You are still wrong, Stahl
I said:How do you locate the boundaries of land parcels that have been established by any of the: ' Every mode of passing realty by the act of the party, as distinguished from passing it by the operation of law.'?
Statutes of repose and/or limitation confirm the legality of the established physical boundaries of these parcels, and the statute of frauds demands that these legal parcels be accurately described or else the transaction is fraudulent.
What every surveyor and citizen in the US must know, but you and others apparently don't, is that fee simple land owners have THE UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT OF DISPOSITION of their land. Neither you nor anyone else can set conditions that must be met before it can be said that a land owner has exercised an UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT!
Therefore, adjoining landowners may establish a common boundary and that boundary need not be the 'original' boundary; that is 'passing realty by the act of the party'..., not the operation of law.
However, when the owner wants to sell the remainder, the buyer/lender is entitled to an accurate record of the property being sold and that description must reflect the legal boundary established by the acts of the parties, not the original boundary.
You need much more study of Curtis Brown's talk on unwritten rights and much more study of Gates, "History of Public Land Law Development".
Looking to our legal system's case law rather than understanding fundamentals is asking the blind, (our legal system), to provide guidance to the halt and the lame,(you and attorney's).
Remember, Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, stated in his 1984 'Report on the State of the Judiciary', that the american legal system was no longer acceptable for a civilised society'.
When judges make crap decisions, stare decisis is no longer a reliable guide!
I don't get angry when most people find complicated things hard to understand but, when supposed professionals are not able to understand basic fundamentals they were taught between the 3rd & 5th grade of elementary school; that becomes a type of willful ignorance that is not acceptable.
Richard Schaut
Happy New Year, Mr. Schaut!
Please do not interpret this post as an endorsement of Mr. Stahl versus you. I usually disagree with each of you fairly equally. All I want to say on this first day of a new year is that I'm happy that you have once again seen the fallibility of the court system. You have repeatedly brought up a magazine article that was based on an appellate decision that used the term "bogus" to refer to a map that I prepared for that case. The appellate court and the preparer of the magazine article showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and content of the map. From your comments in the above post, I am confident that you understand that picking quotations from court decisions that the subject of the quotations was not involved in is inappropriate. As far as Sections 321-325 of the California Code, I'm going to leave that to others to debate with you from now on.
I wish you a new year of good health and prosperity.
Happy New Year, Mr. STEVE
and here here on your comments