Great thread, folks (Thanks for the jump-start, Dave....) but inevitably
it gets a bit muddled as to who says what. Not that I suppose it matters,
as we're all cyber-beings here,BUT:

On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Peter D. Junger wrote:

> MichaelP writes:
>
> : On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Robert G Goodby wrote:
>
> : But remember that the title to stolen property doesn't get cleared by the
> : passage of time. The anglo-style judicial system does not recognize my
> : rights to stolen property - regardless of what I paid for me, and
> : regaredless of whether I knew it was stolen or not.
>
> That statement is simply wrong.  The thief who posseses stolen
> property for a long enough period (which is defined by the appropriate
> statute of limitations) does in the common law system obtain title by
> ``adverse possession''.  The same result is reached in the civil law
> system by the doctrine of proscription.

Actually, I (Robert G) didn't write that.....I think Michael P did. I've
learned some interesting things about the finer points of law as a result
of this, and I appreciate it....but I suspect it's a bit of a side-street
to the main issue. Most on this list, I suspect, don't take the authority
of written law as an ultimate and infallible guide to thought & action...


Thanks Peter & Don for the legal education....I at least benefited from
it.


> Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
>  EMAIL: [log in to unmask]    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
>      NOTE: [log in to unmask] no longer exists
>