1. The state or fact of being an owner.

2. Legal right to the possession of a thing

Main Entry: own·er·ship
Function: noun
: the state, relation, or fact of being an owner; also : the rights or interests of an owner




---

absolute ownership
: ownership esp. by a single person that is free of any encumbrances or limitations other than statutory law —compare fee simple absolute at FEE SIMPLE




---

os·ten·si·ble ownership
/ä-'sten-s&-b&l/
: ownership that is apparent rather than actual and that sometimes is recognized in cases of purchase of the property by an innocent third party <a dispute arising from the dealer's ostensible ownership and sale of the collateral>
NOTE: A purchaser from a person with ostensible ownership of property may be able to defeat the claim to the property of the actual owner who created the ostensible ownership.




---

ownership in in·di·vi·sion
in the civil law of Louisiana : ownership by two or more persons each having undivided shares in the property as a whole —compare community property at PROPERTY
NOTE: Ownership in indivision is ended by a partition of the property.




---

qualified ownership
: ownership that is limited by time, the interest of another party, or restrictions on the use of the property <had only qualified ownership of the fish and game on his property due to state restrictions>


 

According to the Supreme Court, it seems like the Fee Simple Ownership is now being turned into QUALIFIED Ownership.

I am really troubled by this.

I have been witness to the system.

It used to include a pretty long process to prove Eminent Domain rights to grab a person’s house and/or land and in many cases  it still seemed cruel and unnecessary .That was cruel even though it provided something for the public good. This new ruling is another nail being pounded into  The USA.

The people on the East Coast of Florida that have been fighting to keep their houses instead of letting vacation resorts take them over. Is the fight now OVER for them?

Do they have a ghost of a chance? Do any of us that own or at least THOUGHT we were legal owners have a chance? A condo brings in more people so there fore more taxes,

Now with the price of homes being a small fortune to purchase, well, I have had second thoughts..


 

My mind goes in so many sick and twisted ways.

I can not believe the one justice said” he assumed the  parties were acting fair.”

How I wished it was like that out there in the cruel world but it is not.

               

  The good guys do not always win.

It use to be

 

We the People.

Not

We the Corporation

We use to say

That kind of stuff could never happen here.

That is what happens when Communists rule.

What am I on the rag about?

Do you live under a rock??

 

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday, June 23,2005 that governments can seize property to make room for private development projects to try to boost the economy.

 

If that doesn’t scare every American I don’t know what will.
 
This is not a Right or Left deal so do not get absorbed in that kind of argument regarding this Anti American, Anti Ownership decision handed down by a Court that was mainly put into power by Republican Presidents.
 
Rehnquist,William
Reagan
 
Stevens,John Paul
Ford
 
Sandra Day O Connor
Reagan
 
Scalia, Antonin
Reagan
 
Kennedy,Anthoney
Reagan
 
Souter David
GHW Bush
 
Thomas, Clarence
GHW Bush
 
Ginsberg ,Ruth Bader
Clinton
 
Breyer , Stephen
Clinton
 
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf
The ruling drew a sharp dissent from Justice

 

 Sandra Day O'Connor, who warned that it will allow governments to seize any property simply to allow developers to upgrade it. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall," In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans. said O'Connor, who was joined by Chief Justice