1,617 karma · joined October 31, 2022
Yes, I believe that’s called “society” and while we are all very disappointed about your personal liberties I’m afraid some compromises had to be made to allow people other than you to have property rights too.
Only if you tolerate assholes in your life. Many don’t.
What do you reckon your credit card bill (private obligation, governed by contract law) has to do with your ballot (civil right, governed by constitution)? I have to return my rental car on a certain day and my milk expires on a certain day, but I wouldn’t think to compare either to a mail-in ballot.
That would be “insane,” to use your preferred terminology.
If those thirty companies reconfigure their holdings so they each own one thirtieth of each of thirty parcels, under your model all of a sudden each company has thirty votes.
I believe if you tried to exploit the ambiguity in the law in a way that mattered enough for anyone to care, you would catch a lawsuit predicated on the idea that the one entity/one vote concept was violated by this trick. I think a court would approve of the idea.
I still agree with you that this law is poor, I just don’t think this exploit flies in court. But no one knows until they try.
(Did an LLM write your post?)
Do you think Section 9A(3), which more or less says these rules would be construed under one person/entity, one vote would break your plan? I believe if you tried to have thirty voters tied to one parcel of land by joint tenancy, that would be how the court stops you. The plaintiff here is arguing vote dilution, but vote dilution gets multiplied by an arbitrary factor in your model.
Why would thirty companies that owned a company together get one vote each instead of one thirtieth? The thirty companies would each have one vote in determining how to vote the one parent's vote.
(You are, however, correct to note that you can record absolute gibberish if you want to, so long as you pay the recorder. This does not effectuate a transfer of land, though; it merely serves as constructive notice to the person who is bound to look for such recorded notice, i.e., the beneficial purchaser for value. In a way, you could think of the function of a recorder as preventer of race conditions, not the database).
It would be void and regardless of recordation, no transfer or subdivision would have occurred.
An acre, here. See your local zoning code or land statutes for minimum lot sizes. Consult agreements that run with the land for additional restrictions.
It didn’t even pass the end of the paragraph where the quote originated.
Strongly inclined to hire such a prosecutor. Has this model been successfully deployed in any large U.S. cities? My only experience is watching it struggle in a medium one.
On your last point: given the ethical responsibility of a prosecutor, I’d go one step further. If you’re the prosecutor for a jurisdiction where a journalist works, and you make any statement about the legality of the journalists works, you better be substantially likely to secure a conviction, otherwise you should mind your business.
The duty of care is otherwise known as the duty to be informed. And the duty of loyalty is otherwise known as the duty not to usurp corporate opportunities. I stated the law in Delaware, which is consistent with the law on the rest of the United States on these points.
You and I simply use two different sets of words to describe the only two fiduciary duties of an officer.
As far as I can tell the fiduciary duty to make money for the shareholders is something that Jack Welsh of GE said enough times that people remembered it. However, I’m always interested in additional details concerning the history of this meme, and happy to learn more.
Two adults, a legal subject, sufficiently specified, offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent… a contract.