From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 1ca2d812ecc2a55aeab092eaf53e5746ef32666df05c34fc99fda49b4e6c49ad
Message ID: <2yae7D2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <3.0.1.32.19970508001526.027646a4@panix.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-09 00:22:30 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 08:22:30 +0800
From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 08:22:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Banking Secrecy and Nazi Gold
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970508001526.027646a4@panix.com>
Message-ID: <2yae7D2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
frissell@panix.com writes:
>
> At 07:50 PM 5/7/97 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> >According to americal common law, as I understand it, no one can get
> >a valid title to the property from someone who did not have such title.
> >
> >E.g., if you steal Vulis's car and then sell it to me, I will not have
> >the title to the car and will have to return it back to Vulis (and may
> >be able to try to recover my loss from you). The same will be true if
> >you lend the stolen car to me -- he can get it back if he proves that it
> >is his.
>
> The thief's ownership of personal property is good against the whole world
> save the true owner.
>
> "18. In general, possession constitutes the criterion of title of
> personal property, because no other means exist by which a knowledge of the
> fact to whom it belongs can be attained. A seller of a chattel is not,
> therefore, required to show the origin of his title, nor, in general, is a
> purchaser, without notice of the claim of the owner, compellable to make
> restitution; but, it seems, that a purchaser from a tenant for life of
> personal chattels, will not be secure against the claims of those entitled
> in remainder. Cowp. 432; 1 Bro. C. C. 274; 2 T. R. 376; 3 Atk. 44; 3 V. & B.
> 16."
>
My problem with Igor's model is that has a "gubmint" that can decide that
although you possess something, you don't have a title to it.
I don't think the cost of having a "gubmint" justifies the convenience(?)
of having one's stolen property recovered.
I point Igor's attention to the two categories of real estate ownership in
traditional Russian legal framework (probably borrowed from Poland and
Germany...) - the kind that cannot be taken away by the state for any
reasn (even as punishment for treason), and the kind that can be taken
away, e.g., for non-paymet of taxes.
---
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Return to May 1997
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>”