Shaw statement on land purchase

[Gamma]

easement may be created SEVERAL ways ..... one way is by having endorsed on the title, one way is out of necessity (needed for access to one's property), another way is by prescription.....

karl you should know all of this so why yuh forming the fool? the man said it was NECESSARY to access his property...

[Karl]

easement may be created SEVERAL ways ..... one way is by having endorsed on the title, one way is out of necessity (needed for access to one's property), another way is by prescription.....

karl you should know all of this so why yuh forming the fool? the man said it was NECESSARY to access his property...

My point is - based on the media report that the land was captured and built on.

Access may allow you to improve roadway/pathway...but to erect permanent structures for sole use I have been informed in my studies is a "no-no". Permanent structures for sole use = as media reports states, "capture".

Besides the land was offered to Shaw for purchase...and he was in negotiation for such purchase. Clear postion taken/acknowledged by him that he had no ownership or equity interest. What then legal right does he have to "capture"?

If I did the same thing would I be considered to have done something illegal? ...mmmm? "stolen the property"?

What then is my position if I enter into an agreement to sell such property?

What did shaw do? Let's see the docs?

Did Shaw offer the property to the intended purchaser as i) an owner of same - or b) as having an equity interest in same? If he did either would he as a matter of fact, have committed fraud?

Take Shaw out of the equation - if you had done such a thing would you have committted fraud?

Would you attempt to sell property which you do not own and or have equity in or have authority to legally act on behalf of the legal owner or owners...would you attempt such an act?

[Gamma]

as i understand it, it was the right of way which was in contention and which was purchased TOGETHER with land for which it was used to gain access. something may have been built on that right of way to facilitate access.

if i am wrong please enlighten me.....

[Mosiah]

sound like straight up tief to me.

[Gamma]

is there such a thing as legal stealing?

[Karl]

as i understand it, it was the right of way which was in contention and which was purchased TOGETHER with land for which it was used to gain access. something may have been built on that right of way to facilitate access.

if i am wrong please enlighten me.....

You missed (?) the very important fact that the land under discussion was offered for sale when the person offering it for sale had no legal right to ownership?

Every real estate class I have attend I was taught that that was con, fraud and 'tief' business -illegal!

How could you agree with doing that?

---------

Would you be willing to give Kern a pass if on 'the figures' disclosed they were passed as reasonable? ...or would you file criminal charges because it becomes clear that he arrived at the 'end product' by flouting 'the in between rules' (sic!)

...i.e. as parallel would you give Shaw a pass because the matter of the government receiving its fair monetary value for the land in question, 'the end product' was arrived at or would you file criminal charges because it is clear that Shaw arrived at the 'end point' by flouting the 'in between rules' (sic!) ...selling property he did not own?

[Gamma]

it would seem that i missed it....i am under the impression that the land subject to this controversy is theright of way......

what i don;t know and you are correct about raising it, is who received compensation for the right of way.....if it was not the government then that is no doubt fraudulent ....... the government should have been compensated for the land whether by shaw or the owners of cool oasis. i am clear on that.

[Karl]

it would seem that i missed it....i am under the impression that the land subject to this controversy is theright of way......

what i don;t know and you are correct about raising it, is who received compensation for the right of way.....if it was not the government then that is no doubt fraudulent ....... the government should have been compensated for the land whether by shaw or the owners of cool oasis. i am clear on that.

What about a person or persons selling land that does not belong to them and then approaching the true owners to effect ownership title transfer for some to be determined payment...or negotiate such ownership transfer and or payment?

It stinks! ...and there is no way a fraud was not perpetuated?

[Gamma]

you lost me there.....if he doesn't own the land he cannot be compensated for it. SIMPLE!

[Karl]

Irrelevant... you claim he TOOK the land.. that implies theft or occupation WITHOUT PERMISSION or Arrangement.

Please provide evidence of such.

Shaw did - He clearly stated that he entered into contract to sell to a third party and after contract sought to effect purchase from the true owners.

[Mosiah]

unless by fraud!

[Karl]

you lost me there.....if he doesn't own the land he cannot be compensated for it. SIMPLE!

You really mean - if he doesn't own the land he SHOULD not have attempted to sell...and actually sell...and thus SHOULD have received no compensation excepting porsecution and possible jail time!

[Gamma]

fraud is a crime....so he cannot be compensated for it. is THAT what happened? i read it that he was using the government land as a right of way to property that he owned and when he sold his property ...title to the right of way was transferred to the new owner and that the government was compensated for its land. whether by shaw or the new purchaser....

[Muadib]

Communication Problem apparantly.

Where did Shaw indicate he TOOK land without permission of Arrangement implying theft ?

Provide the statement.

[Mosiah]

Yuh love give directive eh?