[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

J.A. Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Fri Mar 29 23:50:18 UTC 2002


Russ Johnson wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 15:44, J.A. Henshaw wrote:
> 
>>Something,  maybe... but not land ownership. I am still correct.
>>
> 
> And I disagree. If I own the deed, I own the land it describes. I also
> pay taxes to receive services (police, fire, etc). 
> 
> 


You may disagree,  but you'd be mistaken.  However,  the 
topic is complicated- more so than you are willing to commit 
  the effort to understand.

I have already pointed out that homesteads were given a land 
patent.

The difference is immense and not inconsequential, and it is 
what I am trying to convey to you albeit unsuccessfully.

The fact that you are content with what you have,  has no 
bearing upon the accuracy of what I am relating to you.




>>Yes,  I know.. freedom for safety, yada yada Patrick Henry 
>>had a few words for you.
>>
> 
> And I don't think Patrick Henry would have much of a problem with making
> sure his neighbor doesn't build a structure that's topple over on his
> property, causing property values to plummet. 
> 
> 
>>Well,  duh,  this is *only* unconstitutional.
>>
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 


Perhaps if you kept the context intact:

 >
 >>the penal codes ( grow marijuana, etc)
 >>
 >
 > Well, duh.
 >

The constitution does not provide for confiscation of 
private property without due process,  does not allow 
military to be used against civilians, and common law does 
not provide for a vote about what your neighbors crops are.

A crop that cannot be proven to cause you harm is not 
something that you have a cause of action for.
Nor does the govt have a cause of action to uproot them.

Is this understandable?  I realize you have likely not ever 
been exposed to the simple truth of these claims in your 
travels,  but that doesn't change a thing.

Freedom is so scary, ain't it.







More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list