Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lp boonie

“His dad sold the rights. Money traded hands and possibly became part of the estate the son inherited.”

Doesn’t work that way. Children are not chattel that can be sold into involuntary servitude.

People forget that we are guaranteed, by birthright, individual freedoms and liberties granted by God. That includes rights in our property. You can’t pass down to children obligations of the father.

Much has been written about these fascist conservation easements. They are little different from obligations pressed onto serfs by the church and state in medival Europe.

To give the state de facto ownership of private property in perpetuity is 100% opposite of what existed and was intended when our constitution was written.

People have simply forgotten their rights and birthright and no longer demand them. We have sailed far away from original intent, and the criminal syndicate occupying Washington is doing its best to strip away our rights.

That the “dead hand” can reach out from the grave and obligate others to terms and conditions agreed to before others were born is abhorrent and destroys the peace of the community.

Plus there are common law contractual issues in these medival conservation easements concerning offer, competence and unconscionability.

The “dead hand” conservation easements have not been adjudicated sufficiently and need to be tested in court.

The son has done nothing wrong by filling in the swampland. In fact, he is asserting his common law rights in his land. That the state can illegally trespass on his land and tell him how he can use his property is nothing more than thinly disguised fascism and outright government theft.


29 posted on 12/02/2008 3:41:52 AM PST by sergeantdave (We are now in the Age of the Idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: sergeantdave

My dad sold a house the renter before he died. I wanted the house and hoped I would inherit it as part of his estate, but dad decided to sell it anyway. Using your logic, that is still my house. Now substitute wetland for house and government for renter. Your argument only makes sense if there was not a consensual contract. There is nothing serfdom about dad profiting from the sale of his property.


30 posted on 12/02/2008 5:05:08 AM PST by lp boonie (Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson