[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