Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gldskr
JG
You seem to be hung up on private property vs. real estate. They are one and the same, provided the transaction has been done properly. With a clear understanding of what land is, maybe real estate won't be the bogeyman you imagine it to be.
As correctly stated in Black's, the land is one thing, an estate in land is another. The land exists in perpetuity. It is not dirt, water and trees, but a concept delineated by the reality of its four corners. It cannot be the subject of any sale,trade or purchase as it can only be given freely.
Real estate is the proper term for the conveyance of that which lies upon the land. It is completely possible for one to have absolute ownership in real estate. It is also a certainty that one's estate in land is for a limited time only. That, however, does not diminish ones absolute ownership, provided one has a 100% interest.
Of course not, but it does apply to entities and that is how 99% of all real estate transactions transpire. As you correctly stated, statutes are directory only. When you enter the statutory world, jurisdiction comes into play, one that is contractual in nature.
Absolute ownership can only exist in one jurisdiction. As long as you continue to confuse apples and oranges, your conclusions will always resemble fruit salad.
gldskr
|
JG: We will have to agree to disagree.
If you think absolute ownership and qualified ownership are 'one in the same', we have no basis in communication.
I have not found any reference in law, that states one can have absolute ownership in real estate. (I've seen "absolute estate", but that's either an oxymoron, or a deliberate obfuscation, since estate, by definition, is held with qualified ownership). All ad valorem taxes are levied on estate. There are no constitutional taxes or duties levied on private property. (see original post and the Texas constitution cites )
I did not state that statutes are directory only. I posted the definition of "shall" which would be construed to mean "may" IF A PROPERTY RIGHT WAS AT RISK by treating the law as compulsory. (likewise a directory law can become mandatory if a right is injured by failing to compel obedience)
And '100% interest' cannot be absolute ownership since the definition states that an interest is less than title. A title deed to realty is not a title to private property, either.
Land can certainly be bought and sold. The possession of land is the basis of law since time immemorial.
Only socialist pirates wish the owners of land to believe that they cannot own it, so that the "Collective" may take it from them - for their own good.
In short, absolute ownership of land, as private property is the prerequisite for exercising natural liberty. One cannot claim sovereign prerogatives unless one owns private property and has his domicile there.
Since 1935, and the socialist revolution, Americans have been indoctrinated and programmed to think otherwise.
Every day, we're treated to buzz words like "resident" residing at a residence. Or that we all owe our "fair share" of taxes. Or that death and taxes are inevitable. Even our religious leaders have been corrupted, if Ezekiel 18:13 KJV is correct.
But if you wish to truly enjoy the republican form of government in which the people are sovereign, you had better absolutely own your domain as private property. Estate is NOT protected from being taken for public use.