I purchased my land and house straight out now if I don't pay taxes the county can steal it. So technically I don't own the land the government does. That being said tell me the difference between unlodial a land patent and the rest of them. My understanding is if you have a land patent or a lot of title you do not have to give up your property if they try to steal it
Notes: Ownership gives the right to possess, control, exclude, enjoy, destroy, and dispose. Ownership can be acquired by {discovery, capture, gift, transfer, conquest, *creation*} *First to possess acquires ownership *Gifts must be accepted *Conquest ~= Adverse Possession, Finding Lost Property(?) *Creation includes IP = {trademarks, copyrights, patents, ...} The ownership of all parties that claim ownership must add up to 100% of the total ownership of the property. The lost iPhone example is interesting because an iPhone contains private information on it. Allowing ownership by find could cause some sort of public policy concerns that are greater than the concern that the iPhone will go unused. Maybe for something with private information the statutes should require that property with private information is brought to the authorities to resolve finding the true owner. A major issue is how do you incentivize that conduct. A finder's fee would also incentivize stealing private information....
Generally, before you can claim lost property as your own, first, it must be found on land you own (and also not on a right of way easement) and that you make reasonable attempt to find the owner which includes a reasonable time for the actual owner to claim it. If I broke down in my new 'Vette and pulled to the side of the road in front of your house, could you immediately claim it as your own? No. Same for iPhone, etc. Each State may be a little different on how you claim lost property, so check your own state laws.
@@2Truth4Liberty That's more to do with tort law that property law. Acquisition by find doesn't have to be done lawfully. However, that affects who may take action against who -- like you said. Also, there is a difference in lost and misplaced property (McAvoy v. Medina). So, breaking down doesn't give people the ability to 'lawfully' dispossess you of your vehicle. Still, even if acquisition is done unlawfully that affects who has rights over who. The person that originally acquired by find property that they knew wasn't theirs still has greater claim than people that come along later that aren't the rightful owner (Armory v. Delamirie). Then, there's of course the theory of adverse possession....
I fought my City for the right to place signs in the right of way. After I won the case in federal court, the City repealed all of its sign regulations and none have been imposed ever since (5+ year ago) Good Luck!!!
25:50 Well, that concept got severely eviscerated in one fell swoop. Kelo v. City of New London :: 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens.
Also U.S. Const. amend. V, § 9. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" The law interprets terms including one part as excluding the rest. The right exists if you do not get just compensation. The right doesn't exist if you do get just compensation.
@@Dragon-jd1ks That "just compensation" must be provided is a given. The questions are -- What exactly is "public use"? And can property be taken for non-public use?
@@2Truth4Liberty Public use is whatever you argue it to be. Generally, there are some common characteristics of proper public use. For example, the public use has to just be an unbiased positive externality. Secondly, that benefit has to outweigh any sort of detriment brought to the owner.
@@Dragon-jd1ks I am not asking about what can be argued. I am asking what the COURT, right now TODAY would say is "public use"? Is it unbiased positive externality if the govt took your property, gave current market price for it, and then sell it to someone who would have paid you a lot more for it because their use is going to cause property values to skyrocket? All that okay becasue the govt also made made some money (economic benefit) on the deal and the owner was paid current market value rven though the owner was holding as future investment for just such a time? --- Do you tjhink KELO was correctly decided?
@2Truth4Liberty Read my last post and use those tests to evaluate why your example wouldn't work. In that case, if you lose, you would want to show that you have somebody else willing to pay more than they are offering so that you can prove you have more damages in the form of lost profit. The courts, right now, TODAY, say "public use" is whatever you argue it ... within the bounds of the tests that CAN be applied (but aren't always). Law is not science.
Be careful of speaking with extremes as a minor disagreement could cause you to lose all credibility. Make sure your languages matches the values for your expression. Don't say "enraged" when you mean "annoyed" and don't say "upset" when you mean "terrified." Worse than that, don't say "know Nothing" when you mean "don't know enough."
Excuse you sir you don't get to tell me what my property rights are what any of my rights are or art and you also don't get to tell me that you don't allow or I "we don't allow this or that because you're not the king of America so you're throwing that out there you don't decide what I can't again do thank you.
![Key Principles in Property Law [No. 86 LECTURE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5-baFmaNboA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Key Principles in Property Law [No. 86 LECTURE]](/img/tr.png)
![Second Amendment: Will the Supreme Court Adhere to Bruen in Rahimi and Beyond? [NLC 2023]](/img/n.gif)
I purchased my land and house straight out now if I don't pay taxes the county can steal it. So technically I don't own the land the government does. That being said tell me the difference between unlodial a land patent and the rest of them. My understanding is if you have a land patent or a lot of title you do not have to give up your property if they try to steal it
Notes:
Ownership gives the right to possess, control, exclude, enjoy, destroy, and dispose.
Ownership can be acquired by {discovery, capture, gift, transfer, conquest, *creation*}
*First to possess acquires ownership
*Gifts must be accepted
*Conquest ~= Adverse Possession, Finding Lost Property(?)
*Creation includes IP = {trademarks, copyrights, patents, ...}
The ownership of all parties that claim ownership must add up to 100% of the total ownership of the property.
The lost iPhone example is interesting because an iPhone contains private information on it. Allowing ownership by find could cause some sort of public policy concerns that are greater than the concern that the iPhone will go unused. Maybe for something with private information the statutes should require that property with private information is brought to the authorities to resolve finding the true owner.
A major issue is how do you incentivize that conduct. A finder's fee would also incentivize stealing private information....
Generally, before you can claim lost property as your own, first, it must be found on land you own (and also not on a right of way easement) and that you make reasonable attempt to find the owner which includes a reasonable time for the actual owner to claim it.
If I broke down in my new 'Vette and pulled to the side of the road in front of your house, could you immediately claim it as your own? No. Same for iPhone, etc.
Each State may be a little different on how you claim lost property, so check your own state laws.
@@2Truth4Liberty That's more to do with tort law that property law. Acquisition by find doesn't have to be done lawfully. However, that affects who may take action against who -- like you said. Also, there is a difference in lost and misplaced property (McAvoy v. Medina). So, breaking down doesn't give people the ability to 'lawfully' dispossess you of your vehicle. Still, even if acquisition is done unlawfully that affects who has rights over who. The person that originally acquired by find property that they knew wasn't theirs still has greater claim than people that come along later that aren't the rightful owner (Armory v. Delamirie). Then, there's of course the theory of adverse possession....
Fighting for my Private Property rights in Michigan as we speak.
I fought my City for the right to place signs in the right of way.
After I won the case in federal court, the City repealed all of its sign regulations and none have been imposed ever since (5+ year ago)
Good Luck!!!
25:50 Well, that concept got severely eviscerated in one fell swoop.
Kelo v. City of New London :: 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens.
Also
U.S. Const. amend. V, § 9.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
The law interprets terms including one part as excluding the rest. The right exists if you do not get just compensation. The right doesn't exist if you do get just compensation.
@@Dragon-jd1ks That "just compensation" must be provided is a given. The questions are -- What exactly is "public use"? And can property be taken for non-public use?
@@2Truth4Liberty Public use is whatever you argue it to be. Generally, there are some common characteristics of proper public use. For example, the public use has to just be an unbiased positive externality. Secondly, that benefit has to outweigh any sort of detriment brought to the owner.
@@Dragon-jd1ks I am not asking about what can be argued. I am asking what the COURT, right now TODAY would say is "public use"?
Is it unbiased positive externality if the govt took your property, gave current market price for it, and then sell it to someone who would have paid you a lot more for it because their use is going to cause property values to skyrocket? All that okay becasue the govt also made made some money (economic benefit) on the deal and the owner was paid current market value rven though the owner was holding as future investment for just such a time?
---
Do you tjhink KELO was correctly decided?
@2Truth4Liberty Read my last post and use those tests to evaluate why your example wouldn't work. In that case, if you lose, you would want to show that you have somebody else willing to pay more than they are offering so that you can prove you have more damages in the form of lost profit.
The courts, right now, TODAY, say "public use" is whatever you argue it ... within the bounds of the tests that CAN be applied (but aren't always). Law is not science.
31:13
This people know Nothing about property. The allodial possession is absolute. No taxes.
Be careful of speaking with extremes as a minor disagreement could cause you to lose all credibility. Make sure your languages matches the values for your expression. Don't say "enraged" when you mean "annoyed" and don't say "upset" when you mean "terrified." Worse than that, don't say "know Nothing" when you mean "don't know enough."
Zoning Order"nances" are out of control!
Excuse you sir you don't get to tell me what my property rights are what any of my rights are or art and you also don't get to tell me that you don't allow or I "we don't allow this or that because you're not the king of America so you're throwing that out there you don't decide what I can't again do thank you.
Where do you think your rights come from? God?
@@Dragon-jd1ks we are all equal as creators of our creator are God if you prefer
@@rockpauly3200 What you said was not coherent.