NYC - Woman locks out squatters in her home, gets arrested for changing the locks

[Brian4Liberty]

Whoa whoa whoa, wait just a goddamn minute here.

I thought I had no right whatsoever to have any say in what somebody else may do with their property, even if it negatively affects me, like moving 30 Haitians into the joint and turning my neighborhood into a Port-au-Prince looking slum tenement.

Maybe they just want to use the property to store junk.

Checkmate.

I believe that we are somewhat on the same page concerning property rights, setting aside how you feel toward me wanting to hire somebody who is not *authorized* by fed.gov, including what wage the fed.gov determines I should pay, simply because private contract rights don't matter to you.

I thought that we were discussing legitimate abandonment of property, were we not?

I didn't paint myself into a corner, I just climbed out a window!

 

[susano]

 

[PAF]

Would you use law to define abandonment of property? What makes you think that property is ever abandoned?
Is abandoning property defined as not being there for a period of time? I would think that if I wanted to abandon something, I would put it in writing that I am abandoning said thing.

It would be difficult to put house or a car into a garbage bag, or pushed onto the curb, like you would a lamp or a couch.

I don't know what would qualify. I know that if a house that has sat vacant for years/decades with a caved in roof began to affect my home (wind blowing debris into my yard and/or smashing my windows), and I attempted to locate the owner with no resolve, and the community/town was unable to locate or do anything about it, I would do what I need to do, including homestead it if I wish.

At what point do you think is reasonable?

 

[PAF]

Checkmate.



I didn't paint myself into a corner, I just climbed out a window!

LOL I believe that you got AF and me mixed up. He can't answer my basic question concerning abandonment, and, come to think of it, neither did you ;-)

 

[susano]

It would be difficult to put house or a car into a garbage bag, or pushed onto the curb, like you would a lamp or a couch.

I don't know what would qualify. I know that if a house that has sat vacant for years/decades with a caved in roof began to affect my home (wind blowing debris into my yard and/or smashing my windows), and I attempted to locate the owner with no resolve, and the community/town was unable to locate or do anything about it, I would do what I need to do, including homestead it if I wish.

At what point do you think is reasonable?

I think this squatting thing began in the UK. I remember seeing articles, years ago, about squatters in London and was amazed at what was going on since I'd never seen such a thing before. In those cases, they were high end properties, sitting empty, because they were used to park money by foreigners. The squatters' argument was that they needed a place to live and nothing was affordable in London and these houses were empty/not being used. Is that a legit reason to squat and, if not, why not?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

LOL I believe that you got AF and me mixed up. He can't answer my basic question concerning abandonment, and, come to think of it, neither did you ;-)

Squirrel!

AF answered already:

I thought the right to property was the ne plus ultra of ana-cap, agorist thought?

But I guess the rights of the invading horde takes precedence over even that.

How the fuck would Juan Carlos there know if the property is truly abandoned?

Plenty of reasons why a property can appear empty or "abandoned".

Maybe I'm just leaving it empty to use at a future date.

Maybe I'm holding it to give to my kids when they finish school or turn 21?

Maybe I don't need to tell some screaming, invading, piece of shit what the fuck I want to do with it.

If it does not legitimately belong to you, stay the fuck out, cabrón.

That about sums it up, especially in the case of legal advise given by an illegal immigrant on TikTok. No need to get into the legal weeds of adverse possession or to endlessly debate what is legal vs. moral vs. principled.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I think this squatting thing began in the UK. I remember seeing articles, years ago, about squatters in London and was amazed at what was going on since I'd never seen such a thing before. In those cases, they were high end properties, sitting empty, because they were used to park money by foreigners. The squatters' argument was that they needed a place to live and nothing was affordable in London and these houses were empty/not being used. Is that a legit reason to squat and, if not, why not?

There is a long history, going back to English common law.

Here's an example:

Who Can Claim Property Based on Adverse Possession in New York?

But any law can be twister and abused, especially by a corrupted judicial system with a hidden agenda, which includes a Marxist revolution utilizing foreign invasion.

 

[PAF]

I think this squatting thing began in the UK. I remember seeing articles, years ago, about squatters in London and was amazed at what was going on since I'd never seen such a thing before. In those cases, they were high end properties, sitting empty, because they were used to park money by foreigners. The squatters' argument was that they needed a place to live and nothing was affordable in London and these houses were empty/not being used. Is that a legit reason to squat and, if not, why not?

Like I told [MENTION=1874]Brian4Liberty[/MENTION] concerning his post, I don't know the specifics of the situation you are referring to.

If the building is maintained, even while empty, and the owner can provide compensation for damages to others in that event, then the squatters had no rights to that building.

If the owner decided to abandon the building due to costs of maintenance, neglected providing compensation for damages to others, and basically left the building there to disintegrate on its own, there is no reason the squatters could not utilize [homestead] it if they wished.

 

[PAF]

Squirrel!

AF answered already:



That about sums it up, especially in the case of legal advise given by an illegal immigrant on TikTok. No need to get into the legal weeds of adverse possession or to endlessly debate what is legal vs. moral vs. principled.

That is a cop out answer concerning abandonment of property, and you know it. If you wish to ignore the direct question and blanket case everything/everybody, sure, you can do so, but don't tell me that it "sums it up", because it doesn't. Come on, Brian, try a little harder.

 

[susano]

There is a long history, going back to English common law.

Here's an example:

Who Can Claim Property Based on Adverse Possession in New York?

But any law can be twister and abused, especially by a corrupted judicial system with a hidden agenda, which includes a Marxist revolution utilizing foreign invasion.

It is actually more difficult to establish adverse possession in New York than in other jurisdictions. That's because the legislature requires trespassers to have a reasonable belief that they have legal title to the disputed property. (See N.Y. Real Prop. Acts § 501.)

This "claim of right" means that a trespasser can't intentionally occupy someone's land with the specific goal of sneakily gaining title after a decade.

Yet the NYC lady is arrested for entering her own property, that she clearly owns.

 

[susano]

Like I told [MENTION=1874]Brian4Liberty[/MENTION] concerning his post, I don't know the specifics of the situation you are referring to.

If the building is maintained, even while empty, and the owner can provide compensation for damages to others in that event, then the squatters had no rights to that building.

If the owner decided to abandon the building due to costs of maintenance, neglected providing compensation for damages to others, and basically left the building there to disintegrate on its own, there is no reason the squatters could not utilize [homestead] it if they wished.

Not maintained could be subjective depending upon the neighborhood standards.

 

[PAF]

Not maintained could be subjective depending upon the neighborhood standards.

Which part is subjective?::

If the owner decided to abandon the building due to costs of maintenance, neglected providing compensation for damages to others, and basically left the building there to disintegrate on its own

 

[susano]

Which part is subjective?::

Okay. My bad. You aren't just talking about run down due to inability to upkeep to the standards of the neighborhood, then. That's what I what I was asking. You mean total abandonment with any owner long gone. In that case, I would agree with you.

 

[PAF]

Okay. My bad. You aren't just talking about run down due to inability to upkeep to the standards of the neighborhood, then. That's what I what I was asking. You mean total abandonment with any owner long gone. In that case, I would agree with you.

Yes.

The clip that Brian posted was indicative of that, which is why I posed the question. IMO, blanket spreading material without knowing the underlying facts leads to fear porn which more times than not sacrifices of liberty.


See this thread for a perfect example of that:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...es-illegal-invaders-have-2nd-amendment-rights

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It is actually more difficult to establish adverse possession in New York than in other jurisdictions. That's because the legislature requires trespassers to have a reasonable belief that they have legal title to the disputed property. (See N.Y. Real Prop. Acts § 501.)

This "claim of right" means that a trespasser can't intentionally occupy someone's land with the specific goal of sneakily gaining title after a decade.

Yet the NYC lady is arrested for entering her own property, that she clearly owns.

For what it’s worth, Judge Jeanine Pirro on The Five, who was a Judge in New York, explained that what the woke DAs, Judges and Police have done is applied tenants rights law to what should be classified as trespassers. The “squatters” should be arrested for trespassing. They don't meet the criteria for adverse possession.

As I assumed, it’s a case of a woke system twisting or ignoring the law.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

That is a cop out answer concerning abandonment of property, and you know it. If you wish to ignore the direct question and blanket case everything/everybody, sure, you can do so, but don't tell me that it "sums it up", because it doesn't. Come on, Brian, try a little harder.

 

[PAF]

Yeah, ok lol

Yes.

The clip that Brian posted was indicative of that, which is why I posed the question. IMO, blanket spreading material without knowing the underlying facts leads to fear porn which more times than not leads to sacrifices of liberty.


See this thread for a perfect example of that:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...es-illegal-invaders-have-2nd-amendment-rights

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

IMHO if I vacate a property that has value and no longer go there or update/upgrade it, that is my business. If at some point in time the taxes are not paid and the county takes possession then I guess I lost my right of ownership. If taxes are paid then I have not abandoned it. My guess is if your Grandfather had 10,000 acres in Nebraska and didn't live there and hadn't been there for a very long time and the farm house was run down, he wasn't giving the property away to anyone that wanted to stay there.

 

[PAF]

IMHO if I vacate a property that has value and no longer go there or update/upgrade it, that is my business. If at some point in time the taxes are not paid and the county takes possession then I guess I lost my right of ownership. If taxes are paid then I have not abandoned it. My guess is if your Grandfather had 10,000 acres in Nebraska and didn't live there and hadn't been there for a very long time and the farm house was run down, he wasn't giving the property away to anyone that wanted to stay there.

What if one believes that Taxation=Theft? Then what?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I believe that we are somewhat on the same page concerning property rights, setting aside how you feel toward me wanting to hire somebody who is not *authorized* by fed.gov, including what wage the fed.gov determines I should pay, simply because private contract rights don't matter to you.

I thought that we were discussing legitimate abandonment of property, were we not?

As was noted, who decides that?

Government, when they condemn and eminent domain a property for having grass too long?

Brother, we had a discussion years ago, and I remember you were opposed to the idea of firemen dragging hoses across your property without your permission, even if the fire they were fighting was threatening your own property.