Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[kentonio]

I am not sure about the american or canadian principles for jurisdiction,
but in germany there is one important principle: "Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht" (Ignorance doesn't protect from punishment)
i.e. even if you didn't know that you broke a law, you may still be eligible for punishment

The UK, US and Canada have the same presumption, but its usually meant as 'if you commit a crime without knowing that act is illegal, you're still liable'. Not necessarily if you commit a crime without any way of knowing you're doing it.

So if your job was to push a button in a factory that made a large machine jackhammer move, and one day someone overrode the safety mechanics and walked inside and got squashed, you wouldn't be guilty of murder because you'd have no way to know you were commiting a murder by pressing the button. On the other hand if you deliberately squashed that person, you couldn't just claim you didn't knowing squashing someone was murder, or that murder was illegal. Different types of ignorance.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am not sure about the american or canadian principles for jurisdiction,

There are three jurisdictions.

American jurisdiction has been settled, and was settled quite some time ago. In the United States, they went to war, and they were able to win, and thus, they have an actual claim through possession of the land.

Canadian jurisdiction was settled by most with the treaty making powers under the Queen before Canada became a nation. For... everyone save the province of British Columbia which was it's own jurisdiction as a colony of British Columbia.

BC, has never made a deal, never made a claim. It is going to cost the province quite a bit of money to sort out, but in the end, everyone is going to be disappointed by the deal. At this point, I don't see a deal getting made.

i.e. even if you didn't know that you broke a law, you may still be eligible for punishment

We didn't break any law. That's the point. Buying land from the government is not breaking the law.

So, even if you didn't know that you purchased stolen goods, you may still be punished for it (and even if it "just" by having to return the goods without compensation.
(which wouldn't mean that you (and other land owners) wouldn't be free to sue the provincial government for compensation, of course, but it would be a separate lawsuit (from the one that forced you to give the lands back to the native americans))

The provincial government has a vested interest in maintaining control over the land tenancy. If they weren't the owners of the land then they'd not have the authority to claim property taxes over the land, taxes that would have to be returned to those who paid it.

That is never going to happen. I'm not quite sure what will happen in the future. In any case the world has changed and isn't coming back again. This dispute is going to continue on until it is settled, but it might not be settled to the benefit of anyone least at all the tribes.

They should really get a deal cut now, because they won't get a better one in the future.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sure you would, if you knew it was stolen land. If a thief tells you they are a car salesman, that doesn't make it ok to buy a car you know is stolen from them.

Buying land from the province is not the same as buying from a thief claiming they are a car salesman. By law they are entitled to sell land to private holders, and private holders are permitted to buy land from them - with the legal assurance of retaining title to the land.

In short, the provincial government protects their buyers.

Why are you finding this very simple concept so difficult to understand? Possession is not nine tenths of the law, as much as people would like to imagine it is.

Because I understand how corporate law works? Walmart would be held liable, not the buyer if Walmart sold a stolen television. Nor would the television be returned, Walmart would simply have to pay damages to the owner of the television probably somewhat greater than the value of the television. They'd probably get enough for a newer model, but no more than that, depending on the television around 400 dollars or so.

Walmart would cut them a check and be done with it. Trying to get the TV back from the new owners would cost more than cutting a check. They'd have to hire someone to come in - get legal permission to come on the property, etc. Cutting a check is much quicker.

The land is a different thing, because it is not wholly legally established that this land in particular was owned. Nor has title been established. It is not stolen goods if someone comes up to you and claims they were the owner, if that has not been established to date.

Due to overlapping claims, something like 113 percent of the province is being claimed. Ergo, one can conclude that just because something is claimed, doesn't mean that this is actually true.

[kentonio]

Because I understand how corporate law works? Walmart would be held liable, not the buyer if Walmart sold a stolen television. Nor would the television be returned, Walmart would simply have to pay damages to the owner of the television probably somewhat greater than the value of the television. They'd probably get enough for a newer model, but no more than that, depending on the television around 400 dollars or so.

Walmart would cut them a check and be done with it.

If Walmart had stolen from someone (lets imagine it was a unique and valuable piece of artwork for instance), that property would be returned to its owner, Walmart wouldn't just get to keep it.

The land is a different thing, because it is not wholly legally established that this land in particular was owned. Nor has title been established. It is not stolen goods if someone comes up to you and claims they were the owner, if that has not been established to date.

What you're doing now is trying to avoid the simple fact that you have prior knowledge that a crime was commited. It doesn't matter whether the thief told you they were the owner if you already knew that wasn't true.

You seem to have a real problem differentiating between things that are true and things that you wish were true. I imagine this explains why you defrauded the federal government over food stamps yet don't seem to understand that what you did was illegal. You really need to work on that understanding before you wind up in court over something and end up with a judge having to explain it to you (shortly before sentencing).

[Ben Kenobi]

If Walmart had stolen from someone (lets imagine it was a unique and valuable piece of artwork for instance), that property would be returned to its owner, Walmart wouldn't just get to keep it.

Walmart wouldn't be repossessing a Television and it would probably have to run into 4 digits to be worth the court payments in this example.

What you're doing now is trying to avoid the simple fact that you have prior knowledge that a crime was commited. It doesn't matter whether the thief told you they were the owner if you already knew that wasn't true.

Again, the provincial government is never going to rescind public land sales. Now, I suppose it could happen Mugabe style, but that would never happen here - not to the benefit of the tribes. They would be better off cutting a reasonable - one time deal with the provincial government now.

You seem to have a real problem differentiating between things that are true and things that you wish were true. I imagine this explains why you defrauded the federal government over food stamps yet don't seem to understand that what you did was illegal. You really need to work on that understanding before you wind up in court over something and end up with a judge having to explain it to you (shortly before sentencing).

Why would I end up in court over owning land which has been paid for? You seem under the delusion that people that have owned land for decades are going to be arrested.

I have been in court over traffic tickets and registration disagreements. End of story, the cop had been provided my license and registration and the court found in my favor and wrote off the traffic tickets and the registration fine.

I also switched providers as my broker was 'unavailable', when I needed to get my documentation from him. Thanks State Farm. So much for 'being there". Thankfully I had copies of everything. Had my broker made the phone call he was supposed to make to confirm my registration, it wouldn't have gone to court. I found out later from the cop that he was *never* called.

[Proteus_MST]

...

That is never going to happen. I'm not quite sure what will happen in the future. In any case the world has changed and isn't coming back again. This dispute is going to continue on until it is settled, but it might not be settled to the benefit of anyone least at all the tribes.
...

That's something I agree with ... that the original native american lands are returned to the tribes is as improbable as germany ever seeing the return of the eastern prussian lands. It's part of fait accompli.
That, at one time in the future, the native indian tribes may get a halfway fair compensation for the lands they lost, may IMHO be less utopian however

[kentonio]

Walmart wouldn't be repossessing a Television and it would probably have to run into 4 digits to be worth the court payments in this example.

Where the hell did repossession come into this, and why are you trying to dodge the core subject by talking about value of the proerty stolen? A corporation can't steal anyway, it would require an employee or owner to have carried out the crime, and they would then be the one punished. The item would then be returned as long as it was practicable to do so.

I have been in court over traffic tickets and registration disagreements. End of story, the cop had been provided my license and registration and the court found in my favor and wrote off the traffic tickets and the registration fine.

I also switched providers as my broker was 'unavailable', when I needed to get my documentation from him. Thanks State Farm. So much for 'being there". Thankfully I had copies of everything. Had my broker made the phone call he was supposed to make to confirm my registration, it wouldn't have gone to court. I found out later from the cop that he was *never* called.

Thank you for your story that had no relevance to the subject at hand.

If you'd ever ended up in court over those food stamps incidentally, you'd have had a very different experience.

[Ben Kenobi]

That, at one time in the future, the native indian tribes may get a halfway fair compensation for the lands they lost, may IMHO be less utopian however

The problem is that there are only 90k in all of British Columbia, out of about 4.4 million. There are 430k Chinese people, and 230k East Indians. Their time for compensation has really come and gone. Should have been done in the 90s when the NDP were in power.

That it didn't get done then - there are larger voting blocks that want the land and aren't going to ever want to give any of it. In short, there's basically zero political will to get a deal done.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you'd ever ended up in court over those food stamps incidentally, you'd have had a very different experience.

Bigger fish to fry. Where I was living at the time - as I had just gotten out of the ward was using food stamps to supply their business, even though they were collecting rent for that purpose, and the owner drove an escalade. Would have pled out in exchange for testimony against their fraud. That and housing assistance, etc.

The tickets were low hanging fruit. My coworkers at the time had been noting that they'd gone after folks driving to work that they felt weren't going to show up to court, or couldn't afford to do so.

The reality, even though it's been denied over and over again is that Food Stamps, even in Texas, are massively abused as a secondary currency. But then, what the hell do I know? I'm not a British person. It's not like I have first hand experience in the hood.

[Giancarlo]

LOL

Bill's version is hilarious. Yes, I worked with Bill. I was also the only moderator he had worth a damn. I deleted a thread that had a drunk-ass moderator posting her phone number and soliciting sex.

At her request after she came to me and said, "please Sean, I was a dumb**** and help me fix it." Poof, done.

Bill got mad because he's a control freak. I told him I didn't care what he thought, I was deleting personal information posted up by moderators even if they were dumbass enough to put it up themselves. I felt that leaving it up was a terrible precedent, given the whole forum and the fact that others, like yourself were using it as a means to harass people. (and she did get harassing calls, but that was later).

Anyhoo. Bill disagreed. I salted the thread so he couldn't bring it back in a coherent fashion - after he restored it including the phone number. We disagreed on principles. I said I was fine leaving it, but only if I could put the thread away in a locked forum that wasn't publicly accessable. No go.

That was euhm, what, almost a decade ago now. I'm still the most prominent poster there who's not Bill and his wife. The place is completely dead. The dumb**** moderator has, thankfully, moved on after she quit after Bill canned me. Me and dumb**** moderator no longer talk because, well, she's a dumb****. Bill and I no longer talk, but that has nothing to do with this incident. It's been so long ago that Bill and I reconciled and then fell out again. We're about due for a reconciliation again, and have talked recently.

Anyways, anything else you want to dredge up, Dauphin? It's weird having groupies.

That's basically all I see out of you.

It's always about you and even on that site they had enough of you. You drove a bunch of extremists to the nuthouse and that takes some doing.

By the way, control freak? I think I'm the one that called you that.

[Giancarlo]

Am I that bad boy you always envied?

You have yourself mixed up with me.

But it's just so easy to troll you.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's always about you and even on that site they had enough of you. You drove a bunch of extremists to the nuthouse and that takes some doing.

Read the thread.

[The Mad Monk]

*SIGH*

Why did I open this thread?

[Giancarlo]

Bigger fish to fry. Where I was living at the time - as I had just gotten out of the ward was using food stamps to supply their business, even though they were collecting rent for that purpose, and the owner drove an escalade. Would have pled out in exchange for testimony against their fraud. That and housing assistance, etc.

The tickets were low hanging fruit. My coworkers at the time had been noting that they'd gone after folks driving to work that they felt weren't going to show up to court, or couldn't afford to do so.

The reality, even though it's been denied over and over again is that Food Stamps, even in Texas, are massively abused as a secondary currency. But then, what the hell do I know? I'm not a British person. It's not like I have first hand experience in the hood.

You committed a federal crime dude. You bought food stamps and you could have ended up before a federal grand jury for it. And it isn't even said how many of them you bought.

You're like Trump. You pretty much destroyed your own credibility while the rest of us watch the dog and pony show.

[Ben Kenobi]

But it's just so easy to troll you.

I'm the one who's being trolled and then you have Dauphin, spending hours searching up dirt on me. Suuure.