[BluffTHIS!]

OK BigLaw so let's add in your last response to clarify and we get:

1) adverse possession is a valid method of property acquisition conditioned on being:
-a) actual possession
-b) open/publicly known
-c) exclusive
-d) for a given time period
-e) held adversely against all other claims
-f) abandonment is defined as "the failure to assert one’s ownership rights against a squatter or other invader of the property within a reasonable time"

2) there is a time period (reasonble time) one must possess same to justify same;
-a) that time period is short for objects/whatever goods you can take with you
-b) that time period is longer for land
-c)The time period has to be long enough for owners or potential owners to assert their ownership, but short enough that owners cannot sit on their rights indefinitely. It is a balance between protecting the owner’s security and the new possessor’s developed interest in the property.
-d) the time periods for both adverse possession and reasonable assertion of ownership begins with adverse possession.

3) you have the right to "police" that adverse possession as did the "first takers" of wilderness or whatever.

4) there is a limit on how much property one can adversely possess and retain which is determined by the conditions justifying adverse possession and due to the fact that one can only ACTUALLY possess and use a relatively small piece of property exclusively to others’ use AND continuously for a reasonable period (farmer can only plow so many acres). However you can sell any excess at any time.



Alright. Notice that in #4 I didn't distinguish as you did between "theory" and "practice". The idea here is to discuss the theory, and not a results dependent analysis. The theory determines what is a right or wrong practice. Would you agree with that and my formulation of #5?

Now let me ask some additional questions:

V) What is the justification for your different time periods for portable articles and land? Is it value, which thus would mean high value portable articles should enjoy greater time protection as well?

VI) Who determines what "reasonable" is even?

VII) In #2d, where the time clock starts with adverse possession, doesn't this mean when I see anyone leave their house and drive away I can go sit in their house and start the clock, being willing of course to leave if the owner returns soon to reassert his claim?

VIII) Are violent means, as in those minimally necessary to get the job done, valid means for assertion and policing of prior ownership, whether that of the earlier owner during the reasonable period or a later squatter, when persuasion fails?

IX) Regarding #4, and the practical amount of land one can actually use, is that conditioned on how much an individual can use, or is it permissible to hire enough employees to work it and thus assert ownership?