CCL Version .68 Has Been Released

Lots of little fixes and modifications:

  • Lots of formatting issues (italics, fonts, etc)
  • Revised section on easements, including conditions for abolishment.
  • revised footnote regarding duress of another’s property to include “AI entities” as well as robots.
  • Clarified general membership procedures and rules.
  • Clarified conditions for legitimate bail-out of a defaulted financial institution.
  • Added new section on “judicial guards” (similar to bailiffs) and their role in settling disputes.
  • Clarified conditions for judicial repeal.
  • Removed assertion that guilty party paying for legal fees is part of their sentence.
  • Clarified what it is adjudicators are paying for when pursuing a search/audit warrant.
  • Revised chronological requirements and majority rules for when jury and judge cannot settle on a verdict.

CCL Version .67 Has Been Released

  • This version implemented alot of the material from Ulex 1.1, including three portions regarding product liability, financial institutions, and contract law. Basically, ALI’s superior resources are used wherever CCL might potentially be deficient or simply says nothing in disputes – but only if those relevant portions don’t contradict CCL to begin with. Think of it as this: you’re building a house and have all the manufacturer’s specific materials to use. But you begin working and then realize something is missing. These portions in CCL basically say “go the lumberyard and get the standard materials, but only if they fit.” This prevents a huge amount of emendations for CCL down the road, and implements the best legal frameworks in existence without compromising CCL’s core (libertarian) principles.
  • A draft section on easements; it needs some work yet, but it’s generally in place.
  • Some procedures have been modified regarding settling disputes. Arbiters are required to implement “pendulum arbitration” when settlement through mediation fails – since it is the most effective procedure.
  • Also another caveat for arbitration: instead of going straight to subpoena if a defendant refuses to participate in arbitration for an aggression – aka by refusing to jointly choose an arbiter, they can choose to have their own arbiter choose with the plaintiff’s arbiter and third arbiter, who will then settle the case. This is a very effective method of judicial procedure since it mitigates arbitration bias.
  • “Addenda” are now “modules.”
  • Because of size, I also moved the entire definitions of “consent” to the chapter on contract law.
  • Also, provided an image of the degrees of consent (express – implied – hypothetical), and specific that CCL does not enforce hypothetical consent.

 

How Does CCL Work? (A Quick Summary)

(The following is from our updated “Vision” page.)

CCL works like a voluntary association. What’s a voluntary association? Clubs, churches, academic societies, etc.

Consider the American Economic Association, an academic society for professors of economics. The Association has its own board, different types of membership, different rules, policies, and procedures for governing everything related to the association. Certain people can join (e.g., professors), and they can leave at any time for any reason (can’t afford it, don’t like it, etc.). Members agree to pay an annual fee to receive the association’s benefits (e.g., a hard-copy journal, free access to annual conference, voting privileges, etc.).

The CCL Network works the same way, only instead of being applicable to academic publications and a few conferences once a year, it applies to an entire person and their property, 24/7. It also allows disciplinary action (i.e., law-breaking or “aggression”) to involve physical force (e.g., detainment for trial involving theft). Furthermore, with CCL the association itself is decentralized. There is no governing board or democratic law-making bodies. Individuals specifically pay for Adjudicators and Enforcers to receive whatever level of benefits they want or can afford. The CCL text is the “law” – just like any other terms and conditions of a contract.

Easements?

Should a property-rights policy include easements? If so, which ones and how? Here’s a draft policy…post your comments below; look forward to your input.

  • Easements
    • CCL recognizes property easements.[1]
    • Such easements can be either negative or affirmative.[2]
    • Easements come into existence either by implication[3] or by prescription.[4]
    • If the dominant estate is sold or otherwise transferred to another, the easement appurtenant over the servient estate transfers with it.
    • Easements in gross[5] are not transferrable unless transfer is specifically authorized in the document creating the easement.

All easements attached to properties are required to appear in title records and property disclosures.

[1] Definition: An “easement” is a nonpossessory interest in another’s land/space that entitles the holder only to the right to use such land/space in the specified manner. An “easement appurtenant” attaches to the land/space and benefits its owner. In order for it to exist, there must be two pieces of land/space owned by different individuals. One piece, the “dominant estate,” is the land/space that is benefited by the easement. The other piece, known as the “servient estate,” is the land/space that has the burden of the easement.

[2] Definition: An “affirmative easement” entitles the holder to do something on another individual’s land (e.g. drive over, use of spring water, entry to make repairs on a fence or slide area, drive cattle across, etc.).

Definition: A “negative easement” divests an owner of the right to do something on the property (e.g., restrictions on buildings, restrictions on blocking view, restriction on hunting wildlife or using natural resources in certain ways, etc.).

[3] Definition: An “easement by implication” occurs when the owner of a piece of land/space divides such land/space into smaller pieces and sells a smaller piece to another person, retaining a right to enter such piece of land/space. (E.g., a seller divides his or her property and sells half to a purchaser, and the piece that the purchaser buys has a sewer pipe beneath it that serves both pieces of property. The seller has an implied easement to use the sewer pipe that runs under the purchaser’s land.)

[4] Definition: An “easement by prescription” arises through homesteading. If the adjacent property is unowned, this kind of easement comes into existence after three years of regular appropriation. (E.g., A company homesteads an area of land and creates an airport that emits noise through other unowned lands. Three years later, people come to the area and homestead adjacent land to the airport. The company has created an easement—the right to emit airplane noise—through the people’s land and is therefore not liable to committing a nuisance.) If the adjacent property is owned, this kind of easement comes into existence under the following conditions (a) after three years of appropriation; (2) the easement is either with or absent the permission of the landowner; (3) it is observable; (4) it is continuous and uninterrupted; (5) the (potential) servient estate owner has not complained of nuisance. If these conditions are fulfilled, the easement must then be documented in the title records in the CCL Digital Network.

[5] Definition: An “easement in gross” is not appurtenant to any estate in land. It arises when a servient piece of land exists without a dominant piece being affected. This type of easement is ordinarily personal to the holder.