Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look at Jayz making mucho $$$$$$$$ in a country founded by all white men, yet he goes and wears that disgusting thing around his neck. If he was still in Africa he'd be chasing zebras, or if he was really lucky he'd be hired help.
There were plenty of people here before white folks arrived here.
Besides, YOU didn't find anything. You're here because your ancestors couldn't hack it in Europe.
I'm here because once they got here, they were too lazy to do their own work.
Get it? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
Their enemies in the next town over in the next tribe were also Africans which means they were indeed "their people". Your attempts to dismiss facts are pathetic.
So did the Germans kill "their people" in Russia, Poland, Belarus, France, Holland, and every other European country they overran in WW2?
Did they murder 6 million of "their people" in Auschwitz?
No they have records of county property taxes, long before and after the federal government drew a line and said this is ours.
They undoubted paid property tax to the county for their homestead but not for the surrounding federal land where they grazed their cattle.
BTW: the federal government owned the land before the county was formed - there was no seizure.
How is it this stupidity lingers? This is 100% inaccurate. Read the history of the settlement and statehood of Nevada, including the Nevada enabling act.
The western states DID NOT WANT lands that the federal government holds and manages. This is in EVERY western state enabling act.
Try again.
Evidently someone wanted it and homesteaded it for 140 years.
The BLM has taken land..... The BLM now manages 84% of Arizona.
Counties still tax those within the boundaries for revenue.
Yeah, that "tired, poor, huddled masses, wretched refuse.................."
Yep. They LOVE to forget that part.
He seems to conveniently forget which group came here voluntarily (because they couldn't hack it in Mother Europe) and which group came here involuntarily (because they were presumably doing just fine back home).
The federal government held these lands well before any western statehood. They tried giving it away (Homestead Act). What people took is now private land; what was not settled remained in control of the federal government. Upon statehood the various states relinquished certain lands they thought too wild, unproductive, and without value, and asked the government to control and manage them.
From the Nevada enabling act: "Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States"
Yes, it's amazing how cafeteria patriots just make stuff up and ignore the bits of law and history they don't like. History of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Over 80% of the Nevada area is owned by the federal government, as homesteads of maximum 640 acres (2.6 km2) in the arid state were generally too little land for a viable farm. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze cattle on the adjacent public land, which is useless without access to water.
How is it this stupidity lingers? This is 100% inaccurate. Read the history of the settlement and statehood of Nevada, including the Nevada enabling act.
The western states DID NOT WANT lands that the federal government holds and manages. This is in EVERY western state enabling act.
Try again.
Quote:
The legal theory underlying the vesting of title by adverse possession is that title to land must be certain. Since the owner has, by his or her own fault and neglect, failed to protect the land against the hostile actions of the adverse possessor, an adverse possessor who has treated the land as his or her own for a significant period of time is recognized as its owner.
Adverse possession consists of actual occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for oneself. Merely claiming the land or paying taxes on it, without actually possessing it, is insufficient. Entry on the land, whether legal or not, is essential.
Berger, Lawrence. 1999. "Unification of the Doctrines of Adverse Possession and Practical Location in the Establishment of Boundaries." Nebraska Law Review 78 (winter): 1–17.
Bloch, David S., and James Parton III. 2001. "The Intent Theory of Extinguishment under California Law." Southwestern University Law Review 30 (winter): 221–52.
Gonski, Dennis M. 2001. "Disrupting More Than a Half Century of Accepted Law." New Jersey Law Journal (June 18).
Latovick, Paula R. 1998. "Adverse Possession of Municipal Land: It's Time to Protect This Valuable Asset." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 31 (winter): 475–513.
Spitler, William Hayden. 2000. "Over a Century of Doubt and Confusion: Adverse Possession in Arkansas, Intent to Hold Adversely and Recognition of Superior Title." Arkansas Law Review 53 (spring): 459–87.
Stake, Jeffrey Evans. 2001. "The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession." Georgetown Law Journal 89 (August): 2419–74.
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-11-2014 at 03:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
