03-13-2018, 03:38 PM
Re read the contribution. I posted the statement where Nick stated the land was not in his name. that led to making a logical assumption that if most likely would be in Juliette's name. Being an assumption I stated that point was not definitive. But I also questioned who else name could it have been in. Knowing that anyone who name was on the dead would legally own the land and could do what they wanted with it.
I never said by owning the land makes it legal to destroy property on the land. What I said was the land being in her name, supports the argument that the trailer was hers. Since Nick could not dispute that for two reasons. One title was never transferred because of the secrecy behind the existence of the trailer. As a point of law destroying your own property is not against the law unless you are going to claim the lost. An yes as I stated starting a fire in the forest is not a good idea plus it is not legal. I was using my experiences on my desert property to point out actions people where pointing out as illegal are not. In no way was I comparing what you can do in the desert compares to what you can do in the forest.
The whole point of my comment was to show how the assertions being made actually had a loop hole created by the writers as to provide a reason for why they do not apply. comment on my statement in the context they where stated. Instead of trying to draw an inference to make a point.
I never said by owning the land makes it legal to destroy property on the land. What I said was the land being in her name, supports the argument that the trailer was hers. Since Nick could not dispute that for two reasons. One title was never transferred because of the secrecy behind the existence of the trailer. As a point of law destroying your own property is not against the law unless you are going to claim the lost. An yes as I stated starting a fire in the forest is not a good idea plus it is not legal. I was using my experiences on my desert property to point out actions people where pointing out as illegal are not. In no way was I comparing what you can do in the desert compares to what you can do in the forest.
The whole point of my comment was to show how the assertions being made actually had a loop hole created by the writers as to provide a reason for why they do not apply. comment on my statement in the context they where stated. Instead of trying to draw an inference to make a point.
Embrace your inner Biest..... We all have one