[gldskr]

Originally posted by JG
We will have to agree to disagree.Perhaps

If you think absolute ownership and qualified ownership are 'one in the same', we have no basis in communication. Obviously, I made no such claim, it is your contextual errors that is the basis for any miscommunication. From the context of real estate absolute ownership is possible in regards to title. Congruently, qualified ownership is also a requisite because its context is time(the qualification). As I stated, as long as the transaction is done properly, the two may coexist. It is a jurisdictional issue where the interest must be 100%.

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 )Because you couldn't find a reference in "law", therefore absolute ownership does not exist? Apparently, Black's does not agree. Again, you are mired in the misapplication of context. Qualified ownership does not and cannot apply to title, only to the interest that accrues from title. When the absolute owner of real estate dies, his qualified interest in the property is passed on to his heirs. They are now the new absolute owners, provided they don't do something stupid. All property has qualified ownership, it is just a matter of degree.

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)OK, then I'll say it, all statutes are directory only, with regard to We the People. A directory law cannot compel performance, becuase the contract which such law purports to enforce, is controlling. A directory law can only become mandatory by contract.

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.Is it not possible for one man to have absolute ownership and give another man 100% interest? Interest is not title, perhaps you understand this by now.

Land can certainly be bought and sold. The possession of land is the basis of law since time immemorial. Obviously, you don't know know the relationship between land and grants. Possession is irrelevant, rights derive from title.

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.This is the MO of tyrants of all stripes.

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.Not necessarily, I may freely sojourn across this country without owning land. I just make sure I sojuorn in the proper jurisdiction.

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.Times change, people don't. Its always been this way. Education is paramount.

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.
Yes and no.

gldskr

-------------