullmalarkey, there are no true natural rights, only rights that are assigned by society or government. In other countries there is no freedom of speech, there is no private ownership of property, there is no of a lot of things that the citizens of this country enjoy. Go to North Korea and talk to them about your natural rights and let me know how that turns out, in 50 years after you get out of a penal colony.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Gotta love Amazon. If you look up Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition and scroll down to the section for Customers who bought this also bought and then look at the book titles, riot.

http://www.amazon.com/Blacks-Law-Dictio ... B000VFIMC2

We find:

*The UCC Connection: How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny
*Meet Your Strawman: And Whatever You Want To Know
*Common Law Handbook: For Juror's, Sheriff's, Bailiff's, and Justice's
*Reclaim Your Sovereignty: Take Back Your Christian Name

All by David E. Robinson.

You also find other issues of Black's.

Black's no more an all-powerful dictionary then Wiki, or Webster's, or Funk and Wagnall's, or any other dictionary. The difference is Black's is a specialized dictionary, specializing in law terms. Therefore it may have more, expanded content dealing with law specifically. That being said no dictionary on Earth is a basis of law and no dictionary is acceptable to quote as law, only as a definition of a term. And even then that definition may be moot if the law itself includes it's own definitions. Something Sov'runs seem to have some serious trouble understanding and they constantly point out all these magic words in a reference book that prove their point. That reference book is not law unless it happens to be a copy of the law, updated. So unless you have a law library of actual copies of state or federal laws then any definition is as good as another. And since several of the contributors to Wiki are indeed attorneys I have found that their articles are much better then most other references out there.

When the court needs to define a word, I will give you a guess as to which they turn, wiki or blacks?

You do realize the definitions in blacks are based on case law and statutes correct? With case cites at the end of EACH definition.

[Patriotdiscussions]

"Patriotdiscussions" should change his name to "sovereignmythspewings".

He/she/it is falling victim to one of the many Achille's heals of sovereign logic, that of believing that all rights are "absolute" and then engaging in black and white thinking that holds that anything other than the absolute version of a right means it doesn't exist at all. For example, the OP believes that because there are taxes, that means that you don't really own property. The OP believes that your car isn't your car, just because it is being regulated somehow. And here, the OP believes that because police searched homes after a terrorist bombing that means the same as if they randomly searched homes in completely peaceful circumstances. Another word for it is stupidity.

Why is it that when someone's rights are violated its a civil rights case?

Why is it not a natural rights case?

Natural rights are absolute, who really gave you the right to speak?

The Founding Fathers, under the First Amendment, who do you think? It is a Civil Rights case in that it violated someone's Civil Rights, as spelled out and defined by law. Natural rights are a load of bullmalarkey, there are no true natural rights, only rights that are assigned by society or government. In other countries there is no freedom of speech, there is no private ownership of property, there is no of a lot of things that the citizens of this country enjoy. Go to North Korea and talk to them about your natural rights and let me know how that turns out, in 50 years after you get out of a penal colony.

Wow, so before the first amendment no one in the world had the right to speak eh? How about the right of self defense? Right to travel? Did the founders give you legs also? Alone on an island your saying you have to wait until government is formed before you can speak,travel or defend yourself from bears?

What did Jefferson mean by inalienable rights given to us by our creator? Did he mean civil rights the not yet written constitution was going to grant him?

[Patriotdiscussions]

You guys say you want to expose the sov scam, by not knowing what rights are? This is basic stuff folks. The founders did not provide you with voice boxes or legs or a brain. God or nature did depending on what you believe. Either way man has the right to speak and has even before government was born.

I would love to dismiss these sovs as scams but I can not do it by being ignorant to what rights really are.

[Pottapaug1938]

When the court needs to define a word, I will give you a guess as to which they turn, wiki or blacks?

You do realize the definitions in blacks are based on case law and statutes correct? With case cites at the end of EACH definition.

Guess what, genius -- the courts do not look at Blacks or Wikipedia to define a word. They look to either the way that a word is defined in a law relevant to the case, or they look at CURRENT case law. Blacks, especially in older editions, is not completely reliable because the case(s) cited may have been modified or overturned by later decisions, or because the statutes cited may have been modified or repealed.

Neither Black's nor Wikipedia are "the law". Rather, they are "evidence of what the law is"; and as any law student can tell you, evidence is not always reliable.

[AndyK]

Rights are both situationally and temporally relative.

Examples:

What rights did African-Americans have prior to the passage of the emancipation laws and the 14th Amendment? What rights did women have prior to the passage of the suffarage laws? What rights do YOU have when you visit Russia, North Korea, Iran, or many other countries.

Rights are not god-given. They are bestowed by governments and they can change from day to day. As a current example, same-sex couples did not have the right to marry until very recently and that right is still being legislated and litigated. A woman's right to control her own body, as in terminating a pregnancy, is still being changed from day to day.

Situationally; what right (under freedom of speech) do you have to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater or to stand on a soapbox and lie about the morals or ethics of another person?

"Sovereigns", and many others, put on blinders when discussing law or rights. They assume everything is absolute. They constantly insist that everything flows from the King James Bible, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, or whatever source happens to suit their immediate argument.

It's important, in these discussions, to establish a framework of relevance and measurement. Since this forum deals primarily with issues within the United States, that's the framework.

The United States is a nation of law. Laws are passed by two bodies of congress, signed by the President, and implemented by various federal agencies. Any question regarding law is resolved by an officially established system of courts.

Outside that, any attempt to warp the meaning of words; apply obsolete or irrelevant definitions to legal terms; declare a theocratic or inappropriate historical basis for governing; or ignore over two hundred years of legal decisions is (at best) foolhardy.

The posters here include attorneys, judges, accountants, business professionals, and others with years of experience regarding all aspects of law. Our posts are not opinions. They are recitations of facts. If you choose to ignore facts, post out-of-context quotations, or twist words to make them have the meaning you want then do so.

You will still be refuted. If you possess any intellectual honesty, you would admit you were wrong on a point or an interpretation. Absent your doing so, you remain a troll who looks more and more obnoxious each day.

[JamesVincent]

You guys say you want to expose the sov scam, by not knowing what rights are? This is basic stuff folks. The founders did not provide you with voice boxes or legs or a brain. God or nature did depending on what you believe. Either way man has the right to speak and has even before government was born.

I would love to dismiss these sovs as scams but I can not do it by being ignorant to what rights really are.

So you do it by being ignorant of what rights really mean? If there was no society or government there wouldn't be any rights at all, as has been exampled time after time. A right is something that is the product of society or government. How else could that right be enacted? No matter how you twist it if there is no law you would have no rights. Freedom of speech? Until someone blows your head off for talking. Freedom to own property? Until someone kills you or just plain forces you off the property and takes it for themselves. Freedom of self defense? Sure, you could try. Doesn't mean you would succeed. Freedom of religion? Until someone else comes along and doesn't like your religion. Without a societal or governmental intercession that is what you would really have. As society has become more and more civilized we, as people, have enjoyed more and more rights, for the most part. Some countries still do not allow some basic rights and do not acknowledge that they are indeed rights since they are not in their laws.

[JamesVincent]

Wow, so before the first amendment no one in the world had the right to speak eh? How about the right of self defense? Right to travel? Did the founders give you legs also? Alone on an island your saying you have to wait until government is formed before you can speak,travel or defend yourself from bears?

What did Jefferson mean by inalienable rights given to us by our creator? Did he mean civil rights the not yet written constitution was going to grant him?

Before the Revolutionary War we were a British colony. And, no, we did not have the rights we enjoy today, hence the Revolutionary War. Did you sleep through history class or what? And as we are speaking of the US why would you bring the world into it? Some places in the world still don't allow free speech. Jefferson's inalienable rights were what he felt all men should have and provided the basis of how he felt a government should govern rights, no more and no less.