[GonzoGOP]

Oh and one other factor.

Under United States law the principal limitations on whether and the extent to which the State may interfere with property rights are set by the Constitution. The "Takings" clause requires that the government (whether state or federal----for the 14th Amendment's due process clause imposes the 5th Amendment's takings clause on state governments) may take private property only for a public purpose, after exercising due process of law, and upon making "just compensation." If an interest is not deemed a "property" right, or the conduct is merely an intentional tort, these limitations do not apply and the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes relief.[11] Moreover, if the interference does not almost completely make the property valueless, the interference will not be deemed a taking but instead a mere regulation of use.[12] On the other hand, some governmental regulations of property use have been deemed so severe that they have been considered "regulatory takings."[13] Moreover, conduct sometimes deemed only a nuisance or other tort has been held a taking of property where the conduct was sufficiently persistent and severe.[14]

There is no distinction in the law between property owned by a corporation and property owned by and individual. And if you use eminent domain to take the property you have to pay the owner for it. You better get used to it because that's the way it is in the real world.

[Willie Green]

There is no distinction in the law between property owned by a corporation and property owned by and individual.

1) Go buy 1000 shares of any Fortune 500 Company.
2) Waltz into the CEO's office and tell him/her that the desk and chair he/she is using is "your property" and you're taking it home with you.
3) Watch how fast government law enforcement officers teach you the difference between corporate and individual property.