Comment: Using old Common Law sense

(See in situ)

Using old Common Law sense

practices such as Squatter's rights and common law Marriage, which the majority of states have, if the claimant can prove they've met the requirements of the law and did so for the required amount of time, he/she is either deemed married or owner of the property. Clearly, didn't quite make it to the finish line.

I think 7 years is the common time frame in both these cases. Any interruption in the time the owner of the property shows up and kicks the claimant off his property, the squatter has to go - empty handed. Or if one wants a divorce before the 7 years are up, he/she will have no claim to 'joint' property.

It seems to me Ron Paul is stepping in to bust up this 'marriage' AND outting the squatter whose benefitted enormously already from the use of his name=property. Just because Ron Paul allowed this behavior for a few years doesn't mean he intended it to become permanent, and thus, binding.

Even if Ron Paul had no use for this domain name, what he's clearly saying now is that he's not about to let his property- his name and reputation fall into the hands of anyone else but him. Would you?

But for the name, Ron Paul, would not have smelled the same.

Ron Paul was quite generous letting benefit for so long He even offered a generous amount to buy his property back. Did he ask for all the benefits it reaped-what- $150K, $250K? No. But he did receive a kick in the face when tacked on an additional $848K to the already quite generous revenue gained from squatting on and pretending to be married to the person Ron Paul...

Call me old fashioned, but that's just the way I see this relationship. is a 'gold-digger'. "Nothing personal Ron, just business!"

My advice to It's not smart to kill the goose that laid your golden egg. But don't worry. It's not like you are walking away with nothing, eh? LOL

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina