Motor vehicle titles

[rumpelstilzchen]

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

Which means those cases occurred before they were cited in Black's.

[Famspear]

Dear Patriotdiscussions: Lawyers and judges occasionally cite definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, but lawyers and judges know how to do that appropriately.

A law dictionary is what we call "secondary authority." When we do legal analysis, we may use secondary authorities, such as law dictionaries, legal encyclopedias, treatises written by legal experts, etc., to familiarize ourselves with a particular legal point.

However, when the rubber meets the road, we look first to what is called "primary authority." Primary authority means the actual verbatim text of the Constitution, the statute, the treaty, the administrative regulation, the court opinion, and so on.

Even within court opinions, we have to learn to distinguish which parts of the opinion are "holdings" (essentially, actual decisions by the court that may be considered judicial precedent) versus non-binding statements about the law called "dicta," and the other parts of the opinion (such as the recitation of the facts, the issues presented, the procedural history, etc.).

This process cannot be learned by reading the stuff you read on the internet. This process cannot be learned by reading one case or ten cases or a hundred cases. This process cannot be learned by reading Black's Law Dictionary, or even a treatise by a legal expert.

This process can be learned only through years of reading the verbatim texts of literally thousands (not hundreds, but thousands) of court cases, statutes, and so on. For example, I once sat down and tried to estimate how many texts of actual court opinions I had read while I was in law school. It was several thousand. And we're not just talking about one kind of case. We're talking about cases involving all kinds of issues over constitutional law, property law, contract law, torts, criminal law, evidence, pre-trial procedure, trial and appellate procedure, remedies, agency law, corporate and partnership business organizations, trusts and wills, securities, taxation, employment law, oil and gas law (hey, I'm in Texas), etc.

Lawyers and judges know when and how to cite a definition from Black's Law Dictionary. You don't.

[JamesVincent]

A law dictionary is what we call "secondary authority." When we do legal analysis, we may use secondary authorities, such as law dictionaries, legal encyclopedias, treatises written by legal experts, etc., to familiarize ourselves with a particular legal point.

Like when we were talking about torts and you quoted from Prosser.

[Famspear]

A law dictionary is what we call "secondary authority." When we do legal analysis, we may use secondary authorities, such as law dictionaries, legal encyclopedias, treatises written by legal experts, etc., to familiarize ourselves with a particular legal point.

Like when we were talking about torts and you quoted from Prosser.

Affirmative.

[fortinbras]

There have been some articles in various publications about the different legal lexicons and their compilers. Black's goes back more than a century, to Henry Campbell Black, a lawyer and sometime law professor who wrote a number of textbooks which, when they were relatively recent, sold well because they were published by West Brothers Publishing Co. In the case of his law dictionary, Black fattened it up with material that did not relate to American law but to British, Roman, or some other foreign or archaic legal system; he also fattened it up with lots of latinisms and norman french expressions. He died in 1927, shortly before the third edition of his dictionary (1933). Subsequent editors trimmed the archaic and foreign stuff, much to the annoyance of SovCits, who love to lapse into a language they cannot speak.

Other important law dictionaries in the US, in decades past, included Bouvier's - which goes back to the mid-19th century and was last revised (I think) in the 1930s, and Ballentine's which was last issued in the 1960s. Despite their popularity in different decades, they are seldom cited now -- their respective publishing houses folded decades ago, so not only are they not kept up-to-date but even the old editions are no longer on the market (sometimes findable in used bookstores and church bazaars, and I suggest you don't hesitate to snap them up). Black's is still going, not necessarily because of any innate superiority but the luck of being carried by an enormous and powerful publisher who still (after some mergers and acquisitions in the 1990s) churns out the vast majority of legal publications in the US. Black's now in (IIRC) 9th or maybe 10th edition, being revised by a lexicographer who got his start with a somewhat less prestigious law dictionary, The current edition is a far cry from what Henry Campbell Black worked up - my guess is less than 15% of the latest edition could be found in either of the two editions published during HCB's lifetime.

It's intriguing that Patriotdiscussions is hanging on a definition from the 5th edition of Black's LD; that's from about a half-century ago (actually from Black's first edition, 1891, and citing a 19th century text on Roman law as its source), instead of from the current edition.

[Red Cedar PM]

I think we need to slow things WAY down for Mr. Patriot Spewings. In general:

Property can be real or personal. Real property is land and any fixed improvements thereon. Personal property is movable property like cars, jewelry, etc.

Property can also be public or private. Public property is owned by a governmental entity and private property is owned by individuals or non-governmental legal entities.

The government can regulate all four of the above property types (within certain limits). Any claim to the contrary is nonsense.

So your neighbor's house where I want to move in and start storing toxic waste is both real and private property. Fortunately for you, the government can and does regulate against that.

[The Observer]

A law dictionary is what we call "secondary authority." When we do legal analysis, we may use secondary authorities, such as law dictionaries, legal encyclopedias, treatises written by legal experts, etc., to familiarize ourselves with a particular legal point.

Like when we were talking about torts and you quoted from Prosser.

I think you mean the time we were talking about torts and Famspear turned Prosser into a limerick.

[Famspear]

I think you mean the time we were talking about torts and Famspear turned Prosser into a limerick.

I did?



EDIT: I couldn't-a done it intentionally.

I might-a done it negligently or recklessly.....

[LPC]

The government can regulate all four of the above property types (within certain limits).

I was thinking of posting something about the cases that attempt to find the line between regulating the use of a property and a "taking" of the property within the meaning of the 5th Amendment (and 14th Amendment), but I was afraid that Patriotrantings would read it and, if he actually tried to understand it, his head would explode.

And then there's the well-established principle that the federal government can tax things (and activities) that it does not have the power to regulate. I don't think we should mention that either.

[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.

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?

Several others have taken a stab at addressing this, but I will make my attempt as well. I am perhaps very fluent (as are others here) in this particular corner of sovereign idiocy, gleaned from being banned at certain other web forums after debating with posters like "patriotdiscussions."

Natural rights are of course very important and one of the primary influences on the Constitution. As I understand it, you are referring to the fact that you believe - as do I - that rights are "innate" and exist whether or not a government recognizes them. Ok, we are on the same page here, so far. Note that this is different from what others have said. They have their reasoning and really the issue of whether rights are innate and come from the creator (as is stated in the organic documents from the creation of the USA) or are situational and dependent upon a government saying the rights exist, is a separate discussion.

Whether from God or from the Government, we all agree that there are natural rights and that the rights stated in the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) are examples of that. Ok good so far.

Still, those rights are NOT absolute - not under the Constitution or otherwise. The Constitution states quite clearly that rights cannot be taken away absent "due process of law" - referenced in the 5th Amendment. However, with due process, they can.

It further stands to reason then that no right is absolute in our system.

Where sovereign logic breaks down often is the refusal to believe that something can be a right but not absolute. When someone is imprisoned, his or her right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is infringed upon along with several others. Does that mean one doesn't have that right, generally speaking? No. It just means that you can't take it away without due process - that is all.

In sovereign world, everyone is frolicking around being judged by no one and doing no harm to anyone. As two sovereign drivers approach an intersection, they both get to voluntarily decide if they have to stop at the stop sign. When both sovereigns decide they don't need to stop, a head-on collision ensues, and each one thinks he is correct. In sovereign land, no big bad government will ever decide the issue for them, no one needs to take responsibility, certainly no one needs insurance, and they all can then continue on their carefree (though perhaps injured) existence as they wish. Usually this requires someone like grandma or a rich uncle to pay their bills, in the meantime.

The point is, in the real world, it doesn't work and you just look like a dipshit to anyone over 22 who hears you advocating this nonsense.

[Gregg]

Wow, so do you guys know anything about rights? If you have a right to something, you also have a right to exclude anyone from using OR benefitting from it in any way. Homes today are not private property, they are real property or real estate, neither legal definition means private property.

http://website targeted at weak minded idgits redacted

Nobody else is allowed to stay at either of my houses unless I invite them over. That's really about good enough for me.

[LPC]

In sovereign world, everyone is frolicking around being judged by no one and doing no harm to anyone. As two sovereign drivers approach an intersection, they both get to voluntarily decide if they have to stop at the stop sign. When both sovereigns decide they don't need to stop, a head-on collision ensues, and each one thinks he is correct. In sovereign land, no big bad government will ever decide the issue for them, no one needs to take responsibility, certainly no one needs insurance, and they all can then continue on their carefree (though perhaps injured) existence as they wish. Usually this requires someone like grandma or a rich uncle to pay their bills, in the meantime.

The point is, in the real world, it doesn't work and you just look like a dipshit to anyone over 22 who hears you advocating this nonsense.

Nice summary/recap.

[notorial dissent]

I would have said anyone over the age of 13, but the end result is the same, sovrunignorami.

[Patriotdiscussions]

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

Which means those cases occurred before they were cited in Black's.

No way, are you sure they did not occur after they were cited, kind of like black could see into the future capt. Obvious?

[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?

Several others have taken a stab at addressing this, but I will make my attempt as well. I am perhaps very fluent (as are others here) in this particular corner of sovereign idiocy, gleaned from being banned at certain other web forums after debating with posters like "patriotdiscussions."

Natural rights are of course very important and one of the primary influences on the Constitution. As I understand it, you are referring to the fact that you believe - as do I - that rights are "innate" and exist whether or not a government recognizes them. Ok, we are on the same page here, so far. Note that this is different from what others have said. They have their reasoning and really the issue of whether rights are innate and come from the creator (as is stated in the organic documents from the creation of the USA) or are situational and dependent upon a government saying the rights exist, is a separate discussion.

Whether from God or from the Government, we all agree that there are natural rights and that the rights stated in the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) are examples of that. Ok good so far.

Still, those rights are NOT absolute - not under the Constitution or otherwise. The Constitution states quite clearly that rights cannot be taken away absent "due process of law" - referenced in the 5th Amendment. However, with due process, they can.

It further stands to reason then that no right is absolute in our system.

Where sovereign logic breaks down often is the refusal to believe that something can be a right but not absolute. When someone is imprisoned, his or her right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is infringed upon along with several others. Does that mean one doesn't have that right, generally speaking? No. It just means that you can't take it away without due process - that is all.

In sovereign world, everyone is frolicking around being judged by no one and doing no harm to anyone. As two sovereign drivers approach an intersection, they both get to voluntarily decide if they have to stop at the stop sign. When both sovereigns decide they don't need to stop, a head-on collision ensues, and each one thinks he is correct. In sovereign land, no big bad government will ever decide the issue for them, no one needs to take responsibility, certainly no one needs insurance, and they all can then continue on their carefree (though perhaps injured) existence as they wish. Usually this requires someone like grandma or a rich uncle to pay their bills, in the meantime.

The point is, in the real world, it doesn't work and you just look like a dipshit to anyone over 22 who hears you advocating this nonsense.

Of course natural rights do not depend on government, it would only be a moron who believed government gave them a voice box to speak with. But I do think it is cute because speech is punished in some places that pros here thinks they do not have a right to speak. That's really cute.

Let us be clear here, did WE create the government to server US or did we create the government so we could serve it?

Are we the public servant or are they the public servant?

If like our founders and anyone with half a brain realizes,you agree they are there to serve us, then you must also realize there is no way they could grant us rights we did not already have.

Does a butler grant his master the right to speak? The government has only the power WE give it, it's that whole governed by consent thingy the pros here seem to be missing.

If the pros can not understand a basic concept of how rights flow from the creator and not the servant then I think they are not as smart as they pretend to be.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Btw natural rights are absolute barring you do not infringe on others rights, it has always been that way. Feel free to read the common law book written by Holmes or any other great legal mind.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Dear Patriotdiscussions: Lawyers and judges occasionally cite definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, but lawyers and judges know how to do that appropriately.

A law dictionary is what we call "secondary authority." When we do legal analysis, we may use secondary authorities, such as law dictionaries, legal encyclopedias, treatises written by legal experts, etc., to familiarize ourselves with a particular legal point.

However, when the rubber meets the road, we look first to what is called "primary authority." Primary authority means the actual verbatim text of the Constitution, the statute, the treaty, the administrative regulation, the court opinion, and so on.

Even within court opinions, we have to learn to distinguish which parts of the opinion are "holdings" (essentially, actual decisions by the court that may be considered judicial precedent) versus non-binding statements about the law called "dicta," and the other parts of the opinion (such as the recitation of the facts, the issues presented, the procedural history, etc.).

This process cannot be learned by reading the stuff you read on the internet. This process cannot be learned by reading one case or ten cases or a hundred cases. This process cannot be learned by reading Black's Law Dictionary, or even a treatise by a legal expert.

This process can be learned only through years of reading the verbatim texts of literally thousands (not hundreds, but thousands) of court cases, statutes, and so on. For example, I once sat down and tried to estimate how many texts of actual court opinions I had read while I was in law school. It was several thousand. And we're not just talking about one kind of case. We're talking about cases involving all kinds of issues over constitutional law, property law, contract law, torts, criminal law, evidence, pre-trial procedure, trial and appellate procedure, remedies, agency law, corporate and partnership business organizations, trusts and wills, securities, taxation, employment law, oil and gas law (hey, I'm in Texas), etc.

Lawyers and judges know when and how to cite a definition from Black's Law Dictionary. You don't.

Wow you are so smart, I wonder how anyone could keep up, you must really dazzle your peers. Where can I find some peer reviewed example of your incredible intelligence at? Surely a legal mind as great as yourself teaches or perhaps runs the biggest law firm in Chicago right?

Surprised you did not try to educate me on sheperdizing as well. You do know that U.S. colleges put out more lawyers every year then ANY other field right? It really don't take a rocket scientist to do your job buddy.

While I do think it is funny that you believe I have to go to college to read the same textbook you did, or that somehow a question I might have on a topic is not easily answered by a host of real experts. Your assumptions don't stop there do they? It is only possible for you to have read massive amounts of case law, no one else has access to this info, clearly not on google scholar. I don't even feel the urge to tell you that my reading is at the very top son. But I'm sure that by the 7th grade you were also reading 500 pages a day with an above college grade reading comprehension level as well correct?

When your done patting yourself on the back for thinking no one else could possible have access to the same public information then let me know, edit, Juvenile graphic insult removed.
Friendly advice, you'll not always get the benefit of the doubt, tread lightly.

[Pottapaug1938]

Btw natural rights are absolute barring you do not infringe on others rights, it has always been that way. Feel free to read the common law book written by Holmes or any other great legal mind.

I'd rather read real court cases, especially the ones which were decided after Holmes wrote his book. Treatises like the one Holmes wrote are, as in the case of Black's, Prosser on Torts or anything of that sort, at best evidence of the law or opinions about it.

[Pottapaug1938]

Dear Patriotdiscussions: Lawyers and judges occasionally cite definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, but lawyers and judges know how to do that appropriately.

A law dictionary is what we call "secondary authority." When we do legal analysis, we may use secondary authorities, such as law dictionaries, legal encyclopedias, treatises written by legal experts, etc., to familiarize ourselves with a particular legal point.

However, when the rubber meets the road, we look first to what is called "primary authority." Primary authority means the actual verbatim text of the Constitution, the statute, the treaty, the administrative regulation, the court opinion, and so on.

Even within court opinions, we have to learn to distinguish which parts of the opinion are "holdings" (essentially, actual decisions by the court that may be considered judicial precedent) versus non-binding statements about the law called "dicta," and the other parts of the opinion (such as the recitation of the facts, the issues presented, the procedural history, etc.).

This process cannot be learned by reading the stuff you read on the internet. This process cannot be learned by reading one case or ten cases or a hundred cases. This process cannot be learned by reading Black's Law Dictionary, or even a treatise by a legal expert.

This process can be learned only through years of reading the verbatim texts of literally thousands (not hundreds, but thousands) of court cases, statutes, and so on. For example, I once sat down and tried to estimate how many texts of actual court opinions I had read while I was in law school. It was several thousand. And we're not just talking about one kind of case. We're talking about cases involving all kinds of issues over constitutional law, property law, contract law, torts, criminal law, evidence, pre-trial procedure, trial and appellate procedure, remedies, agency law, corporate and partnership business organizations, trusts and wills, securities, taxation, employment law, oil and gas law (hey, I'm in Texas), etc.

Lawyers and judges know when and how to cite a definition from Black's Law Dictionary. You don't.

Wow you are so smart, I wonder how anyone could keep up, you must really dazzle your peers. Where can I find some peer reviewed example of your incredible intelligence at? Surely a legal mind as great as yourself teaches or perhaps runs the biggest law firm in Chicago right?

Surprised you did not try to educate me on sheperdizing as well. You do know that U.S. colleges put out more lawyers every year then ANY other field right? It really don't take a rocket scientist to do your job buddy.

While I do think it is funny that you believe I have to go to college to read the same textbook you did, or that somehow a question I might have on a topic is not easily answered by a host of real experts. Your assumptions don't stop there do they? It is only possible for you to have read massive amounts of case law, no one else has access to this info, clearly not on google scholar. I don't even feel the urge to tell you that my reading is at the very top son. But I'm sure that by the 7th grade you were also reading 500 pages a day with an above college grade reading comprehension level as well correct?

When your done patting yourself on the back for thinking no one else could possible have access to the same public information then let me know, until then don't rub too much skin off your pecker in your glee.

Bully for you, Pal. You know how to read. You get a gold star on your calendar.

The problem is, you don't know how to read the law in a way which allows you to understand what it is. You are under the mistaken impression, for example, that a century-old legal treatise or a long-outdated legal dictionary is just as authoritative as anything else. You also treat court decisions as if they were Legal Scripture, with one phrase being just as significant as the next.

I taught myself to read at age 2, which has been verified by more than one family member, and by junior high school I was reading on at least a college-age level, so my reading ability is at least equal to yours; but even though I read legal decisions in college during a course on international law, I never truly learned how to read and comprehend case law until I started law school and learned the technique. I also learned the differences between what Famspear identifies as the primary and secondary sources of the law. Any law student can say the same. As has been pointed out to you before, Quatloos features the presence of many veteran lawyers; so your fantasies about the law are going to have a hard time gaining traction if you can't do better than you've done so far.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Dear Patriotdiscussions: Lawyers and judges occasionally cite definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, but lawyers and judges know how to do that appropriately.

A law dictionary is what we call "secondary authority." When we do legal analysis, we may use secondary authorities, such as law dictionaries, legal encyclopedias, treatises written by legal experts, etc., to familiarize ourselves with a particular legal point.

However, when the rubber meets the road, we look first to what is called "primary authority." Primary authority means the actual verbatim text of the Constitution, the statute, the treaty, the administrative regulation, the court opinion, and so on.

Even within court opinions, we have to learn to distinguish which parts of the opinion are "holdings" (essentially, actual decisions by the court that may be considered judicial precedent) versus non-binding statements about the law called "dicta," and the other parts of the opinion (such as the recitation of the facts, the issues presented, the procedural history, etc.).

This process cannot be learned by reading the stuff you read on the internet. This process cannot be learned by reading one case or ten cases or a hundred cases. This process cannot be learned by reading Black's Law Dictionary, or even a treatise by a legal expert.

This process can be learned only through years of reading the verbatim texts of literally thousands (not hundreds, but thousands) of court cases, statutes, and so on. For example, I once sat down and tried to estimate how many texts of actual court opinions I had read while I was in law school. It was several thousand. And we're not just talking about one kind of case. We're talking about cases involving all kinds of issues over constitutional law, property law, contract law, torts, criminal law, evidence, pre-trial procedure, trial and appellate procedure, remedies, agency law, corporate and partnership business organizations, trusts and wills, securities, taxation, employment law, oil and gas law (hey, I'm in Texas), etc.

Lawyers and judges know when and how to cite a definition from Black's Law Dictionary. You don't.

Wow you are so smart, I wonder how anyone could keep up, you must really dazzle your peers. Where can I find some peer reviewed example of your incredible intelligence at? Surely a legal mind as great as yourself teaches or perhaps runs the biggest law firm in Chicago right?

Surprised you did not try to educate me on sheperdizing as well. You do know that U.S. colleges put out more lawyers every year then ANY other field right? It really don't take a rocket scientist to do your job buddy.

While I do think it is funny that you believe I have to go to college to read the same textbook you did, or that somehow a question I might have on a topic is not easily answered by a host of real experts. Your assumptions don't stop there do they? It is only possible for you to have read massive amounts of case law, no one else has access to this info, clearly not on google scholar. I don't even feel the urge to tell you that my reading is at the very top son. But I'm sure that by the 7th grade you were also reading 500 pages a day with an above college grade reading comprehension level as well correct?

When your done patting yourself on the back for thinking no one else could possible have access to the same public information then let me know, until then don't rub too much skin off your pecker in your glee.

Bully for you, Pal. You know how to read. You get a gold star on your calendar.

The problem is, you don't know how to read the law in a way which allows you to understand what it is. You are under the mistaken impression, for example, that a century-old legal treatise or a long-outdated legal dictionary is just as authoritative as anything else. You also treat court decisions as if they were Legal Scripture, with one phrase being just as significant as the next.

I taught myself to read at age 2, which has been verified by more than one family member, and by junior high school I was reading on at least a college-age level, so my reading ability is at least equal to yours; but even though I read legal decisions in college during a course on international law, I never truly learned how to read and comprehend case law until I started law school and learned the technique. I also learned the differences between what Famspear identifies as the primary and secondary sources of the law. Any law student can say the same. As has been pointed out to you before, Quatloos features the presence of many veteran lawyers; so your fantasies about the law are going to have a hard time gaining traction if you can't do better than you've done so far.

Right I understand how it is impossible for me to have read up on legal research and statutory construction, so I do not have access to the top secret book that allows you to read law correctly but no one else.

I understand also that dicta be it 1 year or 50 years old is not an authority, but it does help in understanding why and how they come to the opinion they do. And while I would never quote dicta as an authority in a case, it does help with interpretation, just like reading the house and senate debates on a statute helps the courts decide what the law was intended for.