As there are conflicting views as to what is required to be considered married in different states, one thing might be cohabitation capacity, another thing might be consummation of marriage is necessary, etc.
– the same (what is required ) could apply to what is to be considered harassment, stalking, etc. , such as to where it qualifies as a legal case.
– Like don’t have a civil relationship ship with, don’t live together, and so forth. Being aggressive? Predatory?
Is it necessary to distinguish between the two to prevent adverse possession?
The statute governing adverse possession is Civil Practices & Remedies Code sections16.021 et seq. It defines adverse possession as “an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person.”
To prevent a trespasser from gaining property ownership, you can take the following steps:
1. Post “no trespassing” signs and block entrances with gates. …
2. Give written permission to someone to use your land, and get their written acknowledgement. …
3. Offer to rent the property to the trespasser.
4. Call the police.
5. Hire a lawyer.
You know how society does not have the money time or other resources to rehabilitate criminals ? That is how doctors are, in regards to your health …, so it is all your responsibility to rehabilitate yourself or go to a health inspired church, be thankful for any help or support you get, NOT CALLING CRAZY or being defensive (what’s that about- when you are the victim of your own ineptitude?)! You can change your diet a lot cheaper and prevent a lot of ills or paying for killing.
The trick is to not introduce foreign views? The trick is to not sneak in foreign views, as if new law. Texas Enacts ‘Anti-Sharia’ Law http://bit.ly/2sGoLaW via @BreitbartTexas
Even if you say you have conflicting views, whoever acts negatively first as if supporting the conflict, is the one stuck with it.
There didn’t used to be such conflicting views. They are not born of a need to change, but a need to oppose? Meaning if I was wrong before and admit it and change, you continuing to oppose me is your need to be oppositional not a need to be right.
Should I allow you to make me seem like someone who is insecure in her beliefs, where you aren’t, because you flaunt faults and all? And if I ignore it, that means that I will accept your following? As if none of my own, in what is right? And still come in conflict? Or try to correct it, publicly, at the risk of seeming like a monster?
No one needs a multitude of silent conflict, when they could save theirself a lot of trouble at the start.