It still grates you that I won't accept YOUR definition of "effectively own", does it? Well, sorry Harold but I'm not obligated to accept your definition.
Actually, you did not ever ask that. But I've answered it before anyway. The USPS does not own or effectively own my private mailbox because despite the various rules it has for mailboxes it nevertheless does not have the full bundle of rights to my box that an owner has. It cannot, for example, sell or lease my box to someone else. It cannot come on to my property to remove the box or move it to a different location. What the USPS can do is tell me that my box must meet certain design requirements and be placed where it wants if I want to get mail delivered there. That's not insignificant, but it still falls far short of ownership. My city can tell me my home has be located on a certain part of my property and meet building code requirements, similar to the powers the USPS has over my mailbox, and yet the city does not effectively own my property because it lacks the full bundle of rights that an owner has. So under my definition of "effectively own" the USPS comes up short as owning my box. Now, I'm not insisting that you accept my definition of the term; I'm just explaining to you why legally the USPS' rights don't match those of an actual owner. And you've yet to disprove me on that — you've never even tried to argue that the USPS effectively has all the same rights as an owner. So you did the next best thing — you created your own definition of the term "effectively own" to match your argument. All well and good as far as that goes, but I don't have to accept your definition any more than you have to accept mine. You and I are, in short, looking at this in two different ways. Why you seemingly insist I must accept your view is beyond me.
That may be effective ownership under your definition of the term, but not mine. A lessee of a car does not have all the rights of an owner. He has the right of possession, which is significant, of course, but he lacks the power to sell or transfer the car to someone else, lacks the power to pledge the car as collateral for loan, etc. Because he lacks those significant rights he is not effectively the owner of it. And indeed because he lacks those important rights I would say he does NOT have "ultimate control" over the car because he does not have the right to dispose of the car as he sees fit. He still has to return that car to the actual owner at the end of the lease term. How can you have ultimate control over an object if you are denied the right to sell, transfer, or dispose of it in any way you want? Can you give me a compelling answer to that?
And yet Harold you have never pointed out the exact federal statute that makes what the homeowner is doing illegal. Unless there is such a statute then you are wrong that the homeowner is violating the law. So what law, exactly, are you relying upon here?
ROFLMAO. Really, Harold, you need to actually check your gut responses about the law with some research because I've observed a number of your gut reactions about the law are not right. And this is a a great example. The USPS is a law enforcement agency. It has a Postal Inspection Service which is made of up federal law enforcement officers. Their task is investigating violations of the federal laws relating to the U.S. mails. They carry guns and make arrests just like any other federal law enforcement officer.
All of which could occur if the OP followed my suggestion to contact his postmaster.
You know enough about the OP's living situation to know that (1) the homeowner could not prevent him from doing that and (2) that the USPS would approve that? I certainly don't know enough about his situation to know if that is possible. But I'll grant you that it is something the OP can look into.
And every time you get frustrated when I point out your errors in the law eventually you trot out the lawyer bashing. That's a weak reply Harold. I already know you hate lawyers, me included. So if you ever want to save yourself some time in your replies, you can omit this stuff if you want. I already know how you feel about me.
I think I'm knowledgeable on the law because I spent 3 years of intensive study of the law in law school and have more than two decades since then practicing the law as a lawyer. And yet for some reason you seem to be upset that someone with a lot of study and experience knows a lot more about a subject than you do when you have comparatively little knowledge of it. You are a contractor, not a lawyer, and as far as I can tell you've not spent much time studying the law or the practice of law. So why does it bother you that I would know more about it? After all, I know very little about building contracting and don't begrudge in the least that you likely know far more about that than I do since that is what you do every day for a living. I don't hate you for knowing it better than I do. I wouldn't bash you for it. IMO, that would be irrational.