A distinction needs to be made between the nutjobs the media trots out and parades as spokesmen for the lunatics and the genuine issues with governance and property ownership in this and pretty much every country on earth. This is done on purpose to discourage any conversation about what constitutes ownership and to maintain the illusion in benefit of the Crown.
Have a look at the ramifications of Mabo, the result was a form of absolute ownership of land and not token ownership via estates in fee simple. There is a reason govco and by corollary the Crown fought tooth and nail against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prktkljokr
So if the Crown own the land, then I purchase land for cash then who owns it?, why then do I ned a mortgage to buy it if I don't own it?
I will sell you a Falcon, but you don't own it, Henry Ford owns it.
I have a copy of My Title, already know you are not allowed to have the original, my Mother had her Original Title, as they used to allow you to have them.
|
You're not buying the land, you're buying the title to it, an estate in fee simple:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple
The form of payment (outright or using credit) makes no difference, the bank can't lodge a claim on the land directly, the lodge it against the title.
Cars are also sold in the same manner (when new anyway).
Back in the day there were always two copies issued when a parcel of land was titled, one for the Titles Office and one for the "buyer". When one borrowed money to "buy" the land, the buyers copy was taken by the bank for the duration of the debt.