There are ways to take over property in some cases.
But its very hard to do and time consuming.
I know a few people that have done it,
Requirements for adverse possession
The adverse party is called the disseisor, meaning one who dispossesses the true owner of the property. The disseisor must openly occupy the property
exclusively, keeping out others, and use it as if it were his own. Some jurisdictions permit accidental adverse possession as might occur with a
surveying error. Generally, the openly hostile possession must be continual (although not necessarily continuous or constant) without challenge or
permission from the lawful owner, for a fixed statutory period to acquire title. Where the property is of a type ordinarily occupied only during
certain times (such as a summer cottage), the disseisor may need to have only exclusive, open, and hostile possession during those successive useful
periods, making the same use of the property as an owner would for the required number of years.
This is sometimes easy with rural land that is farm-able for a crop.
(forget illigal crops like MJ)
You don't even have to live on the land as long as you use it.
Planting a crop on the land and watering it with a drip system and only being on the land in the spring to repair the drip system and harvest time to
collect the crop is valid use in many states.
Just wait for him to leave the house to go grocery. Then change the lock and sue him for trespassing if he insists in going inside the house. What he
did is ridiculous and I hope that the law is not in his side else hell will break lose.
When criminals feel they have "rights" to victimizing people, there is a problem. A problem that our JUSTICE SYSTEM should ALSO have a problem
On EVERY fukcing police vehicle, you will read: 'To Protect And Serve.' But nowadays, with stories and blatant BULLS*** like this, I question WHO that
slogan is referring to...
WHAT KIND OF FUKCING "LAW" ALLOWS BURGLARS/CRIMINALS TO MAKE THEMSELVES "AT HOME," AND "CONFISCATE" YOUR HOUSE WHEN YOU GO AND VISIT
RELATIVES? I dare you to burglarize my house, whether I'm home or away. R.I.P., that's all I gotta say.
edit on 6-12-2013 by Kromlech
because: (no reason given)
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
The “sovereign movement”, by whichever of the dozen names you call it, is nothing but twaddle that a few con men use to pray on gullible folks
desperation. Almost all the original “sovereign movement” ringleaders are either in prison, have been to prison, are dead, or have been committed.
The reason why some people get away with it for years is that they are simply flying under the radar, and have either not been caught, or have not
done anything that the government considers worth the expense to prosecute them yet. The whole theory has more holes in it then a sieve, for
1) US courts DO NOT operate under “admiralty law”.
2) The fringe on a flag is a decorative feature on inside vs outdoor flags.
3) The government is not allowed to prosecute you because you are an employee of the United States Inc, they have been persecuting people long before
that. Becoming a “non-employee” (aka sovereign) does not mean you are outside the reach of US Law, or courts. The same way you are not outside the
reach of a foreign government's laws when you travel. You certainly don't have a “strawman” in a foreign country, but watch how fast they will
lock you in prison for breaking their laws. The idea that a government has power over you because of a “strawman” is pure BS...
4) The UCC, which much of the movement is based on, has only existed since 1950, and we have been arresting, imprisoning, writing/enforcing laws,
since WAY before that.
5) Every state has its OWN UCC, and it's different for each state.
6) No amendment gives you the right to operate a motor vehicle, only travel in one.
7) The establishment of laws by the Fed, state, and local government is constitutionally guaranteed.
Here's one of your sovereign movement ringleaders, who was on the way home from a lecture engagement about this very topic:
All the papers which he hands to the officer, and later throws in the window before fleeing, is his “documentation” on how he as a “sovereign”
is not required to have a valid license, registration, or tags on his car.
Obviously you can see where this landed him and his son...
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 12/8/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)
Has anybody already mentioned yet that these victims should just go do the same sh*t do this douchbag when he "vacates" one of his dozen properties?
Just file the same BS against one of his houses. What a *cough*NewAgeJew*cough* lol
If some scumbag did that to me I would have no hesitation in breaking a window and climbing back in and give the scumbag a good hiding before throwing
it out of MY house. Oh before that I would break both legs to get it to sign back the home in my name. NOONE should dare mess with me. When it comes
to my home, possessions and family then I am afraid I would stand firm and take action. Nobody is going to do it for you. Mind you, if someone
occupied the White House and called it theirs would the army, special forces twiddle their thumbs and go ok whatever? I don't think so! They would
smack the living daylights out of the occupier, and so I cant see why we cant do the same.
I hope this scumbag get it's just desserts. Or if all else fails hire The A Team. They will have things sorted faster than you can blink.
"We have the right to use all of these roads without paying for them, but you don't have the right to tell us to pay for them. And if you do tell
me to pay for the service I'm using I'm going to shoot you to death. Because you wanted me to pay for the roads I use."
Here in Venezuela we have similar laws,that are applied countrywide.
If there is a "homeless" person that spots an empty lot,an empty house or pretty much any building they like, they are entitled to take it and make
it their home. Of course this goes against the beautiful concept of private property.
However,in this Ohio case, the man is scum, and i'm sure the US constitution has something to say about private property, and about the human right
to have a home.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.