A query on possession laws.

Does anyone have any links to the historical development of general possession laws in the US?

How did possession is nine tenths of the law come about?

And when can possession laws, deny and disparage, an individual's liberty and 9A power and right?

I'm opening a pool on how long it takes for this thread to get locked. Any takers?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I'm opening a pool on how long it takes for this thread to get locked. Any takers?

---

Do I get points for other people not staying on topic?

Do you have any links to articles on general possession law development?

Why practice truer forms of free speech in the banter forum?

We can even have a disclaimer: Free speech at work (practice).

If anyone has issues with it, they don't have to participate; and threads won't get locked due to special interest considerations.

Does anyone have any links to the historical development of general possession laws in the US?

How did possession is nine tenths of the law come about?

And when can possession laws, deny and disparage, an individual's liberty and 9A power and right?

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I'm opening a pool on how long it takes for this thread to get locked. Any takers?

---

Put me down for 2 hours.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Put me down for 2 hours.

---

Do I get points for other people not staying on topic?

Do you have any links to articles on general possession law development?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Why practice truer forms of free speech in the banter forum?

We can even have a disclaimer: Free speech at work (practice).

If anyone has issues with it, they don't have to participate; and threads won't get locked due to special interest considerations.

---

If you want to start your own forum somewhere, nobody's stopping you. (Free hosting!)

Tell you what, Daniel.

When I see some evidence that you're willing to stay on topic on other people's threads, I'll stay on topic on yours.

So far, I've yet to see any such evidence.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Do I get points for other people not staying on topic?

---

No. Do you?

Quote:

---

Do you have any links to articles on general possession law development?

---

Possession is 9/10s of the law can mean several things. Let's say a house gets robbed, and the police catch you with a TV from there. Since the stolen item is in your possession it will be very hard for you to prove you're innocent.

Another example: If somebody loaned you something, but you decided to keep it indefinitely. With out some form of evidence, the original owner would have a very difficult time proving it originally theirs.

Another: In some states if you have a borrowed item in your possession for over 14 days then it's legally yours.

My bet is about four hours.

Daniel, I'll answer your question.

It's a legal urban legend. In other words, it doesn't mean squat.

Another one I hear: "You have to live with someone for seven years before a common law marriage is valid."

Google possession nine tenths law for tons of info.

Now, go read stuff by Bryan Garner.

http://www.lawprose.org/

He is a plain language advocate and you really need to learn from him.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Tell you what, Daniel.

When I see some evidence that you're willing to stay on topic on other people's threads, I'll stay on topic on yours.

So far, I've yet to see any such evidence.

---

You are more than welcome to refrain from baiting with extenuating logic and reason circumstances, and I will try to stay on topic better.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

If you want to start your own forum somewhere, nobody's stopping you. (Free hosting!)

---

Thanks for the link.

I originally stopped by on this forum because I had questions based on legal doctrines that I wanted to find out more about.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Daniel, I'll answer your question.

It's a legal urban legend. In other words, it doesn't mean squat.

Another one I hear: "You have to live with someone for seven years before a common law marriage is valid."

Google possession nine tenths law for tons of info.

Now, go read stuff by Bryan Garner.

http://www.lawprose.org/

He is a plain language advocate and you really need to learn from him.

---

Thanks for the link.

Doesn't the common law marriage thing depend on the state?

What about possession laws, and the Ninth Amendment.

If there are no domestic tranquility of the state issues, when does the traditional police power of the state have the authority to deny and disparage that right and power?

Quote Daniel-

Quote:

---

Doesn't the common law marriage thing depend on the state?

---

Thing? What thing do you mean "thing"?

Quote:

---

What about possession laws, and the Ninth Amendment.

---

What about them? Do you know anything about the concept of "possession" in legal terms?

Quote:

---

If there are no domestic tranquility of the state issues, when does the traditional police power of the state have the authority to deny and disparage that right and power?

---

What's your question? What is it that you are asking here? Break it down. If there is no domestic tranquility? What type of situation are you talking about? Give an example of where there was or is no domestic tranquility.

The common law marriage issue is a state prerogative, from my understanding.

If I had perfect knowledge of the legalities of possession, I would not be asking about them.

I don't question the traditional police power of the state in matters pertaining to the domestic tranquility of that state.

My question arises, when there is sufficient domestic tranquility, and someone is in possession of a Thing; and, the state (via legislation, from politics) has some concerns over which Things those citizens may possess.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

The common law marriage issue is a state prerogative, from my understanding.

If I had perfect knowledge of the legalities of possession, I would not be asking about them.

I don't question the traditional police power of the state in matters pertaining to the domestic tranquility of that state.

My question arises, when there is sufficient domestic tranquility, and someone is in possession of a Thing; and, the state (via legislation, from politics) has some concerns over which Things those citizens may possess.

---

Tautologies and gobbledygook.

Ask a question a fifth grader can understand.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

The common law marriage issue is a state prerogative, from my understanding.

If I had perfect knowledge of the legalities of possession, I would not be asking about them.

I don't question the traditional police power of the state in matters pertaining to the domestic tranquility of that state.

My question arises, when there is sufficient domestic tranquility, and someone is in possession of a Thing; and, the state (via legislation, from politics) has some concerns over which Things those citizens may possess.

---

I am under the assumption that there is now and has been some type of connection thing between the state and police. Therefore, it must stand as logical deduction that if there is substantial domestic tranquility within the common law of doctrine, the police power is adequate and lawfully called upon to settle a domestic dispute.

In the event that the state is in possession of the Ninth Amendment the state may call an emergency use of state police to quell the state of unequal tranquility within the common law marriage.

Although there remains outstanding, in this issue of possession, the doctrine which allows for the possession of the domestic partner given that the common law marriage is so condoned by the state. As long as there is no threat or situation where there is no domestic tranquility there should not be the need for the use of police power in nine tenths of the situations where this has been called.

It would not then be disputed that there is no denial or disparage of the 9A and right to hold power as long as there is no interference with that same person’s want for power.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Tautologies and gobbledygook.

Ask a question a fifth grader can understand.

---

Your Honor,

Absolutely! ;)

Maybe we can use a hypothetical scenario to help explain some concepts.

In this hypothetical scenario, there is a citizen in possession of a Thing. The citizen believes he has a 9A power and right to possess that Thing. The state, however, believes that an individual does not have a right to possess that specific Thing and feels it has the right to confiscate that Thing.

In this scenario, it does not matter how the police stopped, questioned, or discovered that the Thing was in the citizen's possession. The police simply requested that the Thing be turned over to them. In this case, the citizen refuses, and claims a 9A power and right to possess the Thing in question. Also, in this scenario, there has been enough tranquility; such, that it can be called a peaceful exchange of words between the police and the citizen.

The question then, is when does the state have the right, via the authority, to deny and disparage an individual's right to possess a given Thing.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Maybe we can use a hypothetical scenario to help explain some concepts.

In this hypothetical scenario, there is a citizen in possession of a Thing. The citizen believes he has a 9A power and right to possess that Thing. The state, however, believes that an individual does not have a right to possess that specific Thing and feels it has the right to confiscate that Thing.

In this scenario, it does not matter how the police stopped, questioned, or discovered that the Thing was in the citizen's possession. The police simply requested that the Thing be turned over to them. In this case, the citizen refuses, and claims a 9A power and right to possess the Thing in question. Also, in this scenario, there has been enough tranquility; such, that it can be called a peaceful exchange of words between the police and the citizen.

The question then, is when does the state have the right, via the authority, to deny and disparage an individual's right to possess a given Thing.

---

The very answer to this hypothetical Thing Question, that is of interest and concern lies in the how police stopped, questioned or discovered the Thing was in the citizen's possession.

And if the Thing was unlawfully possessed by the citizen then such Thing will remain the property of the state. If confiscated and later discovered citizen has a right to carry such Thing, it will be returned to such citizen.

You may reference this website constructed for those persons who might be interested in learning about the Constitution, the A's and it has some practice sessions where you can practice identifying which rights may have been violated.

http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_le...ill_of_rights/

Quote:

---

Quoting deadlock

---

The very answer to this hypothetical Thing Question, that is of interest and concern lies in the how police stopped, questioned or discovered the Thing was in the citizen's possession.

And if the Thing was unlawfully possessed by the citizen then such Thing will remain the property of the state. If confiscated and later discovered citizen has a right to carry such Thing, it will be returned to such citizen.

You may reference this website constructed for those persons who might be interested in learning about the Constitution, the A's and it has some practice sessions where you can practice identifying which rights may have been violated.

http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_le...ill_of_rights/

---

Let's assume that normal and proper procedures were used; and the citizen claims a 9A power and right to deny and disparage the right of the state, and its enforcers, to confiscate the Thing in question.

For the purposes of this scenario, let's further call that denial and disparagement, a "citizen's nullification" power and right, arising from the 9A.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Let's assume that normal and proper procedures were used; and the citizen claims a 9A power and right to deny and disparage the right of the state, and its enforcers, to confiscate the Thing in question.

For the purposes of this scenario, let's further call that denial and disparagement, a "citizen's nullification" power and right, arising from the 9A.

---

Ok. Sure. That works.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Does anyone have any links to the historical development of general possession laws in the US?

How did possession is nine tenths of the law come about?

---

A little research of phrase origins has revealed one answer. Originally it was "Possession is nine points of the law", which through development of it over time evolved into, "Possession is nine-tenths of the law".

To wit:

The original nine points of the Law were: (1) a lot of money; (2) a lot of patience; (3) a good cause; (4) a good lawyer; (5) a good counsel; (6) good witnesses; (7) a good jury; (8) a good judge; and (9) good luck.

Quote:

---

And when can possession laws, deny and disparage, an individual's liberty and 9A power and right?

---

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

AM's 9 and 10 are not "specific rights" AM's as the others.


One SC justice even wrote in the body of his opinion many years ago, the true Bill of Rights are AM's 1-8.

If you have a specific right to possess a commodity under the federal constitution, then NO, a state can not pre-empt that right.


For example, several years ago Congress passed an act that permitted an active police officer, and in some cases, a retired one, to possess and cary a "concealed weapon" Nationwide, regardless of state law restrictions, so interstate possession is now the law of the land.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

The common law marriage issue is a state prerogative, from my understanding.

---

Not sure how this is a 9A conundrum, but marriage is state scantioned. A state is free NOT to give Full faith and credit to a public act of another state which violates thier own public policy. In other words, no state has to permit a common law marriage be recognized simply because it is a public record of another state.

Of course, the federal constitution/SCOTUS has addressed marriage issues before, such as Loving v. Virginia concerning VA's antimiscegenation statute and when they addressed the issue of gay marriage.

Hence, a state can NOT deny a marriage license to an interracial/mixed couple, but can forbid same sex marriages, under the constitution.

Quote:

---

Quoting deadlock

---

I am under the assumption that there is now and has been some type of connection thing between the state and police. Therefore, it must stand as logical deduction that if there is substantial domestic tranquility within the common law of doctrine, the police power is adequate and lawfully called upon to settle a domestic dispute.

In the event that the state is in possession of the Ninth Amendment the state may call an emergency use of state police to quell the state of unequal tranquility within the common law marriage.

Although there remains outstanding, in this issue of possession, the doctrine which allows for the possession of the domestic partner given that the common law marriage is so condoned by the state. As long as there is no threat or situation where there is no domestic tranquility there should not be the need for the use of police power in nine tenths of the situations where this has been called.

It would not then be disputed that there is no denial or disparage of the 9A and right to hold power as long as there is no interference with that same person’s want for power.

---

Your cigar is in the mail for The Best Danny Imitation Yet!

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Your cigar is in the mail for The Best Danny Imitation Yet!

---

Thank you. :D

I'm still trying to figure out whether Daniel's mother was frightened by an Oxford English Dictionary before he was born, or whether he just ate one for breakfast.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I'm still trying to figure out whether Daniel's mother was frightened by an Oxford English Dictionary before he was born, or whether he just ate one for breakfast.

---

Yes to both questions.:p

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Not sure how this is a 9A conundrum, but marriage is state scantioned. A state is free NOT to give Full faith and credit to a public act of another state which violates thier own public policy. In other words, no state has to permit a common law marriage be recognized simply because it is a public record of another state.

Of course, the federal constitution/SCOTUS has addressed marriage issues before, such as Loving v. Virginia concerning VA's antimiscegenation statute and when they addressed the issue of gay marriage.

Hence, a state can NOT deny a marriage license to an interracial/mixed couple, but can forbid same sex marriages, under the constitution.

---

This thread got merged with another thread.

What was the rational for circumventing section 2?

"Article 4.

Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

No. I don't think so. Because BOR stated

Quote:

---

Posts: 141
Re: A query on possession laws.
Quote:
Quoting danielpalos

The common law marriage issue is a state prerogative, from my understanding.
Not sure how this is a 9A conundrum, but marriage is state scantioned. A state is free NOT to give Full faith and credit to a public act of another state which violates thier own public policy. In other words, no state has to permit a common law marriage be recognized simply because it is a public record of another state.

Of course, the federal constitution/SCOTUS has addressed marriage issues before, such as Loving v. Virginia concerning VA's antimiscegenation statute and when they addressed the issue of gay marriage.

Hence, a state can NOT deny a marriage license to an interracial/mixed couple, but can forbid same sex marriages, under the constitution.

---

It's same thread where Blue said

Quote:

---

Re: A query on possession laws.
Quote:
Quoting danielpalos

Do I get points for other people not staying on topic?
No. Do you?

Quote:
Do you have any links to articles on general possession law development?
Possession is 9/10s of the law can mean several things. Let's say a house gets robbed, and the police catch you with a TV from there. Since the stolen item is in your possession it will be very hard for you to prove you're innocent.

Another example: If somebody loaned you something, but you decided to keep it indefinitely. With out some form of evidence, the original owner would have a very difficult time proving it originally theirs.

Another: In some states if you have a borrowed item in your possession for over 14 days then it's legally yours.

---

What other thread do you think this is from??

Legal theory and politics: At-will employment doctrine?

The General Welfare Clause and Forms of Unemployment Insurance Public defender, a constitutional office?

Real words versus slang words?

Legal theory and politics: The Militia and States Rights?

The public and private sector?

Flavors of public sector interference in the markets?

Market Friendly Work Visas?

Infrastructure Development?

Tax Preferred Financial Tools?

Legal theory and politics?

Legal Theory and Politics: Private Social Contracts and the Constitution ?

'Right to Work' and Right to Employment?

Quote:

---

Quoting deadlock

---

No. I don't think so. Because BOR stated



It's same thread where Blue said



What other thread do you think this is from??

Legal theory and politics: At-will employment doctrine?

The General Welfare Clause and Forms of Unemployment Insurance Public defender, a constitutional office?

Real words versus slang words?

Legal theory and politics: The Militia and States Rights?

The public and private sector?

Flavors of public sector interference in the markets?

Market Friendly Work Visas?

Infrastructure Development?

Tax Preferred Financial Tools?

Legal theory and politics?

Legal Theory and Politics: Private Social Contracts and the Constitution ?

'Right to Work' and Right to Employment?

---

I am under the impression that they merged the free speech thread into this one.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

I'm still trying to figure out whether Daniel's mother was frightened by an Oxford English Dictionary before he was born, or whether he just ate one for breakfast.

---

Probably. It's hard for me to understand what he's saying half the time. Wonder whats he's like in real life. :confused:

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Probably. It's hard for me to understand what he's saying half the time. Wonder whats he's like in real life. :confused:

---

Usually pissing the chicks off by claiming booty calls are valid forms of relating and relationships. And, that if we had the presence of mind, we would offer them that, so they won't have to feel used for sex, afterwards.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Usually pissing the chicks off by claiming booty calls are valid forms of relating and relationships. And, that if we had the presence of mind, we would offer them that, so they won't have to feel used for sex, afterwards.

---

Sorry I asked. HAHA

Its ok. I am getting better at it.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

Its ok. I am getting better at it.

---

Maybe you can find a girl at a local militia meeting? Make sure she support at-will employment! And promoting the general welfare. :p

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

...

What was the rational for circumventing section 2?

....

---

WHAT!?

Your language is horrible.:D


(Psst: Folks, Danny don't know the difference between rationale and rational! I hope that chick he picks up at the militia meeting has a dictionary.)

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

WHAT!?

Your language is horrible.:D


(Psst: Folks, Danny don't know the difference between rationale and rational! I hope that chick he picks up at the militia meeting has a dictionary.)

---

Thank you for pointing that out to me, your honor. I will try to be more careful with my words, in the future.