8b82b035
From: one-if-by-land@concord.com
"Pat" wrote in message
news:3fb3d6d5-839a-4447-94ac-eed2078a1030@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 10:34 am, "Don" wrote:
> "Pat" wrote in message
>
> news:0963c024-6065-4adb-9e66-adb04c23b5b5@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 5, 9:41 pm, "Don" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Pat" wrote in message
>
> >news:0eade987-c5a9-4d2d-8998-869c8e68eaa5@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 5, 10:00 am, "Don" wrote:
>
> > > "Edgar"> wrote
>
> > > >> I didn't purchase my property from an indian so I owe nothing to
> > > >> some
> > > >> phantom indian.
>
> > > > Oh well who bouhgt the land before you, and who did they get it
> > > > from.
>
> > > I don't care who they bought it from, its none of my business.
>
> > Sure it's your business how the previous owner acquired it. That's
> > why you bought title insurance. A deed is worth nothing without
> > something way to substantiate it and some way to legally address and
> > deficiencies.
>
> > Otherwise, here's the scenario. I go and (quite legally) give a quit
> > claim deed to YOUR property to Michael. Michael then goes and evicts
> > you because he has a legal deed to your property. You humbly move out
> > and leave because you don't care about past ownership and how it was
> > acquired. Bye-bye.
>
> > I can give a quit-claim deed to any piece of property I want,
> > perfectly legally. And just because Michael paid for it, so what.
>
> > How the land was acquired IS important.
>
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > Well yeah, in reality.
> > Not the fantasy context Edgar was talking about.
> > I just think its funny when people bring up the indian thing, hundreds
> > of
> > years after the fact, and never once considering the indians supposedly
> > didn't believe in land ownership, were largely nomadic, and were living
> > on
> > land that was inhabited by other farther back in the calendar.
> > Regardless, I didn't steal anything but rather traded the efforts of my
> > own
> > toil for property I wanted.
>
> Actually, it is a real concern in many areas. Outside of Syracuse NY
> two tribes have HUGE land claims going on. They want tens-of-
> thousands of acres back where there is no treaty (or an invalid
> treaty) regarding the loss of the land. It could force thousands of
> people off "their lands" (with a nebulous definition of who "their"
> is).
>
> Closer to me, the Seneca Nation has claimed the land where the NYS
> Thruway (US 90) crosses their land. There was a treaty, but NYS
> failed to perform their part of the treaty in regards to lieu lands
> and therefore the Senecas have basically terminated the treaty. They
> have shut that road down before and may do so again.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++
> That has to be worked out by the dealmakers, original vs current.
> Just off the top of my skall I tell the chief, or whatever s/he's called,
> 'Prove the land is yours'.
> Then reverse engineer it from there.
> Maybe they can give him some beads to make him go away. =D
>
> In your latter scenario, the state renegged, so what else is new?
> As some around here would say, 'Get over it already'.
> And if they don't wanna do that then 'They can just move to another
> country'.
> I mean, we all live under the same constitution, right? heh
They aren't getting over it. They are going to Federal court. Go
give them beads. They have high-priced, Washington lawyers and our
out to get back land. If they were after your land, you'd be scared
s**tless.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
But wait, you said title insurance protects the property owner.
Who, in your opinion is at fault in that scenario?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
