is possesion really 9/10 of the law?
405519
IN property law often times ACTUALLY Holding on to an object or occupying some land is often decisive.\n\nFor example: if you are walking down a street and someone snatches your purse and is then caught, YOU do not have to prove that the purse is ACTUALLY yours, that you did not steal it yesterday etc etc, before the person is convicted as a thief. All you have to show to convict that person of theft is that you were just holding on to a purse before he snatched it. \n\nSimilar reasoning dictates that if your purse is stolen and is not found within 5 years(statute of limitations) the thief basically now owns the purse, because there is no way you can prosecute him(so the thief acquired an object by actual possession although he never legally acquired it).\n\nThis doctrine also often applies to real property. If you actually LIVE on the land(but don't have a legal title, basically you are squatting) you can kick off a new trespasser without showing title. And if you live on the land long enough(usually 10 years) You will get a Title to it, and the person who had it before but did not use the land looses it(This is known as adverse possession).\n\nSo basically often(90% of time) the entitlement to property will be useless or irrelevant while ACTUAL POSSESSION will control.
459319
IN property law often times ACTUALLY Holding on to an object or occupying a some land is often decisive.\n\nFor example: if you are walking down a street and someone snatches your purse and is then caught, YOU do not have to prove that the purse is ACTUALLY yours, that you did not steal it yesterday etc etc, before the person is convicted as a thief. All you have to show to convict that person of theft is that you were just holding on to a purse before he snatched it. \n\nSimilarly if your purse is stolen and is not found within 5 years(statute of limitations) the thief basically now owns the purse, because there is no way you can prosecute him.\n\nThis doctrine also often applies to real property. If you actually LIVE on the land(but don't have a legal title, basically you are squatting) you can kick off a new trespasser without showing title. And if you live on the land long enough(usually 10 years) You will get a Title to it, and the person who had it before but did not use the land looses it(This is known as adverse possession).\n\nSo basically often(90% of time) the entitlement to property will be useless or irrelevant while ACTUAL POSSESSION will control.
587807
NO!  Never trust anyone in the government, state or otherwise, or any so-called legal system.  They're all corrupt and I guarantee you they've got a lot more going on than we know about.  Don't ever, ever be naive.
164310
I hate to be brass, but you would be a fool to accept any information on law from anyone except a lawyer. Especially fraud cases. There are somethings that we should never attempt to interpret on our own. The law is number one.
491039
The law sure seems to think so!
212764
It is not legal to occupy someone else's property. There is, however the doctrine of adverse possession that provides that if someone has actual, visible, hostile, notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession of the property and possibly makes a claim to the title without being opposed for a long enough period of time, the person owns the property. The way this all plays out varies quite a bit by jurisdiction, but the doctrine is part of our common law and thus is possible in any state. In general, this does not apply to government land.
1026734
Firstly I just wanted to say that clarity within the law is a pre requisite of a succesful legal system, as for detail - I personally think that laws should not be made so detailed as to exclude potential offenders on technicalities as has been seen in the past. I know it seems like there are a lot of new laws coming out but you will find that the majority of this is just consolidating many old ones in line with the reccomendations of the law commission.\n\nI think we need to remember that the law needs to change in line with the changes we see in our society and as such only those who are out of touch with society should be confused by the law, most people instinctively know what is wrong and what is right and just go about their daily business.
495025
That all depends on the crime and the jurisdiction. Every state has different laws.
1090234
Possession is 9/10's the law, therefore since you are acting on behalf of the bank who owns the property, you don't have to contact the people.  I'm sure they've had plenty of notices, too.  Those people no longer own the property, therefore their personal belongings no longer belong to them.
1051793
Knowledge of the law is essential. But it is not enough.\n\nLet's say a law exists which reads: "Anyone who eats more than two bowls of oatmeal in the morning is guilty of a misdemeanor." Yes, it's silly, but it's non-political and thus useful as an example.\n\nDoes it matter how large the bowls are? Is a person who eats three 4oz bowls guilty, but a person who eats only two 40 oz isn't. Even though one person ate 12 ounces versus the other 80 ounces? \n\nAnd does morning include pre-dawn? Anything after midnight? Or just dawn until noon? And what if they start eating before noon, but continue after noon? Is that still morning?\n\nI could go on, but you see the point. Laws need to be interpreted. That's the job of judges. And different people can interpret things differently based purely on the way they process information, without any political agenda.\n\nLet's say one judge says the intent of the law, based on legislative history, is to prevent people from eating too much because of the nationwide oatmeal shortage. In this case, the total volume eaten might be more important than whether the individual bowls were large or small. So, the judge would consider a 'bowl' to be a standard unit of amount (say 8 ounces) and interpret the law to be anything over 16 ounces (two units of 8).\n\nA different judge, who happens to be a literalist, says that the size of the bowls doesn't matter. Two bowls means two bowls. So, in the example above, the person who ate 12 ounces in three bowls would be guilty, but the person who ate 80 ounces in two bowls wouldn't be. That's a literal interpretation.\n\nOr let's evaluate the law, in a trial where someone ate one bowl threw it up, ate a second, threw it up, and then ate a third. Does it matter that the person only effectively ate one bowl by the end of the process? Or is it a literal eating of three bowls, regardless of whether they stay down. Different judges could come to different conclusions again.\n\nMany completely different interpretations, without any political agenda. That's why judges can disagree. It's not just a matter of having an opinion. It's how judges interpret the law based on skill, experience, and their particular understanding of how the law should work. \n\nNow tell me. If the law says "no limits should be placed on speech or the press" at a time where there is no radio, TV, film, email, tape recorders, phones, etc. -- should the law be limited only to actual live verbal speech? Or should it apply to sign language? Or signs? Or recorded speech? Or transcriptions of verbal speech? Who is the press? Anything written? Or just written and published by a commercial company? Physically printed, or electronic? And so on... \n\nHuge differences in possible effects, based on how the law is interpreted. And that's just evaluating the effects of 200+ years of technology on a process that hasn't fundamentally changed in thousands of years. \n\nHow many possible differences in interpretation can you have when the very structure of a system or the essential values of a culture have changed? Of course you're going to end up with different interpretations based on the same text. Especially if that original text is vague or uses terminology that has changed since it was originally written. \n\nThat's why we have judges, and why we have precedent, and why precedent can be overturned as things change.
31235
Yes, it's true.\nCheck out these sites for other laws in Michigan.\n(my home state)\n\nhttp://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/michigan/\n\nhttp://www.ahajokes.com/laws022.html
1053198
Whoever told you that is wrong.  \n\nYou're talking about some fairly complicated jurisdictional issues.  There are many, many situations where police can and do exercise jurisdiction on private property.
146594
Try www.findlaw.com to see the actual law.  Otherwise, see this link:
173025
Absolutely not. If they threaten to do so, they are breaking the law.
105665
Check with a lawyer on this one.
1022108
Yes it's legal.\n\n"anyone they suspect" So much for innocent until proven guilty.\n\nUnfortunately the US is on a slippery slope towards a police state.
1073925
If ten is the highest then probably a 8.2 because ive never stolen anything or broke the law.