HOA Nut House

Perhaps if you stop the insults, such as accusing others of having an "agenda", you might find people more receptive. Your entire demeanor is combative. And, I might add, you have consistently been wrong on the law.

Frankly, I do not know what your point is, or if you have one - other than arguing. And I won't participate in that further with you.

Perhaps Mika will post her take on Molloy.

Since the prior posts were left out of this response, it had to do with the provisions in Arizona for foreclosures which were contrary to those which were earlier represented....

As far as Judge Molloy....his article pretty clearly speaks for itself with respect to the judiciary/attorney collusion in the courts...and his positions on the Constitution, and what 'case law' and 'selective' interpretations of 'case law' have done....and how the public is now being ill served.

Which was also my positions from the beginning....the public isn't being served, because the 'law has lost it's way.'

And as far as insults....pull the prior posts and it is apparent who is actually the abuser in these posts...and who uses them to promote the 'Bar' positions, rather than actual 'Constitutional' provisions...and insults those who do not agree, that is more than clear.

And the two which I posted with the founder's actual works on 'property rights' and their positions in response to those misrepresentations of yours also it appears now missing....which refuted the post which went into the travesties instead inflicted on the Indians....

A censored site, it does appear, if not in accordance with 'case law.'

Anon1, we get it. The "law has lost its way". Ok. You made your point.

And the travesty with the Indians is the early history of real property law in this country.

Are you done?

If I may interject, would not agree that the Indian history presented was actually the founders version of real property law at all,

From the Virginia Bill Of Rights, 1776:
>
>"SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and
have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society,
they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment
of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing
and obtaining happiness and safety."

>"A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will",
according to Alexander Hamilton (quoted from The Federalist #79, online at http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/
Federalist/fed79.htm).

John Adams said that "[t]he moment that idea is admitted into society that
property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law
and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be
sacred or li berty cannot exist.

>"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson
to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440

Madison understood that the protection of property is the foundation of all
freedoms. He said, "... a man is said to have a right to his property, he may
be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails,
property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person,
his faculties, or his possissions".

>"The central argument is that private or several property serves as a guarantor
of liberty, quite independently of how political or collective decisions are made.
The direct implication is, of course, that effective constitutional limits must
be present, limits that will effectively constrain overt political intrusions into
rights of property, as legally defined, and into voluntary contractual arrangements
involving transfer of property. If individual liberty is to be protected, such constitut
ional limits must be in place prior to and separately from any exercise of democratic
governance."

>"[We in America entertain] a due sense of our equal right to... the acquisitions
of our own industry." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

And here is the famous quote from the much admired case, "BOYD v. U S,
116 U.S. 616 (1886)"[17], (referring to a decision by the English jurist, Lord
Camden):
>The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional
liberty and security. They reach further than the concrete form of the case then
before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions
on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home
and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging
of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion
of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property,
where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense.
. ."

And the Indians in the first 'treaty' for Manhattan Island, were actually quite delighted with the beads, since they were a nomadic people and didn't feel they owned the land at all.

It is apparent there is more evidence to support their view of inalienable rights, than the Indian history presented, since this is advertised as a forum for uncensored debate, felt the other side should be given equal time.

Thanks.

>

If you do not think this government's treatment of Indians is not early property law in this country, you are sadly mistaken. The issue of private property rights was only heightened by this whole tension and the many problems of transfering "title" to Indian lands.

Of course our "Founding Fathers" believed in private property rights.. but it is NOT as black and white as you like to make it seem, Anon1.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that the English common law had, in fact, for many years retreated from the feudal understanding of the crown owning all property. By the time of the American revolution, William Blackstone had organized and codified much of this common law esp re property.
However, England renewed the old idea of the Crown' title - in the sense of the "right of discovery" that was reminiscent of the feudal "title" by the King. This was convenient during the time of the colonization of America. Similarly, the early Americans ALSO claimed title to Indian lands by "Right of Discovery" and through the "King".

You think my discussion previously was irrelevant. On the contrary, it is exactly the point. YES, private property was important to the early Americans - but WHOSE property? Not the Indian's. All I am saying, for God's sakes, is that our "Founding Fathers" were not saints.

I do not always quote Wikipedia (because it is often wrong and it is not verified), but this is pretty accurate:
"Fee simple is an estate in land in common law. It is the most common way real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved for governments. Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat and could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed. How ownership is limited by these government powers often involves the shift from allodial title to fee simple such as when uniting with other property owners acceding to property restrictions or municipal regulation." This was true in old English common law and that carried over to the "new land" of "America".

Private property has ALWAYS had limits. It has NEVER been an absolute right - not in England and not in the United States. The Constitution does not claim it is an absolute right. Read the 5th and the 14th Amendment.

And some people had "more rights" than others to private property - long after the Constitution was ratified by the states. Women were still considered "chattel" under this new government - and, they had no right to own property. Before they married, "their" property belonged to their fathers. Upon marriage, all property was the husband's.
And, of course, blacks had no property rights, either.

I have always found the need to deify our "Founding Fathers" dangerous and myopic. If you want to have those liberties that our "Founding Fathers" wrote into law, then you SHOULD be able to criticize our govenrment, and that includes even our "Founding Fathers". To blame your problems and everything under God on "lawyers" is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in my life. Life is not and never was so black and white - there are not demons and saints. Ok, well maybe in YOUR mind there are, but I live amongst real people.

When people live together in any kind of civilized society, there are no "ABSOLUTE" rights. That is the nature of any society. Our Constiuttion does not guarantee us ABSOLUTE rights, either - not even to "life". It does guarantee certain protections from governmental deprivation of the rights we have, without due process of law - without some kind of notice and a hearing...

I do note that those that scream the loudest about their PRIVATE property (the "It's MINE" mentality) are also the first to gripe about paying taxes, and contributing to the society they enjoy that makes these rights possible.

This whole "anti-income tax" stand is the most selfish, short-sided "ME ME" mentality I think I have ever seen.
Do you think you live on AIR? Do you think that by the fruit of YOUR labor you obtained the lifestyle you now enjoy? I would like to see where you or any of us would be if we relied solely on our own "labors" and not on those of our fellows.

I have nothing but loathing for such a mentality. Not one of us has an "absolute right" to property, liberty OR life. We must live with other people - or maybe you don't . The rest of us do. The balance has ALWAYS been how to protect individual liberties AND society.

We know what selfish and self-centered greed and stupidity (and crony capitalism) gets us - look at the mess we are in with this White House. With this mentality, we lose BOTH individual liberty AND a healthy society.

Betsy Ross was a property owner in her own right, unless you don't know anything again about U.S. history, after losing two husbands in the war, and it would appear she knows more about the founder's intent and Constitution than your 'legal' defense of the Indians.

And while it took a long while, although women were not given the 'vote,' they were not 'chattel' at all, since the 'marriage contract' when it was broken provided support for both they, and children, so you are wrong again, as 'equals' with the major responsibility of educating the future generations of Americans.

'No fault divorce' is a product also of this generation. And again, 'slaves' were actually not mistreated by the founders, and were generously provided for by the landholders 'employing' their services...the 'abuse' came later, and a war was fought then to balance those inequities.

The postings of 'Betsy Ross' clearly exhibit the intent of the founders, and arguing with 'facts' to defend indefensible positions seems to be the current crop of claimed 'lawyers' bent in their 'corporate' mentalities.

No, Betsy Ross was NOT a property owner. Neither Betsy Ross nor any of her three husbands owned property.

I don't know what your point is with all this, and I don't think you do either. Your only interest seems to be pointless arguing.

So go argue with yourself. Or better yet, go read that Constitution you use as a weapon and a tool to feed your hatred.

You will need to call the Betsy Ross House in Philadelphia. Since I was born there, and visited there this past March upon my aunt's death, you are very wrong...she was a property owner, and in the tour also go over her life...

You can get the number off the web, I'm sure.

I won't bother. You are incorrect, once again.

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/prove239.html

Ok, then why don't YOU show us proof or ANY documentation that Betsy Ross owned property? Nowhere does *Betsy Ross* (you) quote a source making this claim.

Or ANY proof that the Founding Fathers intended that property ownership be ABSOLUTE.

Or any of the other absurd, ignorant and totally incorrect assertions you make. Who do you think you are convincing with this idiocy?

Why don't you try READING the Constitution you so belligerently yell about?

Oh, and your comment about the Indians being "delighted" is woeful and hopelessly ignorant.

As to my clients? You don't need to worry about them. You might try taking care of yourself, since you seem to have trouble doing that.

You and this discussion are a total waste of time.

Well, Mika, this is the kind of garbage that one gets by talking more than listening - and opening mouth before opening mind to read and think for oneself. My spouse has become quite a historian in property law and the history of the Indian grants. As a result, we have piles of books (not political but historical texts, law and critiques. I couldn't help but NOT read them. And then in law school, my property law professor started the class with the discussion of the land grabs. This WAS the beginning of our American property law.... and in fact, the issues with the native Americans are still being litigated. No, the Indians were NOT happy campers.

Nor were the women who were in every respect treated as second-class citizens, including the laws that prohibited them from owning property.
ould not own property.

I like what Abigail Adams said:
ABIGAIL ADAMS TO JOHN ADAMS
MARCH 31, 1776:
"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

"Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.

"Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

"That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up -- the harsh tide of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend.

"Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?

"Men of sense in all ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the (servants) of your sex; regard us then as being placed by Providence under your protection, and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness."

The ladies were not remembered, and it took many years of hard work to obtain rights that men freely enjoyed. A woman lacked even the simple rights like conveying property (they had none to convey), and to keep and control her own wages. It was yet a long time before she would have the opportunity to vote - freed slaves got the vote before women did.

It is very disturbing that Americans in this day and age can be so poorly educated. And so nationalistic - and no, nationalism is NOT a good thing. That is a sign and symptom of fascism, as history has shown us. When self-righteousness rears its ugly head, one's cognition becomes tunnel vision.

Ever notice how these charicatures sound just like a tape?

But what can we expect when our "news" is nothing more than talking head entertainment, and we have a "President" who actually manages to convince half the country that down is up. And he is not even believable! That is what so astonished me, I think more than anything. Bush IS a charicature. He sounds phony. He is no orator.
He is probably the most "mentally challenged" President we have ever had in this country - and half the people hear him talk about "staying the course" so then they all go out parroting the same thing?
Oh this makes my head hurt.

Oh that's right - you are too right wing even for Bush. Scary thought.

Yes, the Indians were just thrilled with their new "freedom" to sell property and move away from their homeland of generations:

Appealing to the U.S. government in 1830, the Cherokee stated:

"We are not willing to remove, and if we could be brought to this extremity, it would be, not by argument, not because our judgment was satisfied; not because our condition will be improved-but only because we cannot endure to be deprived of our national and individual rights, and subjected to a process of intolerable oppression." (Levy, 95)

Even suggesting that they were "happy with the beads" is so stunning, so insulting, so utterly ignorant that I am at a loss for words. I have been flabberghasted, in fact, on a number of horribly wrong understandings of the law and history Anon1 has.