Pennyaline expounded:

Okay, okay. I get ya. But come on, can you blame me? You came across as
a bit evasive before, you know, as though the conveyance fairies or some
other ethereal force was behind it while you sat back and enjoyed your
good deal. Now what you need to think about is how to put up the best
defense against this land takeover. Don't waste a minute. Get yourself a
GOOD attorney and give him/her all of the facts, good and bad.

For the record, I never once thouht Rachael was evasive or unclear. As
she said, she types like she talks.
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

"rachael simpson" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"rachael simpson" wrote in message


If you are somehow lucky enough to discover that your relatives are
(for example) involved in a real estate investment that will benefit
from dicking around with other people's land, and they're using public
financial resources to forward their venture, there's nothing wrong
with exposing this, perhaps in the newspaper. It's not illegal, but it
is most certainly obnoxious, and it's far more common than you may
think.
while, if that does happen, I'm sure folks will hear about it.
Personally, I would be more embarrassed that it had happened to me by my
family. However, i mainly think that they just aren't helping me with it
instead of them being behind it. And while I know that it may be the
other way around, if so i will deal with it then....however my main
concern is keeping the water source...


I understand.

If they get away with "it", they'll do it again.

this i know, they have gotten away with similar deeds in the past. I've
got too much dirt on her, she doesn't want to push this too hard...


Well, you just nice & quiet about it. Eventually, maybe they'll pull a stunt
like some town board members I read about back in the 70s. I think it was
Mississippi or Arkansas. Waste Management Corp. wanted to build a toxic
waste disposal site in a certain place that just happened to be where it
would almost immediately pollute the town's aquifer with nice things like
dioxin. They almost got away with purchasing people like your relatives.
Someone blew the whistle.

There are still places in the world where people who betray the public trust
are dealt with correctly.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"rachael simpson" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"rachael simpson" wrote in message
If you are somehow lucky enough to discover that your relatives are
(for example) involved in a real estate investment that will benefit
from dicking around with other people's land, and they're using public
financial resources to forward their venture, there's nothing wrong
with exposing this, perhaps in the newspaper. It's not illegal, but it
is most certainly obnoxious, and it's far more common than you may
think.
while, if that does happen, I'm sure folks will hear about it.
Personally, I would be more embarrassed that it had happened to me by my
family. However, i mainly think that they just aren't helping me with it
instead of them being behind it. And while I know that it may be the
other way around, if so i will deal with it then....however my main
concern is keeping the water source...

I understand.

If they get away with "it", they'll do it again.
this i know, they have gotten away with similar deeds in the past. I've
got too much dirt on her, she doesn't want to push this too hard...


Well, you just nice & quiet about it. Eventually, maybe they'll pull a stunt
like some town board members I read about back in the 70s. I think it was
Mississippi or Arkansas. Waste Management Corp. wanted to build a toxic
waste disposal site in a certain place that just happened to be where it
would almost immediately pollute the town's aquifer with nice things like
dioxin. They almost got away with purchasing people like your relatives.
Someone blew the whistle.

There are still places in the world where people who betray the public trust
are dealt with correctly.



yep....biding my time......just biding my time...

On Jul 24, 5:20�pm, rachael simpson
wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
rachael simpson wrote:
Sheldon wrote:

I gather from your writing that you don't actually own this 20 acre
pasture, but by some agreement you have access. And even if you do
own it if that land is designated as "Wetlands" (which is likely)
there is nothing you can do... I'm surprised the state is permitting
anyone to keep livestock there, perhaps they haven't inspected
recently and/or the local inspector turns a blind eye. If that
acreage is indeed wetlands I were you I'd not make a ruckus, I'd
quietly (and quickly) find somewhere else to keep my animals lest you
get hit with some stiff penalties and the clean up costs, which can be
staggering. And if you're using someone's land by verbal agreement
you can bet the owner will never admit to even knowing you. Among
other issues (erosion, etc.) wetlands are designated as such because
of how they affect other bodies of water and especially water tables,
most especially with coliform from livestock.
To start with, we had a legal contract to the land. Laywers took care of
this. It was a rental contract to begin with. The owner decided after 5
years of constant payment, we did not have to pay anymore to continue
using it. Had another document drawn-up, stating that we had paid in
full, and the land was legally ours, with the exception that he & his
wife have lifetime rights. We will own the area his house is own then,
also. For now, we help him keep his yard and garden up. We hold the deed
to the whole area of 32 acres.

That doesn't sound kosher to me, no one "takes care of" title
transfer. *You had no closing and paid no consideration, did no title
search to discover if the land is even clear of encumberences and who
the legal owner is. *You cannot so simply acquire land ownership by
say so... even a tax search would need to be conducted, someone is
always liable for taxes, always the owner of record.

you may choose to 'take care of' such things yourself, but we don't. the
man we got it from wanted it this way, we were getting a deal, we went
along.

No, it is not wetland area. Not according to the county maps and land
office anyway. I have had that checked.

You had it checked or checked it yourself, which?

both.





Cattle have been on that exact spot for generations. It has been a
pasture for at least 80 years. The man we got it from, his family had
that place before him. He is 84 and says that when he was a child, his
grand-father and father had cattle there

Who cares, that's a bunch of red herring if I ever smelled one.

You said you "have" a 20 acre pasture instead of saying you *own* a 20
acre pasture. *If you actually owned that land you would have said
*owned*, and then no way would any agency come on your land and do the
kind of work you describe, not unless there exists a wetlands easement
for remedial work, or some kind of easement. *If there actually was a
recent deed transfer you'd absolutely know of any incumberances,
especially easements and ROWs, they'd be accurately indicated right on
the deed, even if there were no recent survey.

Your way of expressing yourself does not make you believeable. *I've
bought and sold too may pieces of real estate in my life to not
recognize BS. *No one turns over 20 acres, and then another 10 acres
and with their home, just because as you claim you've been paying rent
to keep a few head of livestock in a pasture for five years (no one
keeps livestock with no shelter). *I don't care about what others wish
to believe but I for one do not believe your story, not a word.

do you ever believe anything anyway? i said *have*, not owned, because
that's the way i talk, i type like i talk. I have kids, i don't own
them. I have a van, my hubby and i have a home, we have another van
together, and he *has* 2 trucks. should i name the tractors and
equipment we *have* also? if i was talking to you face to face, i would
have said it the same way that i typed it, if you would even let me get
a word in edgewise. the horses and cows have a shelter (more than one)
too by the way, didn't think that was an important fact to state in my
question. also, if you read the thread, then you will notice that i
stated there is a ROW in place, for the electric company to care for
lines. *i don't know about where you are, but here when the state wants
to do some form of work to a ditch, they do it. sometimes we get
notices, sometimes we don't...depends on what type work, and if it's
fenced in.

oh, and you don't know what the price of the rent each quarter was. *it
justifies our *ownership*. besides, the man is a millionaire, a founding
father of our area and county. his kids didn't want the place, they have
lives elsewhere, and he is *nice*. something you obviously know nothing
about.

You concoct answers for everything, after the fact... another reason
why I don't believe you. This is usenet, people can post whatever
they like, but no one is under the onus to believe everything posted.
I happen to believe most posters, but not you. Sometimes when you
glom a $20 cart that everyone else pays $80 for it's best not to brag
about it. And now you're bragging about how you acquired 32 acres of
free land along with a millionair's home. I think a lot of posters
don't believe you, they're just not so frank as I. You seem to have
this proclivity for having to top everyone else, just like barroom one
upmanship... but you're not happy to claim you got a good bargain, you
have to say you stole it.

Rich folk don't give away their stuff so easily, that's how they got
rich... you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

From perusing your onslaught of pretensions by now I think you're a
patent liar, actually I think you're quite ill because you literally
believe your own lies. Okay, let's not say lies (too benign a word),
gross exaggerations are what you tell.

Charlie wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:36:07 -0400, rachael simpson
wrote:


Not even the people who inflicted this on you?
C

nope, not even them....

Ahhhhh........The Golden Way.

Charlie

yep,yep! do unto others as you would have them do unto you, honesty is
the best policy, honor & respect elders, no lying, no cheating, no envy,
no lashing out in anger, no stealing, no adultery, no idolatry....the
"complete golden way"!

Now, now.... there was no need to expand upon the Ethic of Reciprocity.

I was neither questioning, nor testing your beliefs. I was observing
and giving credit to you for your forgiving spirit.

One must keep it simple to appreciate it's true essence. This
principle is not the sole province of the teachings of Jesus or the
Hebrews. Or the Jainists or the Buddhists or the Hindus or any
others.....it is a Universal Principle.

It is complete in and of itself.

Care and G'luck
Charlie

Charlie, you are so misguided, it's frightening. Didn't you watch the
Sopranos?
:-)

On Jul 24, 7:38?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"rachael simpson" wrote in message

...





Pennyaline wrote:

Oh, honey. I gotta tell ya, I'm with Sheldon on this. Title transfers
*can* just happen as the result of a quit claim, but only if your name is
on the deed to start with or the deed is given over to you specifically.
You would know if this had happened. You would get the tax bill. Ask the
county for a copy of your deed.

Don't get the tax bill? Wow, you really did get a deal, didn't you!

At the end of all of this, it matters little what you *have*. What will
matter is what you can *prove*. The amount of rent you paid means squat
if you can't prove it was applied toward the purchase of the land, and
there is no ownership if you don't have the deed in your name. And though
the millionaire founding father may be the nicest man in town, it's
always wise to do a survey and title search. Don't take anybody's word
for things, no matter what the local lore is.

sheesh, i guess i need to explain even more than i do, huh? lol
what i meant by "we hold the deed", is that the land is in my husband's
name. therefore, we hold the deed, we pay the tax, and all that goes with
it. so we have the deed, and we have the paperwork proving
ownership.......
what i meant by "the lawyer took care of it" is that his (the man who
previously owned it) attorney had the land agreement & transfer drawn up.
we appeared before the attorney, the notary, and the register of deeds, to
finalize it. it is not a quit claim, or a quick claim. it was appraised
and surveyed. i do know to do a little research before getting in to
matters like that. i always "shop around"...so to speak...
hence why i asked all you for advice, i like to be armed to the max before
dealing with any type of "powers that be", be that a test, a lawyer, a
doctor, a church, local government, anything....

You'd better let us know (for Sheldon's benefit) what color ink you signed
each document in

To be legal it would have to be black, lawyers always demand black ink
on all legal documents. How does it feel, your very first intelligent
remark ever... and you thought you were being a snot. LOL

On Jul 24, 7:52?pm, fynbos wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:44

it. so we have the deed, and we have the paperwork proving
ownership.......

Well, this is easy enough to check online. There are 68 Simpsons that
are registered property owners on the Sampson county deed search
engine. What is your husband's name?

May not help, they claim to own their own home too. It's kinda
strange, don't yoose think, that the property transfer would not have
included the wife too... what is she, chopped liver. Or perhaps not
the wife, just a shack up. Should be easy to locate someone who
spells her name Rachael... that spelling is not very common.

Sheldon expounded:

May not help, they claim to own their own home too. It's kinda
strange, don't yoose think, that the property transfer would not have
included the wife too... what is she, chopped liver. Or perhaps not
the wife, just a shack up. Should be easy to locate someone who
spells her name Rachael... that spelling is not very common.

You are such an asshole.
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

Sheldon expounded:


To be legal it would have to be black, lawyers always demand black ink
on all legal documents.

Bullshit.

The reason for black ink back in the day was that blue didn't
reproduce. It never was a requirement, just not too smart to use a
color that couldn't be seen on copies. Since that's no longer true it
is no longer an issue.

How does it feel, your very first intelligent
remark ever... and you thought you were being a snot. LOL

How does it feel to once again show what an idiot you are?
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

On 7/24/07 8:30 PM, in article , "rachael
simpson" wrote:

Pennyaline wrote:
rachael simpson wrote:

black...ball point pen...had the viagra logo on it

Uh oh! That pen was only good for 36 hours!

lol, i was wondering when someone was going to comment on that!
I "acquired" (legally) a Viagra pen for DH to use when signing certain
things at work.. It was "disappeared".
C

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
On 7/24/07 8:30 PM, in article , "rachael
simpson" wrote:

Pennyaline wrote:
rachael simpson wrote:

black...ball point pen...had the viagra logo on it
Uh oh! That pen was only good for 36 hours!
lol, i was wondering when someone was going to comment on that!
I "acquired" (legally) a Viagra pen for DH to use when signing certain
things at work.. It was "disappeared".
C


want another?? i gots quite a few....and lescol,levitra, cialis,
xenical, aricept..(they are the ones in the jar beside me!)..the reps
were quite generous at the office.

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
On 7/24/07 8:30 PM, in article , "rachael
simpson" wrote:

Pennyaline wrote:
rachael simpson wrote:

black...ball point pen...had the viagra logo on it
Uh oh! That pen was only good for 36 hours!
lol, i was wondering when someone was going to comment on that!
I "acquired" (legally) a Viagra pen for DH to use when signing certain
things at work.. It was "disappeared".
C


personally, i liked the silver viagra pen better, looked more sophisticated.

Ann wrote:
Pennyaline expounded:

Okay, okay. I get ya. But come on, can you blame me? You came across as
a bit evasive before, you know, as though the conveyance fairies or some
other ethereal force was behind it while you sat back and enjoyed your
good deal. Now what you need to think about is how to put up the best
defense against this land takeover. Don't waste a minute. Get yourself a
GOOD attorney and give him/her all of the facts, good and bad.

For the record, I never once thouht Rachael was evasive or unclear. As
she said, she types like she talks.

just spotted this one...thanks ann!

Ann wrote:


You are such an asshole.

ha, while not my choice of words, i have to laugh at that one....
thanks again, ann...

i won't bore sheldon with any more comments on my life......i don't have
to justify myself to him of all people!

On 7/25/07 8:09 AM, in article , "rachael
simpson" wrote:

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
On 7/24/07 8:30 PM, in article , "rachael
simpson" wrote:

Pennyaline wrote:
rachael simpson wrote:

black...ball point pen...had the viagra logo on it
Uh oh! That pen was only good for 36 hours!
lol, i was wondering when someone was going to comment on that!
I "acquired" (legally) a Viagra pen for DH to use when signing certain
things at work.. It was "disappeared".
C


want another?? i gots quite a few....and lescol,levitra, cialis,
xenical, aricept..(they are the ones in the jar beside me!)..the reps
were quite generous at the office.
Sure - contact me off list...
C