A question on my own run-in with a SovCit

[Patriotdiscussions]

Is a car private or public property?
If private, can you direct me to any legal authority stating the government can regulate private property?

A car is private property. If you have a car delivered to your house and you put it in your garage (which is also private property) - no problem. If you drive your car on your own property - no problem.

But the streets and highways are public property and the vehicular laws, including the laws about driver's licenses, apply if you bring your private car onto the public roads.

I see, so if I use my private phone while riding public transportation it no longer is private property according to your theory correct?

[arayder]

Oh, here we go again. . .despite the complete refutation of his argument, our Perry Mason imitator asks a few questions so as to ape the Socratic method.

My guess is that before he flunked out of Orlando Community College our subject became enamored with a bi-specticuled vest wearing professor who asked a lot of questions. Since our boy didn't get to far at OCC he didn't really master the Socratic method as practiced by the old prof.

[AndyK]

If private property can only be taken thru just compensation, can you guys explain how homes are taken for 500 dollars in back taxes?

Yes, we can explain it but you would either:

Not understand the explanation.

Refuse to accept the explanation because it doesn't fit in your own private universe.

Come back, yet again, with additional spurious questions which make sense only to you.

[wserra]

If private property can only be taken thru just compensation, can you guys explain how homes are taken for 500 dollars in back taxes?

Because the Fifth Amendment doesn't say "private property can only be taken thru just compensation", even if "thru" were a word. It says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". See the underlined phrase? You omitted it. It means eminent domain. Homes taken "for 500 dollars in back taxes" are not taken "for public use", they're taken because someone didn't pay taxes. And even then, the law does require a version of "just compensation" - if the sale of the house produces an excess above taxes and fees owed, the excess goes to the former homeowner.

Why do people go 'round and 'round with this moron? He'll just keep moving the patriot myth goalposts.

[Patriotdiscussions]

If private property can only be taken thru just compensation, can you guys explain how homes are taken for 500 dollars in back taxes?

Because the Fifth Amendment doesn't say "private property can only be taken thru just compensation", even if "thru" were a word. It says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". See the underlined phrase? You omitted it. It means eminent domain. Homes taken "for 500 dollars in back taxes" are not taken "for public use", they're taken because someone didn't pay taxes. And even then, the law does require a version of "just compensation" - if the sale of the house produces an excess above taxes and fees owed, the excess goes to the former homeowner.

Why do people go 'round and 'round with this moron? He'll just keep moving the patriot myth goalposts.

my family has rehabbed homes in gary for 20 years, I have been to lots of back tax sales, not one time did I see a home that owed back taxes get sold for 30k more to help compensate the owner...lol.

Now, is taxes for private use or public use?

Why does the 5th not read, property can be taken for whatever as long as just compensation is given to the owner?


I like your idea of property rights, where the government can take the property for whatever reason as long as they compensate you.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Oh, here we go again. . .despite the complete refutation of his argument, our Perry Mason imitator asks a few questions so as to ape the Socratic method.

My guess is that before he flunked out of Orlando Community College our subject became enamored with a bi-specticuled vest wearing professor who asked a lot of questions. Since our boy didn't get to far at OCC he didn't really master the Socratic method as practiced by the old prof.

If you mean the trivium, something you clearly never learned, I am familiar with it.

[erwalkerca]

Seems to me the whole issue of whether or not a State could enact laws requiring the licencing of drivers was effectively settled in 1915 by the US Supreme Court's decision of Hendrick v. Maryland. Certainly the Maine Supreme Court cited that decision when it rejected the argument that a driver's licence requirement was unconstitutional on 13 Oct 2015 in its Maine v. Pelletier, 2015 Me 129, decision.

http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders ... e129pe.pdf

[arayder]

Why do people go 'round and 'round with this moron? He'll just keep moving the patriot myth goalposts.

In PD's circles just asking presumptuous questions passes for intelligent inquiry.

Our subject asks endless questions in the belief that his pretended demanding inquiry will attract clients to his quasi-legal advise service. . .or at least get him some propers.

One suspects PD has a few collegial pseudo-scholar friends and a couple of hangers on/clients who give him the paltry encouragement he needs to keep playing the patriotic truth seeker.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[Judge Roy Bean]

...


I see, so when they regulate how dark my window tint is, that's them regulating the public road, not my private auto.

Makes sense to an idiot.

No, that's them regulating for the protection of other people from idiots who darken their windows the degree that it's an impediment to safe driving.

[AndyK]

Why does the 5th not read, property can be taken for whatever as long as just compensation is given to the owner?

Perhaps because wiser minds than yours drafted the Amendment?

[morrand]

I see, so when they regulate how dark my window tint is, that's them regulating the public road, not my private auto.

Makes sense to an idiot.

That's not very friendly, Monty, not at all. I'm pretty sure that you weren't there. You don't have any business suggesting that the wreck was a result of how darkly the windows were tinted on my motorcycle.

Or, come to think of it, maybe you were there, in which case, I need my socks back, pronto.

(Time for a thread split? Or is that taking this nonsense as more than nonsense?)

[grixit]

Why does the 5th not read, property can be taken for whatever as long as just compensation is given to the owner?

Perhaps because wiser minds than yours drafted the Amendment?

Please-- i'm just at the end (i hope) of a bad cold, and i almost strangled laughing at that one.

[Gregg]

North Dakota...just because a state does not regulate something, is not proof that they CAN'T, there are any number of things legal in some states but not in others, gambling comes to mind.

Window Tint...its a safety standard, just like MANY things about your car that most people are not aware of, things that I know about because of what I do for a living that I'm sure you never thought of. How dark the glass can be, how hard the parking mechanism metal must be, how reliable the leak proofing on transmission cases and I imagine engine blocks and radiators must be to prevent the spilling of hazardous materials. The very long list of things a car must have to be sold in the USA for safety reason would boggle your mind.

Seizing and selling a house for $500 in back taxes?...I doubt any jurisdiction would do that for that amount, but if they did, they don't take the house and make a county office building out of it, they sell it on the courthouse steps, which by definition assures market value is paid for it, and everything beyond the $500 owed and the expense of foreclosure and sale goes to the owner, so they got just compensation. Granted, they most of the time get the bare minimum of what can be called fair market value (market value is what someone is willing to pay, an auction assures that at least one legal definition of fair market value was paid) but that is perhaps the cost of stupidity. You haven't lost a house to foreclosure yet, have you?
I suspect you'll verify this information, the hard way, if you even own any real estate.

[Patriotdiscussions]

...


I see, so when they regulate how dark my window tint is, that's them regulating the public road, not my private auto.

Makes sense to an idiot.

No, that's them regulating for the protection of other people from idiots who darken their windows the degree that it's an impediment to safe driving.

That's right, Its all about safety, maybe that's why they finally started testing drivers years AFTER giving out licenses to anyone like they were cracker Jack prizes, lmfao.

[Patriotdiscussions]

North Dakota...just because a state does not regulate something, is not proof that they CAN'T, there are any number of things legal in some states but not in others, gambling comes to mind.

Window Tint...its a safety standard, just like MANY things about your car that most people are not aware of, things that I know about because of what I do for a living that I'm sure you never thought of. How dark the glass can be, how hard the parking mechanism metal must be, how reliable the leak proofing on transmission cases and I imagine engine blocks and radiators must be to prevent the spilling of hazardous materials. The very long list of things a car must have to be sold in the USA for safety reason would boggle your mind.

Seizing and selling a house for $500 in back taxes?...I doubt any jurisdiction would do that for that amount, but if they did, they don't take the house and make a county office building out of it, they sell it on the courthouse steps, which by definition assures market value is paid for it, and everything beyond the $500 owed and the expense of foreclosure and sale goes to the owner, so they got just compensation. Granted, they most of the time get the bare minimum of what can be called fair market value (market value is what someone is willing to pay, an auction assures that at least one legal definition of fair market value was paid) but that is perhaps the cost of stupidity. You haven't lost a house to foreclosure yet, have you?
I suspect you'll verify this information, the hard way, if you even own any real estate.

Well I can see that you don't work in the back tax sales area for sure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... h-nothing/

See how five seconds of Google proved you wrong?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Let me help explain it Gregg, the city takes the house for 500 bucks in back taxes, it then sells it to me for the 500, the owner has a year or two depending the state you are in. He has this time to pay off the taxes, but the investor is legal entitled to some interest on the money put out on the house. If he does not pay, I own the house for 500, then turn around and sell it, OWNER GETS NOTHING.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Now again, you say this is perfectly in line with property rights and the fifth, even though it is clear that just compensation is not paid.

The only way this could NOT be unconstitutional is if the property taken was in fact NOT private property to begin with.

[Patriotdiscussions]

https://www.foreclosure.com/tax_deed_sales.html

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-es ... ale-1.aspx

http://www.realtor.com/advice/happens-b ... -tax-sale/


That should help you understand the process more.

[noblepa]

Let me help explain it Gregg, the city takes the house for 500 bucks in back taxes, it then sells it to me for the 500, the owner has a year or two depending the state you are in. He has this time to pay off the taxes, but the investor is legal entitled to some interest on the money put out on the house. If he does not pay, I own the house for 500, then turn around and sell it, OWNER GETS NOTHING.

IANAL (and neither are you), but I know of no jurisdiction in which properties seized for back taxes are sold by any other method than public auction. That means that the only way you can buy that house for $500 is if you are the only bidder. If I come in and bid $600, I will get the house.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that the city/county/state is going to add foreclosure costs to the taxes owed, no government is going to simply call you up and sell it to you for the outstanding tax bill.

All that being said, the city has no responsibility, and no real interest in seeing that the homeowner receives the best price for the home. Many, if not most foreclosed homes are in pretty sad shape and don't bring much at auction, so the homeowner doesn't get very much, if anything. In addition, there may be a mortgage lender involved, who has priority over the homeowner. If a house is worth significantly more than the outstanding mortgage and tax bill, and the homeowner can't pay the mortgage or taxes, he/she would be stupid to not put the house on the market and sell it, in which case they will probably get much more, or at least be able to walk away with their credit rating intact.

None of this constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property, nor does it prove that the property was, in fact, public property.

Some people argue that, when I take out a mortgage to buy a home, the bank owns the house until I pay off the mortgage. That is not true. The lender has a security interest in the property, but can not tell me what color to paint it, whether to put carpet or hardwood floors in the living room, or tell me that I can not sell it, or what price to ask. They CAN insist that I pay off the mortgage when I sell the house, but, as long as I pay the mortgage, they have no say in what I do with the house.

Likewise, the city/county/state has a security interest in the house, to insure that the property taxes are paid, but that does not make my house public property. Even the police, except with probable cause and/or a warrant, can not enter my house without my permission.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...


I see, so when they regulate how dark my window tint is, that's them regulating the public road, not my private auto.

Makes sense to an idiot.

No, that's them regulating for the protection of other people from idiots who darken their windows to the degree that it's an impediment to safe driving.

That's right, Its all about safety, maybe that's why they finally started testing drivers years AFTER giving out licenses to anyone like they were cracker Jack prizes, lmfao.

Is there a meaningful point in there somewhere?