--- jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2006 at 13:49, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> > > Just like
> > > receiving stolen property today, it can be hard
> to
> > > prove in some cases but even if someone takes
> > > possession unknowingly they still lose
> possession
> > > once the crime is acknowledged. [JT]
> >
> > My point about the right wing property thesis
> > underlying your argument still stands.
> >
> > Your proposition that you lose possession once
> "the
> > crime is acknowledged" is not generally correct as
> a
> > matter of law.
JT > No it does not apply to real estate but it
applies
> to other property. Recently a man recovered a car
> stolen
> almost 35 years ago. . . . This has happened with
> paintings and other goods recently as well with some
> of the
> items having been stolen in the 1930's.
I don't know about the car, and the paintings recovered from Nazi thefts were not recovered under American law. But here is the relevant provision from the Uniform Commercial Code (governing sale of goods. Please notice that a good faith purchaser for value may acquire good title regardless of whether the procurement of the goods was larcenous under the criminal law.
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES ..PART 4. TITLE, CREDITORS AND GOOD FAITH PURCHASERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; "Entrusting". (1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though
(a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or (b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or (c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", or (d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law. (2) Any entrusting of possession of goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind gives him power to transfer all rights of the entruster to a buyer in ordinary course of business.
(3) "Entrusting" includes any delivery and any acquiescence in retention of possession regardless of any condition expressed between the parties to the delivery or acquiescence and regardless of whether the procurement of the entrusting or the possessor's disposition of the goods have been such as to be larcenous under the criminal law.
[Note: If a state adopts the repealer of Article 6-Bulk Transfers (Alternative A), subsec. (4) should read as follows:]
(4) The rights of other purchasers of goods and of lien creditors are governed by the Articles on Secured Transactions (Article 9) and Documents of Title (Article 7).
[Note: If a state adopts Revised Article 6-Bulk Sales (Alternative B), subsec. (4) should read as follows:]
(4) The rights of other purchasers of goods and of lien creditors are governed by the Articles on Secured Transactions (Article 9), Bulk Sales (Article 6) and Documents of Title (Article 7).
Whether they
> are charged with receiving stolen property is
> determined by their good faith. Conveniently this
> does not hold true for real estate? I wonder why?
I'm not a real estate lawyer, it's late, and I can't find the relevant provisions with a quick google search. But the Wickipedia (not a legal authority) has an explanation that seems plausible:
For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been a heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).
The extinguishing of ancient, forgotten, or unasserted claims, such as E's in the example above, was the original purpose of statutes of limitations. Otherwise, title to property would always be uncertain.
\
>
> > Moreover, there is the law of adverse possession,
> > which does apply to realty, and says roughly,
> > depending on state, that if you occupy someone'
> > property openly an notoriously without their
> > permission and without their taking specific steps
> to
> > evict you, after a certain period, usually seven
> to
> > ten years, it's yours.
>
> A legal convenience that originated to allowed
> settlers to legally steal land. In other words, the
> exceptions
> to the rules concerning property are also made to
> enhance the position of the occupiers in gaining
> control
> over more property. Pretty slick.
Adverse possession is much older than settlers and has an origin in England rather than America. The authoritative study of the The Land Law by AWB Simpson gives an example from 1650 in a way indicating that it was old even then (p. 150). The purpose was not to let settlers steal land but to allow unused land owned by absentee landlords in England to be put to productive use.
The fear isn't on the
> part of most citizens but many policy makers in this
> country
> fear exactly this very thing. Your denial doesn't
> change that.
Please name me any significant policymaker in this country (or group of policymakers) who thinks that any minority group's demand for reparations for wrongs long past the statute of limitations is a subject of concern, financial or otherwise.
>
> What symbolic statements are you referring to? You
> think minorities want reparations as a symbol of
> some
> kind?
No, the demand is symbolic because reparations will never be paid this side of the revolution.
>
> > > There is almost no way the ceding of native
> lands
> > > could ever be considered non-coercive.
You are using "coercive" broadly to mean "bargaining from a position of strength," for example, with people weakened by disease. There's nothing wrong with that on the Nozickean theory you attribute to the European settlers, unless you intentionally caused the other party's weaker position, and then only under special circumstances. I may, as an ethical businessman, deliberately drive you to the brink of bankruptcy, then snap up your assets at a bargain price,a and that's just the way the game is played. What I can't do is rob you by threat or application or force or defraud you -- of course there was a lot of that going on with acquisition of NA land, but you have to look at each case.
> Why don't you give me list of these treaties that
> were made on equal or near equal terms that
> relinquished
> native claims to the land so I can see the evidence
> for this myself. I know of no such treaties but
> apparently
> you do. Which ones are they?
I'm also not expert on Indian law. But when the first settlers came, they were the ones in the position of weakness, and in a number of cases, e.g., the early days of the Mass. Bay Colony, the local tribes seem to have been content to let the Europeans settlers without threats of force or fraud.
I think no one should
> own land, that it should all be held in a public
> trust but
> that isn't the reality of this time and place.
We're on the same page here.
> > > No NA's did not steal anything. You can't steal
> from
> > > no one. No one was here to steal from. The idea
> that
> > > NA's behaved except in a few isolated cases
> "like
> > > everyone else as a general rule in grabbing each
> > > other's
> > > land" is difficult for you to truly believe if
> you
> > > also believe, as you claim, "notions of private
> > > ownership of
> > > real estate that are Euro-American and (in my
> > > understanding) often have no NA counterparts.".
Please don't can't about what I truly believe; limit yourself to the implications of my statements. I know very little about pre-Colombian NA property concepts. Or post-Columbian ones either. I do know that there was a lot of warfare, enslavement, dispossession, and land grabbing among NAs. They weren't saints or Noble Savages. Perhaps their ethics and customs and laws permitted that, but then the settlers' ethics and customs and laws permitted what they did. So that's neither here nor there. That sort of conduct is wrong whatever the people do do it may think. Now my point is that if there is some sort of unextinguished right of the first owners, the land the settlers stole from the NAs was itself, in many cases, stolen from others -- by the correct standards, not the ones necessarily accepted by any group.
A final point. My ancestors came to America around the turn of the last century to try to make a living (honest or not -- a number of my ancestors and more of my wife's were hoodlums) because as Jews they were persecuted and oppressed in Russia, Poland, Lithuania and Hungary. (MY own background.) Thee last thing on their minds was stealing from the Indians. Neither did they enjoy white skin privilege when the got here; Jews weren't white in those days. That doesn't mean that I don't or am not.
But I'll be damned if I'm going to feel guilty about what General Sheridan did. That sort of shit annoys me, and since I'm largely on your side, you can imagine what it does to the undecided. Trying to make people feel bad and guilty, especially about stuff they did not do, is counterproductive. I'm outraged at the treatment, past and present of the NAs; and you should try to make other people feel that way too. Guilt generates resentment, not solidarity.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com