They want a Puerto Rico without Puerto Ricans like Hawaii without Hawaiians, etc. Shame on them and shame on people who want her out of there and shame on people being petty. Puerto Ricans are hard workers and it is not a freebie at all for her to want to stay in her home.
Y? They took land from others. They should appreciate d free land that they got for over a century and move on. Corp will also loose it one day. Cycle keeps moving. It’s life
@@RojaJaneman you dont know the history of PR. Like in US there are protected lands, so is an island. Those are the natives. And they have fought and still are. Just because some people gave up their homes to big corporations. Dont mean islanders all will do the same or all act the exact same way. But living on an island is a way of life that has respect towards mother nature and to each other as brothers and sisters.
@@mothergaia549 just because you lived somewhere for generations doesn't mean some military can't come and tell your family to go F*ck yourselves. Happened everywhere else. I'm not justifying it, but you can't act like it's that agregous, like you mentioned Native Americans, yeah look how well that turned out for us? We got projects(reservations)
Not if the government allows them to buy it maybe they should elect better leaders shits basically third world but apart of the us technically if they want better they should elect better
That's kind of absurd, though. So businesses can't own the land they invest in? Or do you mean residential only? Something tells me that would have unintended consequences
Even if she did. I bet itd likely be shell company no amount of negative public shaming could influence or harm their reputation. Because there is no actual person or business to harm by doing so. Its why so many of these things keep happening. They have a face man do all the buying up. And once thats done they become a faceless entityless thing.
You cant shame them because what they are selling is tourism, it is property to multi million if not billionaires. The people who are shaming, arent even the people who'd be buying from them. They dont care about doing the right thing because the shame is nothing to them Walmart target sephora other businesses where the Average person is buying from them supporting them public shaming works. Because the wrong or enough negative public outcry can impact sales. An the upper people in these facesless entity's wants its money to grow not shrink. When it comes to property they do not care and no negative press will harm them. If it does they just rebrand and do it again. Which eww ugh People need to go after the Government here. Because they are the only ones who can actually change the outcome. Shame the Government it may help.
@@restinwalkenall corporations have to be registered under a person! A person has to be on the paperwork with the department of State whichever one it is that the corporation was filed with!! So either way you can find out who filed the paperwork and it will all be listed in the department of State of where the company was filed which you can find out by getting the company name and finding out what their business is listed under! I filed paperwork for corporations so this is not very hard to do and you can always trace it back there's always a paper trail!!!
Her family was living there since 🇪🇸 Spain occupied Puerto Rico when P.R. was first called San Juan 🇵🇷 , that ended around between 1910 - 1940, around when the U.S. Military took over it and kick Spain’s ass, and became a Commonwealth of the USA something like that, So I believe that this woman has the rights to own that piece of land and property, her family has been there since day ☝🏼 one., Show some respect 🫡 🇺🇸🇵🇷
@psychobobby5174 I'm sure the more I learned about you as a human being, the more and more impressed I'd become. Too bad I only get this little slice of you but it speaks volumes, bud. You're doing great.
@@eeyun5279 yeah, that’s my issue with a person who owns this channel all her videos are very emotional based and nothing about the laws involved. Be wrong. It’s important to have compassion for people in general but at some point you have to understand that we can’t just simply do whatever we want when there are laws we are breaking
@@IRLSuperb I’m with you man. I vote pretty much entirely progressive, I obviously don’t think the woman should be thrown out on the street. But we need to set up universal programs for situations like this. We can and should find adequate housing for her somewhere else, the same way we would for any other older person who lost their place. But we can’t just give out housing based on whichever sob story plays on our emotions. Otherwise everyone who doesn’t have a sob story or evoke enough compassion for the animals online gets screwed over. I think it’s important to use empathy to fuel logic, but not rule over it. Because when you let emotion be the sole factor in decisions… we make bad decisions. It leads to hasty, uninformed decisions… and it incentivizes victim hood and grievance nursing.
Welcome to the Puertorican judicial system. It’s about as corrupt as they come. Also under the American boot. Which will not let its grip go off the island.
@@eeyun5279 Yes we need to make informed decisions And not solely go on emotion And YES THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN PLACE TO OFFER SPACE TO PERSONS DISPLACED (ESPECIALLY ELDERLY) HOWEVER IF THE CORPORATION AGREED WHEN BUYING THE LAND THAT SOME PEOPLE ALREADY THERE COULD STAY THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BACK OUT OF THAT NOW !!! ALSO THAT LAW SHE MENTIONED IF THAT IS IN FACT FACT ! THAT SHOULD BE RESPECTED !!
"There's a law the allows someone who has been living on the land for decades become the rightful owner of that land" and of course they decided they don't want to hear the case. They KNOW it that's why. They always do that shit.
The power of No means NO. MEANING... No, I will not yield nor forfeit any rights to corporations. She should be there because she's been there, not a corporation. The same can be said for all original and indigenous people. It's called FREEDOM people.
And to be clear I'm sympathetic. But I'm also sympathetic to the purchaser. And I'm baffled how she says here they have been there for 140 years but at trial it was since she was little and still had no evidence for anything. If I had to prove where I lived when I was little I could go to the school and get my address from their records or I could produce friends to say yeah she lived there etc. And wouldn't you have some evidence of paid bills and communication with the owner
@@SnowsStorm1It says that her case wont even be heard. Whether she has that proof or not, she's homeless. Also you DO know that being an old lady, the only thing she can possibly point to are the bills… And that’s if they still do it in paper (my bills aren't unless I make a special request that takes forever). Why would a school keep 80 year old records? And that's if the school she went to is still standing and didn't get ANY renovations.
@@gromplin I looked up the final appeal verdict so respectfully that is incorrect, which isn't surprising given the way the channel elected to present the facts. I can't explain all of the gaps because some of it was a tad confusing from the translation and there were other lawsuits and issues with the area not to mention the hurricane but from everything I saw, her case WAS HEARD in 1993 when they FIRST began trying to evict her. Again I have no clue why they had to wait years to execute it and it seems like she did not initially appeal that verdict but nevertheless SHE DID HAVE A FULL HEARING. Because I did not have that file I can't tell you why she lost that case but when you don't appeal the verdict becomes what they refer to as Res judicata, meaning you can't come back 15 years or 25 years later and say I want to re-litigate the argument I've made and lost back then although the appeals court said she still didn't establish a date in her records. Edited to add she didn't have to prove she lived there 85 years ago which would be a real trick given that she is only 75. In 1997 when the case was heard she had to prove that she lived there in 1962 or prior. If I had to prove my parents bought there home in 1970 I would contact friends and I would call the power company or the phone company to see if they could determine when I started my service. In her case she got married 40 years ago. What address did she put on her marriage license. Things like that.
Corporations are only out of control because of the corrupt politicians that pass ridiculous regulations that hurt little people and small businesses and give corporations that type of power. If you vote if you vote Democrat, you’re voting for the people that love regulations and love, corruption and love big corporations. And they do it with the help of a small minority of the establishment Republicans. And of course, the media.
Seriously. Maybe you just make everything else better where you're trying to boost tourism, Instead of Screwing over the other people who live there. There's no reason that economically beneficial things can't be done in already popular areas.
If the previous owner put that clause in the sales contract that she is to remain in the property, there should be a public record of it. I’ll be great if you can find it and make it public before it could “not be found” anymore. It could help her with her case.
If the previous owner of the land wanted Ramona to live there for the rest of her life, he needed to record her life estate at the county courthouse. Since the previous owner did NOT record a life estate for Ramona, she is stealing from the owner every single day that she will not vacate.
They’d almost definitely choose to have her evicted if they did hear the case. They never owned the land. Previous owners were showing them grace. But showing grace for over a hundred years to descendants to is a bit iffy.
They need to make it illegal for corporations to own this kind of land. It should be protected for the people. The same way we have land set aside and protected for wildlife.
Seeing as all governments around the world are legal corporations I don’t see that happening ever unless the people dismantle the system and start something entirely new
Well that's not necessary, we just need to make sure existing laws are heard rather than this "fingers in the ear lalalala" stuff that's happening here.
I am seeing a lot of people say she does not own the land. But Puerto Rico has something called Usucapión (after 20 years) she should be consider the owner by law.
Vamos a ver para que se dé la usucapión, hay unos requisitos así que tú comentario es absolutamente absurdo. Con meterte en Google solucionas tu ignorancia.
No hay que buscar en Google, cuando la corte suprema ya decidio el caso, tu arrogancia es atrevida 😊. A esa seńola lamentablemete la estan scamming los abogados creandole falsas expectativas cuando ya la corte decidio.
She made that claim and failed. Usucapion is just another term for adverse possession or squatters rights which I believe is actually 35 years. The problem there is that her grandfather or other family members having been there is irrelevant because they never took possession of the land so now it hinges on her having been there uninterrupted and in a way that suggests that she took ownership of the land and that someone wasn't just doing her a favor. The problem with that argument is she then turns around and says but the owner created a permanent tenancy for us and the land was sold with our presence as effectively an encumbrance on the land. Doesn't that negate her claim that she held herself out as the owner? And if that second argument were true why isn't it in the contract. Very sad case but it's not surprising that the courts all rules against her
How exactly is it theft? They own the land rightfully. I feel for the lady, but this sounds kind of fishy . Her family has been there 140 years and they can’t document that? The person that owned the land sold it but said they could stay? Why isn’t that in writing if true? Not that I have any affection for big corporations, but it’s big corrupt government people like the Democrats that give corporations this type of power.
Stay strong my peoples God see's the evils of the wicked and it will not go unpunished.. ✨️🧡 thank u for always shining ur light on these things much love too u sis !
@@alexpeters7987. There is no such thing as squatter’s rights anymore. That was invented at a time when land was plentiful and government offices far away. People would settle on a piece of land and when government officials were sent to the area they would file for ownership. Same with common law marriage; ministers, priests, and judges traveled from town to town and if you wanted to marry and there was no one to officiate, you could cohabitate under the law and marry formally when the time came. This could take a while and it’s why most common law states say after 7 years you are legally considered married. In 140 years her family never made it official that they own this land. Now the legal owner of the land wants to use it. The court is right. It is a sad story and a lesson for people going forward.
I agree that Ramona's family should own it. The party that "bought it" agreed based on the condition that her family could stay. They broke that condition, so that should nullify the sale.
@@somethingelse4424this is why it's important to own the land under your home or at least be the contract holder of its use. The only landlord that *probably* won't evict you is the state. The little pink house is one of the exceptions to that rule but it's still mostly true.
Awful, and quite disturbing that legal officials and the continuous betrayal of elected politicians against local Puerto Rico citizens. Independence is the only solution!
Whomever owns the corporate property needs to be exposed, and Puerto Ricans need to stand by her...shame on a government that does not support its people.
@@vector2864they literally said it's a law if you've been there for decades it's your land and that when the property sold the condition for her to stay was included. 🤦🏽♀️
@@saleanatirado5870the family sold the land. They got paid, and now they want the same land given back to them? I’m sorry man but that’s not how it works
Like money can replace her ancestral home? A place where she has lived her entire life, and generations before her? No amount of money can replace that!
Who came up with titles and deeds for land? I guarantee you if her people were there almost 150 years it’s not something they knew about nor was she educated in… they need to back off. In essence they are saying how dare a poor person try and have beach front property…
actually they would have. that land was probably owned by a family/person years and years before ramona’s family came to live there. for example, in america, people bought land back in the 1700s and 1800s, which they let people live on and build businesses on. most people in america, canada, puerto rico, mexico, england, etc live on land owned by someone or some family and if it’s a city, town, or somewhere significantly populated; most likey they owned it or it has been owned, sold, bought by others for decades and centuries.
Then the person who sold it is the villain here because I'm not buying that there was an agreement she could stay or they would be in the contract. If I know I don't own your home, I'm not selling your home but if I let you stay in my cottage as a favor and then I need to sell the property, you lose your free house.
You’re right that’s what a lot of ppl in this comment section are saying without saying it outright. Ppl are envious at the fact that her family had lived beachfront from 140 years but to her that is her home her heritage not some vacation spot for colonizers.
This is the law in most places. If you've lived there for a certain amount of time, it's yours. This is shameful. All involved should be ashamed. Boycott this company.
Where’s Rene, Ricky Martin and the others with strong influence to protest this atrocity that the PR government is doing to the people and the Island 🏝️ 😢
With how close to the sea those houses are and how much trees they are cutting it won't Be long until those fancy houses get water damage , so you bet they will
I will never understand. The people in charge will do the most harm to their own people, to their own island and they'll wish they hadn't. That poor woman🙏
That is so unfair and unsettling that the Supreme Court who upholds the law doesn't want to do their job. I wonder how they are benefiting from Ramona being evicted
The government benefits by being so huge the can do anything to us. We need a way small government. We need less rules not more. The us government is the largest employer in America, that’s how disgustingly huge Americas government is. And it fails at everything it touches. Time for cut the government and taxes. No more tyrants
The owner of the land let her stay free and then maybe got old or maybe left the land as an inheritance for her kid and whoever owned was in a position that they wanted to sell. Instead of saying she was fortune to have been able to live free for 75 years we are saying what? That the owner had to hold on to the land forever so the family could continue living free even if they couldn't afford that? That they buyer who bought the whole of the land at market value should pay for her to be there? It's incredibly sad but I think how lucky that she had all that time
@@SnowsStorm1yes, the family should be allowed to live there for free because they were there since before it was on sell. They sellers are assholes for trying to force them to live just to attract tourists who will ruin the entire ecosystem of the zone. This is colonization
Easy solution. The company should buy/build her a large nice house, in a location nearby, where they could give her an actual deed to the property. Easier and cheaper than fighting in court.
Gringos and corruption? what a child like way of seeing things living in a land for a long time means nothing ask the Native Americans if the land owner really cared that much he should of given the land she lives on but he didn’t learn form this brown person
I think he probably thought the development firm would honor the agreement to leave her in place and then develop the land after she passed. If he has signed it over to her, they could never do that. But if they let her live her life, and then developed afterwards, everyone wins.
They have been trying to evict her since 1997. I doubt when she was 50 they agreed to let her live there her entire life and didn't bother to get a life tenancy agreement.
Please give further details on exactly which person,/company that is so greedy, so heartless so that I any anyone I can convince will not ever set foot on or spend one dime that property.
If it was stated in the contract that those places needed to stay there as a condition for that place to be sold therefore they're allowed to stay there and that they cannot take their land
@@Sharon-k5zThe clip is probably correct. The legal concept of "adverse possession" doesn't just exist in Puerto Rico, but in most countries. Her continuous occupation of the home would likely make a strong claim for ownership of the property. However, the Court would likely not hear the decision for 2 reasons: 1) Supreme Courts in general only hear a *tiny* percentage of the cases brought to them. For example, in the USA, the Supreme Court will hear less than 2% of cases brought to them. So the odda were generally stacked against her. 2) Chances are a ruling in this particular case would open the door to similar suits from other locals against large real estate developers and cost PR a lot of potential investment. Thus the courts were under a lot of pressure to squash the case.
@@yessum15 the evidence is in the clip. The speaker tells you that a life estate was reserved or at least something in the nature of a life estate was reserved. Possession under a reserved life estate is not adverse and therefore does not feel the elements of that cause of action
Whoever that person is that made that comment DOES NOT know the law. Every state has rules on people living on/using land without a title. People like to show their ignorance, instead of being quite.
Wow the people of Puerto Rico needs to stand up for her and sign a petition or whatever they need asking the Supreme Court to hear this case band together as a whole
As crypto goes up you will get more buyers there. The tax laws for crypto there make it to where you don’t have to pay tax on it like at all (double-check that don’t just take me at my word). I’m surprised puerto rican’s aren’t taking advantage of that to bring wealth to the island, instead of watching other people get wealthy. Then they move there for the tax laws before they sell. 🤔 I made a lot through crypto too and considered it but chose to stay near family instead.
Then it’s on the people of Puerto Rico to do something about it. If all her neighbors and people got together to defend her home the government would back down. Unfortunately people simply don’t have the balls to defend themselves anymore.
What neighbors? The rich that bought all the property around are not going to support this poor person when it’s probably them that don’t want to look at a shack while living in a mansion
There is nothing to appeal if the court refuses to HEAR the case. They deliberately do not visit the case because her and many others like her would win. This is a common practice by the US Supreme court as well.
I was born in PR and have never returned. It’s so sad to see this. This beautiful woman who has been living in that home all her life should be heard in a court of law and given the land per said law. God bless Ramona and her family and home.
They want a Puerto Rico without Puerto Ricans like Hawaii without Hawaiians, etc.
Shame on them and shame on people who want her out of there and shame on people being petty. Puerto Ricans are hard workers and it is not a freebie at all for her to want to stay in her home.
Y? They took land from others. They should appreciate d free land that they got for over a century and move on. Corp will also loose it one day. Cycle keeps moving. It’s life
@@RojaJaneman you dont know the history of PR. Like in US there are protected lands, so is an island. Those are the natives. And they have fought and still are. Just because some people gave up their homes to big corporations. Dont mean islanders all will do the same or all act the exact same way. But living on an island is a way of life that has respect towards mother nature and to each other as brothers and sisters.
@@mothergaia549The old lady in question looks white af not native 😂
It seems that the PR Supreme Court has a different opinion.
@@mothergaia549 just because you lived somewhere for generations doesn't mean some military can't come and tell your family to go F*ck yourselves. Happened everywhere else. I'm not justifying it, but you can't act like it's that agregous, like you mentioned Native Americans, yeah look how well that turned out for us? We got projects(reservations)
Land is for the people, not for corporations.
corporation got people too, not many though
Not if the government allows them to buy it maybe they should elect better leaders shits basically third world but apart of the us technically if they want better they should elect better
That's kind of absurd, though. So businesses can't own the land they invest in? Or do you mean residential only? Something tells me that would have unintended consequences
@@jonny-b4954 you can own all the land you want as a business, just make sure it’s being used and no one squats on it
I’m a person. Can I have that land?
Please call out the company by NAME so people can put public pressure on them!
Even if she did.
I bet itd likely be shell company no amount of negative public shaming could influence or harm their reputation. Because there is no actual person or business to harm by doing so.
Its why so many of these things keep happening. They have a face man do all the buying up. And once thats done they become a faceless entityless thing.
You cant shame them because what they are selling is tourism, it is property to multi million if not billionaires. The people who are shaming, arent even the people who'd be buying from them. They dont care about doing the right thing because the shame is nothing to them
Walmart target sephora other businesses where the Average person is buying from them supporting them public shaming works. Because the wrong or enough negative public outcry can impact sales. An the upper people in these facesless entity's wants its money to grow not shrink.
When it comes to property they do not care and no negative press will harm them. If it does they just rebrand and do it again. Which eww ugh
People need to go after the Government here. Because they are the only ones who can actually change the outcome. Shame the Government it may help.
The supreme court should be investigated. Follow the money.
And boycotted.
@@restinwalkenall corporations have to be registered under a person! A person has to be on the paperwork with the department of State whichever one it is that the corporation was filed with!! So either way you can find out who filed the paperwork and it will all be listed in the department of State of where the company was filed which you can find out by getting the company name and finding out what their business is listed under! I filed paperwork for corporations so this is not very hard to do and you can always trace it back there's always a paper trail!!!
WTF?! That's crazy. Her house should be declared a national landmark.
Her family was living there since 🇪🇸 Spain occupied Puerto Rico when P.R. was first called San Juan 🇵🇷 , that ended around between 1910 - 1940, around when the U.S. Military took over it and kick Spain’s ass, and became a Commonwealth of the USA something like that, So I believe that this woman has the rights to own that piece of land and property, her family has been there since day ☝🏼 one., Show some respect 🫡 🇺🇸🇵🇷
No thank you.
Correct.
@psychobobby5174 I'm sure the more I learned about you as a human being, the more and more impressed I'd become. Too bad I only get this little slice of you but it speaks volumes, bud. You're doing great.
Well I believe I should own that land.
@mastershake156 🤣🤣🤣
This is so messed up 😢 to not hear the case at all tells me somebody has lined their pockets. Shame
No it doesn’t. Cases get dismissed all the time for lack of standing. Notice how the vid didn’t explain the law at all?
@@eeyun5279 yeah, that’s my issue with a person who owns this channel all her videos are very emotional based and nothing about the laws involved. Be wrong. It’s important to have compassion for people in general but at some point you have to understand that we can’t just simply do whatever we want when there are laws we are breaking
@@IRLSuperb I’m with you man. I vote pretty much entirely progressive, I obviously don’t think the woman should be thrown out on the street. But we need to set up universal programs for situations like this. We can and should find adequate housing for her somewhere else, the same way we would for any other older person who lost their place. But we can’t just give out housing based on whichever sob story plays on our emotions. Otherwise everyone who doesn’t have a sob story or evoke enough compassion for the animals online gets screwed over.
I think it’s important to use empathy to fuel logic, but not rule over it. Because when you let emotion be the sole factor in decisions… we make bad decisions. It leads to hasty, uninformed decisions… and it incentivizes victim hood and grievance nursing.
Welcome to the Puertorican judicial system. It’s about as corrupt as they come. Also under the American boot. Which will not let its grip go off the island.
@@eeyun5279
Yes we need to make informed decisions
And not solely go on emotion
And YES THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN PLACE TO OFFER SPACE TO PERSONS DISPLACED
(ESPECIALLY ELDERLY)
HOWEVER
IF THE CORPORATION AGREED WHEN BUYING THE LAND THAT SOME PEOPLE ALREADY THERE COULD STAY
THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BACK OUT OF THAT
NOW !!!
ALSO
THAT LAW SHE MENTIONED
IF THAT IS IN FACT
FACT !
THAT SHOULD BE RESPECTED !!
"There's a law the allows someone who has been living on the land for decades become the rightful owner of that land" and of course they decided they don't want to hear the case. They KNOW it that's why. They always do that shit.
So if you rent for a decade and you get to keep the land? That’s some delusional entitlement.
OR. there is a pima facia reason that law does not apply in this instance that isn't conveyed in a youtube video...
@@project.jericho Please do share if you find out. Though it seems like that's not the case, and if it were it probably shouldn't be.
That kind of a deal will attract spirits that will burn every structure that is ever built on that property.
Another UA-cam lawyer.
That’s craaaazy, she does not need this at this age, let her live her life peacefully in her HOME that she’s had for DECADES.
Century… it’s crazy
That's disgusting!!! Leave that poor woman alone!!! Due to their own laws she IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE LAND!!! IT'S THEIR LAWS! FOLLOW THEM!!!
The power of No means NO.
MEANING... No, I will not yield nor forfeit any rights to corporations. She should be there because she's been there, not a corporation. The same can be said for all original and indigenous people.
It's called FREEDOM people.
She’s in her final years, let her stay. This woman will die of sadness if she’s displaced 😢
They have been trying to evict her for nearly 30 years. If the lives to be 100 is that really fair to the investors who bought the land.
And to be clear I'm sympathetic. But I'm also sympathetic to the purchaser. And I'm baffled how she says here they have been there for 140 years but at trial it was since she was little and still had no evidence for anything. If I had to prove where I lived when I was little I could go to the school and get my address from their records or I could produce friends to say yeah she lived there etc. And wouldn't you have some evidence of paid bills and communication with the owner
@@SnowsStorm1It says that her case wont even be heard. Whether she has that proof or not, she's homeless. Also you DO know that being an old lady, the only thing she can possibly point to are the bills… And that’s if they still do it in paper (my bills aren't unless I make a special request that takes forever). Why would a school keep 80 year old records? And that's if the school she went to is still standing and didn't get ANY renovations.
@@SnowsStorm1well your from a 1st world country I'm sure when she was growing up they didn't have those types of organized files
@@gromplin I looked up the final appeal verdict so respectfully that is incorrect, which isn't surprising given the way the channel elected to present the facts. I can't explain all of the gaps because some of it was a tad confusing from the translation and there were other lawsuits and issues with the area not to mention the hurricane but from everything I saw, her case WAS HEARD in 1993 when they FIRST began trying to evict her. Again I have no clue why they had to wait years to execute it and it seems like she did not initially appeal that verdict but nevertheless SHE DID HAVE A FULL HEARING.
Because I did not have that file I can't tell you why she lost that case but when you don't appeal the verdict becomes what they refer to as Res judicata, meaning you can't come back 15 years or 25 years later and say I want to re-litigate the argument I've made and lost back then although the appeals court said she still didn't establish a date in her records.
Edited to add she didn't have to prove she lived there 85 years ago which would be a real trick given that she is only 75. In 1997 when the case was heard she had to prove that she lived there in 1962 or prior. If I had to prove my parents bought there home in 1970 I would contact friends and I would call the power company or the phone company to see if they could determine when I started my service. In her case she got married 40 years ago. What address did she put on her marriage license. Things like that.
Corporations are out of control
Thank you for bringing awareness to Ramona’s plight
Corporations want corporate rule since they have the largest wealth.
This has been going on for 30 years, it really don't seem like they are out of control.
Corporations are only out of control because of the corrupt politicians that pass ridiculous regulations that hurt little people and small businesses and give corporations that type of power. If you vote if you vote Democrat, you’re voting for the people that love regulations and love, corruption and love big corporations. And they do it with the help of a small minority of the establishment Republicans. And of course, the media.
Let's not forget which political party is the out of control corporation, you know the one that doesn't want the US/Mexico boarder wall.
You and I will call them gringo's.
Tourism is such a sh!tty industry
It really is
Seriously. Maybe you just make everything else better where you're trying to boost tourism, Instead of Screwing over the other people who live there. There's no reason that economically beneficial things can't be done in already popular areas.
True
It’s also how some places survive.
Yeah. You better stay there where you’re from. Where you belong.
They want the fish tank, but not the fish.
So sorry for Ramona. I too am being evicted from a family owned home. Owned since 1967
Do you have the title and paying taxes?
If the previous owner put that clause in the sales contract that she is to remain in the property, there should be a public record of it. I’ll be great if you can find it and make it public before it could “not be found” anymore. It could help her with her case.
They could be lying, it’s tragic. I also don’t understand why the previous landowner didn’t simply grant her a deed.
If the previous owner of the land wanted Ramona to live there for the rest of her life, he needed to record her life estate at the county courthouse. Since the previous owner did NOT record a life estate for Ramona, she is stealing from the owner every single day that she will not vacate.
THERE IS NO CASE...THE COURT REFUSES TO HEAR HER CASE!!!
I'm not sure how legally binding that is in perpetuity. Certainly you can overturn any conditions made in a will.
@@Mrs.Pena-1don't shout, it's rude and the internet is rude enough as it is.
When companies have more rights than humans ... it's time they reboot this like an old computer
Ever since SCOTUS ruled that corporations had the same rights as people (brain blip - I don't remember the name of the case), corporations have. 😢
They are getting paid good money under the table, not to hear her case. Wicked people. They will reap what they sow.
They’d almost definitely choose to have her evicted if they did hear the case.
They never owned the land. Previous owners were showing them grace.
But showing grace for over a hundred years to descendants to is a bit iffy.
Yeah, more money.
CAPITALISM people.
Thank you for giving voice to her story. May God and all powers that be see this situation go in her favor.
Truly heartbreaking. Shame on the corporation and the courts.
They need to make it illegal for corporations to own this kind of land. It should be protected for the people. The same way we have land set aside and protected for wildlife.
Seeing as all governments around the world are legal corporations I don’t see that happening ever unless the people dismantle the system and start something entirely new
Well that's not necessary, we just need to make sure existing laws are heard rather than this "fingers in the ear lalalala" stuff that's happening here.
I am seeing a lot of people say she does not own the land. But Puerto Rico has something called Usucapión (after 20 years) she should be consider the owner by law.
Espero que nadie nunca entre a tu patio ponga una caseta tu le digas esta bien y luego de 20 años te diga, esto es mio
Vamos a ver para que se dé la usucapión, hay unos requisitos así que tú comentario es absolutamente absurdo. Con meterte en Google solucionas tu ignorancia.
No hay que buscar en Google, cuando la corte suprema ya decidio el caso, tu arrogancia es atrevida 😊. A esa seńola lamentablemete la estan scamming los abogados creandole falsas expectativas cuando ya la corte decidio.
@@success.obazee.747 Entonces apoyas a los de la parguera teniendo casas sin titulo?
She made that claim and failed. Usucapion is just another term for adverse possession or squatters rights which I believe is actually 35 years. The problem there is that her grandfather or other family members having been there is irrelevant because they never took possession of the land so now it hinges on her having been there uninterrupted and in a way that suggests that she took ownership of the land and that someone wasn't just doing her a favor.
The problem with that argument is she then turns around and says but the owner created a permanent tenancy for us and the land was sold with our presence as effectively an encumbrance on the land. Doesn't that negate her claim that she held herself out as the owner? And if that second argument were true why isn't it in the contract.
Very sad case but it's not surprising that the courts all rules against her
Thank you letting people know about this big cooperation theft. It's sad. Someone of authority needs to rescue her.
How exactly is it theft? They own the land rightfully. I feel for the lady, but this sounds kind of fishy . Her family has been there 140 years and they can’t document that? The person that owned the land sold it but said they could stay? Why isn’t that in writing if true? Not that I have any affection for big corporations, but it’s big corrupt government people like the Democrats that give corporations this type of power.
@@nedhill1242I don't disagree with you there as democrats are the only ones visiting central America.
Show them the power of people, if the governement doesn't give you justice then fight for justice yourself
Stay strong my peoples God see's the evils of the wicked and it will not go unpunished.. ✨️🧡 thank u for always shining ur light on these things much love too u sis !
No! I hate this it brings tears to my eyes may the island have no mercy on those who take Ramona’s place
140 years , her family owns that land.
No.
Why? Squatter's rights?
@@alexpeters7987. There is no such thing as squatter’s rights anymore. That was invented at a time when land was plentiful and government offices far away. People would settle on a piece of land and when government officials were sent to the area they would file for ownership. Same with common law marriage; ministers, priests, and judges traveled from town to town and if you wanted to marry and there was no one to officiate, you could cohabitate under the law and marry formally when the time came. This could take a while and it’s why most common law states say after 7 years you are legally considered married.
In 140 years her family never made it official that they own this land. Now the legal owner of the land wants to use it. The court is right.
It is a sad story and a lesson for people going forward.
I agree that Ramona's family should own it. The party that "bought it" agreed based on the condition that her family could stay. They broke that condition, so that should nullify the sale.
@@somethingelse4424this is why it's important to own the land under your home or at least be the contract holder of its use. The only landlord that *probably* won't evict you is the state. The little pink house is one of the exceptions to that rule but it's still mostly true.
I despise corporate greed
Name the corporation.
That’s disgusting, the corporation should work with the woman and help her stay there. And shame on the Supreme Court
Awful, and quite disturbing that legal officials and the continuous betrayal of elected politicians against local Puerto Rico citizens. Independence is the only solution!
This is sickening! These people deserve to stay on the lands their families have lived on for generations!
They decided to not hear the case because they know that what they're doing to her is immoral
And illegal.
More than immoral, it's illegal!!!
I am sorry Ramona. Your loss of your home to coporate greed is an injustice.
At her age … to be forced to be moved from her home …. That is so INHUMANE & ELDER ABUSE
Who wants to evict of woman in her 70’s from her home, pls give her another court hearing, pls,
In this world of money, people seem to have no value anymore. I’m so sorry for that. Queen, blessings and prayers.
Kan! Black and brown need to stick together! Blacks, Hispanics and Natives and those scattered are the true Israelites of the Bible.
Corporation has existed forever man welcome to the world.
@@xaviermccloud4586🙄
Wonder how much the people sitting on the Supreme Court made from not hearing her case.
Thanks for exposing injustice.
Let's Pray 🙏 For Ramona To Be Able To Keep Her Land, And God Bless Her 👏 !
Whomever owns the corporate property needs to be exposed, and Puerto Ricans need to stand by her...shame on a government that does not support its people.
Man they really haven't learned how wrong it is to steal people's homes away from them. Its disgusting
Cracks me up to see you Messicans constantly complaining
@@galvanizedgnome Puerto Rican here and stealing someone's home their family's been in for decades is worth the "complaint" 🤦🏽♀️🤷🏽♀️🤦🏽♀️
@@saleanatirado5870well one she doesn't own the house or the land so yes she's illegally living where she shouldn't be 😂😂
@@vector2864they literally said it's a law if you've been there for decades it's your land and that when the property sold the condition for her to stay was included. 🤦🏽♀️
@@saleanatirado5870the family sold the land. They got paid, and now they want the same land given back to them? I’m sorry man but that’s not how it works
The new land owners "need " to compensate her !!!!!!
Like money can replace her ancestral home? A place where she has lived her entire life, and generations before her? No amount of money can replace that!
Thank you for bringing light to her story. It's infuriating... devastating.
I'm sure the people who are in charge of "hearing" the case were paid off nicely... it's all about money
Who came up with titles and deeds for land? I guarantee you if her people were there almost 150 years it’s not something they knew about nor was she educated in… they need to back off.
In essence they are saying how dare a poor person try and have beach front property…
Not what they said but ok.
actually they would have. that land was probably owned by a family/person years and years before ramona’s family came to live there. for example, in america, people bought land back in the 1700s and 1800s, which they let people live on and build businesses on. most people in america, canada, puerto rico, mexico, england, etc live on land owned by someone or some family and if it’s a city, town, or somewhere significantly populated; most likey they owned it or it has been owned, sold, bought by others for decades and centuries.
Then the person who sold it is the villain here because I'm not buying that there was an agreement she could stay or they would be in the contract. If I know I don't own your home, I'm not selling your home but if I let you stay in my cottage as a favor and then I need to sell the property, you lose your free house.
Why wouldnt puerto ricans know about land deeds or titles? Don't infantilize us.
You’re right that’s what a lot of ppl in this comment section are saying without saying it outright. Ppl are envious at the fact that her family had lived beachfront from 140 years but to her that is her home her heritage not some vacation spot for colonizers.
This is the law in most places. If you've lived there for a certain amount of time, it's yours. This is shameful. All involved should be ashamed. Boycott this company.
Where’s Rene, Ricky Martin and the others with strong influence to protest this atrocity that the PR government is doing to the people and the Island 🏝️ 😢
God bless you. Vaya con Dios. Gracias por tu advocate
Kind of tired of colonizers in this century stealing ppl land .
We’re also colonizers.
@@RojaJaneman oh 💯
@RojaJaneman YOU ARE? I'm not!
@@RojaJanemanWho is "we?"
@@RojaJanemanI dunno man I was born in the place I live...
This is tragic and unfortunate. May her spirit and those of her ancestors bring no peace to the corporate developers.
So say we all.
I concur
With how close to the sea those houses are and how much trees they are cutting it won't Be long until those fancy houses get water damage , so you bet they will
Corruption. When you have money you buy justice
You're a beautiful woman with a beautiful heart and you're strong like a good Puerto Rican woman you keep fighting you're our voice
I truly hope she gets to live out the rest of her days,in peace,on her own land….. and I love the way that lady says,Puerto Rico
I will never understand. The people in charge will do the most harm to their own people, to their own island and they'll wish they hadn't. That poor woman🙏
Greed knows no bounds
That is so unfair and unsettling that the Supreme Court who upholds the law doesn't want to do their job. I wonder how they are benefiting from Ramona being evicted
The government benefits by being so huge the can do anything to us. We need a way small government. We need less rules not more. The us government is the largest employer in America, that’s how disgustingly huge Americas government is. And it fails at everything it touches. Time for cut the government and taxes. No more tyrants
Likely Ramona isn't the only case that would be affected, she's just the most sympathetic.
The Supreme Court couldn't possible hear every case. She got a full hearing all the way back in 1997 and an appeal.
Not hearing the case says all anyone needs to know.
There was no grounds for it
They heard the case in 1997 and there have been countless court dates since. The just didn't give the appeal an oral hearing.
🤔📣 - was it WRITTEN in the sales agreement that she would not be disturbed?!
Wow!! Powerful Conversation!! 💔
Just like in Hawaii Corporations and rich people with their money think they can do whatever they want push the little people off their land😡😡😡
The owner of the land let her stay free and then maybe got old or maybe left the land as an inheritance for her kid and whoever owned was in a position that they wanted to sell. Instead of saying she was fortune to have been able to live free for 75 years we are saying what? That the owner had to hold on to the land forever so the family could continue living free even if they couldn't afford that? That they buyer who bought the whole of the land at market value should pay for her to be there? It's incredibly sad but I think how lucky that she had all that time
@@SnowsStorm1yes, the family should be allowed to live there for free because they were there since before it was on sell. They sellers are assholes for trying to force them to live just to attract tourists who will ruin the entire ecosystem of the zone. This is colonization
If that's the law there they should uphold it, but of course not because politicians love kickbacks.
This is absolutely heartbreaking.... We are supposed to take care of our elders
That’s so shameful and sad to hear. It’s an awful thing what our world has come to. My prayers for Ramona 😞💔🙏🏻♾️
Easy solution. The company should buy/build her a large nice house, in a location nearby, where they could give her an actual deed to the property. Easier and cheaper than fighting in court.
What is wrong with the Puerto Rico courts?!? It's infuriating! This company clearly has paid off the courts on this case.
The problem? Gringos and corruption
Yeah, the corruption is crazy.
Gringos and corruption? what a child like way of seeing things living in a land for a long time means nothing ask the Native Americans if the land owner really cared that much he should of given the land she lives on but he didn’t learn form this brown person
@axeljm1976 right, it's not like Puerto Ricans don't talk shit to darker skinned Puerto Ricans for existing. Ask me how I know.
@thegreatsun6571 de cariño papá y hasta los golditos but if you get but hurt you don't get it so not worth explaining to you
That beach will rage if they remove here energy..
Leave that poor lady alone. Let her live in peace.
You are the realest reporter I have ever come across. Te mereces lo mejor.
That’s heartbreaking. States and towns benefit from tourism but it’s ghastly for the vulnerable residents, ruining the housing situations.
He should’ve signed papers making it legal for her to own the propertu
I think he probably thought the development firm would honor the agreement to leave her in place and then develop the land after she passed. If he has signed it over to her, they could never do that. But if they let her live her life, and then developed afterwards, everyone wins.
They have been trying to evict her since 1997. I doubt when she was 50 they agreed to let her live there her entire life and didn't bother to get a life tenancy agreement.
Yep corporations don’t care about anything but $$$.
This is so frustrating and unfair Justice for the people of Puerto Rico
Please give further details on exactly which person,/company that is so greedy, so heartless so that I any anyone I can convince will not ever set foot on or spend one dime that property.
The tourism corporation is named “Playa India S.E.”
God Bless this woman.
Would be great if "god" could just prevent her eviction instead.
If it was stated in the contract that those places needed to stay there as a condition for that place to be sold therefore they're allowed to stay there and that they cannot take their land
If that was in the contract why didn't they argue that point and submit the land contract at trial. Instead she argued squatters rights.
The courts should hear that case because of the law
Neither the facts nor the law support this woman's claim. That is why supreme Court refused to hear the case.
@@stevenraymond8921 I'm only going off of what the clip says
@@stevenraymond8921 Do you have evidence or is this a religious belief of yours?
@@Sharon-k5zThe clip is probably correct. The legal concept of "adverse possession" doesn't just exist in Puerto Rico, but in most countries. Her continuous occupation of the home would likely make a strong claim for ownership of the property.
However, the Court would likely not hear the decision for 2 reasons:
1) Supreme Courts in general only hear a *tiny* percentage of the cases brought to them. For example, in the USA, the Supreme Court will hear less than 2% of cases brought to them. So the odda were generally stacked against her.
2) Chances are a ruling in this particular case would open the door to similar suits from other locals against large real estate developers and cost PR a lot of potential investment. Thus the courts were under a lot of pressure to squash the case.
@@yessum15 the evidence is in the clip. The speaker tells you that a life estate was reserved or at least something in the nature of a life estate was reserved. Possession under a reserved life estate is not adverse and therefore does not feel the elements of that cause of action
💔😭 Even the supreme court? So awful!
Whoever that person is that made that comment DOES NOT know the law. Every state has rules on people living on/using land without a title. People like to show their ignorance, instead of being quite.
That is so messed up. Is there a petition we could sign for her?
No as it should be.
C'mon Gov Corp let this lil old lady stay!! 😡 🏡
Somebody or Some Bodies in government received a "gift" from the developer.
Prayer for this lady and her situation.Amen
Wow the people of Puerto Rico needs to stand up for her and sign a petition or whatever they need asking the Supreme Court to hear this case band together as a whole
When does the court have the ability not to follow the law?
They are just ignoring it. Happens on the mainland too.
Where are the celebrities that should help her dam shame !
They're the one buying the land through a corporation 😅
Corporations just ruining everything
Unacceptable 😢
Despicable...not even a written agreement is honored.
There are so many properties like this in Puerto Rico. Are they going to start evicting everyone??
Yep
As crypto goes up you will get more buyers there. The tax laws for crypto there make it to where you don’t have to pay tax on it like at all (double-check that don’t just take me at my word). I’m surprised puerto rican’s aren’t taking advantage of that to bring wealth to the island, instead of watching other people get wealthy. Then they move there for the tax laws before they sell. 🤔
I made a lot through crypto too and considered it but chose to stay near family instead.
That is an ancient English common law.
Justice for Ramona
The agreement NEEDS to be honored. If not, there's zero respect to any documentation of anything.
That's crazy 😢poor lady. FIGHT IT ❤ I pray 🙏 you win ❤Que Dois te bendiga siempre ❤
Then it’s on the people of Puerto Rico to do something about it. If all her neighbors and people got together to defend her home the government would back down. Unfortunately people simply don’t have the balls to defend themselves anymore.
What neighbors? The rich that bought all the property around are not going to support this poor person when it’s probably them that don’t want to look at a shack while living in a mansion
@@stanurena3129 I highly doubt there’s not a single person living in her area that’s not wealthy. Let’s not be ignorant.
@@KingSnake420 that’s what I said. The people around are wealthy while she isn’t
@@stanurena3129 Puerto Rico is a very small place if others there aren’t willing to drive down there to help her than it says a lot about Puerto Rico.
@@KingSnake420 yup it does
Are they not going to appeal to the US Supreme Court?
This woman should absolutely appeal as high as possible.
There is nothing to appeal if the court refuses to HEAR the case. They deliberately do not visit the case because her and many others like her would win. This is a common practice by the US Supreme court as well.
Needs a writ of certiorari and that may be a complicated process for downtown that is not very adept in US and PR civil law.
The United States Supreme Court has way more important things to be dealing with and small little land settlements like this
Disputes*😊
Shady governments
Political and judicial corruption and corporate greed. My word, who'd have thunk it.
I was born in PR and have never returned. It’s so sad to see this. This beautiful woman who has been living in that home all her life should be heard in a court of law and given the land per said law. God bless Ramona and her family and home.
Shame on the greedy corporate company.
No conscience. Just grab,grab,grab.
God Forbid we’re allowed to live in an inexpensive home..