simaethae:

imindhowwelayinjune:

hubriswashispetard:

imindhowwelayinjune:

That is a hefty assumption, my friend, and laden with pro-Istari bias. Also we have no evidence the senior Mr. Baggins DID have any intention of dealing with the object according to court direction, as evidenced by the fact that he bequeathed it in the first place rather than seeking to return it to its rightful owner OR to destroy it as eventually and arguably legally ordered by a so-called competent court!

And I can’t believe you’re using the ‘it was in his pocketses but he wasn’t planning to USE it, no precious’ defense on top of all this. Shameful.

Ah, yes. This is what I am spending years of my life to achieve: nonsensical debates about fictional property disputes. However, let it never be said that I half-arsed arsing about. The following is based primarily on general English common law principals, because that is probably what Tolkien would have done.

1. We must assume that this dispute lies within either the civil, equitable, or criminal jurisdiction of the Aratar, simply because the only alternative is determining the taking of the Ring to be an act of war and, as far as I know, there is no agreement between the sides as to what the process should be here.

2a. Mr B. Baggins was for a long time (~60 years) not aware of the rightful owner’s existing claim, despite making (albeit limited, but reasonable in his circumstances) inquiries as to its origin, nor did the rightful owner make what the reasonable person would deem reasonable efforts to make known his claim. Such a pause in the maintenance of claim would usually give rise to a claim of adverse possession and the property would rightly be Mr B. Baggins’s, but the timescale would undoubtedly be altered in relation to the enchanted property of a technically immortal being.

2b. Assuming that the adverse possession argument fails: once Mr B. Baggins was made aware of the claim, at which time he was also directed by an agent of the court, he (reluctantly) complied with the direction by forfeiting his claim and transferring the property to another.

3. The property, now in the possession of Mr F. Baggins as per the direction, was laden with the additional directions that it be destroyed in a certain manner under the supervision of an agent of the court and that it not be used for any other purpose. The second direction was breached on numerous occasions, but this would give rise to a charge of contempt of court, not theft.

So, in the defence’s submission, the chain of title goes as such: Sauron, creator, rightful owner > Isildur (deceased), thief and murderer, no claim > Deagol (deceased), finder, claim valid against the whole world except the rightful owner > Smeagol, thief and murderer, no claim > B. Baggins, finder,
claim valid against the whole world except the rightful owner, possible claim as adverse possessor > F. Baggins, custodian of property under court direction, no claim in the property itself but has obligation to deal with the property according to direction.

I ain’t even mad I’m just gonna push this over to @simaethae because I’m pretty sure this is the most gorgeously legal response to her post I’ve seen. 

okay, looks like my bluff has been called and I’m going to have to make an actual argument! (few things have ever pleased me more than my post turning into an actual discussion of the ownership of the Ring, this is not where i expected to end up but is nonetheless great)

So, @hubriswashispetard​, I think describing Bilbo as a “finder” is a very generous construction! There is certainly much to criticise in Gollum’s own behaviour, but while Bilbo may have “found” the Ring, he quickly became aware that it was in Gollum’s possession. Theft from a thief can’t be considered to give Bilbo any legitimate claim: he can’t exactly be said to lack notice that the Ring was stolen property. He did, after all, steal it himself.

As such, it’s far from clear to me that adverse possession is a relevant factor. Bilbo is handling stolen property. There is no applicable statute of limitation on theft or related crimes under English law, and, as neither he nor Frodo are bona fide purchasers for value – neither of them gives consideration for the Ring and Frodo appears to be informed as to its history, therefore giving him actual notice of its status – there has been no transfer of ownership such as to extinguish the original owner’s claim.

(It did occur to me to wonder whether the One Ring is an object which can be owned, given that it seems to have some limited degree of sentience. I think it’s fair to say that while it displays volition – it slips from fingers and compels its bearers to put it on at appropriate times – it appears not to have actual personhood, so the Bagginses are only guilty of theft rather than kidnapping or slavery.

The Ring contains part of Sauron but in the absence of judicial guidance as to the status of the soul, this – seems to take me to the rule that there is no property in the human body, i.e. you don’t own your own body parts. That’s weird, I had no idea. Anyway, this just circles back to the conclusion that the relevant factor is the legal ownership of the Ring itself rather than any bits of Sauron it might contain.)

I note the possibility that the confiscation and destruction of the One Ring was ordered by the Aratar and that Frodo acted in accordance with their directions. This seems something of a stretch: Saruman, who is surely no less an officer of the court than Gandalf, is clearly opposed to any such course of action.

Sauron owns the Ring, Bilbo stole it, Frodo is handling stolen property. Did I really just spend time researching this? Yes, and it feels completely worthwhile.
¯_(ツ)_/¯